Fascism is the best system of governance

"My point being that the previous democratic government didnt care enough to modernise and advance the countries transport. Under a fascist ideology, such as National Socialism, the advancement of the welfare of the people and infrastructure of the country became a very real ideal to attain." False. It wasn't that the previous establishment didn't care, they were just occupied with preparations for the war (WW1). And the advancement of welfare wasn't obtained by an ideal, they (Germans) simply defied the Treaty of Versailles heavy fines, which allowed the Germans to use their remaining capital (land, factories, tranportations, trained professors, educational facilities, etc) to slowly, but surely, boost their economy in order to pay off certain fees. Keep in mind that German soil was never bombed, it was the lack of resources that made them submit. "This simply wouldn't, and does not, happen in most of the democratic world. The actual betterment of their citizens and of the country at large is the motor in such a system. Capitalistic means are used to attain a higher quality of life for all the countries citizens, and are not an end in themselves, as they are in democratic capitalist countries." Not to be rude, but I don't understand these last three sentences. The first is intelligible to a degree but the last two are either missing a few words, missing a solid subject, or certain words are switched. If you wish to elaborate in the next round, I won't scourge you for doing so. "My contention is that the striving towards the realisation of an ideology benefits all who are included in that ideology." And it also doesn't benefit those who do not believe in such an ideal. But I will address this along with another statement of yours. Moving on. "There were many great scientists and thinkers who were nurtured under the Nazi regime. Werner Braun for instance. It's not rocket science. That saying is used, implying that rocket science is a supremely difficult subject. The Nazi scientist Werner Braun was Dr Rocket Science. Advances in technology made by the Nazi regime were superior to all." Let's be frank. Braun and MANY, MANY other great thinkers of science, military strategy, philosophy, and other highly regarded aspects were either not National Socialist or were pressued into becoming a National Socialist by fear of death, social isolation, fraud, inprisonment, or the loss of work. Meaning that they were not National Socialist at heart. In Braun's case, he only joined in fear that he would lose his job. And when Braun voiced his opinion about the harsh treatment of others, he was threatened with hard labor by an SS gaurd. May I, once again, point out that simply because an advancement was made under the Nazi power, does not mean that idea of National Socialism made or inspired it. Like I said, such advancements would have been made regardless of the inventor's politics. "The Nazi Armed Forces were also the worlds foremost power. As a stand alone fighting force, they were incomparable. It took the might of the British, Russians, Americans and lots of other nations to defeat them."[etc.] That is a wide misconception. The common person sees Germany as the only power on the Axis forces. When in fact there was Japan, Italy, and many collaboraters, co-belligerents, allies, and puppet states whom, although some may have worn the Nazi brand, were in heart and thought, not Nazis[1]. For most of the civilians in the occupied land and puppet states cared nothing for the Nazis, nor did they have a say. Keep in mind that there were various amounts of large-scale revolts against the occupation. Also, it has been professionally debated many times that the Soviet Union could have and most likely would have won the war alone due to their sheer numbers and superior economy. Of course at a much slower pace. To say that it "took" all of the Allies to defeat them is nonsense. Keep in mind that 70% of Nazi soldiers were deployed to the East, which consumed 80% of their resources alone in 4 years[2]. Simply because numerous nations were involved, doesn't mean they were needed. They didn't call it the "Soviet Steam-roller" for nothing... "I submit that it was the holding of, and striving towards, a definite common ideal that imbued Germans with this extra dimension. It gave them a certain je ne sais qua. The nazi ideology was passionate about their people and the society that they lived in." Once again, most occupied civilians didn't support Nazis. In fact, there was a shortage of labor because many people fled, went into hiding or refused to work. Which is why the basis for the Nazi economy was forced hard labor. And, again, Nazis weren't "passionate" about their own people; regular citizens or, at times, even fellow Nazis. Unless you were a high ranking public official, if you went against Nazism even as a Nazi, you were probably jailed, killed, or sent to hard labor. The "passion" Nazis showed to non-Germans is similar to that of a pimp who tells his escorts he loves them only when he's fornicating with them, and disregards them otherwise. "I also contend that there is nothing wrong with imprisoning people who defy your rule." Alas. This is the point I wanted to address earlier. By nothing wrong, I assume you mean nothing morally wrong. In to which I say: you're misguided. Automatic imprisonment of a person simply because they went against a rule is far from right. But that isn't the topic of this debate. To jail someone who disagrees with you contradicts the meaning of your, "striving towards the realisation of an ideology benefits all" statement. There is a difference between changing the mind of a person and unifying the people in comparison to placing those who agree with you in a high social status and marginalizing those who don't. By doing so, you aren't for the people, nor are you striving to be. I could go on, but I feel the point is made. "It is perhaps true that those in the West find the idea of fascism abhorrent. However, you said that if a society does not like its government, the people will revolt. I contend that no one in the west ever likes their government, yet they do not revolt. It is often said that people are obese, lazy, their minds nullified by vacuous entertainments. The west is rich. It is rich in technology and it is spoiled. Collectively,, it has no true aspirations, no ideals to attain. Should a responsible government not mandate that its citizens shall comprise the healthiest nation on earth, for its own good?...[etc.]" What you're failing to realize is that Materialism is a form a government, one that rivals Nationalism, something that Fascism is sublinked to. The West, Japan, South Korea, are Materialist at heart. They are not guided by the logic of social unity, as they are individualist who seek the satisfaction of their personal desires next to the well beings of friends, family, and lovers. That's it. Nothing else. State, foreigners, and, hell, even other individuals in their own society are irrelevant unless they share a common interest to another individual. This form of government uses consumerism as its social economic policy. It is the collective of indiviudals that somewhat, in way binds them together (and I use the word "bind" loosely). Because unlike Communism, Fascism, or any other form of idea, pleasing yourself is not something that has to be taught--it's human nature. Sources:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.youtube.com...