• mozz@mbin.grits.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    94
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Splintering of the establishment left (SDP) versus the actual left (KPD) in the 1932 German elections was a big part of what allowed Hitler’s rise to power. Even while both were literally gun-battling in the streets with the paramilitary force that later became the SS, the KPD was calling the SDP “the main enemy” and “social fascists.” The SDP saw what was coming and allied with their conservative opponents to promote Hindenburg in the 1932 election, so that Hitler wouldn’t win, while the KPD ran their own candidate who siphoned off 13% of the vote.

    Hindenburg still barely squeaked into power, but Hitler was the only candidate with a strong unified front behind him, and on Hindenburg’s death Hitler assumed power and immediately starting killing the KPD members en masse. The SDP and KPD blamed each other, for not compromising and thus allowing Hitler to gain so much ground instead of facing a unified opposition, but at that point it didn’t really matter who was or wasn’t at fault, and the KPD were the first grouping explicitly singled out for death once he took over.

    You can read all about it in here.

    I had someone on Lemmy tell me not that long ago that the lesson of this was that the KPD was right, and the SDP were the real enemy for compromising with the conservatives, and if they’d just been more left and earned the support of the real left people then the whole thing wouldn’t have happened. I do wonder what attitude in hindsight of one of the KPD people in the camps would have been to this “it’s not my job to vote for you, it’s your job to earn my support” electoral philosophy, but it’s impossible to know, because of course they all were put to death.

    • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      52
      ·
      6 months ago

      I had someone on Lemmy tell me not that long ago that the lesson of this was that the KPD was right, and the SDP were the real enemy for compromising with the conservatives, and if they’d just been more left and earned the support of the real left people then the whole thing wouldn’t have happened.

      Yeah, that sounds like my experience on here.

      • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        6 months ago

        Ah yes, remember the part where the Spartacists had a literal armed uprising because they didn’t like the prospect of participation in a democratic government? Something Luxemburg herself voted against?

        Oh, what am I saying, what I meant is “The Weimar Government should have put the gun barrel to their head and begged the Spartacists to pull the trigger on them”

        • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          23
          ·
          6 months ago

          She was still killed in spite of that, which was my point: establishing that the political bridge was burned; the division was not healed in time to form a united front against the Nazis.

          There is no disagreement here the SPD fought the KPD and won.

          They mainly used Freikorps to do it, and those Freikorps were nothing close to left wing or even democratic. They were imperialists and monarchists who formed the basis for other more infamous paramilitary groups. Interwar history is wild.

          • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            There is no disagreement here the SPD fought the KPD and won.

            “How dare you fight back when I try to armed-uprising you, that is very unfair and my feelings are hurt now and so I can’t support you.”

            I love the left dearly but this sounds exactly like left person logic, yes. 🙂

            the division was not healed in time to form a united front against the Nazis

            And again, it’s relevant that the SDP was willing to heal divisions with (at least some of) their enemies to fight the Nazis, and the KPD (from what you’re saying) were not (at least where the SDP was concerned).

            I have no particular dog in this fight; I’m out of my depth now in terms of what happened and who was at fault. My point is, those bitter divisions and arguments and the justifications for them that you’re talking about – however you want to allocate blame for them between the SDP and KPD – didn’t do either of them a lick of good when the NSDAP started kicking down doors and shooting them both in the back of the head, and that’s relevant to the upcoming US election.

            • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              14
              ·
              6 months ago

              Why is it always a fake made up quote to respond to? It will sound however you want since you came up with it.

              I really was just trying to point out that the division between the SPD and KPD didn’t start in the 30s and went back further and involved some pretty complex shit regarding World War 1 and its aftermath.

              But I may have been too partizan bringing up the Freikorps: whom the SPD allied with in 1919 and some of which formed the Sturmabteilung, the Nazi paramilitary organization: in 1921. Maybe that context is too inappropriate.

              • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                6 months ago

                I wasn’t trying to put words in their mouth; just saying how it sounded to me if they were upset that when they took up arms against the SDP in 1919, what came back to them was violent and unfair. There’s also the issue (which is maybe why I’m so unsympathetic in general) that it’s silly to still be upset in 1932 about something that happened in 1919, when the way to stay alive and keep alive a whole bunch of people who had nothing to do with either SDP or KPD, would have been for both of them to let it go and start fighting the bigger enemy.

                But yeah, maybe I picked an unkind / unfair way to make the point, you’re right. And like I say, we’re into the detail points that I really don’t know about, so I am learning also from you about all of this for the first time.

                • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  I won’t launch into the end of WW1 or the civil wars and revolutions replacing monarchies and empires overnight, so I’ll just give a contextual thought.

                  1932 and 1919 are thirteen years apart.

                  Donald Trump was elected eight years ago.

                  It isn’t too crazy of a timeline, politically speaking. And for the germans their leadership was summarily executed by paramilitary groups sent by the government.

                  • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    And for the germans their leadership was summarily executed by paramilitary groups sent by the government.

                    (Assuming you meant in 1919)

                    Yeah, but wasn’t that after the KPD did an uprising and was doing battle with the SDP?

                    I’m genuinely asking; I’m just not familiar with it. If you want me to read up and get back to you I can do that too.

            • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              6 months ago

              I have no particular dog in this fight; I’m out of my depth now in terms of what happened and who was at fault. My point is, those bitter divisions and arguments and the justifications for them that you’re talking about – however you want to allocate blame for them between the SDP and KPD – didn’t do either of them a lick of good when the NSDAP started kicking down doors and shooting them both in the back of the head, and that’s relevant to the upcoming US election.

              No, it didn’t. Which is why I’m all-in on making sure that the NSDAP doesn’t win this election.

          • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            6 months ago

            She was still killed in spite of that, which was my point: establishing that the political bridge was burned; the division was not healed in time to form a united front against the Nazis.

            And you think the division between the SPD and KPD in 1933 was due to… the actions in the chaotic post-war environment of 1919, despite periods of participation in a common united front before that and the fact that the KPD’s final break with SPD cooperation came at the behest of the Stalinist USSR, which made demands the KPD, like most interwar Communist Parties, cheerfully danced to without question?

            There is no disagreement here the SPD fought the KPD and won.

            More precisely, “There is no disagreement that the democratic government, which included the SPD, fought the armed uprising against the democratic government, supported solely by the KPD, and won”.

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

              I am am clearly stating the political schism between the KPD and SPD from post war Germany wasn’t mended by the time of the Nazis. More examples of that division worsening isn’t really counter to that notion.

              • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                6 months ago

                Ignoring the extended period of a united front breaking apart because the leader of the KPD was a Soviet puppet isn’t exactly “an issue in 1919 wasn’t mended 😔”

                • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Their deaths easily left a power vacuum that was filled by soviet leaning german communists, most especially after 1922 when the civil war ended and the soviets emerged victorious. While some of the prominent german communists that werent russian soviets… were dead.

                  The Nazis had formed by 1920 and the S.A. formed from some Freikorps by 1921. It isn’t like there was an expansive amount of time there.

                  • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    Their deaths easily left a power vacuum that was filled by soviet leaning german communists, most especially after 1922 when the civil war ended and the soviets emerged victorious. While some of the prominent german communists that werent russian soviets… were dead.

                    Yet the period of the United Front between the KPD and SPD lasted from '23 to '28. The idea that it was an organic change because of deep-seated grudges is extremely questionable even just by the timeline, much less the details of the interactions of the 20s and early 30s.

    • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      6 months ago

      Lmao that was me again

      KPD was responding to the same economic distress as the NSDAP, they were right to believe the national populist movement would continue growing if they didn’t deliver on real material relief to the German people.

      That the SPD eventually fell to the NSDAP (with hindenburg placing Hitler as chancellor, allowing him to assume power after his death) certainly doesn’t exonerate their responsibility in allowing the rise of the nazis.

      That was a banger conversation, if I wasn’t on mobile I’d go back and find it.

      • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        I think I got irritated and just abandoned the conversation, but we can continue.

        What you just said actually made a lot of sense and as far as I know the history, I agree with it more or less completely (and would allocate blame for Trump at most of the Bill Clinton / Nancy Pelosi type Democrats in exactly the same way for exactly the same reason)

        So if it sounded like I was exonerating them I was not. My point was, once Hitler comes around it doesn’t matter; if you’re still running a 13% spoiler candidate to weaken the alternative to Hitler, and then blaming the ones who won the election because they didn’t do a good enough job of compromising with you… I mean, you may have a case, but you’ll still be dead if Hitler wins. Surely that is relevant?

        They sure didn’t get the real material relief to the German people by not supporting Hindenburg; definitely not until 1945 and even then it came with some caveats.

        • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          Plenty of area of agreement I think.

          I just don’t think the NSDAP would have been defeated even if the SPD and KPD somehow fully united (I probably have as much knowledge of the history as you do, or less). Fascism doesn’t work like that, it would have just continued to boil under their thin coalition until eventually they would have to put it down forcefully. Just like I don’t think beating trump in a single election will defeat the fascist movement he represents. Whoever it is that’s leading the opposition has to take (likely un-democratic) action against them if they really want to put it down, and honestly I don’t know if it’s a good thing or a bad thing that Biden wont cross that line.

          Revolutionary movements generally don’t fully resolve until the conditions that seeded them change, one way or the other. That’s why it’s important that whatever coalition that forms the opposition is serious about addressing them, and in my mind simply having the coalition isn’t enough.

          • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            Just like I don’t think beating trump in a single election will defeat the fascist movement he represents

            I don’t think anybody is under the illusion that stopping Trump from winning would end republican fascism.

            But at the very least, delaying it is preferable. Because in that delay time we can weaken their movement, help get trans people to safety, and so on.

            • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              Then Biden should be doing what he can to make that happen, and from where I’m standing there’s at least one thing he’s doing that his base is irate about

              If the one thing he needs to do to kick the can is be popular then woah is he not the right candidate

              • stanleytweedle@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                6 months ago

                he not the right candidate

                He’s the less wrong candidate. Sorry reality is this hard for you but them’s the breaks.