Talk:The Rhetoric of Hitler's "Battle"

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)

Well, no-one else did pitch in
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)

Is it neutral and accurate?

 * 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)

Title change
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)

I think what does not sound right here is the word Unification. The traditional   buzz-words for previous fascist hopefuls has been Nationalism and patriotism coupled with triumph and personal sacrifice. By directly saying Unification you are implying multinational convergence such as the EU or a single world government. (New World Order) Although my opinion rests firmly against any ideology embracing authoritarian or totalitarian rule or even tyranny of the masses as witnessed in our republic turned Democracy but not really either, (after the smoke and mirrors are pulled) I do see a bias.


 * 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)

Clarification
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)


 * See Integralism for example.--Cberlet 00:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Content
Definitely an important topic in the greater scheme of Fascism and something that has been pretty well covered in the article. However, certain elements of the article seem to violate the 'No Original Research' policy of the Wikipedia, particularly the sections on Geographical Materialisation and Commerical Use of unification rhetoric. I could be totally wrong here (I hope I am, because the ideas in those particular paragraphs seem very logical and thought-provoking!), but it would be great if those two paragraphs could have some academic references/footnotes from the people/person who added them. This seems like the sort of article we could potentially get to front page status through a bit of elbow grease and some nice images (both of which I plan on supplying for the page as part of my wider interest in Fascist topics!). Cheers, Hauser 08:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I did most of the clean-up on this article. It is not really my field of interest but I have slightly clarified the source material as a start. Good luck with your proposed expansion. David91 11:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Can someone actually find a cite to this set of ideas being called "rhetoric of unification" or "unification rhetoric?" Because I have done a literature search and find the concepts of scapegoating, dualism, integralism, organicism, Volkishness, political religion, palingenesis, sacralzation of politics, totalitarinism, etc, but cannot find why this page is called "Fascism and the rhetoric of unification."--Cberlet 23:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * All the material by Burke that I have cited deals with the rhetoric of unification in the language of the fascists. He was the first academic to undertake a rigorous analysis of Hitler's use of rhetorical tropes (contemporaneously, as it happens). I inherited the title when I cleaned up the page. It was almost exclusively Hitler and a homage to Burke when I started. I debated whether to change the title then but decided that it would equally cover the more modern right-wing leaders who continue to use the same tropes, so I left it in place. I claim no particular interest in maintaining it. If you can think of something more appropriate, feel free to move to that. Good luck with the proposed upgrading work. David91 02:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but almost the entire page was uncited. If folks want to take the time to find actual cites and restore material, that would be great, but for now, most of the text has to be deleted to meet current Wiki demands for better citation.--Cberlet 16:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this page should be merged with Integralism, or moved into a broader page on Fascist propaganda techniques. Comments?


 * I think this should be Rhetoric of Hitler's "Battle", which is the title of the Burke essay that this article is mostly about. This concept isn't the same as integralism, although I think Burke would say that integralism is one form that fascist unification rhetoric could take.  In any case, though, I think it would be problematic in terms of original research to put this material under the heading "integralism" when that's a word that probably never appears in the Burke essay.  A broad page on fascist propaganda techniques might be good in its own right, but it would quickly become POV-warrior flamebait. csloat (talk) 07:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the name and restored some of the stuff that has been deleted; this is a start but the page could use a lot more work. csloat (talk) 21:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

So what is "commercial use"? Other than something bad that Hitler did, of course. Can an example be provided? One would think that a commentary on Burke's essay would include something about how it was received, as in "why do I care that Burke wrote that?" Burke's original essay had four tropes in it, perhaps those four should be marked as in the original. Since this is a commentary on an essay, it's important to make sure that what's said in it matches what was said in the essay. As in, the rule about synthesis. I mean, we all hate Nazis, but this article reads like it was written by high school students for social studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.27.11 (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)