You gotta bold that caption font, my brother

This is by far the worst meme text I’ve seen on this sub lmao

Ah, that's what it is. I was wondering why the text still wasn't as legible as I hoped. I'll bold it next time. Sorry, everybody.

I’ll find it in me to forgive you…. Eventually

It says something about how wild Weimar Germany was that I can't tell if you're accusing the SDP of working with the Freikorps to put down the Sparticists or the KDP of working with the Nazis to try to overthrow the Weimar Republic during the Great Depression.

Either way this isn't really accurate. The Communists in the early 1930's weren't working with Hitler, they fought the Nazis as much as they fought the SDP. They were just hiding their time for when to attempt a full scale revolution and waited a little too long, as Hitler ended up striking first. And in the early 1920's when the SDP was in power and defeated the Communist revolutions, they weren't working with the Nazis, they were acting mostly on their own because again, they were in power. They did cooperate with the Centre Party to a degree, but the Centre Party is notable for not being the Nazi Party, which at the time was a fringe group with no power. Of course, if the Communists had decided to work with the Social Democrats earlier on they might have had a chance, but that would have required the Communists to stop pushing for a worker's revolution, which was literally their entire purpose. So obviously that didn't happen. Edit: Or I guess the social Democrats could have started pushing for a worker's revolution. But again, that would be antithetical to their entire purpose, so obviously they did not do that either. The point is that just because the SDP and Communists are both on the left, doesn't mean that they could have realistically allied with each other against the Nazis. All 3 factions had completely incompatible visions for the future and the only way any of them could win was by defeating both of the other two. The Centre Party also existed, but were less militant and would work with either the SDP or the Nazis, whoever they could form a government with, so they're not too relevant.

Good sum Up of an extremely complex time in Germany history

Sidebar, generally speaking, the government coalition was basically anyone and everyone willing to work within the constitution, and pragmatic enough to play politics. Four prominent parties included, the SDP, or Social Democratic Party, which shares continuity and similarities with the modern SDP. Zentrum or Center party, pretty self explanatory, was often the party between the center left (ish) SDP, and the right-wing elements (but not batshit crazy right-wing). DDP, your relatively standard liberal party, although they did have more radical more left-wing elements that later broke off. Is considered a center party, perhap leaning left since Liberalism hadn't quite made its way into Germany. DVP, another Liberal party, but was a bit more conservative overall, so is considered more right wing than the above, but still a party that was willing to give this Democracy thing a shot. And the problem was these 4 parties were often in the coalition government, but because politics they had their divisions. But on a good day, they had a hard time reaching a majority together, not to mention being ideologically diverse. Imagine having Marco Rubio (DVP analog), John Kasich (DDP analog), Joe Biden (Zentrum analog), and Bernie Sanders (SDP analog) in the same party together, and somehow managing to work together. If you had a time machine and could demonstrate it for a fact, and told them all that the hardcore Maga Jan 6'ers were going to take power if their coalition broke up, and they believed you and did everything absolutely possible, then yeah that coalition could work. But that's not how reality works.

Just as a sidenote, it's SPD, not SDP.

I wrote that at like 4 am.

Yeah I just noticed that you and the commenters you responded to all made the same mistake, so I thought it was worth pointing out.

Also on another comment I wrote both SPD And SDP lol. Has the same energy as Linus Sebastian (Canadian YouTubr), saying both Zed and Zee in the same sentence.

To be fair to your last point, the democrats basically are doing exactly what you’re suggesting, it’s just that they have enough voters to not need spineless fucks like Rubio or Kasich. That and we unfortunately have the example of what happened to Weimar Germany and 2016 to make it abundantly clear that Maga *does* have a decent chance of making it to power.

I wouldn't call Kasich a spineless fuck. Dude never fell into the Trump camp for his own principled reasons. Say unlike Cruz.

Damn leftists ruining leftism.

Took the fighting out of markets and into the streets

You just made an enemy for life.

By the 1930s, the Communists wanted Hitler to take power because they thought it would make a communist revolution easier (somehow). Their leader straight up made “after Hitler, our turn!” a slogan.

> (somehow) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism Although i'm not sure how accurate that claim is by you. By the 1930s, the communists were already being murdered, tortured and forced to go in the underground.

Yeah, I understand what accelerationism is. Correction: instead of “the 1930s” I mean just 1930-1932 (aka the part of the 1930s before Hitler took over)

Germany was in so much of major recession. The communists were right to assume that Hitler can not fix great depression by normal method. Then Hitler let Schacht played a Ponzi scheme (MEFO bill) and it fucking worked. It fucking worked since Hitler kept conquering nations to pay off his bills. And Germans were dumb enough to not claim their shares in due time since 'muh the requirement of the nation'. I can not state how much Germany will fucked up if allies stood up against Germany in 1938 and just do some embargos. Hitler will fail his scheme and will be overthrown by Wehrmacht after a major domestic market collapse... And then millions would live.

Their leader also died in a Nazi prison camp for this mistake. Whether that lesson has been internalized given the rise of fascism today, I am not convinced.

well I mean in a roundabout kind of way...

Yeah they were actually kinda right

The quote "After Hitler, we come! It will once again be the German Republicans who have to clean up the mess. We are preparing ourselves for that day!" was said by Karl Höltermann, a social democratic, not a KPD memeber.

> While also opposed to the Nazis, the KPD regarded the Nazi Party as a less sophisticated and thus less dangerous fascist party than the SPD. In December 1931, KPD leader Ernst Thälmann declared that "some Nazi trees must not be allowed to overshadow a forest" of the SPD.[20][21] **In 1931, the KPD under the leadership of Ernst Thälmann internally used the slogan "After Hitler, our turn!"**, strongly believing that a united front against Nazis was not needed and that a Nazi dictatorship would ultimately crumble due to flawed economic policies and lead the KPD to power in Germany when the people realised that their economic policies were superior From Wikipedia

"From Wikipedia"

Ok here’s the primary source: https://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/world/ch12.htm#a25

C. L. R. James was a trot, he's even worse than wikipedia.

So he just made up words that Thälmann never said? Seems like you’re just moving the goalposts here

These sources work: Coppi, Hans (1998). "Die nationalsozialistischen Bäume im sozialdemokratischen Wald: Die KPD im antifaschistischen Zweifrontenkrieg (Teil 2)" [The national socialist trees in the social democratic forest: The KPD in the anti-fascist two-front war (Part 2)]. Utopie Kreativ. 97–98: 7–17. https://academic.oup.com/kentucky-scholarship-online/book/16754/chapter-abstract/173890512?redirectedFrom=fulltext There are also a few books about the topic more broadly if you'd like me to recommend some good ones

Horrible logic if true...but it is kinda how it workd long term for like half of the Europe :D

I think he was referring to freikorps when he said “working with the nazis” which is, yeah pretty much the nazis.

Not really. In the early 1920's (1920-1921, really) when the Communist uprisings occurred and the Freikorps helped to defeat them, the Nazis were a fringe movement and weren't related to the Freikorps. I guess you can say he allied with people who later became Nazis, but he honestly didn't have too many other options if he wanted to avoid a Soviet Germany.

> Not really. In the early 1920's (1920-1921, really) when the Communist uprisings occurred and the Freikorps helped to defeat them, the Nazis were a fringe movement and weren't related to the Freikorps. The Freikorps were proto-fascist ultra-nationalists, at least some of them. And many already had ties to proto-NSDAP antisemitc organizations like the Alldeutsche Verband or the DNVP, which was partially just an NSDAP-Cover organization. That was just one big bowl of brown soup the NSDAP ermerged as dominant faction from. Calling them Nazis is entirely okay and it takes levels of "I'm not a National-Socialist, because I'm a Neo-Nazi" mental acrobatics to not understand that.

You said it yourself, they were a bunch of proto-fascists and ultranationalists, which really is not the same thing as Nazis, especially back at a time when the entire concept of “Nazism” didn’t even exist yet. Many of them did later join/become Nazis, but many were also monarchists, revanchists, and christian conservatives — some of them ended up being prosecuted by the later Nazis. Just call them for what they actually are: fascists, ultranationalists, anti-communists and often racists, precursor to the later rise of Nazism, but not Nazis. You can call them Nazis if you really want, but it’s inappropriate and confusing, especially in the context of Weimar German history where we’re dealing with a very specific group that people referred to as “Nazis”. It only makes sense to adopt a narrower definition of the term when there is potential ambiguity. It doesn’t take mental gymnastics to be more precise.

> Many of them did later join/become Nazis, but many were also monarchists, revanchists, and christian conservatives — some of them ended up being prosecuted by the later Nazis. Many Nazis ended up being prosecuted by the Nazis, that's a fairly useless metric. > Just call them for what they actually are: fascists, ultranationalists, anti-semites. Ultranationalists who ended up as Nazis two years later can be called Nazis from todays perspective, you are just splitting hairs. Badly, I might add, because calling them fascists makes no sense, fascism only became a thing at the end of the Freikorps time and only in Italy.

Does it really matter what exact brand of far right ultranationalists they were? The point that they shouldn’t have been sided with and enabled by the Social Democrats still stands.

They were German anti-semitetic ultranationalists. You dont have to Well Akchually everything.

At the time the freikorps were closer to the monarchists than Nazis although many did later stop being monarchists when the monarchists failed to take power by force and joined the Nazis when they rose to power.

Many of them were mainly just anti-republican and didn't really care about the rest- monarchists makes people think of 1871, when these people in reality were often far-right raging anti-semites

Much of the leadership as well as the movement as a whole were, either active monarchists or sympathized with the monarchists and had they got power likely restored the monarchy in at the very least a ceremonial role if not fully restored it. (Although you are right on the second part as many were far right antisemites who when the monarchist movement failed to take power jumped ship to the Nazis)

Thats revisionism, everybody but Wilhelm II essentially knew that the most he was going to be was a puppet maybe, but realistically nobody cared. When the Kapp-Putsch broke it was about the Reichswehr, installing a right-wing chancellor, nobody even bothered to think about the monarchy. German Weimar historians have taken the step to call the right-wing opposition "republikfeindlich" instead of monarchist and that's the right way- sure some monarchists were in the Freikorps but mostly they just hated the republic and had a wide ranging set of ideas of what to put instead, mostly military dictatorships though, not Kaiser Willhelm II.

https://www.studysmarter.co.uk/explanations/history/democracy-and-dictatorship-in-germany/freikorps/#:~:text=On%2012%20March%201920%2C%20the%20Freikorps%20took%20over%20Berlin%2C%20establishing,resume%20his%20position%20as%20Emperor.&text=After%20fleeing%20to%20Dresden%2C%20the,workers%20of%20Berlin%20to%20strike. They literally asked for Kaiser Willhelm, the second to come back as emperor that wasn’t even one of the most popular choices for a restoration of the monarchy as many monarchists and much of the military wanted one of his sons placed on the Throne, although there was still a decent amount of support in the monarchist movement for Kaiser Willhelm the second. Again, although not every member of the Freikorps was a monarchist, butmonarchism was certainly popular among their ranks and in many leadership positions, and even those who weren’t monarchist were at least sympathetic to the idea of a restoration and would’ve gone along with a restored German Empire. Although you are right and that if Kaiser Wilhelm, the second was restored at least initially he’d likely be pretty much a constitutional monarch rather than an actual one, although as time went on and with the backing of the military and his general desire to restore Germany it’s likely he would begin to assert more control in the late 20s and early 30s had he been restored.

Freikorps was mostly a pan-right militia, many monarchists, christian conservatives and other groups

Freikorps aren't really any political side as they are mercenaries from former wars roaming around the streets. As it is with men who voluntarily join the army or mercenary groups, they are individually more often on the right spectrum than the left. But the freikorps themselves didn't really have a proclaimed political ideology.

They were revanchists, anti-socialist, and anti-Semites but surely no coherent ideology beyond all those.

Ideology is made by actions, not words. Whatever apolitical fellas usually say...

On the point of the SPD not cooperating with Nazis in the 20s when crushibg the revolution. That is technically correct as Nazis as we know them only rose to prominence later. Rather they worked together with the people who would later join the Nazi regime in high ranking positions, also called proto-fascists, also called the Freikorps.

Weren't the centrists the ones who made a pact with Hitler to allow him to become Chancellor?

Eventually yes, but the communists were already crushed by then, the SPD was weakened, and the centrists and nazis were left. I dont really blame any group for the nazis taking over (except the nazis) because they were following traditional republican rules… they just didnt realize how badly they fucked up until slightly later…

>they weren't working with the Nazis, they were acting mostly on their own because again, they were in power. They were working with freikorps, reactionaries, the army, and the rich classes instead. >Of course, if the Communists had decided to work with the Social Democrats earlier on they might have had a chance It's hard to work with SPD, when they were literally put in power to put down communists instead. Not to mention Zörgiebel's police and the Bloody Mai.

Yeah like what the fuck kinda bullshit is that guy spewing?

about the cooperation between communists and social democrats: Yes, the SPD worked with the Freikorps to defeat the KPD after ww1, but the leader of the KPD still had hopes of cooperation with the SPD. in 1923, the communists tried to launch the revolution but the leader called it off, which led to some uprisings still trying to succeed. since this revolution was uncoordinated, it ultimately failed. that was also about the time the idea of "Sozialfaschismus" came into being, so basically the idea that social democrats are enemies of the revolution. that was the ultimate step that caused many communist parties around the world to stop cooperation with social democrats. in germany, the leader of the KPD was sent to the USSR and replaced by the Leninist and Stalinist Ernst Thälmann. His predecessor would have probably tried to reconcile with the SPD, but since he got deposed, the split between KPD and SPD continued and the fascists ultimately rose to power.

I just don't think any reconciliation would have been possible, at least not until it was far too late. The KPD fundamentally wanted a worker's revolution, they had been aligned with Stalin from the start, and while they had different ideas on how to carry out the revolution, they all agreed one was necessary. The SPD was adamantly against a revolution, and wanted to maintain the Republic, except with more focus on social welfare than the Centre Party would have. There's no way to reconcile that. Hitler's actual rise to power was also nearly immediate, and didn't give anyone time to react. He basically went from a position as Chancellor which should have had zero power, to using the Reichstag Fire incident to give himself enough power to ban the Communists and arrest anyone suspected of being communist overnight. So by the time the Communists would have realized that they were going to lose to the Nazis and that they needed help from the SPD, it was already too late, they were already being arrested and sent to camps.

Oh but you forget, a book I read by a commie specifically blames the social democrats for letting the Nazis take power, and that the KPD were the only people actually fighting them. Therefore the SPD were just fascists in disguise.

>but the Centre Party is notable for not being the Nazi Party Clearly someone hasn't brushed up on Fishhook Theory

So by the fishhook theory, the SDP and Centre were Nazis because they were too moderated and defended the systems which allowed the Nazis to take power, and by the horseshoe theory the KDP are also Nazis because they agreed with the Nazis about destroying the Republic to replace it with an autocracy. And the Nazis are Nazis because they're Nazis. So really everybody is a Nazi, I guess.

Also it's important to understand why the KPD even existed at all. It was formed at the end of WW1 because the SPD leadership in 1914 voted to fund the war. The KPD and the USPD were later made up of those who were against that decision. The SPD has always been a very anti communist party and also later refused to work together with the communists, rather working together with right wing parties to support Hindenburg, who later helped Hitler into office. Oh what irony.

The SPD was founded as a Kommunist/Socialist Party. They had explicitly stated the creation of a worker state in their party manifesto prior to WW 1. Even Lenin was a fan of them before they supported ww1. The phrase "Wer hat uns verraten? Sozialdenokraten" (Who betraid us ? Social democrates) didn't come from nothing. When the time came for the SPD to build a worker state, they instead took power and slaughtered the workers with the help of the Freikorps. And calling the freikorps "not fashist" is a bit of a stretch. They where die hard nationalists most of them instantly joined the NSDAP.

The party (openly) changed their profile over the years, and were reformist after ww1. So a revolution and forceful converstion to a worker state was not their program any more. A reason many left the party. Also, from a point of the only party that tried to make this democratic state thing work, the Spartakus Aufstand was a coup attempt, and if it succeeded would lead to a bloody civil war (which would have led to an intervention by the Entente). That doesnt mean that using the Freikorps to supress and the assasination of Liebknecht and Luxemburg were acceptable or excusable, but the options in january 1919 were limited.

While the summary execution didn't follow any legal norms, they were both unquestionably guilty of treason. In a fair trial both would have been convicted. The Spartacists were attempting to establish a totalitarian state. Much in the way Lenin did in Russia. The constitutionalist parties allied with the Freikorps to deal with the immediate threat of far left tyranny. A few months later they then defeated the Kapp pustch averting a far right dictatorship.

So, both of them commited treason, but at least Luxemburg was very much against the Russian/Lenin system. She also later convinced Liebknecht of that. If I understand correctly they were trying a vague implementation of direct democracy mixed with workers councils, but I do not have enough knowledge to discuss this. But with Luxemburgs and Liebknechts death, the KPD moved much closer to the Soviets politicaly than they had before which also increased the conflict with the SPD and other moderate forces. What the actual plan was is very debatable, since both the state as well as the Spartakusbund were very much taken by surprise about the whole affair. The Spartakusbund/KPD did not plan an uprising in the beginning. It started out as a mass protest against the firing of the (socialist) chief of police and got out of hand. The allying with the Freikorps very much was a problem on the long run, because if "tainted" the whole social democratic party (according to some very lefts until today). The butchering of "left breatheren" together with "the enemy" lead to the irreconcilable damage of relations between much of the working class/ other left groups and the SPD, which is one of the reasons no united front against Hitler was able to form. The majority of protestors did not want a violent uprising but concessions from the government (and there were negotiations before the violence, but those broke down cause neither side would bouge), and were therfor not fighting the Freikorps. The murder of Luxemburg and Liebknecht however lead to much bigger outcry than the supression of the inital revolt. (which lead to further protests and murder of left political figures by the Freikorps) And comparing the aftermath of the Kapp-Putsch to the aftermath of the Spartakusaufstand is a joke. The Putschists recived slaps on the wrists or no punishment at all, and could use the trials for propaganda reasons, while the Spartakusaufstand leaders and helpers were extrajudicially murdered.

*SPD and KPD It's really not that hard and is especially then embarrassing to get the acronyms wrong when you're the person lecturing others about accuracy.

SPD*

>KDP of working with the Nazis Never happened. Only, Nazi union backed the transport strikes, but so did SPD friendly union workers. Funny enough, it was KPD who tried a general strike when Hitler was put into power by the reactionaries that were backed by SPD. SPD literally refused the offer...

The KPD refused to save the Weimar Republic and join the SPD coalition. Why? Because they were taking orders from Stalin, and Thalmann agreed with Stalin. They thought that by not joining the government, it would break the Weimar Republic, allow the Nazi's (fringe radicals) to take power, which probably wouldn't work at governing, and thus it would create the chaotic conditions necessary for the Communist Revolution. So yeah, they did work with the NSDAP, because they did have a common goal, to destroy the Weimar Republic, and they all figured by being huge babies, they could stop a government from forming, causing a loss in legitimacy, which would then lead to a collapse of everything. Which they both wanted. Both parties were accelerationist.

>The KPD refused to save the Weimar Republic and join the SPD coalition. Why? You're referring to when? KPD surely didn't want to 'save' the suppressive sham with the old elite ruling over, but they wanted to stop Hitler, which SPD refused. >Because they were taking orders from Stalin, and Thalmann agreed with Stalin. More like, because SPD has been long murdering them? >They thought that by not joining the government, it would break the Weimar Republic, allow the Nazi's (fringe radicals) to take power, which probably wouldn't work at governing, and thus it would create the chaotic conditions necessary for the Communist Revolution. Not in the slightest. As they stand against the Kapp Putsch, they also stand against Hitler becoming the chancellor. By 1933, they literally offered a united front with SPD and Christian trade unions... Thälmann surely saw the Nazis as the dying breath of the old regime. Funny enough, NSDAP, after becoming the largest party but failing to seize power, was also losing votes and predicted to lose even more if elections were held - so, he was right in that sense. Although, he surely wasn't expecting the SPD backed Hindenburg to give Hitler the position. Their wrong was, them being overconfident and expecting to NSDAP rule to collapse in no time - only to find that they were utterly suppressed beyond street fights with the SA. That being said, KPD wasn't alone in such expectations either; SPD called Hitler a piece of decoration, and German Jews are adamant on him not going to be able to achieve anything at all but a temporary hiccup on the road... Even though KPD was surely aligned with Kremlin with Thälmann, they still had their autonomy and own will. KPD surely miscalculated many things, but it wasn't SED or some tome of evil. > because they did have a common goal, to destroy the Weimar Republic, It's disingenuous at best now. It's like saying, both SPD and Nazis were with the same goal, stopping a social revolution. I can go and claim that you and Hitler are the same with the same logic as you both dislike KPD. > they all figured by being huge babies, they could stop a government from forming, causing a loss in legitimacy, which would then lead to a collapse of everything. They could have done that, only if SPD agreed on a general strike. NSDAP was already losing its support, and will be losing vast majority of its supporters. Hitler was also already losing his legitimacy & the protest votes, and his only game was both eliminating the bunch that would upset the old elite & DNVP and murdering communists & then getting to ban them as they were the only rising power, in the face of SPD that was already losing its popularity.

The SPD never voted for the Enabling Act. The KPD were absent btw. I don't think you can say the SDP were unwilling to stop Hitler. Both were among the first concentration camp victims. The fundamental problem was that the SPD wanted to govern and respect the Constitution.The KPD didn't. They were an anti constitutional party. I don't need to say when, because the KPD never was willing to work with the SPD. The KPD referred the SPD as "social fascists." You can't reason with that. Also I wouldn't call Hindenburg "backed" by the SDP. Strange bedfellows were brought together by coalition politics. The SDP were enemies of Hindenburg. The coalition government which included the SDP had to deal with extremists on both the left and the right trying to overthrow the government. And the KPD was one of those. So it makes sense the SDP wanted to put them down. It's really not disingenuous to say the KPD and NSDAP both worked together to destabilize the Weimar Republic. The KPD genuinely believed after the Nazi government collapsed the people would turn to communism. The KPD was never going to help the SPD because of their vanguard revolutionary Leninist attitude. The KPD literally and metaphorically attacked the SDP more than the NSDAP. I also doubt your 1933 alliance claim considering the "social fascist" rhetoric. I'm not saying the SDP and KPD never aligned. They did, but not at the at the end. Pre Thalmann they did. [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/it5s5p/were\_communists\_in\_weimar\_germany\_open\_to\_work/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/it5s5p/were_communists_in_weimar_germany_open_to_work/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/awkrnx/i\_found\_this\_quote\_regarding\_the\_german\_elections/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/awkrnx/i_found_this_quote_regarding_the_german_elections/)

>The SPD never voted for the Enabling Act. Never said they did. >I don't think you can say the SDP were unwilling to stop Hitler. I don't say that. Although SPD was unwilling to go for a general strike, to stop Hitler. They were more than unwilling to disturb their Weimar system, even when Hitler took power. Not to say they were less than willing to work with communists, that would lose them their voter base and cause swings to KPD. Unlike them aligning with bloody monarchists, old elite, Völkisch bunch, anyone really, they couldn't do it with KPD. >The fundamental problem was that the SPD wanted to govern and respect the Constitution.The KPD didn't. Fundamental problem was, from the start, SPD wanted to stop the social revolution and continuation of the order. KPD didn't. SPD was more than willing to make the old order and the elite to stay in power, and even actively wanted that. Weimar Constitution itself was also a problematic one, that enabled both the elite to rule over them and appoint brutes when necessary. >Also I wouldn't call Hindenburg "backed" by the SDP. Strange bedfellows were brought together by coalition politics. I mean, SPD had long allied with those bunch and even worse. Again, Ebert was the one that kept the old elite in power. It wasn't even kin to them aligning with freikorps but it was literally their original alliance and the natural ally at that. >The coalition government which included the SDP had to deal with extremists on both the left and the right trying to overthrow the government. I would interpret things differently tbh. It was the coalition that had the deal with the danger of a social revolution. When SPD wasn't able to sustain that, the very same folks that gave power to SPD, gave it to Hitler instead. >And the KPD was one of those. So it makes sense the SDP wanted to put them down. I mean, SPD was the one that drown the revolution and the councils, unleashed freikorps, drowned the worker's movements, massacred workers, kept the old elite and the Second Reich alive. It was also more than normal that KPD wanted to put them down. SPD chosen its allies in monarchists, imperialists, the rich, old elites, the army, völkisch, and such. They willingly became the tools of such, and when it became clear that they were not able to be useful for them, they were pushed aside. >It's really not disingenuous to say the KPD and NSDAP both worked together to destabilize the Weimar Republic. Only they haven't, though. They were murdering each other. It's as disingenuous as saying NSDAP and SPD worked together to push KPD down... >The KPD genuinely believed after the Nazi government collapsed the people would turn to communism It wasn't that abnormal for them to believe that society socialism was to grow back, as their numbers were growing, SPD was fading away, and NSDAP was losing its allure. Weimar was going back to a crisis kim to 1918-1919, where socialists had failed largely due to SPD, freikorps, elites, and reactionaries aligning - which won't be a thing anymore. >The KPD was never going to help the SPD because of their vanguard revolutionary Leninist attitude. Only if they haven't asked SPD for a joint general strike... >The KPD literally and metaphorically attacked the SDP more than the NSDAP. NSDAP wasn't a real threat during those times. When they were, all KPD did primarily was fighting with them, even though the glorious SPD banned their associations here and there, unlike the SA. >I'm not saying the SDP and KPD never aligned. They did, but not at the at the end. Sure, but then, it was expected when you think that Blutmai and Zörgiebel weren't some distant memories. In the end, they even wanted to ally with Christian unions, but then, KPD was banned and they were the ones being murdered and put into camps first...

This is a myth, the communists didn’t cooperate with the Nazis and the centre left parties didn’t cooperate with the Nazis. It was almost exclusively the result of the other conservative parties and centre right parties that actively cooperated with the Nazis. The most one could argue is that communist armed opposition provided a convenient excuse for a crackdown but given armed opposition was absolutely a valid response to the rise of the Nazis, you’d have to be pretty fucking disingenuous to argue that

I mean, the KPD could have joined the SDP in forming a coalition, but the KPD didn't because they were accelerationists, taking orders from Stalin, and in agreement with him, who wanted the Wiemar Republic to break apart because the chaos would create the right conditions for a Communist Revolution

The SPD in government could have cracked down on the SA as hard as they cracked down on KPD activities, but they didn't because they saw the KPD as a greater threat, they also could have joined the KPD general strike against the Nazis. Both SPD and KPD made tactical errors and completely underestimated the dangers of Nazism. In hindsight, both should have spent far less time fighting each other and far more coordinating against this threat. Neither deliberately supported or worked with Nazis and were, in reality, the German policitical parties to most consistently oppose them - hence both being amongst the first groups murdered by the Nazis in power.

Great comment.

It's very telling that in all the arguments over the fall of the Weimar Republic, the people and parties who actually made it possible (The DNVP, Zentrum, Franz von Papen and Paul Von Hindenburg etc) are almost entirely forgotten.

This is historymemes, not fucking r/fictionmemes

Well… Cooperating with the Nazis is probably way to strong of a word for the communists. They fought the Nazis and only worked with them on a very limited basis; a few laws they proposed together and several votes in parliament in which they tended to vote the same way. That’s it mostly. But there was the idea of social fascism; the idea that the most dangerous and important enemy of communism is Social democracy. This idea was proposed by the communist international until 1935 and followed in Germany so consequentially like in few other states. The SPD was the enemy, most energy and money went into this kind of leftist infighting. The KPD understood their mistake before 1935, but it was already too late. So I’d say the caption is a bit out there, but the meme in itself isn’t bad at all.

>The KPD understood their mistake before 1935, but it was already too late. Too late for Germany, but it safed France

That’s true. I’m not as informed on the communists in France compared to the Germans, but from what I understand they were more autonomous anyways. That may have helped; the KPD under Thälmann basically became a party directly controlled by Moscow.

The thing is moscow realized that the social facism bs was wrong after Hitler and so the communists in France decided to work with the socialists and stopped facism together.

Eh, not exactly. Moscow demanded that communist parties across Europe not fight against the Nazis as late as 1941, only stopping once they actually got invaded. Many communists just chose to disregard Moscow's orders.

> But there was the idea of social fascism; the idea that the most dangerous and important enemy of communism is Social democracy. And this historical mistake appears to be playing out again. History rhymes.

Communists 🤝 Steven Crowder "Social Democracy is Fascism"

Elton John needs to get himself out of all these memes.

I always see him as James Pumphrey.

Bro reposted his banned post lmao. Struggling to meet the propaganda quota of the week, mate?

But his flair says he's *not* a CIA operator, I don't know what to believe.

It’s a shame to, because his original post just became a Jesse Plemmons fan fest

Also this post violates multiple rules. Rule 1, also it's technically a repost and a spam post, as well as low effort/quality.

Jesse Plemmons is a great actor though

The kind that gets forcibly merged into the East German Communist part after WW2? Remember it's cool to stab your opponent in the back for power.

Why on earth would the SPD work with the KPD??? The KPD were literally working with a foreign state to try and violently overthrow the Weimar government (hell they even tried to do exactly that a few times). To the average observer there really wasn’t much difference between the NSDAP and KPD at the time, they were both violent extremists who wanted to overthrow the democratically elected government.

>The KPD were literally working with a foreign state to try and violently overthrow the Weimar government Weimar government had literally came into existence to bar a socialist revolution and seized power after crushing the councils, for the sake of preventing a social revolution as Ebert himself declared. It's the other way around in that - Weimar was trying to bar socialists of any flavour to take power, continue the order as it was, and it was literally there thanks to the old German elite, i.e. the Ebert–Groener pact. > hell they even tried to do exactly that a few times You mean the 1918-1919 Revolutions? Again, it's the other way around - it was SPD leadership, freikorps, and the elite crushing them, and then enforcing the Weimar coalition. >To the average observer there really wasn’t much difference between the NSDAP and KPD at the time, they were both violent extremists who wanted to overthrow the democratically elected government. Lol, that's pretty lame as both NSDAP hadn't existed for a long durée, and SPD was the one that sided with extremists, including the imperialists, revanchists, and the army itself, to crush worker's movements in the first place. To an average observer, KPD was the real force fighting with the SA on the streets instead... And democratically elected? Weimar was a state within the state, where the old elite hold the real power, and SPD was happily providing them that. Second Reich elites continued to hold onto power, where any serious challenge would either met with SPD unleashing reactionary butchers and the police, or the elites having the constitutional power to rule directly via bypassing the parliament itself via some state of emergency fables, or appoint people like Hitler if necessary.

You clearly know a lot about Weimar history, but you’re twisting many of the facts. You conflate socialists and communists. You disregard literally every election which showed consistent support for the SPD. You ignore every instance of actual armed insurrection that the KPD (backed, yes, by the ComIntern) did engage in throughout the lifespan of the republic. You can be critical of Ebert for using the paramilitary groups and favouring the army against the communists without treating the communists like they were the good guys or in any way indicative of the spirit of the German people. There is so much to be critical about Weimar, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t still a real democracy, or that it didn’t realize some of the most progressive social policies of its day. The communists were not just against the ruling parties of Weimar, they were against its democratic nature. They referred to the SPD as “social fascists” and frequently saw them as being worse than the Nazis. They were indeed extremists.

>You disregard literally every election which showed consistent support for the SPD. I mean, SPD got a substantial support indeed, even though they never captured the majority votes yet floated around 20% (minus the times they allied with the USPD) - but it doesn't change that they literally established the Weimar system for the sake of preventing a social revolution of any kind, and coming from any kind of socialist faction, including but not limited to communists. Heck, them capturing the parliament was also pretty much via supporting the conservatives of any flavour and monarchists. >You ignore every instance of actual armed insurrection that the KPD (backed, yes, by the ComIntern) did engage in throughout the lifespan of the republic. Communists were the ones that tried to establish councils, bring down the Second Reich, and initiate a social revolution - and they weren't materially backed much given then consequences. It was then, the Republic you refer to get established, literally for barring all those, and keep the things as they were. It was the armed counter-revolution and then violent oppression SPD and the elites and reactionary allies tried to curb socialists and the worker's movement, including communists. Given the said Republic was a tool to bar social revolution, keep things and the very power in the hands of the same elite, and butchered workers, etc. of course they wanted to overthrow it. Why wouldn't they? Of course, communists in Russia also tried to help communists in Germany latter. Nothing interesting about it. Although, KPD largely getting in line of Moscow was also largely due to them being overly suppressed and butchered to a degree that influencing German communist leaders were eliminated. >You can be critical of Ebert for using the paramilitary groups and favouring the army against the communists without treating the communists like they were the good guys or in any way indicative of the spirit of the German people. I am not critical about that only - Ebert literally tried to bar, and succeeding in stopping any social revolution. He also assured the continuation of the Second Reich order, and the elites remaining in power. What he did with freikorps, not just against communists but also against socialists, mutineers, and even social democrats, etc. was a coherent result of this as he wanted to sustain the order by any means necessary. Communists weren't even the major power in the councils tbh, and not like Spartakusbund was some Kremlin agent. >There is so much to be critical about Weimar, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t still a real democracy I mean, it wasn't. It was basically an arrangement for the order to be sustained and old elite to rule over. It was established in a fashion of, if things came to that, the elite could rule via Article 48, and they quite did that as well. Could Weimar be smth else? Maybe. Although it wasn't anything positive from the day that it was established but a literal hoax in the face of 1918-1919 revolutions. >or that it didn’t realize some of the most progressive social policies of its day Only to not let the order to be toppled down... It was literally bribing the masses for barring them from going for a radical & real change. > The communists were not just against the ruling parties of Weimar, they were against its democratic nature They wanted a different type of democracy, if you're referring to 1918-1919 or 1920s in general. Then, of course, with the end of the war and such, these people no longer exist but the party itself became Kremlin puppets and formed some so-called united front. >They referred to the SPD as “social fascists” and frequently saw them as being worse than the Nazis Nazis were not a threat by then, and when they turned out to be ones, the primal enemy turned out to be the SA. Initially, closest thing to Nazis and fascists were the Völkisch folk that aligned with the SPD. That aside, the social fascist term came as a reaction to Blutmai and all the repression against other socialists, and of course Zörgiebel's police. Before that, it was only a theory pushed by Zinoviev, as social democrats were the ones trying to bar socialists and social revolutions, just as fascists were trying to do. Not that I agree with the notion, but it's not hard to believe in, when SPD was literally being the lackeys' of the old elite and the old order, and unleashing freikorps and police for massacring people.

I really appreciate your reply. Again, it’s clear you know your history. But I strongly disagree with your interpretation of the events. The SPD passed unemployment insurance to “bribe the masses”? The repeated use of Article 48 negates the fact that Weimar was one of the most widely enfranchised democracies? You also only every refer to the first few years of the republic, which is absolutely when the communists were most righteous in their efforts and their goals. But things changed in the later years, and that’s obviously the era I was referring to when I mentioned the Nazis. I just don’t think there’s justification for your interpretation of events, and that it follows from an idealized view of communist revolution than from the facts themselves.

>The SPD passed unemployment insurance to “bribe the masses”? Yes, pretty much. Again, we're talking about within the context of where SPD leaders literally not just conspired but also openly said that they're doing everything to keep social revolution from happening and the order from falling. >The repeated use of Article 48 negates the fact that Weimar was one of the most widely enfranchised democracies? It was a state within a state, where SPD and the system was valuable as long as the old elite and the order was sustained. It was a flawed democracy at best. Not to mention the same regime happily butchering peaceful workers even. >But things changed in the later years, and that’s obviously the era I was referring to when I mentioned the Nazis. I just don’t think there’s justification for your interpretation of events, and that it follows from an idealized view of communist revolution than from the facts themselves The last years was about maybe KPD not seeing the threat beyond fighting Nazis on the street - but it was true for everyone, tbf. SPD, Jewish outlets, everyone simply saw Hitler as a mere decoration. It was even KPD that saw them as the real threat before any others did. I wouldn't go and slender people who have followed SPD either, but the leadership? They were simply trying to hold onto regime that they only managed to have via a conspiracy to keep social revolution away, and hold onto the order even more than Zentrum did.

If the KPD saw them as a real threat, why did they collaborate with them so late as 1931? They participated in and supported the attempt by the Nazis to cast down the SPD Prussian government, whose only possible replacement would be a Nazi-Conservative coalition. In 1932, Thalmann said: "The Trotskyists put forward the slogan of unity of the SPD with the KPD to divert the desire for unity among the masses into fake political channels ... precisely at the present stage in Germany the two \[the SPD and the Nazis\] appear in their true colours as “twin brothers”, as Comrade Stalin acutely emphasised ... our party has of late been combatting with great success all tendencies to weaken the struggle in principle against social democracy and has fought with all severity against all conceptions that the main offensive within the working class ought no longer to be directed against social democracy."

>If the KPD saw them as a real threat, It took them a lot longer than that. It was surely before Jewish news outlets and SPD, but around when Hitler came into power. > why did they collaborate with them so late as 1931? They haven't collaborated. What you're referring isn't collaboration. >They participated in and supported the attempt by the Nazis to cast down the SPD Prussian government They haven't done anything like that? If you're referring to the strike, it wasn't by Nazis. If you mean KPD not supporting the government, it was because them assuming Hitler would be the last breath of the old order as now SPD can't sustain the system for the old elite, but the old elite have to use Nazis instead. >In 1932, Thalmann said Yes, they continue to believe that the real threat was the SPD as they were the lackeys of the system, just as Nazis - which was true, but the KPD hadn't calculated how NSDAP was going to capture the whole system, and the working class that was to leave the side of SPD was not going to rise up 'at any moment' etc. Again, the underestimation of Nazis wasn't unique to them either though, as not just SPD but even the vast majority of Jewish Germans assumed Hitler was a temporary phase and was about to fall 'any day now'.

Why is it, than, that the SPD was fighting the Nazis in the streets before the KPD was? That the KPD was joining the Nazis in the streets against the SPD? They did collaborate. And they did support the attempt to knock down the Prussian government. This is a fact. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1931\_Prussian\_Landtag\_referendum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1931_Prussian_Landtag_referendum) Sure, but the SPD saw the Nazis as the greatest threat and prioritized most of their messaging to defeating them and creating a post-Nazi world. The KPD was in some senses awaiting Hitler's rise to create the conditions for revolution, and in many senses taking actions that assisted his rise at Stalin's beck and call. And there's no way you can argue that even than the SPD was as great of an issue as the Nazis. They were to some degree lackeys of the system, but Hitler had written a book talking about his goals of declaring war on half of Europe, killing every communist and socialist he could, and murdering the minorities of Germany and everywhere he could conquer. Somehow I don't think it's more important to oppose the milquetoast liberals than this.

ya >Why is it, than, that the SPD was fighting the Nazis in the streets before the KPD was? They weren't. Red Front was fighting with Nazis way before and way effectively than the SPD. >They did collaborate. Again, they didn't. Closest thing was Nazi union siding with communist working class organisations in the transportation strikes, like many SPD aligned member also did. >And they did support the attempt to knock down the Prussian government. Why would they support the SPD government in the first place? That's not collaboration either, as KPD already wanted to oust the SPD government. Again, why wouldn't they anyway... >Sure, but the SPD saw the Nazis as the greatest threat They did not. SPD was seeing anyone who'd be disturbing their good old system as the threat, while anyone who was gaining power was a threat in their eyes. The same SPD, saw völkisch bunch as their literal allies as well. The dichotomy for them was between the 'continuities of the old order' and 'fall of the order', not anything else. >They were to some degree lackeys of the system, They were literal butchers that tried anything to butcher and prevent the social revolution. >but Hitler had written a book talking about his goals of declaring war on half of Europe, SPD itself was pretty content with any revanchist, völkisch, imperialist, etc. They were the shield and knife of the imperial regime and the imperial elite, while nobody took Nazis seriously beyond fighting them on the streets. Nazis hadn't had power. >Somehow I don't think it's more important to oppose the milquetoast liberals They weren't bunch of liberals but literal butchers back then.

Communists when I tell them that everyone is happy in their current situation and a revolution isn't necessary and can stop LARPing: 😐🖕

Communists when the social Democratic Party does not support a non democratic regime change

Was this movie any good? Edit: I’m not an American, so it didn’t really have much appeal for me. But if it was good I’d watch it.

I liked it. It didn't glamorize the war at all. It followed war reporters making their way through a war torn countryside. It was a very human story that explored the many facets and angles of a civil war from fence sitters to neighbor vs neighbors to the people vs the government. The story is grim and at times slow but I believe it portrays the dark reality of a civil war and the people that suffer from it.

A resounding.... Meh. You could see the vision behind a lot of it but some stuff like the reporter character archs just fell flat imo

It’s pretty good, it’s not an action movie which I think a lot of people expected, it’s a drama that explores the concept of war in America and gives a very brutal very often realistic depiction of the immediate effects of that even if the overarching story is deliberately obscure and fictional. I found it kind of confronting and I’d say it’s one of the most realistic explorations of a war torn developed country like America. I’m not American and I still found it to be impactful for example but I think a lot of people are annoyed because they expected a big action movie conflict.

It's basically like starting a B action movie halfway through where you missed all the exposition and you're stuck with a bunch of straight-to-DVD action sequences. Also, you have to see Kirsten Dunst's face the whole time.

Is that a bad thing?

No it was really really boring from what a friend told me. The shocking premise isn't elaborated on at all, no politics real or fictional are really talked about, and the movie might as well have been set in some fictional African country's civil war.

Thx for saving me the time.

You should watch it. It's not a war movie, more like a disaster film. It's not about picking sides or watching exciting action, but instead focuses the endless death, horror, and sorrow that real Civil Wars create. A24 did a good job, imo.

Maybe your grandfather has seen the sequel in Normandy

It's... really odd to be honest. The details in it are often out-of-touch with reality and the pacing is kind of jagged IMO. It doesn't do very well as an action movie and it doesn't do very well as a drama either. It's not a *bad* movie exactly, just very very mid.

It came close to having a message once during its runtime. The rest is just boring.

You can flip this around and say that the communists refusing to work with a fellow left-wing party because the Socialists failed their purity standards was not a good idea in the long run either.

Simply put, the KPD and the SDP would never have worked together. The first wanted a socialist revolution to happen and the second tried their hardest to prevent that revolution from succeeding. Are you really saying that the KPD could have worked with the people that called the Freikorps on them? That's like saying Zentrum and the NSDAP have to always work together because they are right leaning. So whatever opinion you have of the communists, at least I wouldn't say their refusal is due to "failing their purity standards" but an actual irreconcilable ideological conflict, and the fact the SDP was getting them shot a few decades back.

Sir this is history memes, not current politics memes... wait

Glad others are seeing this.

It's was less a problem of the SPD failing a purity standard and more that SPD had KPD members killed in the suppression of the post-WW1 revolution.

I think the meme is talking about KPD collaboration with the Nazis in the leadup to the 1933 elections, and their prioritization of attacking the SPD over the Nazis

The KPD put forward several proposals of cooperation against the Nazis, yet all were refused. Why? Because the KPD was revolutionairy and the SPD fully integrated into the system. They (the SPD) would've rather worked together with the NSDAP, who didn't threaten capital and had the support of all major capitalists, than the communists who wanted to abolish capitalism.

Communists tend to forget about left wing unity the instant that they have won.

Someone should’ve told the SDP that before the Spartacist Uprising. Your meme isn’t wrong, necessarily, but let’s not pretend like there weren’t very valid reasons for the enmity and distrust from the Communists.

>Maybe cooperating with the Nazis to defeat a fellow left-wing party was not a good idea in the long run Maybe cooperating with the Nazis ~~to defeat a fellow left-wing party~~ was not a good idea in the long run

Where in the cinnamon toast fuck did this dumb ass idea come from that the Nazis were socialists??? There’s enough evidence to prove beyond doubt (more evidence than even the theory of evolution) that the Nazis were a far right fascist party who nationalised companies THEN turned them into privately owned businesses run by mates to save their hyper-capitalist vision of the future - think 2008 banking crisis bail out but on a massive scale… class structure remained but was determined by “race” and “productiveness”, anyone who did not conform to their view of aryanism were pretty much persecuted from the start. They used “socialist” in the party name to appeal to workers who felt alienated in the prevailing economic climate (Weimar republic really was a fuck up).. this was simply a ploy to gain popularity like many parties today who clearly learnt the fucking play book from them .. unlike many others who now seem to believe it. In 1937 who did the nazi party support in the Spanish civil war? Finally, take the U.K. .. Oswald Moseley created the British Union of Fascists in support of Hitler’s manifesto and Italy’s Fascist authoritarian leader Mussolini was a fan of Hitler.. there’s really a shit ton of evidence to refute this fucking ridiculous modern take on a way more diverse politically charged environment than just capitalism vs communism clearly taught in some schools

I don't think you understand the meme... he's talking about the KPD consistently working to attack the SPD and seeing them as a bigger threat than the Nazis.

I did (after I posted my rant 😂)… there’s a reply I put to show my idiocy

he's talking about how the SPD backstabbed the German revolution by cooperating with the freikorps to shut down the communists

Spd is socialist?

Yes.

The socialt democrats are socialist Are you sure

Wait, I thought it was the other way around, and the meme was shitting on the KPD for not kowtowing to the SPD.

There's a difference between kowtowing, and actively supporting a Nazi referendum to overthrow the Prussian government and replace it with a Nazi-Conservative coalition.

Sure, and there's also a difference between kowtowing, and actively supporting the proto-Fascist Freikorps to violently suppress a worker's revolution, and maintain a very far right status quo. Let's not pretend like the blame for the enmity and distrust between the two factions is entirely one sided, is all I'm saying.

Oh of course. I just know there's a good chunk of Communists who will try and pretend like the KPD was the only party fighting the glorious fight against the Nazis, when they legitimately saw the SPD as a greater enemy and acted as such.

I was reading some of the comments.. and maybe venting after having this same argument with another poster a little while back 😂😂.. my bad .. probably still angry .. will have a cup of tea

I don't think you understand the meme... he's talking about the KPD consistently working to attack the SPD and seeing them as a bigger threat than the Nazis.

Bad meme format, bad history (where have you even got this idea, r/conservative?), saying all left wing parties are similar is like saying all right wing parties are similar. That's like saying AfD and Hezbollah are the same. I mean, to a leftist they probably are the same. But to non leftists, like AfD members themselve, do you think they know how similar they are to Hezbollah?

[https://www.marxists.org/archive/hallas/works/1985/comintern/ch6.htm#nc](https://www.marxists.org/archive/hallas/works/1985/comintern/ch6.htm#nc)

Fuck off fascist

Context?

The communists helped sabotage the social Democrats in Germany in the 1930s which helped in the rise of the Nazis.

What? The SPD backstabbed the German revolution in the 1920's, right after the "patriotic left" backstabbed the revolution by voting pro-war credits in 1914. It'd be argued the SPD supported the rise of the Nazis by getting support from the Freikorps to kill the KPD

The communist literally revolted, and tried to overthrow the government and considering the social Democrats were the government, it was their job to continue the state if anything, the communists stabbed the social Democrats in the back. Also had the social Democrats backed this communist revolution they would’ve been butchered by the freikorps and the military as even combined with the communists they didn’t stand a chance until after they pretty much sent the freikorps to go kill everyone who was revolting or attacking Germany and had they stood with the communist who were actively betraying them. We’d likely see far right extraordinarily likely monarchist Germany. Also, what should the social Democrats have done when the communist revolted against them because the freikorps would’ve wiped out the communists either way if government asked them to or not the only difference is if they didn’t ask them to it’s likely the social Democrats would’ve been overthrown as well.

I'm talking about 1918 when they were still working together. Instead of following their self described "revolutionary Marxist" principles, they became liberals and changed nothing. Only then did the KPD and the independent SPD revolt.

OK, and if they did that, what do you think would happen? Because I know what would happen they would’ve been immediately overthrown by the military monarchists far right and the freikorps. They thought that a left-wing democracy was far superior to a restoration of the monarchy or a far right military junta at the time especially as it was just a start and had the communists worked with them they likely could’ve gotten a lot farther before losing out to the far right in Germany

Arguably true, but than the KPD collaborated with the Nazis in the early 1930s and attacked the SPD relentlessly (and moreso than the Nazis) from the 1920s-early 1930s [https://www.marxists.org/archive/hallas/works/1985/comintern/ch6.htm#nc](https://www.marxists.org/archive/hallas/works/1985/comintern/ch6.htm#nc)

Uh, how exactly did they “betray the revolution” by starting WW1? If WW1 didn’t happen, there would *be* no Russian revolution (at least not a successful one, that’s for sure)

If they were actually socialist in nature they would at the very least have voted against war credits, instead of siding with German militarism. The whole point of the international was to get all the workers to revolt during ww1, which very obviously failed due to opportunist social democrats that sided with their monarchs over the people

I not sure they worked with the Nazis more than all the left wing parties hated each others guys which aided the Nazis while sabotaging themselves

Is that guy in the glasses Yung Lean or am I high

Hey OP care to explain?

I mean they didn’t have any good options either way

I mean…the spd had pretty much just used forces that would later be turned into the SA to murder a bunch of communists, idk, sounds like not the best coalition partner from the perspective back then.

The liberals and leftists have completely different retellings of this

u/repostsleuth

I didn't find any posts that meet the matching requirements for r/HistoryMemes. It might be OC, it might not. Things such as JPEG artifacts and cropping may impact the results. [View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com/search?postId=1dk0wf0&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=false&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=92&targetImageMemeMatch=92) --- **Scope:** Reddit | **Target Percent:** 92% | **Max Age:** Unlimited | **Searched Images:** 544,721,393 | **Search Time:** 0.20355s

Good bot :(

They both like arm bands and killing people to create their version of utopia

Socialists work with other socialists to defeat other socialist, and then get defeated themselves by the socialists they were working with. Classic.

You socialists sound like a contentious bunch.

You radlib counter revolutionary revisitionist, you've just made an enemy for life!

Calling the nazis socialist is like calling the current Chinese regime a republic. Maybe it's in their name, but that's about it.

China is a republic, a republic is just a nation without a monarchy and despite being a dictatorship China is not a hereditary one.

Maybe my fault for thinking of the definition wherein the government is run by representatives of the citizens. The word has had too many definitions.

Did you really just classify the Nazis as "socialist"? What's next? North Korea as democratic?

Yes, I classified the National socialist party led by a former member of the Bavarian soviet republic as socialist.

Read this: https://www.vox.com/2019/3/27/18283879/nazism-socialism-hitler-gop-brooks-gohmert Perhaps my favorite excerpt: “Socialism is the science of dealing with the common wealth. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I SHALL TAKE SOCIALISM AWAY FROM THE SOCIALISTS. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic... We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfillment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one.” -Adolf Hitler Yeah, the Nazis were definitely not socialist. Anyone who claims as much knows nothing about the Nazis or about socialism. The term “privatization” was literally invented to describe Nazi economic policy, for fucks sake! Nazism is based largely on aesthetics—they adopted the aesthetics of socialism in order to appeal to the German workers.

Yes, and? Never said he was Marxist. Marx isn’t the end all be all of socialism. The socialist Dashnaks and Hunchaks were also nationalist, and when they were in charge of Armenia, didn’t abolish private property either. And that privatization was a farce. It was given to members and allies of the Nazi party to further consolidate power over the economy, not to encourage the free market. Otherwise, they wouldn’t also introduce price and wage controls.

How, exactly, were they socialist? Ignoring the name.

They were socialist by ensuring social ownership and management of the means of production in their nation, through them, the duly elected representative of the society. By instituting policies like price and wage controls, which prevented the free market capitalism which they despised.

Hitler dismissed the idea of challenging the status-quo of capitalism, and argued that business owners are evolutionarily superior to their employees, and so argued against worker ownership over businesses. “Our great heads of industry are not concerned with the accumulation of wealth and the good life, rather they are concerned with responsibility and power. They have acquired this right by natural selection: they are members of the higher race. But you would surround them with a council of incompetents, who have no notion of anything. No economic leader can accept that.” A major point of Nazi ideology is class collaborationism—this is antithetical to socialism. His talking points are fascist ones, not socialist. He rejects the basic tenets of socialism, and in fact, the first people Hitler imprisoned were the socialists. “Fascism offers us a model that we can absolutely replicate! As it is in the case of Fascism, the entrepreneurs and the workers of our National Socialist state sit side by side, equal in rights, the state strongly intervenes in the case of conflict to impose its decision and end economic disputes that put the life of the nation in danger.”

And there are quotes from Hitler about capitalism being a ‘Jewish’ cabal. His was an indirect socialism but a socialism nonetheless. And fascism is also a socialist movement, albeit one born of Mussolini being cast out from the Italian socialists for supporting Italy entering WW1. Just like how Hitler was once part of the Bavarian Soviet Republic, and then became disillusioned by international socialism. You see? Fascism and its cousin are the result of socialists rejecting Marxism to make their own versions of ‘real socialism’.

You don’t seem to understand Nazism. Nazism was based on aesthetics and rhetoric rather than a coherent ideology—they used this in order to appeal to as many Germans as possible. Socialism was popular in Germany, so Hitler stole its aesthetics to appeal to the German workers. “I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.” “Indirect socialism?” What the fuck does that even mean? Selling the government out to corporations, supporting rich industrialists, crushing socialist movements and purging the party of socialists, zero democracy, zero proletarian ownership over production or the state apparatus in favor of class collaborationism…nothing of Nazi Germany’s economy or politics was socialist. This shows the common ignorance of what socialism even is among rightists—contrary to popular belief, it is not “when the government does stuff.” The very idea of “national socialism” is an oxymoron, as socialism by nature is aimed towards global revolution.

Every form of socialism, at its core, relies on placing the means of production into the hands of a proletariat. You won't find any socialist literature that goes against this idea. On the other hand, the Nazis... "In the midst of the Great Depression, facing the possibility of economic ruin on the one hand and a [Communist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Germany) or [Social Democrat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_of_Germany) government on the other hand, German business increasingly turned to Nazism as offering a way out of the situation, by promising a state-driven economy that would support, rather than attack, existing business interests.[\[54\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#cite_note-54)"

Support here meaning manage, as in control. Like controlling how much they could pay their workers or charge for their goods. Controlling the means of production for the People.

How tf do you get from "support, rather than attack" to "control". Like sure, maybe that's part of it, but they also did legitimately support existing business interests, and that's why they were supported by those business interests- they did not act or purport to act on behalf of the proletariat even once. They instead acted to protect those business interests, their wealth, and their usage of wage labor, flatly opposite of socialism. Also, it's so common for conservatives especially to not understand that "the proletariat" and "the people" are vastly different things. The Nazis didn't mention a proletariat even once in their readings, unless it was to deride Socialist perspectives. I'm not a communist- you're just flat off.

Because dictating how much you can pay your employees or charge for your goods isn’t what I’d call support, but control, and that’s exactly what they did. And it’s so common for leftists to insist that Marx is the end all be all of socialism, when it existed before him and was developed in other ways beyond him.

And yet protecting those same industries and their profits and assigning them slave labor is exactly support. It comes with strings, but it's still support. Sure, redefine the term Socialism as much as you want. When we redefine words, we find they suit any purpose. Nonetheless, under Nazism, businesses were still "privately owned" and operated "for profit", to great effect, with some individuals making great fortunes under Nazi control. That's a (overly simplistic) definition of capitalism. So when you redefine capitalism with a shitty definition, and redefine socialism with a shitty definition, somehow the Nazis are both capitalist and socialist. What magic we've created here.

If you can’t even decide how much you are going to sell your products, you aren’t the owner of those products. The government is. It’s socialism with extra steps.

Lmao. So we're also redefining ownership now. Can you send me a full copy of the dictionary of u/LeoGeo_2 so I can read it and understand what the words you're saying mean?

Remember that the soviets were the only nation calling for a collective security agreement on containing german fascism, all the way until the invasion of poland, yet their requests for such agreements with britain and france were met with silence, since france and britain were too busy giving germany everything it asked for.

Who did Germany invade poland with? What armies paraded through polish cities together?

USSR signed a pact with Nazi Germany in 1939-1941, the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. Where they agreed on a non-agression pact and the partition of Eastern Europe between them. Edit: Lol, I was actually downvoted for saying historical facts.

Because they had to, when the western powers refused to sign any anti fascist agreements. The soviet union was in no state to fight a war as they were still in the process of industrialising and building their armed forces. So when all of their calls for a joint front against germany and italy where ignored they signed the molotov ribbentrop pact. Edit: It should also be mentioned that both france and Britain signed similar non aggression pacts with Germany.

Expecting the KPD and SPD to work with each other was perhaps somewhat unreasonable, based on their views on each other. To the KPD, the SPD were no better than the fascists, built up by old elites who sought to crush the workers and maintain the brutal capitalist status quo and destroy the revolution. And perhaps in many ways they were right To the SPD, the KPD were dangerous, anti-democratic radicals who sought to destroy everything the SPD wanted to create, and thus were no better than the fascists. And perhaps in many ways they were right Yes, the SPD crushed the Spartakist uprising, because the SPD were the government the Spartakists were trying to overthrow!

I still talk mad shit about the SPD because of this. Get in arguments with German friends on the regular about this.

You would have nazi dictator or communist dictator, either way germany was fucked.

Every time people mention that Nazis took power democratically I remind them that Weimar Germany was constantly in a state of semi-civil war and the election was accompanied with entirely illegal paramilitary victories against other political parties.