He is like a never-Trump republican, his problem isn’t with the policy (or the cruelty there of), but rather with the lack of decorum and breaking of norms.
While the genocide in Africa might have been normal machinery of empire shit, giving heavy weapons to a bunch of psycopaths saying they want to do a coup, them doing a coup 4 years later, sending entire political parties to concentration camps were not normal at all.
Dude was only mad that the nazi party violently consolidated around a group that didn’t like him.
the social democrats (who were instrumental to nazi’s rise to power)
Can you elaborate on that? First time I hear this.
The social democrats were terrified of the workers turning to communism and destroying the Wiemar Republic to build a Leninist dictatorship of the people—a government steeped in authoritarianism and secret police. So they put their weight behind the Nazis in street-battles between brown-shirts and white-shirts. They failed to recognize that by lending legitimacy to any worker movement advocating for authoritarianism and secret police they were signing their death warrant. The Nazis were never that popular but the social democrats authorized the people to tolerate them, even if they didn’t like them. The result? Hitler manipulated everyone around him into giving his party more and more power in the name of avoiding Communism. The very first thing he did after becoming the totalitarian authoritarian dictator? Make a pact with Stalin. Again. The Social Democrats created the perfect environment by co-signing Hitler to allow the very thing they were scaredest of to happen. That’s why today you see anarcho-communists telling their followers to do things like “don’t get involved with Wagner’s uprising against Putin. They’re not your friends. They’re just a slightly different kind of fascist. Best thing we can do is sit back and them bleed eachother.”
So that’s… One full exploration of how the social democrats enabled Hitler, but there’s also another. What did this band of pacifists do as Hitler plunged the world into the most deadly conflict in human history? Did they organize uprisings against him? No. They just kinda planned to wait him out, and remove him through peaceful means. That ship had sailed already but they didn’t really get on board with the resistance movements going on within Germany either. If they were in modern times they’d be the people telling people not to march with the Black Lives Matter protests because the best way to get reform is via petition and working within the system. Bear in mind that Hitler completely threw the system in the trash and that the new system in his regime didn’t really give room for anyone to resist him through legal means. The social democrats were the leaders that most Germans liked and respected. They were still community leaders, and I think they failed to recognize that a lot of people looked to them for guidance on what to do about Hitler and what they saw was to just go along with it, tolerate all the violence, and hope a better day would come.
If you’re interested in an actual good journalist instead of some internet rando talking about all this check out Behind the Bastards: How Nice, Normal People Made The Holocaust Possible.
The very first thing he did after becoming the totalitarian authoritarian dictator? Make a pact with Stalin.
That’s somewhat misleading, Molotov-Ribbontrop was in 1939, 6 years after Hitler rose to power.
During the 30s, the USSR tried to form an anti-fascist coalition, going so far as to offer to invade with a million men if Britain would join and station men in Poland in the event of a German invasion.
The rest of Europe considered the USSR a bigger threat, and were happy to let the Nazis have Austria and Czechoslovakia if it meant they’d go to war with the USSR and weaken them both. Britain even tried to join the Winter War, but was denied transit by Sweden.
So from Hitler’s perspective, he could either invade the USSR and be in a 2-front war as soon as France and UK sensed weakness, or he could sign a non-aggression pact with the most aggressive opposition and have a 1-front war.
From USSR’s perspective, they could either sign a non-aggression pact with Germany and force the west into the war, or they could not, and fight Germany and Japan at the same time while the west sits back and watches.
What did this band of pacifists do as Hitler plunged the world into the most deadly conflict in human history? Did they organize uprisings against him? No. They just kinda planned to wait him out, and remove him through peaceful means. That ship had sailed already but they didn’t really get on board with the resistance movements going on within Germany either.
To be fair, everyone that resisted already went to the concentration camps by that time so only the ones who didnt fought were left(you can still blame them) and going publicly against the regime was a death sentence.
The Quuuuuill made a great general response, but a couple important specifics:
- While he did touch on it, at the end of WWI, Germany had a revolution, the November Revolution. During the latter part in 1919 the Social Democratic Party, SPD, won the election, and their candidate, Friedrich Ebert, became president. His administration proceeded to arm paramilitaries such as the Freikorps to brutally stop the revolution. This included mass executions and targeted executions of communists such as Rosa Luxembourg.
This ultimately resulted in the liberal, anti-communist character of Weimar Germany which created the conditions for fascism.
- In the lead up to the elections of 1933, NSDAP ran Hitler. The communist part, KPD, and SPD talked about the necessity to beat hitler, and agreed to run 1 candidate to avoid splitting the vote. The SPD then proceeded to renominate the current president Hindenburg, an extremely conservative aristocrat and promoted unity and stability in all of their campaigning.
The KPD, ever cursed with Casandra Syndrome, ran their own candidate and campaigned on “A vote for Hindenburg is a vote for Hitler, a vote for Hitler is a vote for war”
And then Hindenburg won, with just over 50% of the vote. And then in the name of unity and stability, proceeded to make Hitler Chancellor and put nazis into other positions of power, setting them up to trivially coup the government.
That’s weird because he was equally as anti-semetic and pro-nazi as the rest of the aristocracy
Yeah if you read the rest of that section, Wilhelm was hoping the Nazis would restore one of his family as Kaiser, but Hitler blamed him for losing WW1.
Well, it’s true, Kaiser Wilhelm did lose WW1 for Germany by starting it.
Also his decision to pay the war debt (which, yes, was wildly insane to even charge them with) by printing so much money it lost all value outside of fule for bakers, and insulation for homes really harmed Germany.
He wasn’t the leader of the Weimarer Republik
“It has recently been explained to me that my actions have consequences”
“Those who have explained this to me have been sacked.”
deleted by creator
This may not be true. From the German Wikipedia article (translation by Google):
However, he did not publicly criticise the anti-Semitic acts of violence. Foreign newspapers reported that Wilhelm had declared that he was “ashamed to be a German for the first time in his life”. The historian Stephan Malinowski describes the interview in which this statement is said to have been made as a fake and refers to several denials by the ex-emperor.
Bro do you ever learn anything interesting besides war and war crime related wiki pages?
To be fair war is like 90% of recorded history.
Really wish we’d start recording the other parts of our history that result in war more. Maybe we wouldn’t have to do so much war that way
I wanted to see what you’re talking about, so I looked through their profile. Of their ten most recent posts to this sub, only this one was about war.
So what are you going on about?
They post like 10 posts an hour you gotta go back farther than that they average a post an hour since they started their account
I would say that’s irrelevant because they obviously post other things. 90% of checked posts were not related to war. So that answers your question in the affirmative.
Back when the History Channel actually showed documentaries, they were all about war. We called it The War Channel. That’s because most of human history is war.
I’m just happy he’s formatting his titles now
