Talk:The Rhetoric of Hitler's "Battle"

message: This page reads like it was written by someone who has just read a "Theories of History" textbook and decided to take a crack at something using all the buzzwords such as "tropes".  The comparison between "all roads lead to rome" and "all roads lead to munich" is a perfect example of desperately reaching to find something new in historical thought, and falling flat on your face into absurdity. -AD
As originally written, this was specific to Hilter and his use of rhetoric which I considered too narrow. I have therefore expanded from the particular to the general for the rhetoric itself and given more brief background to the history of inter-war fascism. I had hoped to finish the work but have been distracted, so everyone else should feel free to pitch in. -David91 20:47, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

message: Which is my excuse for finishing this page. I confess to remaining unhappy about it. The problem with any page with a title like this is that it immediately creates NPOV problems.  I think it might be better as a subsumed element in either Rhetoric or Propaganda and therefore waiver on whether to merge it. Contextualised in a description of linguistics or the semiotics of politics, one can avoid seeming to endorse the tropes by not criticising every one of them. It's a narrow path to travel and I'm not sure that I have avoided slips on the way. I have debated whether I should nominate the page for a POV check. . .  In the end, I have decided to let the page stand on its own: slightly foolhardy, but I wait with interest to see if others pick up bias. -David91 19:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well, no-one else did pitch in 

message: :Fascist unification rhetoric is exploited by leaders to build an idealistic and utopian political movement for change.
First, it's better to explain the neologism Fascist unification rhetoric - what the heck is it?
Then, you can quote a source who asserts that such rhetoric is used to exploit.
If Hitler is the only example, then a better page title would be Hitler's unification rhetoric or perhaps Nazi propaganda. 
Second, there's the risk that the reader might associate the snarl word fascist with "Unification", as if the Wikipedia were to claim that all unification is bad, that only division / revolution / independence movements or good. We're not supposed to take a position on that. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:58, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
===Thank you for your comments===
Perhaps wrongly, I chose to explain the term through the material that follows the simple statement. Unification rhetoric is quite common as a term of art and the variety under discussion is particular to more authoritarian states that may or may not use corporatist economics, i.e. which conform to the fascist model.
All rhetoric is exploitative in the sense that it seeks to manipulate the audience to the advantage of the speaker. A comedian exploits rhetorical tropes to make the audience laugh. I do not think I need to cite a source for that usage which I take to be common.
Hitler was not and is not the only example. Mussolini preceded Hitler, Suharto continued it and, arguably, Robert Mugabe continues the tradition of maintaining ZANU-PF unity through his rhetoric against the farming community, homesexuals, etc. so the suggestion that this topic is somehow particular to Hitler is, with respect, misplaced.
I take your point that not all unifications are bad. So let us take a few modern examples to guide our thoughts. China argues the case for unification with Taiwan using rhetoric (one of the pro-independence political parties established in Taiwan translates its name as the "Nation-building Party" but it is not fascist). There is considerable rhetoric in Europe about the extent to which there should be unification among the member states of the EU. And there is major rhetoric being exchanged between India and Pakistan over the unification of Kashmir. But no reader would characterise any of these examples as being examples of fascist unification rhetoric because such rhetoric is used to convince people to unite in the creation of a fascist-style political movement that may or may not be able to come to power. If you feel this is not self-evident, I will paraphrase this explanation and place it as part of the heading. All other comments and suggestions are welcome. --David91 17:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it neutral and accurate?

message: Perhaps wrongly, I chose to explain the term through the material that follows the simple statement. Unification rhetoric is quite common as a term of art and the variety under discussion is particular to more authoritarian states that may or may not use corporatist economics, i.e. which conform to the fascist model.
All rhetoric is exploitative in the sense that it seeks to manipulate the audience to the advantage of the speaker. A comedian exploits rhetorical tropes to make the audience laugh. I do not think I need to cite a source for that usage which I take to be common.
Hitler was not and is not the only example. Mussolini preceded Hitler, Suharto continued it and, arguably, Robert Mugabe continues the tradition of maintaining ZANU-PF unity through his rhetoric against the farming community, homesexuals, etc. so the suggestion that this topic is somehow particular to Hitler is, with respect, misplaced.
I take your point that not all unifications are bad. So let us take a few modern examples to guide our thoughts. China argues the case for unification with Taiwan using rhetoric (one of the pro-independence political parties established in Taiwan translates its name as the "Nation-building Party" but it is not fascist). There is considerable rhetoric in Europe about the extent to which there should be unification among the member states of the EU. And there is major rhetoric being exchanged between India and Pakistan over the unification of Kashmir. But no reader would characterise any of these examples as being examples of fascist unification rhetoric because such rhetoric is used to convince people to unite in the creation of a fascist-style political movement that may or may not be able to come to power. If you feel this is not self-evident, I will paraphrase this explanation and place it as part of the heading. All other comments and suggestions are welcome. --David91 17:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Thank you for your comments

message: I changed the article title from Fascist unification rhetoric to Fascism and the rhetoric of unification, because frankly I couldn't understand what the old title meant.
I also deleted the first sentence, because it raised more questions than it answered. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 04:05, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
:Fascist unification rhetoric is exploited by leaders to build an idealistic and utopian political movement for change.
How about:
*Many founders of political movements have used unification rhetoric to justify / motivate / convince people to support them.
*Examples of Fascists having done this include...
===Good suggestions===
Being new to Wiki, I posted a question at the Pump on titles and the way they skewed attempts to edit the content. I was, and remain, a little naive, trying to keep to the original writer's intentions as much as possible. Your more dispassionate eye is welcomed. As to the first sentence, how about:
Many leaders of political movements have used unification rhetoric to convince people to support them and to build their party loyalty. In modern history, Mussolini was the first fascist to rise to power using these tropes. The same themes have subsequently appeared in the speeches of many leaders, including Idi Amin, Suharto and, most recently, Robert Mugabe who maintains ZANU-PF unity through his rhetoric against the West, the farming community, homesexuals, etc. --David91 05:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand your point. "Unification", as used in this article, can be mini-Unification. It isn't a one world government. Instead it is more like, "the guys in the next valley over are like us, they should be a part of our country." (Rhineland, Sudetenland, Anschluss, etc). -Willmcw 10:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Title change

message: Being new to Wiki, I posted a question at the Pump on titles and the way they skewed attempts to edit the content. I was, and remain, a little naive, trying to keep to the original writer's intentions as much as possible. Your more dispassionate eye is welcomed. As to the first sentence, how about:
Many leaders of political movements have used unification rhetoric to convince people to support them and to build their party loyalty. In modern history, Mussolini was the first fascist to rise to power using these tropes. The same themes have subsequently appeared in the speeches of many leaders, including Idi Amin, Suharto and, most recently, Robert Mugabe who maintains ZANU-PF unity through his rhetoric against the West, the farming community, homesexuals, etc. --David91 05:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I understand your point. "Unification", as used in this article, can be mini-Unification. It isn't a one world government. Instead it is more like, "the guys in the next valley over are like us, they should be a part of our country." (Rhineland, Sudetenland, Anschluss, etc). -Willmcw 10:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Good suggestions

message: I'm sorry I did not clarify. The word Unification alone invokes thoughts of Countries uniting or reuniting. i.e. The Reunification of Germany. Unification alone is fine but then kick in what seems like an organized attempt over the last fifty or so years to institute a fascist one world government then it takes on a whole new meaning. It seems as if you had an agenda to point out the dangers of Unification more so then how Unification can be used as a tool to help create a fascist state. To ensure it's survival, Fascism an initiator, relies on fear and panic to unite and mobilize one group against another  making it a living ideology rather then an event. Unification is an event that is usally a reaction to something else. You did a great job on the article, I honestly doubt I could have written it without somehow condemning the philosophy behind fascism or assailing the character of those who participate or otherwise help to cause fascism in any form.  The purpose here though is to supply information without judgement or bias.
The U.S.A. seems to be developing into a bonafide fascist State. The only exception is our alleged Democratic process. Here is an article that you may find interesting. " 14 points of Fascism~~Lenny~~
::In most of the texts I have read, the topic of this page is called "Integralism." Perhaps Fascism and integralism would be a better title? --Cberlet 00:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Integralism for example.--Cberlet 00:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification