text:
List of phobias

The English suffixes -phobia, -phobic, -phobe (from Greek φόβος phobos, "fear") occur in technical usage in psychiatry to construct words that describe irrational, abnormal, unwarranted, persistent, or disabling fear as a mental disorder (e.g. agoraphobia), in chemistry to describe chemical aversions (e.g. hydrophobic), in biology to describe organisms that dislike certain conditions (e.g. acidophobia), and in medicine to describe hypersensitivity to a stimulus, usually sensory (e.g. photophobia). In common usage, they also form words that describe dislike or hatred of a particular thing or subject (e.g. homophobia). The suffix is antonymic to -phil-.

For more information on the psychiatric side, including how psychiatry groups phobias such as agoraphobia, social phobia, or simple phobia, see phobia. The following lists include words ending in -phobia, and include fears that have acquired names. In some cases, the naming of phobias has become a word game, of notable example being a 1998 humorous article published by BBC News. In some cases, a word ending in -phobia may have an antonym with the suffix -phil-, e.g. Germanophobe/Germanophile.

Many -phobia lists circulate on the Internet, with words collected from indiscriminate sources, often copying each other. Also, a number of psychiatric websites exist that at the first glance cover a huge number of phobias, but in fact use a standard text to fit any phobia and reuse it for all unusual phobias by merely changing the name. Sometimes it leads to bizarre results, such as suggestions to cure "prostitute phobia". Such practice is known as content spamming and is used to attract search engines.

An article published in 1897 in American Journal of Psychology noted "the absurd tendency to give Greek names to objects feared (which, as Arndt says, would give us such terms as klopsophobia – fear of thieves, – fear of the number 13....)".

Psychological conditions
Specialists may prefer to avoid the suffix -phobia and use more descriptive terms such as personality disorders, anxiety disorders, and avoidant personality disorder. Terms should strictly have a Greek prefix although many are irregularly formed with Latin or even English prefixes. Many use inaccurate or imprecise prefixes, such as aerophobia (fear of air) for fear of flying.

Ethnic prejudices and discrimination
The suffix -phobia is used to coin terms that denote a particular anti-ethnic or anti-demographic sentiment, such as Americanophobia, Europhobia, Francophobia, Hispanophobia, and Indophobia. Often a synonym with the prefix "anti-" already exists (e.g. Polonophobia vs. anti-Polonism). Anti-religious sentiments are expressed in terms such as Christianophobia and Islamophobia.

-phobia in the natural sciences
In the natural sciences, words with the suffix -phobia/-phobic generally describe a predisposition for avoidance and/or exclusion. For antonyms, see here

Jocular and fictional phobias

 * Aibohphobia – a humorous term for the fear of palindromes, which is a palindrome itself. The term is a piece of computer humor entered into the 1981 The Devil's DP Dictionary.
 * Anatidaephobia – the fictional fear that one is being watched by a duck. The word comes from the name of the family Anatidae, and was used in Gary Larson's The Far Side.
 * Anoraknophobia – a portmanteau of "anorak" and "arachnophobia". It was used in the Wallace and Gromit comic book Anoraknophobia. Also the title of an album by Marillion.
 * Arachibutyrophobia – fear of peanut butter sticking to the roof of the mouth, from Latin ' "peanut" and ' "butter". The word is used by Charles M. Schulz in a 1982 installment of his Peanuts comic strip, and by Peter O'Donnell in his 1985 Modesty Blaise adventure novel Dead Man's Handle.
 * Charlophobia – the fictional fear of any person named Charlotte or Charlie, mentioned in the comedic book A Duck is Watching Me: Strange and Unusual Phobias (2014), by Bernie Hobbs. The phobia was created to mock name bias, a form of discrimination studied by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley and the University of Chicago.
 * Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia – fear of long words, from the root word combined with monstrum and hippopotamus. This was mentioned on the first episode of Brainiac Series Five as a Tickle's Teaser.
 * Keanuphobia – fear of Keanu Reeves, portrayed in the Dean Koontz book, False Memory, where a woman has an irrational fear of Reeves and has to see her psychiatrist, Mark Ahriman, each week, unaware that she only has the fear in the first place because Ahriman implanted it via hypnotic suggestion to amuse himself. He calls her "Keanuphobe" in his head.
 * Nihilophobia – fear of nothingness, from Latin nihil and "nothing, none", as described by the Doctor in the Star Trek: Voyager episode "Night". Voyager's morale officer and chef Neelix has this condition, having panic attacks while the ship was traversing a dark expanse of space known as the Void. It is also the title of a 2008 album by Neuronium.
 * Robophobia – irrational fear of robots and/or androids, also known as "Grimwade's Syndrome". It was first used in "The Robots of Death", the fifth serial of the 14th season of the British science fiction television series Doctor Who.
 * Semaphobia – fear of average web developers to use Semantic Web technologies.
 * Venustraphobia – fear of beautiful women, according to a 1998 humorous article published by BBC News.

title: List of phobias


text:
400s BC (decade)

This article concerns the period 409 BC – 400 BC.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: 400s BC (decade)


text:
Phil Austin

Philip Baine Austin (April 6, 1941 – June 18, 2015) was an American comedian and writer, best known as a member of the Firesign Theatre.

Early life and education
Austin was born in Denver, Colorado, and later grew up in Fresno, California, attending Fresno High School. His mother was a drama teacher which influenced his upbringing as an actor. He attended Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine, because it was the most distant point in the continental United States from Fresno. He also attended Fresno State College and UCLA, but did not graduate from any of them. He was in the UCLA Drama Department at the same time as another dropout, Ray Manzarek of The Doors.

Radio
In Los Angeles in the late 1960s, he was one of the first apprentices for the Center Theatre Group and worked on the staff of KPFK radio in Los Angeles. At KPFK he worked with other staffers David Ossman and Peter Bergman who hosted Radio Free Oz on that station. Along with Bergman's friend Phil Proctor, they formed The Firesign Theatre.

Starting as live radio actors, the group would go on to record a series of surrealistic comedy albums that were a hit amongst an underground audience. Austin played the group's best-known creation, private investigator Nick Danger. Other prominent roles were as (Happy) Harry Cox, the narrator of Everything You Know Is Wrong and Bebop Loco/Lobo on Give Me Immortality or Give Me Death. He had also served as the troupe's musician and record producer.

"'It was those comments, the off-mic things, that made Phil so funny. He was the most surreal writer of all of us.'"

Short story writer
His collection of short stories, Tales of the Old Detective and Other Big Fat Lies, is published by Audio Editions. Two of his stories appear in the third volume of Mirth of a Nation.

Record albums
Austin also wrote a solo work, Roller Maidens From Outer Space, and directed (and acted in) Eat Or Be Eaten.

Stage versions of Don't Crush That Dwarf, Hand Me the Pliers; The Further Adventures of Nick Danger, Third Eye; Waiting for the Electrician or Someone Like Him; and Temporarily Humboldt County are published by Broadway Play Publishing Inc.

Death
Austin died at his home in Fox Island, Washington, on June 18, 2015, at the age of 74. The cause of death was originally given as cardiac arrest, but this was later changed to an aneurysm. When he died, his wife Oona mentioned that Austin also had been diagnosed with cancer months before.

title: Phil Austin


text:
Neo-fascism

Neo-fascism is a post-World War II far-right ideology that includes significant elements of fascism. Neo-fascism usually includes ultranationalism, racial supremacy, populism, authoritarianism, nativism, xenophobia, and anti-immigration sentiment, sometimes with economic liberal issues, as well as opposition to social democracy, parliamentarianism, Marxism, capitalism, communism, and socialism (sometimes are opposed to liberalism and liberal democracy). As with classical fascism, it occasionally proposes a Third Position as an alternative to market capitalism.

Allegations that a group is neo-fascist may be hotly contested, especially when the term is used as a political epithet. Some post-World War II regimes have been described as neo-fascist due to their authoritarian nature, and sometimes due to their fascination with and sympathy towards fascist ideology and rituals.

History
According to Jean-Yves Camus and Nicolas Lebourg, the neo-fascist ideology emerged in 1942, after Nazi Germany invaded the USSR and decided to reorient its propaganda on a Europeanist ground. Europe then became both the myth and the utopia of the neo-fascists, who abandoned previous theories of racial inequalities within the white race to share a common euro-nationalist stance after World War II, embodied in Oswald Mosley's Europe a Nation policy. The following chronology can therefore be delineated: an ideological gestation before 1919; the historical experience of fascism between 1919 and 1942, unfolded in several phases; and finally neo-fascism from 1942 onward.

Drawing inspiration from the Italian Social Republic, institutional neo-fascism took the form of the Italian Social Movement (MSI). It became one of the chief reference points for the European far-right until the late 1980s, and "the best (and only) example of a Neofascist party", in the words of political scientist Cas Mudde. At the initiative of the MSI, the European Social Movement was established in 1951 as a pan-European organization of like-minded neo-fascist groups and figures such as the Francoist Falange, Maurice Bardèche, Per Engdahl, and Oswald Mosley. Other organizations like Jeune Nation called in the late 1950s for an extra-parliamentarian insurrection against the regime in what extents to a remnant of pre-war fascist strategies. The main driving force of neo-fascist movements was what they saw as the defense of a Western civilization from the rise of both communism and the Third World, in some cases the loss of the colonial empire.

In 1961, Bardèche redefined the nature of fascism in a book deemed influential in the European far-right at large entitled Qu'est-ce que le fascisme? (What Is Fascism?). He argued that previous fascists had essentially made two mistakes in that they focused their efforts on the methods rather than the original "idea"; and they wrongly believed that fascist society could be achieved via the nation-state as opposed to the construction of Europe. According to him, fascism could survive the 20th century in a new metapolitical guise if its theorists succeed in building inventive methods adapted to the changes of their times; the aim being the promotion of the core politico-cultural fascist project rather than vain attempts to revive doomed regimes: In addition, Bardèche wrote: "The single party, the secret police, the public displays of Caesarism, even the presence of a Führer are not necessarily attributes of fascism. ... The famous fascist methods are constantly revised and will continue to be revised. More important than the mechanism is the idea which fascism has created for itself of man and freedom. ... With another name, another face, and with nothing which betrays the projection from the past, with the form of a child we do not recognize and the head of a young Medusa, the Order of Sparta will be reborn: and paradoxically it will, without doubt, be the last bastion of Freedom and the sweetness of living."

In the spirit of Bardèche's strategy of disguise through framework change, the MSI had developed a policy of inserimento (insertion, entryism), which relied on gaining political acceptance via the cooperation with other parties within the democratic system. In the political context of the Cold War, anti-communism began to replace anti-fascism as the dominant trend in liberal democracies. In Italy, the MSI became a support group in parliament for the Christian Democratic government in the late 1950s–early 1960s, but was forced back into "political ghetto" after anti-fascist protests and violent street clashes occurred between radical leftist and far-right groups, leading to the demise of the short-lived fascist-backed Tambroni Cabinet in July 1960.

According to psychologist David Pavón-Cuéllar of the Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo, the emergence of neoliberalism in the late-twentieth century prompted neoliberalist politicians to utilize neo-fascism by authoritatively removing all limits to capital (including labor laws, social rights and tariffs), through the aestheticization of politics and by using the narcissism of small differences to find a target for hate to exploit in order to maintain a social hierarchy instead of protecting all individuals.

Causes and description
A number of historians and political scientists have pointed out that the situations in a number of European countries in the 1980s and 1990s, in particular France, Germany and Italy, were in some significant ways analogous to the conditions in Europe in the period between World War I and World War II that gave rise to fascism in its many national guises. Constant economic crises including high unemployment, a resurgence of nationalism, an increase in ethnic conflicts, and the geo-political weakness of national regimes were all present, and while not an exact one-to-one correspondence, circumstances were similar enough to promote the beginning of neo-fascism as a new fascist movement. Because intense nationalism is almost always a part of neo-fascism, the parties which make up this movement are not pan-European, but are specific to each country they arise in; other than this, the neo-fascist parties and other groups have many ideological traits in common.

While certainly fascistic in nature, it is claimed by some that there are differences between neo-fascism and what can be called "historical fascism", or the kind of neo-fascism which came about in the immediate aftermath of World War II. Some historians claim that contemporary neo-fascist parties are not anti-democratic because they operate within their country's political system. Whether that is a significant difference between neo-fascism and historical fascism is doubted by other scholars, who point out that Hitler worked within the existing political system of the Weimar Republic to obtain power, although it took an anti-democratic but constitutional process in the form of presidential appointment rather than election through the Reichstag. Others point to the current neo-fascists not being totalitarian in nature, but the organization of their parties along the lines of the Führerprinzip would seem to indicate otherwise. Historian Stanley G. Payne claims that the differences in current circumstance to that of the interwar years, and the strengthening of democracy in European countries since the end of the war prevents a general return of historical fascism, and causes true neo-fascist groups to be small and remain on the fringe. For Payne, groups like the National Front in France are not neo-fascists in nature, but are merely "right radical parties" that will, in the course of time, moderate their positions in order to achieve electoral victory.

The problem of immigrants, both legal and illegal or irregular, whether called "foreigners", "foreign workers", "economic refugees", "ethnic minorities", "asylum seekers", or "aliens", is a core neo-fascist issue, intimately tied to their nativism, ultranationalism, and xenophobia, but the specifics differ somewhat from country to country due to prevailing circumstances. In general, the anti-immigrant impetus is strong when the economy is weak or unemployment is high, and people fear that outsiders are taking their jobs. Because of this, neo-fascist parties have more electoral traction during hard economic times. Again, this mirrors the situation in the interwar years, when, for instance, Germany suffered from incredible hyperinflation and many people had their life savings swept away. In contemporary Europe, mainstream political parties see the electoral advantage the neo-fascist and far-right parties get from their strong emphasis on the supposed problem of the outsider, and are then tempted to co-opt the issue by moving somewhat to the right on the immigrant issue, hoping to slough off some voters from the hard right. In the absence in post-war Europe of a strong socialist movement, this has the tendency to move the political centre to the right overall.

While both historical fascism and contemporary neo-fascism are xenophobic, nativist and anti-immigrant, neo-fascist leaders are careful not to present these views in so strong a manner as to draw obvious parallels to historical events. Both Jean-Marie Le Pen of France's National Front and Jörg Haider's Freedom Party of Austria, in the words of historian Tony Judt, "revealed [their] prejudices only indirectly". Jews would not be castigated as a group, but a person would be specifically named as a danger who just happened to be a Jew. The public presentation of their leaders is one principal difference between the neo-fascists and historical fascists: their programs have been "finely honed and 'modernized'" to appeal to the electorate, a "far-right ideology with a democratic veneer". Modern neo-fascists do not appear in "jackboots and brownshirts", but in suits and ties. The choice is deliberate, as the leaders of the various groups work to differentiate themselves from the brutish leaders of historical fascism and also to hide whatever bloodlines and connections tie the current leaders to the historical fascist movements. When these become public, as they did in the case of Haider, it can lead to their decline and fall.

International networks
In 1951, the New European Order (NEO) neo-fascist European-wide alliance was set up to promote pan-European nationalism. It was a more radical splinter group of the European Social Movement. The NEO had its origins in the 1951 Malmö conference, when a group of rebels led by René Binet and Maurice Bardèche refused to join the European Social Movement as they felt that it did not go far enough in terms of racialism and anti-communism. As a result, Binet joined with Gaston-Armand Amaudruz in a second meeting that same year in Zürich to set up a second group pledged to wage war on communists and non-white people.

Several Cold War regimes and international neo-fascist movements collaborated in operations such as assassinations and false flag bombings. Stefano Delle Chiaie, who was involved in Italy's Years of Lead, took part in Operation Condor; organizing the 1976 assassination attempt on Chilean Christian Democrat Bernardo Leighton. Vincenzo Vinciguerra escaped to Franquist Spain with the help of the SISMI, following the 1972 Peteano attack, for which he was sentenced to life. Along with Delle Chiaie, Vinciguerra testified in Rome in December 1995 before judge María Servini de Cubría, stating that Enrique Arancibia Clavel (a former Chilean secret police agent prosecuted for crimes against humanity in 2004) and US expatriate DINA agent Michael Townley were directly involved in General Carlos Prats' assassination. Michael Townley was sentenced in Italy to 15 years of prison for having served as intermediary between the DINA and the Italian neo-fascists.

The regimes of Francoist Spain, Augusto Pinochet's Chile and Alfredo Stroessner's Paraguay participated together in Operation Condor, which targeted political opponents worldwide. During the Cold War, these international operations gave rise to some cooperation between various neo-fascist elements engaged in a "Crusade against Communism". Anti-Fidel Castro terrorist Luis Posada Carriles was condemned for the Cubana Flight 455 bombing on 6 October 1976. According to the Miami Herald, this bombing was decided on at the same meeting during which it was decided to target Chilean former minister Orlando Letelier, who was assassinated on 21 September 1976. Carriles wrote in his autobiography that "we the Cubans didn't oppose ourselves to an isolated tyranny, nor to a particular system of our fatherland, but that we had in front of us a colossal enemy, whose main head was in Moscow, with its tentacles dangerously extended on all the planet."

Finland
In Finland, neo-fascism is often connected to the 1930s and 1940s fascist and pro-Nazi Patriotic People's Movement (IKL), its youth movement Blues-and-Blacks and its predecessor Lapua Movement. Post-war fascist groups such as Patriotic People's Movement (1993), Patriotic People's Front, Patriotic National Movement, Blue-and-Black Movement and many others consciously copy the style of the movement and look up to its leaders as inspiration. A Finns Party councillor and police officer in Seinäjoki caused small scandal wearing the fascist blue-and-black uniform.

France
In France, the far-right National Rally party is of neo-fascist origin and is frequently accused of promoting anti-semitism and xenophobia.

Greece
After the onset of the Great Recession and economic crisis in Greece, a movement known as the Golden Dawn, widely considered a neo-Nazi party, soared in support out of obscurity and won seats in Greece's parliament, espousing a staunch hostility towards minorities, illegal immigrants and refugees. In 2013, after the murder of an anti-fascist musician by a person with links to Golden Dawn, the Greek government ordered the arrest of Golden Dawn's leader Nikolaos Michaloliakos and other Golden Dawn members on charges related to being associated with a criminal organization. In October, 2020, the court declared Golden Dawn to be a criminal organization, convicting 68 members of various crimes including murder. However, far-right politics continue to be strong in Greece, such as Ilias Kasidiaris' National Party – Greeks, an Ultranationalist party. In 2021, Greek neo-Nazi youth attacked a rival group at a school in Greece.

Italy
Italy was broadly divided into two political blocs following World War II: the Christian Democrats, who remained in power until the 1990s, and the Italian Communist Party (PCI), which was very strong immediately after the war and achieved a large consensus during the 1970s. With the beginning of the Cold War, the American and British governments turned a blind eye to the refusal of Italian authorities to honor requested extraditions of Italian war criminals to Yugoslavia, which they feared would benefit the PCI. With no event such as the Nuremberg trials taking place for Italian war crimes, the collective memory of the crimes committed by Italian fascists was excluded from public media, from textbooks in Italian schools, and even from the academic discourse on the Western side of the Iron Curtain throughout the Cold War. The PCI was expelled from power in May 1947, a month before the Paris Conference on the Marshall Plan, along with the French Communist Party (PCF).

In 1946, a group of Italian fascist soldiers founded the Italian Social Movement (MSI) to continue advocating the ideas of Benito Mussolini. The leader of the MSI was Giorgio Almirante, who remained at the head of the party until his death in 1988. Despite attempts in the 1970s towards a "historic compromise" between the PCI and the DC, the PCI did not have a role in executive power until the 1980s. In December 1970, Junio Valerio Borghese attempted, along with Stefano Delle Chiaie, the Borghese Coup which was supposed to install a neo-fascist regime. Neo-fascist groups took part in various false flag terrorist attacks, starting with the December 1969 Piazza Fontana massacre, for which Vincenzo Vinciguerra was convicted, and they are usually considered to have stopped with the 1980 Bologna railway bombing.

In 1987, the reins of the MSI party were taken by Gianfranco Fini, under whom in 1995 it was dissolved and transformed into the National Alliance (AN). The party led by Fini distanced itself from Mussolini and fascism and made efforts to improve its relations with the Jewish community, becoming a conservative right-wing party until its merger with Silvio Berlusconi's Forza Italia into the centre-right party The People of Freedom in 2009. Neo-fascist parties in Italy include the Tricolour Flame (Fiamma Tricolore), the New Force (Forza Nuova), the National Social Front (Fronte Sociale Nazionale), and CasaPound. The national-conservative Brothers of Italy (FdI), main heirs of MSI and AN, has been described as neo-fascist by several academics, and it has some neo-fascist factions within their internal organization. The results of the 2022 Italian general election, in which FdI became the first party, have been variously described as Italy's first far-right-led government in the republican era and its most right-wing government since World War II. The Russia-Ukraine war has divided the Italian far right, including neo-fascists, into three clusters: the pro-Western and Atlanticist extreme right (e.g. CasaPound), nostalgic and pro-Putin neo-fascism (New Force), and an ideologically evolving collection of National Bolshevik and Eurasianist militants. Recent studies have studied the geopolitical role of Italian neofascism with some groups participating with CIA-backing in the Strategy of Tension during the Cold War where terrorists actions were aimed to keep Italy in NATO and prevent the Communist Party from coming to power

Portugal
After the fall of authoritarianism in Portugal after the Carnation Revolution of 1974, several neo-fascist groups arose such as the New Order (Portugal) which was created in 1978. A report by the European Parliament defined the ideology of the New Order as revolutionary fascist and hyper-nationalist. The group also had connections to Fuerza Nueva in Spain. The New Order was disbanded in 1982, however its activities continued to as late as 1985.

Romania
In Romania, the ultra-nationalist movement which allied itself with the Axis powers and German National Socialism was the Iron Guard, also known as the Legion of the Archangel Michael. There are some modern political organisations which consider themselves heirs of Legionarism, this includes Noua Dreaptă and the Everything For the Country Party, founded by former Iron Guard members. The latter organisation was outlawed in 2015. Aside, from these Romanian organisations, the Sixty-Four Counties Youth Movement representing ultra-nationalism from the Hungarian minority is also present, especially in Transylvania. Other nationalistic and irredentist groups such as the Greater Romania Party do not originate from Legionarism, but in fact grew out of national communist tendencies from the era of Nicolae Ceaușescu (the party was founded by his "court poet" Corneliu Vadim Tudor).

Russia
In 1990, Vladimir Zhirinovsky founded the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia. Its leader opposes democratic values, the rights of man, a multiparty system, and the rule of law. Encyclopedia Britannica considers Zhirinovsky to be a neo-fascist. Zhirinovsky endorsed the forcible re-occupation of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, and suggested nuclear waste should be dumped there. During the First Chechen War in the mid-1990s, he advocated hitting some Chechen villages with tactical nuclear weapons.

The Russian National Unity was a paramilitary organization which was founded by Alexander Barkashov in 1990. It used a left-pointed swastika and emphasizes the "primary importance" of Russian blood. Concerning Adolf Hitler, the organizations's leader Barkashov declared: "I consider [Hitler] a great hero of the German nation and of all white races. He succeeded in inspiring the entire nation to fight against degradation and the washing away of national values." Before it was banned in 1999, and breakup in late 2000, the group estimated to have had approximately 20,000 to 25,000 members. Alexander Barkashov along with other members of the Russian National Unity have engaged in religious activities and pro-Russian activism in the Russian-Ukrainian War.

Serbia
A neo-fascist organization in Serbia was Obraz, which was banned on 12 June 2012 by the Constitutional Court of Serbia.

Earlier, on 18 June 1990, Vojislav Šešelj organized the Serbian Chetnik Movement (SČP) though it was not permitted official registration due to its obvious Chetnik identification. On 23 February 1991, it merged with the National Radical Party (NRS), establishing the Serbian Radical Party (SRS) with Šešelj as president and Tomislav Nikolić as vice president. It was a Chetnik party, oriented towards neo-fascism with a striving for the territorial expansion of Serbia.

Slovakia
Kotleba – People's Party Our Slovakia is a far-right political party with views that are considered extremist and fascist. The Party's leader, Marian Kotleba, is a former neo-Nazi, who once wore a uniform modelled on that of the Hlinka Guard, the militia of the 1939–45 Nazi-sponsored Slovak State. He opposes Romani people, immigrants, the Slovak National Uprising, NATO, the United States, and the European Union. The party also endorses the clerical fascist war criminal and former Slovak President Jozef Tiso.

In 2003, Kotleba founded the far-right political party Slovak Community (Slovak: Slovenská Pospolitosť). In 2007, the Slovak interior ministry banned the party from running and campaigning in elections. In spite of this ban, Kotleba's party got 8.04% of votes in the Slovak 2016 parliamentary elections. As of December 2022, voter support has dropped significantly to about 3.1%, under the 5% threshold required to enter parliament.

Turkey
Grey Wolves is a Turkish ultranationalist  and neo-fascist    youth organization. It is the "unofficial militant arm" of the Nationalist Movement Party. The Grey Wolves have been accused of terrorism. According to Turkish authorities, the organization carried out 694 murders during the late-1970s political violence in Turkey, between 1974 and 1980.

The nationalist political party MHP founded by Alparslan Türkeş is also sometimes described as neo-fascist.

United Kingdom
The British National Party (BNP) is a nationalist party in the United Kingdom which espoused the ideology of fascism  and anti-immigration. In the 2009 European elections, it gained two members of the European Parliament (MEPs), including former party leader Nick Griffin. Other British organisations described as fascist or neo-fascist include the National Front, Combat 18, the English Defence League, and Britain First.

Argentina
In Argentina, a notable advocate of neo-fascism was president María Estela Martínez de Perón, who applied anti-communist policies under the fascist police organization Triple A and economic market opening policies. Perón made a direct apology to fascism by performing the Roman salute in an appearance on the national radio network. The National Reorganization Process is also considered a neo-fascist or fascist dictatorship.

Bolivia
The Bolivian Socialist Falange party founded in 1937 played a crucial role in mid-century Bolivian politics. Luis García Meza Tejada's regime took power during the 1980 Cocaine Coup in Bolivia with the help of Italian neo-fascist Pierluigi Paglia i, the terrorist Stefano Delle Chiaie, and the Buenos Aires junta. That regime has been accused of neo-fascist tendencies and of admiration for Nazi paraphernalia and rituals. Hugo Banzer Suárez, who preceded Tejada, also displayed admiration for Nazism and fascism.

Brazil
The Brazilian government of Jair Bolsonaro is cited as the rising point of neo-fascism in South America in the 21st century,    based on the denial of science, bellicose rhetoric and authoritarian measures that withdraw rights from the population linked to a strongly neoliberal economic policy. As a result of factors such as opposition to Workers' Party, fear and reaction to the 2013 insurgency, as well as the economic crises of 2008 and 2014, Jair Bolsonaro emerged as a viable option, not because of a well-defined strategic project, but almost accidentally. In this way, the multiplicity of groups that make up the Bolsonarism, the different wings (military, ideological, religious, capital, etc.) present pragmatic disagreements, strategies, objectives and distinct methods. The core of this Brazilian neo-fascism converged its interests and rhetoric with Pentecostal religious fundamentalism and both allied themselves with military sectors and liberal think tanks, so that within bolsonarism there is a power bloc made up of non-fascist conservatives and far-right neo-fascists; although still without the support of the broad and fanatical mass movement which was the basis of European fascism.

United States
Groups which are identified as neo-fascist in the United States generally include neo-Nazi organizations and movements such as the Proud Boys, the National Alliance, and the American Nazi Party. The Institute for Historical Review publishes negationist historical papers which are often of an antisemitic nature. The alt-right—a loosely connected coalition of individuals and organizations which advocates a wide range of far-right ideas, from neoreactionaries to white nationalists—is often included under the umbrella term "neo-fascist", because alt-right individuals and organizations advocate a radical form of authoritarian ultranationalism.

Australia and New Zealand
Brenton Harrison Tarrant, the Australian perpetrator of the Christchurch mosque shootings at Al Noor Mosque and Linwood Islamic Centre in Christchurch, New Zealand, was an admitted fascist who followed eco-fascism and admired Oswald Mosley, the leader of the British fascist organization British Union of Fascists (BUF), who is quoted in the shooter's manifesto The Great Replacement (named after the French far-right theory of the same name).

South Africa
The Economic Freedom Fighters are a self-described pan-Africanist political party founded in 2013 by the expelled former African National Congress Youth League (ANCYL) President Julius Malema, and his allies. Malema and the party have frequently courted controversy for engaging in anti-White and anti-Indian racism. In November 2019, the Professor of International Relations at University of the Witwatersrand, Vishwas Satgar, defined them as a manifestation of a new phenomena, 'Black Neofascism'.

Indonesia
Adolf Hitler's propaganda which advocated the hegemony of "Greater Germany" inspired similar ideas of "Indonesia Mulia" (esteemed Indonesia) and "Indonesia Raya" (great Indonesia) in the former Dutch colony. The first fascist party was the Partai Fasis Indonesia (PFI). Sukarno admired Nazi Germany under Hitler and its vision of happiness for all: "It's in the Third Reich that the Germans will see Germany at the apex above other nations in this world," he said in 1963. He stated that Hitler was 'extraordinarily clever' in 'depicting his ideals': he spoke about Hitler's rhetorical skills, but denied any association with Nazism as an ideology, saying that Indonesian nationalism was not as narrow as Nazi nationalism.

Japan
After World War II, neo-fascism and ultra-nationalism were ostracized from mainstream politics in Germany, while in Japan, they were partially related to major right-wing conservative politics. Since 2006, all prime ministers of Japan's LDP have been members of far-right ultranationalist Nippon Kaigi.

Mongolia
With Mongolia located between the larger nations Russia and China, ethnic insecurities have driven many Mongolians to neo-fascism, expressing nationalism centered around Genghis Khan and Adolf Hitler. Groups advocating these ideologies include Blue Mongolia, Dayar Mongol, and Mongolian National Union.

Pakistan
Pakistan's Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan is considered fascist by some analysts because of its engagement in Islamic extremism.

Taiwan
The National Socialism Association (NSA) is a neo-fascist political organization founded in Taiwan in September 2006 by Hsu Na-chi (許娜琦), a 22-year-old female political science graduate of Soochow University. The NSA views Adolf Hitler as its leader and often uses the slogan "Long live Hitler". This has brought them condemnation from the Simon Wiesenthal Center, an international Jewish human rights centre.

title: Neo-fascism


text:
Battle of Lesnaya

The Battle of Lesnaya (Битва при Лесной; Slaget vid Lesna; Bitwa pod Leśną) was one of the major battles of the Great Northern War. It took place on October 9 1708 between a Russian army of between 26,500 and 29,000 men commanded by Peter I of Russia, Mikhail Mikhailovich Golitsyn, Aleksandr Danilovich Menshikov, Christian Felix Bauer and Nikolai Grigorovitj von Werden and a Swedish army of about 12,500 men commanded by Adam Ludwig Lewenhaupt and Berndt Otto Stackelberg, at the village of Lesnaya, located close to the border between the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and Russia (now the village of Lyasnaya, south-east of Mogilev in Belarus). The Swedes were escorting a supply column of more than 4,500 wagons for their main army in Ukraine.

Peter I intercepted Lewenhaupt's column before it reached the safety of Charles XII, the Swedish king, with the intention of destroying it. After eight hours of fighting, with heavy casualties, neither side stood as winner. As the night approached the Russians decided to withdraw to the nearest forest where they would stay until next morning to continue the fight. The Swedes however stayed in their battle formations for hours during the night, in case of a renewed attack. With no sign of further combat and intelligence saying further Russian reinforcements had arrived, the Swedes in turn withdrew from the place of battle, in order to continue the march towards the main army. Fearing a full-scale Russian pursuit, Lewenhaupt decided to burn or abandon most of the wagons and cannons in order to increase speed. While doing this many of the Swedish soldiers decided to loot the abandoned wagons and get drunk, thousands got lost in the woods, many of whom fell victim to Russian irregular cavalry. Lewenhaupt soon crossed the river of Sozh with the rest of his army, to find himself relatively safe. After some days he met up with Charles XII at Rukova with very few wagons left and only half of his initial army. The two soon continued their march towards Ukraine, eventually finding themselves at the Battle of Poltava and the surrender at Perevolochna which severely crippled the Swedish army and is known for being the turning point of the war.

Background
In 1700 Sweden, under Charles XII, was attacked by a coalition of Saxony, Russia, and Denmark–Norway. Saxony, under Augustus II, invaded Swedish Livonia and quickly attacked the city of Riga. Meanwhile, Denmark–Norway under Frederick IV of Denmark attacked the Swedish allied duchies of Holstein and Gottorp in order to secure his rear, before commencing with the planned invasion of Scania, which had been previously annexed by Sweden in the Treaty of Roskilde in 1658. A short time later, Russia under Peter I swept into Swedish Ingria and besieged the strategic city of Narva. Unprepared for these developments, the Swedes were forced into a war on three fronts.

Denmark–Norway was quickly knocked out of the war by a bold Swedish landing on Humlebæk resulting in the Peace of Travendal. After this the Russians were forced to abandon their campaign in Ingria after their crushing defeat in the battle of Narva. The Swedes next beat the Saxons, Poles and Russians at the battle of Düna. Soon Sweden invaded the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth in order to remove Augustus from the Polish throne. The subsequent conflict became known as the Swedish invasion of Poland. After several defeats in the battles of Kliszów, Kraków, Pultusk and Toruń, Augustus was finally dethroned in favor of a monarch installed by the Swedes, Stanisław Leszczyński who was crowned king in 1705. During this time, the Russians had been able to capture several Swedish possessions in their Baltic Dominions, among others, the fortresses of Nöteborg, Nyenskans, Dorpat and Narva.

In 1705 the two sides prepared for a final confrontation in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Russians intervened with full force in order to put Augustus back on the throne. After the battles of Gemauerthof, Warsaw, Grodno and Fraustadt the campaign was decided in favor of the Swedes who chased their enemies out of Poland in 1706 and subsequently invaded Saxony, where Augustus saw himself defeated and forced to make peace. Seeing how only one major threat remained, the Swedes decided to invade Russia in 1707. After some time of fighting against the Russians under Peter I, the Swedish king soon called upon reinforcements from Livonia where Adam Ludwig Lewenhaupt was acting Commander-in-chief.

Prelude
In early April 1708, the governor of Riga, Adam Ludwig Lewenhaupt visited Charles XII at the Royal army's winter quarters in Radoszkowice to discuss strategy and receive orders for the ongoing campaign against Russia. Here he was instructed to obtain a large amount of supplies and wagons that could be sufficient for the main army for about three weeks. Once having collected the supplies Lewenhaupt would assemble as much men as possible from the area, without leaving the garrisons completely stripped. Lewenhaupt would then use these troops to escort the convoy and rendezvous with Charles' main army at Mogilev, in early August.

In May same year, Lewenhaupt returned to Riga in order to complete the task, which proved far from easy. The near lands had suffered many campaigns in the years of the Great Northern War and so much was drained of needed resources. In early June, the column—of which Lewenhaupt was gathering—was ordered to start campaigning to reach Charles XII in Mogilev, according to schedule. However, the convoy was nowhere ready to leave because of the difficulties assembling it. Only in the beginning of July it was ready, having then suffered three to four weeks behind the schedule and a significant shortage of men as 20,000 men were expected, but only 13,000 soldiers proved able to march.

Lewenhaupt's convoy
The march turned out slower than expected, torrential rain turned the roads into mud, streams became over flooded which turned out to be a major task to cross and so, unfortunately for Lewenhaupt and Charles, the expected time of arrival kept moving back. However, after several weeks of waiting and no words heard from Lewenhaupt, there was a twist to the plans as Charles found his position in Mogilev unsustainable and instead on September 26, decided to abandon his camps and march South towards Severia in Ukraine, hoping to reach that rich granary before winter. During this time Lewenhaupt was about 135 kilometers (90 miles) away from Charles and on September 28, he received new orders to rendezvous at Starodub and started marching south himself. His convoy passed between Mogilev and Gorki heading for Propoisk on the river Sozh. By October 3, Lewenhaupt had crossed the Dnieper and headed south, the crossing itself has to be considered a "military masterpiece". Having observed these movements, Peter I dispatched an army under Boris Sheremetev after Charles and gathered a force of his own to intercept with Lewenhaupt. The Russians made contact with Lewenhaupt's convoy on October 6, and immediately started harassing it, forcing the Swedes to march in defensive formation across difficult terrain while the numbers of shadowing Russian troops steady grew.

Peter I, who overestimated the Swedish force being 16,000 men strong, had gathered numbers far superior to those of Lewenhaupt and was eager to catch his convoy while it was still out of reach of Charles' main army and safety. He planned to destroy the convoy before its crossing of the river Sozh where it would otherwise reach—as Peter thought—the protection of the main army (the Russians had misleading reports saying Charles was 25 kilometers away from Sozh and not 120 as they had previously presumed). On October 7, the Russians in the area were large enough that they posed a considerable threat to the convoy and so the two sides confronted each other for some time at the village of Belitsa. Subsequently, however, Lewenhaupt ordered a cavalry attack consisting of 4,000 men on the equally numbered Russian dragoons who were facing them, the Russian horse did not desire a fight and instead started retreating, persecuted by their enemies for a good four–kilometers step. In this encounter losses amounted to more than 40 Russians killed and three to eleven captured, to four wounded Swedes, a real battle did not develop as both sides parted and the confrontation ended with the quick cavalry skirmish. The Swedes however, received intelligence from the captured Russians saying the Tsar was following Lewenhaupt with a force of about 20,000 cavalry, 12,000 infantry and four guns. Later during the day, the vanguard of the convoy reached the small village of Lesnaya and there made preparations to set camp for the rest of the army, accordingly.

The next morning, Lewenhaupt, who during this time stayed with his rearguard, would once again find himself confronted as the Russians stepped up their efforts to harass the back of the convoy as it made its crossing over at Dolgij Moch, towards Lesnaya. Here the Russians under Mikhail Golitsyn and Alexander Menshikov attacked him on two fronts over the river of Resta. The engagement concluded in a standoff after four hours of musket and artillery exchange in which the Swedes successfully denied every attempt made by the Russians to cross the river for the convoy. Later the same day, Lewenhaupt reached the village of Lesnaya with most of his army and was within a day's march from Propoisk. By now he knew that Peter I was in the area with a fairly large amount of Russian troops. But he did not know exactly how large the Russian army was or if more units were on their way. Once he reached Propoisk he could cross the Sozh river and achieve relative safety in case he was the target of the whole Russian force.

Battle
On October 9, the Russians gathered all their available forces to attack the Swedes in the rear as they were crossing the stream of Lesnjanka at the village of Lesnaya, to march south against Propoisk in order to reach safety by crossing the river of Sozh. Thousands of wagons made for slow progress and bottlenecks and the scattered Swedish army was by then very vulnerable to Russian attacks. Furthermore, Bauer put a small detachment of 1,000 dragoons along with a portion of irregular troops at Propoisk to further stall the Swedish advance. The Swedish vanguard of 800 men soon stumbled upon this unit which did not hesitate to open fire. The sudden engagement put a halt to the Swedish convoy with its vanguard put in slight confusion as there was uncertainty regarding the size or position of the Russians at Propoisk. Decision was made to await orders from Lewenhaupt before committing to any course of action. In the meantime, Peter I took the advantage and pressed home the assault, marching with the majority of his troops towards Lesnaya and the rest of the Swedish convoy deployed there (at least one third of the convoy still remained at Lesnaya). Unaware of these developments, the Swedes were put in–between two forces, with an enemy no longer contented with harassment, but a decisive battle.

Opposing forces
The Swedish army was commanded by General Lewenhaupt with Berndt Otto Stackelberg assisting, it totaled around 12,500 men with 6 eight–pounder and 10 or 11 four–pounder guns. Of these, at least 2,900 men were ordered to protect and maintain the baggage convoy consisting of at least 4,500 wagons. This resulted in a reduced force of combat personal as the regiments had to be stripped on men. The exact location of the troops at the start of the battle is not certain, however, between 4,500 and 7,000 men  remained on the north side of the Lesnjanka stream facing the Russian main army. About 900 of these were detached even further to the north at the Middlefield working as an outpost in order to stall possible Russian attacks. The rest of the army were on the other side of the stream towards the south, facing Propoisk and would intervene in the battle later as Lewenhaupt requested reinforcements.

The Russian army was commanded by Tsar Peter I and consisted of three divisions under generals Mikhail Mikhailovich Golitsyn, Aleksandr Menshikov, Christian Felix Bauer and Nikolai Grigorovitj von Werden. In an operational stance, the army totaled between 26,500 and 29,000 men, including between 2,500 and 5,000 irregulars (Cossacks and Kalmyks, also referred to as light cavalry), or 900  to 10,000  according to other estimates, and more than 90 artillery pieces (30 cannons  and 60 six–pounder mortars). However, the division under Werden would only enjoy limited to no engagement as these troops arrived at the end of the battle. The intention of Peter I was to attack Lewenhaupt with 13,000 regular soldiers along with thousands of irregulars initially available, in order to pin him down long enough for the rest of the army to arrive. The closest division available was that of Bauer at Berezovka who marched with about 4,976 men along with thousands of irregulars, about 900 of these had been detached at Propoisk  and were the ones halting the Swedish vanguard as it tried to reach the town, the rest would find themselves at the battle–site later on during the day. The last division marching towards the battle was located at Patskovo, led by Werden and consisted of about 6,191 men, however, as previously noted, these would only take limited part in the action.

Russian attack at the Middlefield
Peter I initially split his 13,000 men into two columns, the western one consisting of 5,910 men under himself with Mikhail Mikhailovich Golitsyn assisting (in reality, Golitsyn commanded this group and Peter I worked as his assistant) and the eastern one with 7,040 soldiers led by Aleksandr Menshikov. The two columns along with the irregulars, marched toward the Middlefield between the northern and southern forest fringes. Lewenhaupt's army was behind the southern fringe and Peter I attacked from the north. Menshikov's force traversed two kilometers of road while Peter I struggled to penetrate three kilometers of dense forest.

Around 11:00, the battle began. Peter I's column under Menshikov had reached the Middlefield from the north-west, finding the 900 Swedes deployed there. Unfortunately for Menshikov, the commander of the heavily outnumbered Swedish outpost, Lieutenant Colonel Freijbourg, seized the initiative and launched a Carolean-style surprise attack which threw the Russian column into confusion, while the sudden musket and cannon fire alerted the nearby main Swedish force. After this initial success, the Swedes were forced to retreat with many wounded through the southern fringe of the forest, where they were relieved by five fresh battalions under the command of Berndt Otto Stackelberg which had marched from Lesnaya.

Meanwhile, Tsar Peter's right column had reached the Crossroads and traversed the marshes of Krivl, just south of the Middlefield, close to where Menshikov's column had been in action. Having Peter to their left flank and Menshikov to the front, Stackelberg's five Swedish battalions were now fighting two Russian columns numbering 13,000 in all. Six other Swedish battalions were on their way to the battle zone. The Russians at the Crossroads under Peter were almost routed by the Swedes and could have faced a crushing defeat, had not the Russian Guards halted their advance. The fighting at the Crossroads surged back and forth. The Russian line was strengthened by six artillery pieces. However, the Swedes who themselves had no artillery in this particular fight, were able to capture four of them and block Peter's progress at the Krivl bridge.

Facing the Swedish right flank at the Middlefield, Menshikov's guardsmen then executed a successful flanking maneuver, forcing the five Swedish battalions to retreat into the southern fringe of the forest and prepare to receive the expected Russian onslaught. Their departure left unguarded a bridge near the Crossroads, leaving it clear for Russian troops to march out and form up en masse. Thus trapped in a "pincer movement", hemmed in and outnumbered, Stackelberg—against the wishes of Lewenhaupt—ordered an orderly withdrawal. The six Swedish battalions which were yet to arrive on their march through the forest, were also ordered to retreat, an action which isolated and exposed Hälsinge's second battalion which had previously routed the Russians and now came close to being annihilated by them.

Lewenhaupt (who sought to gather his cavalry to support the Swedish infantry during the fighting at the Middlefield and Crossroads) came under attack by Russian dragoons who swept eastward through the southern fringe of the forest and headed for the Swedish dragoons deployed east of Lesnaya, on the open field. The Russians had some success at first, but as soon as the main bulk of the Swedish cavalry arrived and charged in typical Carolean wedge formation the Russian cavalry was being repulsed and quickly broke.

Tsar Peter with his Russian infantry and dragoons had now pushed away the last retreating Swedes and had full control over the southern forest edge. The Russians now strove to reach the Lesnaya field between the forest and the village of Lesnaya, to block the bridge over which the Swedes might obtain further reinforcements. (A company of 1,000 cavalry had already managed to get back to assist in the fight at Lesnaya.) A Swedish counter-offensive to push the Russians out of the forest was now ordered by Lewenhaupt, who had been very disappointed by Stackelberg's decision to retreat. The Swedes counterattacked with the support of 16 artillery pieces from Lesnaya. However the Russian troops, backed by their own 30 cannons, were too strong and the Swedes had to fall back.

Fighting at Lesnaya
The Swedes retreated almost to the village of Lesnaya and the Russians followed them to the adjacent open terrain, intending to launch a decisive attack from there. However, both sides being exhausted by the day's intense combat, hostilities were ceased at about 15:00 when, separated by only 150–200 meters, the two sides sank down on the field, facing each other, and rested. During this extraordinary interlude, in which only three Russian cannons sounded off, the two armies distributed food, water and ammunition to their ranks, issued orders and deployed reinforcements in preparation for the final conflict. Somehow during this remarkable phase, the Russian General Friedrich von Hessen-Darmstadt was shot and mortally wounded as he rode back and forth in a provocative manner between the two armies. He died of his wounds four days later. The hour-long pause concluded at about 16:00, with the arrival, after a long march, of Bauer's company of 4,000 Russian dragoons.

At a little past 16:00, the Swedes opened fire, with cannons positioned 600 meters from the southern forest edge, on the newly arrived dragoons, who were then attaching themselves to the Russians' left flank. The Russian dragoons under Bauer then—without awaiting orders from Peter I—charged against the Swedes, supported by most of the other Russian troops. The open terrain gave the Swedish army opportunity to closely coordinate its infantry and cavalry, an advantage which they gratefully seized. Repeatedly, Russian front line troops retreated from infantry Gå–På shock attacks only to find themselves under immediate attack from the rear by Swedish cavalry. However, this could only be a temporary advantage in view of the Russian reserve strength, reportedly three battalions deep by this time, enabling an irresistible grinding advance.

The Russian right flank under Mikhail Mikhailovich Golitsyn moved to secure the sole bridge across the Lesnjanka in order to prevent the flow of Swedish reinforcements across it, while seeking to trap them with their backs to the river. However, the bridge was ferociously defended and the Russians were beaten off, suffering heavy losses. At this time, both sides were inconvenienced by the weather; cold with overcast cloud cover most of the day, it gradually began to rain in which the rain quickly turned into a sudden freak snowstorm. A rare weather event for early–October, even in Russia. At 17:00, Lewenhaupt ordered a concerted attack which, however, was blunted by a tactic of continuous fire which the Russians had devised to counter the Swedish Gå–På onslaught. The Swedes took heavy casualties and were driven further back towards the village. Their line was also split in two, one side against the Lesnaya (east of the bridge) and the other against the forest to the west. The all–important bridge was on the brink of being taken when it was saved by the arrival of 900 Swedish dragoons from across the river, whose fierce onslaught drove the Russians back. At 19:00 when night fell, the Russians left the field and drew back to the forest fringe. The Swedes stood in their battle formations for several hours, expecting a night attack which did not come.

Aftermath
For a few hours the Swedes remained in their positions in case of a renewed attack and to convince the Russians that they intended to stay. Subsequently, Lewenhaupt decided to withdraw his army under the cover of the darkness and continue on his march against Propoisk. One major reason for this decision is said to have been a report coming from a captured Russian officer speaking about recent Russian reinforcements consisting of up to 10,000 men referring to the more than 6,000 strong infantry division under Nikolai Grigorovitj von Werden. Each unit slowly made its way across the stream as they were covered by the remaining units. During this progress, a number of wagons broke and partially blocked the road where the Swedish artillery was moving down, so it was decided a number of these would be sunk in the mud (to prevent them falling in Russian hands) as they were hard bringing in the rapid march. Having successfully crossed the stream with all his troops, Lewenhaupt continued towards Propoisk. However, this withdrawal was the beginning of the end for a large part of his army.

Swedish disaster
Despite the difficult condition, having men lost in the woods during the march, the Swedes reached Propoisk, only to find that the town and bridge had been burned down. This was most likely done by Bauer's detachment as they were still blocking the crossing. By now the Swedish army was disintegrating into a mob as fear grew, possibly of being trapped between Peter's army behind them and Bauer's detachment. There were also no suited material for building a bridge. The Swedes saw the risk in having the Russian army pursue them from behind and so Lewenhaupt decided that everything that could be carried be taken from the wagons, subsequently all wagons but a few, were burned and the bulk of the essential supplies within. This resulted in that a large part of the army took the opportunity to get drunk and so was left for the enemy to catch, others decided that they were better off surrendering or try to reach home by themselves. The Swedes mustered about 3,451 infantry and 3,052 cavalry at Propoisk who were in good condition to fight. Lewenhaupt decided that all the combatants would be mounted on the remaining horses to increase the speed of the march. Between 1,000 and 1,500 wounded and sick soldiers were left at Propoisk as these seemed unable to follow the pace Lewenhaupt now made in order to reach the main army. The rest were missing, perhaps as many as 4,000 men. The next morning the Russians caught up with the soldiers at Propoisk which had now increased to 3,000 men as more stragglers had joined its defenses. The Russians demanded their surrender, however as the Swedes refused and instead answered with musket fire, they soon assaulted the town. After an hour or so long defense, the Russians gained the upper hand and pushed the Swedes out of the town, further to the river of Soz, where they could escape the onslaught. The Russians were content with this and proceeded to round up any deserters they could find, however, they did not attempt to confront the main body of Lewenhaupt's army as they were allowed to withdraw unmolested.

The following day Lewenhaupt found a crossing over the river Sozh and over the next two days the soldiers swam across the river to relative safety. By now order had been restored in the Swedish army and all signs of Russian pursuit had gone. The army—now without any artillery or wagon train—made good speed to reach its rendezvous with Charles' army at Starodub. During their way, on October 19, the Swedish rearguard was attacked by reportedly 4,000 Russians at the village of Lysjtjitji. After a sharp engagement the Russians were driven off with the cost of slightly more than 30 killed and 50 wounded Swedes. On October 23, Lewenhaupt's troops reached the main army at Rukova. Having only 6,000 men left in his lines with very few of the sufficient wagons, from the train. Subsequently, Charles XII continued the march towards Ukraine where he found the condition of supplying his army better but also because a possible alliance with the Cossack hetman, Ivan Mazepa. The campaign would however end with the disastrous Swedish defeat at Poltava and the surrender of the whole army at Perevolochna, except for a few who followed the king into exile in the Ottoman Empire.

Modern look
Lesnaya is often seen as the first great Russian victory of the war and the first indication of the final result of the campaign, in Russia it is said to be the mother of Poltava. The battle was certainly proclaimed as a Russian triumph at the time, but in modern view, this may not be the case. The victorious Russian army had suffered considerable losses throughout the battle and did not manage to succeed with their goal, to crush the Lewenhaupt's army. Neither did it seriously pursue the retreating Swedish army, instead they contented themselves with catching the stragglers and march in the opposite direction of Lewenhaupt to celebrate their victory. Tsar Peter arranged for the news of the victory to be spread as much as possibly through official declarations and leaflets. At first the Russian version of events claimed they had completely destroyed a superior force, it soon became clear that this was not true so they subsequently modified it down to only equal odds. But the official declarations, leaflets etc., had already been dispatched and still influence the view of the battle today. The two sides were in fact not equal in numbers, they only appear so in many accounts because the numbers given usually only count the initial Russian forces under the Tsar without taking in account the irregulars that accompanied the force or the later arrival of Bauer's command. Sometimes the Swedish units are also assumed to have been at full strength at the battle. Also while the initial Russian forces were about the same strength as the whole Swedish army, they did not all participate in the fighting. The Russians, in fact enjoyed a considerable numerical advantage in all stages of the battle, yet they had not been able to defeat their enemy. Similarly the Swedes were greatly constrained during the battle by the need to protect the vital wagons and their supplies.

Casualties
The estimated number of casualties sustained by both sides during the battle varies widely, depending on the source.

Swedish casualties, according to General Adam Ludwig Lewenhaupt, numbered not much more than 1,000 men during the battle itself, with a total of 1,674 dead and captured in the battle and on the road towards Propoisk. Overall, he claims, the casualties could not exceed 3,000 men in the battle and the following days (with the events at Propoisk), however, these figures are regarded as questionable and too low, according to the Swedish and Russian writers Einar Lyth and Pavel Konovalchuk. According to Lewenhaupt's Lieutenant, Friedrich Christoph von Weihe, the Swedish losses in killed amounted to 2,000 men in the battle along with a number of captured. In total, Weihe estimates that there were 3,800 Swedish casualties in the battle and in the following days. Robert Petre, a second-lieutenant in the Swedish army and veteran soldier in the Hälsinge Regiment, however, puts the total Swedish casualties at 4,549 men. According to the Russian official description regarding the Swedish casualties, 8,000 were killed on the battlefield and a total of 3,500 captured soon thereafter, other sources claim 6,700 Swedes killed and wounded in the battle and another 5,000 in the pursuit,  numbers which are proven unrealistic and impossible in regards to the initial strength of the army. There are also data on 6,000 Swedish losses.

Later attempts have been made by authors trying to calculate the Swedish casualties using the initial strength of the force as basis. Lewenhaupt said there were less than 10,914 men present under his command, Weihe and Petre in turn claimed there were 11,450 and 12,950 men, respectively, at the beginning of the march from Riga in early July. Nicholas Dorrell, a student in history, estimates the Swedish force at about 12,500 men strong in the battle, in an attempt to apply marching losses to the army. In regards to this, 6,500 Swedes were patterned after the battle in "condition to fight" at Propoisk, according to Petre (of which above 6,000 made it to the main army under Charles XII), about 1,000–1,500 wounded and sick Swedish soldiers along with some stragglers were left at Propoisk, of which the majority were later either killed or captured by Russian cavalry, according to Russian sources. Between 2,500 and 3,300 soldiers went missing, of which most marched on their own back towards Sweden, between 1,250 and 1,500 of these arrived and the other perished during the march due to wounds, sickness, starvation or exhaustion, or possible Cossack attacks.

Einar Lyth and Pavel Konovalchuk make an estimation calculated out of these numbers in their book "Vägen till Poltava. Slaget vid Lesnaja 1708 (The road to Poltava. The battle of Lesnaya 1708)" using the initial strength presented by Petre of 13,000 men, which concludes up to 4,000 Swedes killed, captured or dispersed in total, during the battle and the days after and no more than 2,500 men killed or captured in the battle itself. Using the same calculation on the number of 12,500 Swedes presented by Dorrell, the total losses would amount to 3,500 men and 2,000 in the battle and on the road towards Propoisk (similar estimation to that of Weihe), applying a rough estimation of 1,000–1,500 wounded to this number, representing the large numbers of wounded left at Propoisk and the ones being wounded while marching back towards Sweden, there's a possibility that the Swedes suffered 3,000–3,500 men dead, wounded and captured in the battle alone. Another estimation is made by the Russian historian Vladimir A. Artamonov in his book "The Dawn of the Poltava Victory: The Battle of Lesnaya", where the author estimates the Swedish casualties at 3,873 dead and wounded in the battle and another 877 captured afterwards, totaling losses of 4,750 Swedish soldiers, also here, using Petre's number of 12,950 Swedish soldiers as the basis for the calculation.

Russian casualties, according to Russian official claims, amounted to about 1,111 dead and another 2,856 wounded in the battle, figures which are disputed as "incomplete and contradictory", according to the Russian and Swedish writers Pavel Konovalchuk and Einar Lyth. Alexander Gordon, an officer of Scottish descent who served with the Russian army during the war, wrote a book on the history of Peter the Great, in which he puts the Russian casualties at about 3,000 killed and 4,000 wounded. Gaston Bodart also estimated the total Russian losses at 4,000.

Swedish official reports declared that more than 20,000 Russians died in the battle, which is considered to be a highly unlikely number by most authors. Lewenhaupt initially estimated more than 6,000 dead and wounded Russians during the battle, but later increased that number to 9,000 dead and wounded, claiming that this estimate was reported to him by Russian officers, while he was in captivity in Moscow. Artamonov questions the reliability of this claim. Another Swedish source, Gustaf Adlerfelt, a court historian of Charles XII, declared that the Russians lost 6,000 men killed and many more wounded, referring to the "confession" of a captured Russian Adjutant-General named Schultz.

Literature

 * Dorrell, Nicholas. The Dawn of the Tsarist Empire: Poltava & the Russian Campaigns of 1708–1709, Partizan Press (2009)
 * History of the Art of War – История военного искусства / Под общ. ред П.Д. Ротмистрова. – М., 1963. – T.I. – С. 132–135.
 * History of the Northern War – История Северной войны. 1700–1721. / Отв. ред. И.И. Ростунов. – М., 1987. С. 73–76.
 * The Book of Mars or of Affairs of War – Книга Марсова или воинских дел. – Изд.2. – СПб., 1766.
 * Kresnovsky's History of the Russian Army, from Narva to Paris: 1700–1814 – Кресновский А.А. История русской армии: В 4-х т. – М., 1992. – T.I. От Нарвы до Парижа 1700–1814. – С. 35–36.
 * Letters and papers by Emperor Peter the Great – Письма и бумаги императора Петра Великого. – Т.5. – СПб., 1907.
 * Soviet War Encyclopaedia – Советская военная энциклопедия: В 8-й т. / Гл. ред. комис. Н.В. Огарков (пред.) и др. – М., 1977. – Т.4. – С. 624.
 * Strokov's History of the Art of War – Строков А.А. История военного искусства. – М., 1955. – T.I. – С. 496.
 * Soviet War Encyclopaedia – Советская военная энциклопедия: В 8-й т. / Гл. ред. комис. Н.В. Огарков (пред.) и др. – М., 1977. – Т.4. – С. 624.
 * Strokov's History of the Art of War – Строков А.А. История военного искусства. – М., 1955. – T.I. – С. 496.

title: Battle of Lesnaya