“First they came for the communists, but I did not speak out because I was not a communist”
Hitler was the literal opposite of a communist. He came for the communists before he came for the Jews.
Lol, Hitler literally got his start telling his gangs to go beat the shit out of communists.
Revisionist history much?
Hitler’s mind, communism was a major enemy of Germany, an enemy he often mentions in Mein Kampf. During the trial for his involvement in the Beer Hall Putsch, Hitler claimed that his singular goal was to assist the German government in “fighting Marxism”.[138]Marxism, Bolshevism, and communism were interchangeable terms for Hitler as evidenced by their use in Mein Kampf:
In the years 1913 and 1914 I expressed my opinion for the first time in various circles, some of which are now members of the National Socialist Movement, that the problem of how the future of the German nation can be secured is the problem of how Marxism can be exterminated.[139]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
Trump, as an avid reader of Mein Kampf, will no doubt set them straight!
Just because the Nazis called themselves the “national socialist party” did NOT make them communists. They called themselves that to attract naive revolutionary idiots who thought the government would help them. But they were always fascists.
North Korea calls itself “The People’s Democratic Republic of North Korea” even though is not the People’s, not Democratic, and definitely not a Republic. It’s a marketing gimmick by the government to pretend that it’s something it isn’t.
Yeah, we’ve known Musk is an utter moron for years now. He doesn’t need to keep proving it.
When you’re further right than Hitler but whine that people call you a Nazi…
Yeah, I remember watching Elon personally shooting fire Jewish babies to death yesterday and curb stomping a few more…
Oh wait, that didn’t happen and FFS dude, stop with the hyperbolic nonsense. Elon musk is the scum of the earth but he is by far still not further right than Hitler. He very well may become, but for the moment he’s not.
I was just reading some news on Meta, and it certainly did happen, there is plenty of articles to prove it.
Yeah I just some an article on FB about how Musk ate raw babies. Not saying it’s true, just that people should think for themselves.
Same thing that happened with Biden on here with people accusing him of literal genocide as if he flew over there and shot people with his own hands. Some Lemmings are quite dramatic.
Also, where did all the “genocide Joe” comments go after November? I haven’t seen a single one.
Are you suggesting Hitler manned the gas chambers himself? As far as direct murder goes, Hitler probably never killed a socialist, Roma, Jew or homosexual. The policies under his leadership resulted in the mass extermination of millions. That’s why we charge him with genocides. Likewise, Joe Biden’s policies enabled and continue to enable a preventable genocide.
So Hitler was also innocent of genocide since he didn’t personally murder any Jews?
Well, Hitler was the one giving the orders. But the Israeli genocide is being directed by Netanhyahu and his cabinet. I don’t mean that Biden isn’t complicit because that is different.
Because you stay on . world, whose admins and mods consistently and repeatedly ban anyone that’s Against the US Democrat party or suggest there are any flaws with them.
Joe Biden’s legacy will be suppressing the working class and genocide.
You don’t need to assume that I don’t subscribe to other instances or have other accounts. I subscribe to a lot of your instance’s communities, for example.
Joe Biden’s legacy will be suppressing the working class and genocide.
No doubt, given that he has barely lifted a finger for the working class who deserve better but I didn’t mean anything related to that.
Following through and holding beliefs have very little to do with each other. There’s a reason you can’t find pictures of musk and Zuckerberg being friendly to each other.
Hitler killed communists
Hitler killed Hitler
Therefore, Hitler = communists
Checkmate, liberals 😎
You know what… that math checks out. Approved!
Those people are so dumb that they’re turning against their own idols. Next thing you know they’re gonna be saying Mussolini was never involved in WWII nor right leaning because of how much of a disgrace he was. Can’t have people who failed at being a terroristic right wing dictator in their revisionist history books.
They are not dumb, just evil.
Weidel is a lesbian living in swiss with her Thai wife and 2 adopted children.
In Germany she wants to prohibit gay marriage or any other form of family other than nuclear and hates migrants.
I have no idea who pays her but this is a level of cognitive dissonance only explainable with hardcore corruption.
Known hip-hop expert Lil Wayne and my toaster agree: “2 plus 2 equals a hug and maybe a pepperoni pizza”
real recognize real
Even more than ethnic supremacy/hatred, nazi ideology is anti-communist first. The intersection with Jews at the time was that European communist leaders were Jews, and the communist party was leading opposition party before Reichstag fire provided the opportunity to ban them. Jews tended to not vote for nazi party.
In anti-communist/right wing rulership systems, the government helps business be richer and more powerful. This was definitely the system/dynamic under Hitler, and US imprisoned many German business leaders for a short time after the war until their own anti-communist ideology was aligned with their values.
…but…he was a socialist… a national socialist to be more precise…
edit: it’s a play off of what “Nazi” meant, Nationalsozialist.
Jesus you people are thicker than a clogged toilet. read a fucking book.
He was a socialist the same way a tomato is a socialist.
Tomatoes are socialists now
That’s going to make plenty of headlines lol
was more of a play off of “nazi” than actual facts.
like all fascist pieces of shit, if there are words spoken from their mouths they are all lies.
Not at all. The Nazi party was formed specifically to combat the rising KPD and the unions, and to facilitate privitization and protect the interests of Capitalists. I recommend reading Blackshirts and Reds.
The word Nazi, meaning “a member of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party,” is short for the German term for National Socialist (Nationalsozialist).
but also
Although the word socialist appears in the party title for Nazism, the Nazi ideology doesn’t have much to do with far-left traditional socialism. Hitler’s definition of National Socialism, a platform that serves one’s country only, is closer to far-right fascism and authoritarianism on the ideological spectrum.
so although your understanding is correct, colloquially I am also correct. besides it was a joke.
Wasn’t obvious it was a joke, tons of right-wingers unironically repeat that same line and believe it.
Eh, three arrows isn’t really a good source either. Being against Socialism/Communism (one of the arrows in the 3) is a big red flag for attacking claims of Nazis being Socialist. A much better source would be Blackshirts and Reds by Dr. Michael Parenti.
The arrow is not against socialism. The arrows represent monarchism, fascism and communism.
You have an “.ml” next to your name, so I’m going to assume that you know the difference between socialism and communism.
Historically, the three arrows symbol has been used by groups attacking Socialists, hence why I added the slash. Overwhelmingly, those who use the three arrows, including those who originated the symbol, are Social Democrats. Social Democracy is not Socialism, it’s Capitalism with larger and more robust safety nets, and as such said Social Democrats have historically had just as much problem with Socialists as they have with Communists.
This is without getting into my own personal analysis of Socialism, that being that any society dedicated to maintaining Socialism will almost certainly eventually move towards Commnism anyways. This is just historical contextualization. Three Arrows the YouTuber identifies as a Social Democrat as well, so this is again reinforcing the idea that I don’t think someone who isn’t a Socialist and doesn’t support Socialism should be seen as an authority on analyzing whether or not a system is Socialist.
That’s why I recommended a historian with a doctorate who wrote a famous book on precisely this subject. It’s a quick, snappy read too.
The SPD, to this day, still works towards democratic socialism. It’s been in the programme since the start. They have a lot of “belly-aches” along the way and they’re often called traitors but, well, if they weren’t leftists they could hardly betray the left, could they.
Social Democracy is not Socialism, it’s Capitalism with larger and more robust safety nets
And Marxism-Leninism is state capitalism, not socialism. Maoism doesn’t even have public healthcare, Bismark was more of a socialist than that.
Scholz was one of the people pivotal to removing the passage about socialism from the SPD manifesto.
"Im August 2003 vor dem 140. Jahrestag der SPD schlug der damalige Generalsekretär Olaf Scholz vor, den Begriff ganz aus dem künftigen SPD-Grundsatzprogramm zu streichen:[46]
„Es gibt keinen Zustand mit diesem Namen, der auf unsere marktwirtschaftlich geprägte Demokratie folgen wird. Deshalb sollten wir nicht solche Illusionen erzeugen.“"
Not Scholz in particular, all Seeheimer hate the term but they were not successful in removing it from the programme, here it is.
“Democratic Socialism” is a bit of a misnomer. It usually means one of two things, achieving Socialism via liberal democracy (impossible, as was proven by Rosa Luxemburg) or creating a Socialism via revolution but recreating liberal democracy, and not Socialist democracy, which is contradictory. In reality, therefore, it remains a Social Democratic ideology that upholds Capitalism but wishes to expand safety nets, and therefore isn’t Socialist at all.
As for State Capitalism, that refers to a specific period of time, namely the NEP. The economy of states guided by Marxism historically are guided by public ownership and central planning, which was core to Marx’s conception of an eventual Communist society. “State Capitalism” refers to a specific formation where a Socialist State employs a market-focused economy and heavily guides it in a manner to achieve quick development, as Marxists believe public ownership and central planning is incredibly difficult to build “from the ground up” but that Markets readily create the infrastructure for public ownership and central planning through competition.
(impossible, as was proven by Rosa Luxemburg)
Err what.
“State Capitalism” refers to a specific formation where a Socialist State employs a market-focused economy
Lenin’s economy. Market-focussed. I’m just going to leave that standing there, uncommented.
See I don’t even disagree, in principle, with the statement “The SPD does not know how to bring about socialism”. Only Anarchists do. Thing is: The SPD’s approach is still way more on the money than anything tankies have ever come up with.
With respect to Rosa Luxemburg, I am referring to Reform or Revolution, an excellent work.
For the uncommented bit, I am not sure the point you are making here. The goal of Socialism is not a fully publicly owned and planned economy, those are the means once industry has developed enough to make such a system practical. Russia was extremely underdeveloped when the NEP was employed. I think reading Marx might help you understand a bit more:
The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.
In a country where such a process hadn’t yet become more developed, the Marxist answer is to create the foundations for public ownership and planning through a highly controlled and temporary market-focused economy, which was done away with.
The bit on the SPD is a bit silly, you claim that they are on the money yet have never created any form of Socialism, while Marxists have. You can be an Anarchist if you think that’s best, that’s your choice, but I recommend reading Marx if you want to better critique Marxists.
Is that German Leader an artist or USSA citizen?
Everyone with half a brain agrees Musk and the far right German leader are wankers.
They don’t care what we think.
They’re interested in catering to people who are stupid or impressionable. There are more of them and they are more violent.
Unfortunately, there’s a lot of people out there missing half their brain.
Hey! Whoa! That’s NOT true!
I lost my whole mind, and I STILL agree! It’s so obvious, even an idiot like me can see.
Fuck, someone should have let Hitler know before Leningrad. Could have saved a lot of time, energy, cost, lives, etc.
He and Stalin could have been frens.
Tbh they had the ribbentrop pact, but with friends like Hitler who needs enemies
Your comment has been downvoted three times as I write this even though the pact between the Soviet Union and the Third Reich you refer to did exist. That’s an impressive word-to-tankie-anger ratio you managed there. Good job!
Yep, tankies will probably disagree when someone claims the country that invaded the USSR was a ‘friend’ due to a diplomatic treaty of non-aggression. The USSR had already tried making pacts with the UK and France first, which were rejected, as referenced in the second paragraph in the link you gave:
The treaty was the culmination of negotiations around the 1938–1939 deal discussions, after tripartite discussions with the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and France had broken down
As pointed out in the Munich Conference section:
The Soviet leadership believed that the West wanted to encourage German aggression in the East and to stay neutral in a war initiated by Germany in the hope that Germany and the Soviet Union would wear each other out and put an end to both regimes.
Obviously the USSR didn’t want to be friends with the most anti-communist regime in the continent who invented terms like ‘Judeo-Bolshevik’. So tankies will consider it either ignorant or bad faith to bring up the Ribbentrop Pact to pretend it was anything more than realpolitik compromise resulting from the Western powers wanting the two countries to destroy each other. The alternative was being invaded sooner, which we know in hindsight was a real threat.
a diplomatic treaty of non-aggression
It was not merely a non-aggression treaty; in fact, it also divided much of Eastern Europe into German and Soviet “spheres of influence” and set the stage for the Soviet invasions of Finland and eastern Poland a mere three months and less than a month after signing the treaty, respectively, with additional provisions for many more countries and regions. In short, aggression was very much part of the treaty, despite its name. As mentioned in the Wikipedia article on it:
[t]here was also a secret protocol to the pact, which was revealed only after Germany’s defeat in 1945 although hints about its provisions had been leaked much earlier, so as to influence Lithuania. According to the protocol, Poland, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Finland were divided into German and Soviet “spheres of influence”. In the north, Finland, Estonia, and Latvia were assigned to the Soviet sphere. Poland was to be partitioned in the event of its “political rearrangement”: the areas east of the Pisa, Narew, Vistula, and San rivers would go to the Soviet Union, and Germany would occupy the west. Lithuania, which was adjacent to East Prussia, was assigned to the German sphere of influence, but a second secret protocol, agreed to in September 1939, reassigned Lithuania to the Soviet Union. According to the protocol, Lithuania would be granted its historical capital, Vilnius, which was part of Poland during the interwar period. Another clause stipulated that Germany would not interfere with the Soviet Union’s actions towards Bessarabia, which was then part of Romania. As a result, Bessarabia as well as the Northern Bukovina and Hertsa regions were occupied by the Soviets and integrated into the Soviet Union.
You write that:
[…] tankies will consider it either ignorant or bad faith to bring up the Ribbentrop Pact to pretend it was anything more than realpolitik compromise resulting from the Western powers wanting the two countries to destroy each other.
First, it is not and was not at the time clear that the entire West wanted the Soviet Union and the Third Reich to wear each other out; instead, it was a Soviet belief, as you quote yourself:
The Soviet leadership believed that the West wanted to encourage German aggression in the East and to stay neutral in a war initiated by Germany in the hope that Germany and the Soviet Union would wear each other out and put an end to both regimes.
That belief was questionable. The fact is that the West allied with the Soviet Union and supported it, through Lend-Lease and other means, after it was betrayed by the Third Reich. Of course, hindsight is hindsight, and Soviet leadership did have reasons to believe the West wanted them to fight against the Third Reich, but their assessment was fatally flawed and led to much suffering, not least amongst their own citizenry.
Second, you ignore Soviet agency and deflect Soviet responsibility to the West when you describe the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact as “realpolitik compromise resulting from the Western powers wanting the two countries to destroy each other”. That is akin to saying “look what you made me do”, edition “ally with Hitler”. The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact did not “result” from anything; the Soviet Union conceived that treaty, including its infamous Secret Protocol, as much as the Third Reich did.
Finally, you write that:
tankies will probably disagree when someone claims the country that invaded the USSR was a ‘friend’ […]
and that:
[…] the USSR didn’t want to be friends with […]
Strictly speaking, states cannot be friends; only people. Therefore, the comments by @[email protected] and @[email protected] must be understood figuratively.
Figuratively, the Soviet Union and the Third Reich may be described to have been “friends” up until the Nazi betrayal in 1941. After all, the Soviet Union agreed to a treaty that benefited the Third Reich. In fact, even the non-aggression part of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact benefited the Third Reich, because it freed up German resources and enabled the Western Blitz. It could be argued that Soviet leadership intended to let the Third Reich and the West wear each other out.
Thanks for the detailed reply.
Strictly speaking, states cannot be friends; only people. Therefore, the comments by @[email protected] and @[email protected] must be understood figuratively.
Of course, which I would interpret as, say, allies, or perhaps ideological siblings. The two states were clearly neither. They were enemies on both counts, even well before the war, despite any trade or pacts. I’d say they were no more friendly than the US and the PRC.
You’re right that the treaty was not merely non-aggression and had major implications with spheres of influence in the space between the two powers, it was only non-aggression between the signing states (the two being called ‘friends’ in this context). I don’t really know if there was any good ending possible for the countries between the two, because I believe war there was inevitable given the Nazi regime’s ideology, expansionist policy and military strength. Those countries, unfortunately, were either going to be occupied by the Nazis or the USSR in the inevitable war, so the USSR made a choice in its self-preservation interest to gain power. Given that the alternative was further expansion of the Nazi regime, it’s hard for me to realistically criticize it, despite the horrible implications for the occupied territories.
First, it is not and was not at the time clear that the entire West wanted the Soviet Union and the Third Reich to wear each other out; instead, it was a Soviet belief […] That belief was questionable. The fact is that the West allied with the Soviet Union and supported it, through Lend-Lease and other means, after it was betrayed by the Third Reich. Of course, hindsight is hindsight, and Soviet leadership did have reasons to believe the West wanted them to fight against the Third Reich, but their assessment was fatally flawed and led to much suffering, not least amongst their own citizenry.
While I say this naively, Western support of the USSR doesn’t contradict the theory that the Western powers wanted the two to wear each other out. Supporting the weaker side wears out the stronger side more, this is an established tactic in proxy warfare.
Second, you ignore Soviet agency and deflect Soviet responsibility to the West when you describe the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact as “realpolitik compromise resulting from the Western powers wanting the two countries to destroy each other”.
That wasn’t the point of the line, I was emphasizing that the Soviet’s first choice was to ally with the West. It’s misleading for the poster to consider the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact as a signal of the USSR’s alignment without acknowledging that they first tried to create pacts with the Western powers against the Nazi regime. They were rejected, and the USSR compromised and created a neutrality pact with the Nazis because the alternative was to be invaded first. At that point, what agency remained? To me, it seems like the options were ‘form a neutrality pact and gain an opportunity to build your defenses’ or ‘get invaded first and probably die’. The first option was horrible too, but I don’t know of a better choice they could have reasonably taken after being rejected by their first choice of allies.
This is very true.
Wasn’t one of the first groups that Hitler went after when he gained power were the communists? I’m pretty sure I remember that communists were sent to concentration camps along with Jews, disabled people, and LGBT.
Yes, first they came for the communists. Martin Niemöller’s poem poem didn’t come from nowhere.
The “Comintern” in the “Anti-Comintern Pact” is short for “Communist International.” The Axis powers were anti-communist, as fascists always are.
It’s not only that they sent communists to concetration camps, they opened the camps in the first place in order to have a place where to put them all
