Is there any truth to this?

Hitler wasnt a reactionary he was a revolutionary

File: complaints.jpg (174KB, 569x629px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 569x629px

>>2278076
>fascism and national socialism
>reactionary
At most they aligned with the interests of reactionaries in fighting communism and appearing as the lesser evil.

File: 004[1].jpg (13KB, 327x260px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 327x260px

>>2278076
>Hitler
>Greatest reactionary in history
>Reactionary
Is this bait? Because if it is, you're not fooling anyone.

>>2278076
civil war was actually invented before monarchy ended

no, it is mostly bored middle classes creating nonproblems

>>2278123
Fascism was somewhat reactionary
National socialism wasn't.

>>2278207
Really not to any degree that it could be described as a reactionary movement. It was nationalist, anti-clerical and futuristic. It became most reactionary in its concessions to the political right rather than by its own ideology.

He is right about the time of new strife, we go forward in foggy waters

>>2278076
Is he suggesting people weren't split under monarchism and feudalism? What utter nonsense. Class struggle was there. War was there.

Can someone explain the comparison he is trying to make between Jacobin Republicans and Royalists and Soviets and Americans? Seems like the analogy falls apart.

>>2278140
it's power-brokers and the ruling elite keeping us divided and under their control.