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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I really am more focused on the whole Prussian military organization structure and the coalition with the Freikorps, who were demonstrably anti-democratic monarchist military groups in direct coalition with the Ebert government. It is such a major component to the whole SPD-KPD relationship that was so bad it led to Thallman actively supporting Hitler.
The context as to what led Thallman’s KPD to arrive at such a disastrous policy you’re referencing here is something I think is interesting and important for people to know about. Obviously such history is offensive for this topic, and not what you were looking for.
The Freikorps was such a major component to the SPD-KPD relationship that… almost a decade after the Freikorps had been effectively disbanded, it FORCED Thalmann, coming into power in a KPD that had had a very productive relationship with the SPD for the past 8 or so years, to cooperate with the literal Nazis.
Fucking insane.
The whole organization of the German (prussian) military was not just Freikorps. That whole machination which Ebert helped maintain is what I am explicitly referencing and including. Even so: that period of time where Freikorps effectively disbanded was when they converted into orgs like Consul or the SA starting in the 1920s. That component isn’t as fragmented or inconsequential as it may seem. There is continuity there and it isn’t insane to know about it.
They really did not. The SPD fucked up Weimar by working with all the right wing factions in the 20s and then the KPD fucked up by working with the right wing faction in the 30s. The united front collapsed in like 1922, or at least by the 1924 elections and definitely by the time Hindenburg was president from 1925.
The fraught politics of post war Germany was so chaotic that it resulted in something so crazy and insane to a modern reviewer: the KPD actively supporting Hitler like it was going to work out.
The idea of comparing the Freikorps with the SA is insane. Consul was disbanded in 1922 by government repression. But hey, who gives a fuck about facts when you can play Bothsides™ games?
Oh, okay, so the period between 1920-1928 just didn’t exist, cool cool cool.
The period of time where the KPD became Stalinist and Thalmann took over? When the Nazis became powerful with th3 support of the ebtrenched hyper right wing? That’s the context I am getting at. That period of time was the SPD hemorraging support in all directions, be it to KPD or NSDAP. Like, I am highlighting the absurdity of the 1930s KPD position here that the failings to stop the Nazis thus far led to Thallman thinking that absurd policy had a shot.
The SA 100% grew out of Freikorps.
And 1920-1928 is not the 8 years prior to 1931, or a half decade.
Being so loosey goosey with these things doesn’t mesh with the kinds of statements you keep making here.
Thalmann didn’t consolidate his power until 1928, so unless 1920-1928 has a different meaning than the obvious one…
The Nazis became powerful in 1920-1928.
Are you sure you want to keep to that claim.
Your claim was that the Freikorps ‘converted’ into orgs like the SA. Which is not even vaguely true. Like, I don’t really know how to carry on a conversation with someone who looks at the independent paramilitaries of the Freikorps and sees the same thing as a fucking street fighting arm of a minor political party because both are comprised of right-wing WW1 veterans.
Your lack of literacy is not my problem. Sorry that “Thalmann came into power in 1928 after 8 or so years of a productive relationship between the KDP and SDP” is too complex for you to parse.
I think if you’ve approached anything I have written here as a refuation of your initial premise, then yeah you probably are feeling that way. You’re trying to manufacture an argument where there isn’t actually one. If the greater context as to what led to such an absurd premise of 1931 is such a conundrum, then it should probably be left at that.
The absurdity of the KPDs position in 1931 is laughable. The context of what led to this absurdity becoming the actual policy and historical event is fascinating and worth learning about, but obviously not here nor for you.
What you’re missing is that PugJesus is trying to push the narrative that anyone unwilling to vote for modern Democrats is an accelerationist, just like a bad German.