Turns out, "After Hitler, our turn!" isn't a great strategy
29 comments
Turns out social democrats killing communist leaders (Spartacists), being lenient on fascists (Kapp Putsch) then using said fascists to kill communists (Freikorps and Ruhr uprisings) wasn't a great strategy either.
So across the board the whole "building and using fascism as a controllable tool" doesn't work out so well.
"How could those evil social democrats kill Communist leaders? It's not like the Spartacists or Ruhr uprising were doing anything like an armed uprising against the government! Mean ol' social fascists!"
Fucking pathetic.
They absolutely were rebelling. There were soviets and peoples republics being set up in Germany in the aftermath from WW1 and the treaty.
And the fascist Freikorps units were also doing an armed rebellion. The SPD rolled over for them then set them with military support against the KPD.
The story for the SPD is erroneously thinking they could use and control fascists to suppress communism and enable their political will.
The story for the KPD is erroneously thinking they could use and control fascists to suppress the SPD and enable their political will.
Looking at one and not the other in this historical scenario as to how the Nazis came to power is exactly how the fascists come to power.
Ah yes because armed uprisings against governments should be stopped by killing people...
We're gonna get to see it again in the USA! Whee!
It's fucking scary
Do you have communists in USA? I thought the species was extinct in the states.
It’s really interesting how people that spout this rhetoric universally just happen to agree with fascist ideologies, or use disingenuous both sides arguments that just happen to agree with right wing trite
I don't see the rhetoric here. It's just what happened and the cartoon fish are funny.
So now is the time when history is rewritten so that fascists can have another try at world domination?
"We can't work with those dumb-sucks from the iron front; they're too right-wing!"
Communists have a long track record of putting tyrants into power.
As do moderates who are eager to appease tyrants.
The German social democrats, the moderate party during the Weimar Republic, were the only party to vote against the enabling act (nazi takeover)
Revolutions hurt poor and working class people more than they hurt those in power. Violent revolutions are not something that should ever be worshipped or deliberately sought.
I mean they got GDR in the end, so... Success!
It took a while, but they did get half of Germany (sort of)
Turns out social democrats killing communist leaders (Spartacists), being lenient on fascists (Kapp Putsch) then using said fascists to kill communists (Freikorps and Ruhr uprisings) wasn't a great strategy either.
So across the board the whole "building and using fascism as a controllable tool" doesn't work out so well.
"How could those evil social democrats kill Communist leaders? It's not like the Spartacists or Ruhr uprising were doing anything like an armed uprising against the government! Mean ol' social fascists!"
Fucking pathetic.
They absolutely were rebelling. There were soviets and peoples republics being set up in Germany in the aftermath from WW1 and the treaty.
And the fascist Freikorps units were also doing an armed rebellion. The SPD rolled over for them then set them with military support against the KPD.
The story for the SPD is erroneously thinking they could use and control fascists to suppress communism and enable their political will.
The story for the KPD is erroneously thinking they could use and control fascists to suppress the SPD and enable their political will.
Looking at one and not the other in this historical scenario as to how the Nazis came to power is exactly how the fascists come to power.
Ah yes because armed uprisings against governments should be stopped by killing people...