Also, in b4 fascists start pretending like the Stalinist bootlicker Thalmann hadn’t spent the past half-decade backstabbing and burning bridges with the SPD, which had previously been cooperative with the KPD after the establishment of the Weimar Republic.

  • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    I wouldn’t cut things off at a half decade. A little more than a decade prior the German communist leadership were killed by military companies in coalition with the SPD, and then those same military groups tried to overthrow the SPD government, but the SPD ended up compromising with the coup uprising anyway.

    So understandably the extrajudicial slayings of German’s communists sort of formed a schism between the SPD and the KPD. This all but assured any remaining communist power or authority in Germany had to look to the barely formed USSR for support: they’d literally fled there with their lives.

    The important context is this period includes the aftermath of World War 1 where the German Empire collapsed and with the loss of centralized government and authority, communes and provisional governments were being formed all across Europe. There were also mercenary groups wanting to abolish the Republic and restablish the monarchy.

    • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      I wouldn’t cut things off at a half decade. A little more than a decade prior the German communist leadership were killed by military companies in coalition with the SPD,

      Yes, after trying to coup the government before elections could be held. Funny how tankies and their apologists always leave that out.

      and then those same military groups tried to overthrow the SPD government, but the SPD ended up compromising with the coup uprising anyway.

      “Compromising” here meaning “If you surrender we’ll give you amnesty”. Wow, what an astounding compromise.

      • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Funny how tankies and their apologists always leave that out.

        How is highlighting the aftermath of World War 1 and that context leaving it out? Specifically in the attempt to include the anarchy of post war Europe is hardly a nefarious or intentional omission. Don’t mistake calling out a truncated timeline as a call for another one. I am refrencing the roving bands of militant monarchists seeking to overthrow the nascent republic and you’re missing that?

        The critical issue is Ebert (who inherited authority from the monarchy initially) made a coalition with the Freikorps to allow the Weimar republic to inherit the separate governance for the military that existed in the Reich. That was instrumental and core to the issue. The organization and governance of Germany military until, like, NATO, was extremely hostile to democracy itself, amd surprisingly also a critical barrier to german communism in any form, be it spartacist, stalinist, or whatever.

        Ebert making his pact with Groener after being given power, but before elections, shouldn’t be overlooked either. Pact in November 1918, extrajudicial slayings by Freikorps a week before the January 1919 elections.

        “Compromising” here meaning “If you surrender we’ll give you amnesty”. Wow, what an astounding compromise.

        Yes, this is the historical context. Compare to the level of amnesty given to communists who were summarily executed.

        The failure of the proletariat revolution to succeed in Europe, especially in Germany, left Russia as the only successful revolution. The shift away from permanent revolution by the trotsky wings into stalins ‘socialism in one country’ was a response to what happened primarily in Germany and Hungary. It should be of no surprise communists in Germany by the 30s were following the USSR line.

        • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          How is highlighting the aftermath of World War 1 and that context leaving it out?

          By literally leaving that context out and attempting to paint it as “Mean ol’ SPD went murdering the KPD for no reason :(” instead of literal fucking self-defense against an anti-democratic coup attempt. But fascist apologists rarely argue in good faith.

          The critical issue is Ebert (who inherited authority from the monarchy initially) made a coalition with the Freikorps to allow the Weimar republic to inherit the separate governance for the military that existed in the Reich. That was instrumental and core to the issue.

          Ah, yes, what he should have done is nobly refused compromise with what was the actual power returning to the country from the front, that way Germany could have enjoyed fascist dictatorship some 15 years early, or a ML dictatorship some 25 years early.