499
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by jordanlund@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

"Progressives should not make the same mistake that Ernst Thälmann made in 1932. The leader of the German Communist Party, Thälmann saw mainstream liberals as his enemies, and so the center and left never joined forces against the Nazis. Thälmann famously said that 'some Nazi trees must not be allowed to overshadow a forest' of social democrats, whom he sneeringly called 'social fascists.'

After Adolf Hitler gained power in 1933, Thälmann was arrested. He was shot on Hitler’s orders in Buchenwald concentration camp in 1944."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 24 points 2 months ago

Progressives should not make the same mistake that Ernst Thälmann made in 1932

The mistake Ernst Thälmann made was not throwing his support behind checks notes Paul von Hindenburg, the man who ordered the police massacre of the Spartacus League?

After Adolf Hitler gained power in 1933, Thälmann was arrested.

Who elevated Adolf Hitler to the Chancellorship in 1933?

[-] frezik@midwest.social 1 points 2 months ago

It's not old Junkers like von Hindenburg that they'd ally with. It's other slightly different leftist factions and a few centrists.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

The centrists were aligned with Hindenburg. Friekorps were just as avid commie-bashers as any National Socialist.

The main problem Ernst had was affiliating himself with the Russian Revolution and advocating for more of the same in Germany. That made him an enemy of nationalists during a period in which "International Jewery" was the boogie man under everyone's bed.

The idea that he could just strike up common cause with people who wanted him dead is absurd.

Particularly, there was huge overlap in membership between the Freikorps and the Stürmabteilung. So it is important to note that the Freikorps was a direct precursor to the Nazi brownshirts.

[-] Blackbeard@lemmy.world -4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The mistake Ernst Thälmann made was not throwing his support behind checks notes Paul von Hindenburg, the man who ordered the police massacre of the Spartacus League?

Um...no? Von Hindenburg was the conservative. They'd have thrown their support behind the centrist, Wilhelm Marx, who lost by about 3%, thanks (in part) to the 6.3% Thälmann took. The rest of the blame lay with the BVP when they protested against the Social Democrats by siding with von Hindenburg.

Who elevated Adolf Hitler to the Chancellorship in 1933?

Von Hindenburg, with the help of the governing coalition formed by the Nazis and DNVP, all of whom were conservative.

What point are you trying to make?

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

They’d have thrown their support behind the centrist, Wilhelm Marx, who lost by about 3%

The Catholic Centre Party was in open - often violent - conflict with the largely atheist-leaning German Communists. The German Catholics were terrified of a repeat of the Spanish Civil War, where Spaniards were revolting against a religious dictatorship and burning down churches.

Von Hindenburg, with the help of the governing coalition formed by the Nazis and DNVP

Wilhelm was aligned with the DNVP as far back as 1923. He was the one who pushed through the Enabling Act of 1923, which the Nazis would ruthlessly exploit a decade later, with their help. And he continued to govern in coalition with the DNVP through 1928, when he was dismissed from the Chancellory by...

Von Hindenburg, with the help of the governing coalition formed by the Nazis and DNVP

So, to answer your question

What point are you trying to make?

My point is that blaming Ernest Thälmann for his minority party position in the German government through 1933 when it would make much more sense to finger Alfred Hugenberg and his DNVP, which abandoned Wilhelm in '28 and aligned with

Von Hindenburg, with the help of the governing coalition formed by the Nazis

[-] Cryophilia@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

What point are you trying to make?

Muddying the waters. That's the point these shills are trying to make.

this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2024
499 points (85.4% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2825 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS