a post about how many nazis remained in positions of power is made, the op is called a tankie and people defend the decision to keep nazis around
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
Another despicable historical distortion going on in those comments is about the treaty of Versailles. American liberals like to go on about how it was so harsh that the rise of Nazism was a perfectly rational reaction. That's not only historically highly dubious – it was much less harsh than most anything the German Empire did to the losers of its wars (see Brest-Litovsk) – but it's also, like, only two degrees away from the stab-in-the-back myth (Dolchstoßlegende). That is to say: The Nazis liked to claim that the horrible economic state of the Republic was due to the "traitors" who gave up on WWI and signed the treaty, causing all of Germany's economic problems (never mind the Great Depression). No one should be agreeing with the Nazis on any part of that idea.
Has anyone done any analysis on if Weimar’s collapse could be more closely tied to losing its colonies and still trying to be a social democracy?
That seems pretty dubious. They started their colonies 30 years before they lost WWI, I don't think they had enough time to extract enough to make a dent compared to their home industrialization
The colonies didn't really matter for the economy in Germany. It did matter for concentrating capital in certain parts of the capitalist class though.
Losing polish territories was more important in that process than the colonies. They were basically not held long enough and were only considered “prestige”.
Yes, Greater Poland was economically significant and fairly densely populated, and Upper Silesia was one of the two most important industrial regions in Germany.
I was thinking more of the junker estates and west prussia, but yeah the loss of upper silesia caused an economic crisis in eastern Germany which is why the nazis picked up the votes there.
the worst provisions of Versailles were cancelled or restructured after the crash of 29.
And you expect us to what, admit it was the unhinged, frothingly racist, openly genocidal, openly and nakedly fascist actions of United States that directly inspired Hitler, per Hitler, not vague allusions to lengthy and complicated economic conditions and of course the perfidious French, the same French that magically stop being the gold standard for the training and organization of professional militaries for hundreds of years, right at the outbreak of the first world war?
Next you expect us to what, stop worshipping American Nazi superfans and long time friends of the ~~pod~~ Hitler, Walt Disney and Henry Ford?
The U.S. and U.K. not being on Germany's side of the war was more of a fluke than anything. Most of the voting citizens in either country supported everything that was going on in Germany. Shit, 80% of the genetics in this country are German but we completely ignore that and go hard for St Patrick's day instead.
Very similar to how all Americans were in favor of invading Iraq again in 2002, but if you go back and ask the same dipshits today magically somehow everyone was part of the resistance.
Agreed. It had more to do with the fact that the British were categorically opposed to Germany gaining enough power to contest their colonial projects and thus not allying with them (again not out of any anti-fascist sentiment, just purely out of self-interest) and political America being more closely allied with British political interests (because they speak the same language so it is easier to do business). If IBM or any of the major capitalist firms at the time had had their way, we would have allied with Germany immediately.
Look buddy Hitler just have really good speeches
Deepest liberal political analysis
But, uh, leans into mic human cheeto Hitler book