You must log in or register to comment.
If you think of history as often involving opposing material and social forces, then patterns will emerge. We are constrained by the material in what actions we can take to resolve a major conflict in interests, often escalating to, for example, war. So war has happened repeatedly. That’s not quite history repeating itself so much as a consequence of historically common conditions.
Under this way of thinking, you could expect conditions that are even more similar to one another to lead to similar outcomes - though not necessarily identical. For example, the revolution in Russia that led to the first sustained socialist revolution had precedent in similar conditions jn the few decades prior, and for the same basic reasons (driving material forces): a rising but weak bourgeoisie, unpopular war foisted on the population, frustrations at capitalist oppression at home, and various unpopular domestic policies that were a holdover from monarchist ways of thinkinh that liberalism had made unpopular. During the prior revolution, the masses (and representative organizations) were too idealistic and believed establishing a Duma and some reforms would address these problems. They were wrong: the Tsar simply reversed most of the policy concessions once the people went home and were no longer organized, dragged his feet on the Duma, and eventually established one that was purely representative of ruling class interests. At the same time, the Tsar went after the organizations that had participated in the failed revolution, banning them and jailing their members.
And when similar conditions occurred and people became again colocated and agitated by these conditions, those organizations were back in force, grew rapidly, and learned their lessons. The group that won, the communists, correctly identified that even the current offered concessions were similarly false and that the defeat of the Tsarist-bourgeois ruling class required them to be fully deposed and that the time to do so was ripe.
So, the similar conditions led to a similar culmination (mass action, strikes, etc) but had a different outcome due to their differences (learning the lessons of the previous failure).
Only on a very surface level, as in “the far-right reached second place in an election again”. But other than that, no, the situation in Germany is not very comparable to the late Weimar republic at all. Party militias aren’t terrorizing the streets, there is no hyperinflation, we’re not geopolitically isolated and our constitution is not as flawed and weak. Not to say the situation is rosy, but pretending we’re literally at the inception of the fourth reich is not realistic or useful.
Another analog is that eastern Germany voted very differently than western and southern Germany.
One major difference, in 1930 the far right was anti-Russia, and today they are pro-Russia.
Geographical aspects are incomparable between 1930 and 2025. Germany is a lot smaller in 2025 than in 1930 and German division hadn’t happened yet in 1930.
That’s on Russia, not Germany
???
Russia was leftist then, but now they’re not, so the German far right didn’t support them then but does now.
Eastern Germany has been voting differently pretty much all the time, or didn’t it? Like definitely more counties voted right wing for like a decade or two.
Yes. First as tragedy, then as farce. We’re in the farce stage, for those not already aware.
The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born; now is the time of monsters.
-Antonio Gramsci
Until Socialism usurps Capitalism globally, we will exist in a time of great friction.
Russia and the US have bigger nazi problems.
If the communists start getting a lot more votes, then maybe you could make a parallel. Otherwise it’s a very different situation.
No but it rhymes.
Hopefully not. Although I wouldn’t put it past Merz to still form a coalition with the AfD. But the SPD is usually pretty weak willed. He’ll probably like that in a coalition partner.
I think the next four years will really show what German democracy is worth. I suspect that the last government was the last chance we had at starting a ban initiative.
It is a shame that SPD and Union did not work together in the last government to try to resolve some of the problems that cause the voters to move to the right.
1933 2: Electric Boogaloo
Who would win a fist fight Hitler or Musk?
Hitler was a WW1 who served and was gassed in the trenches. He had some combat training and was a pretty intense dude.
Elon is a rich kid who got booted out of most of his startups for cause, but made enough of a golden parachute to go around buying up other people’s successful businesses, e.g. Tesla. He’s never been in a real fistfight in his life.
Elon was in a fistfight, actually. He got thrown down a staircase as a kid and was bullied so hard he was hospitalized in SA. Which explains a decent amount of why he turned evil.
He’s essentially Syndrome from the Incredibles. Fingers crossed he starts wearing a cape to his rocket launches.
If they don’t fuck up as badly, and it would be really hard to reach Wiemar levels of failure, it’s probably not a great analogy.
Thalmann and the communists were going with accelerationism and straight up wanted Hitler to win, so they blocked every coalition they could. The SPD reacted by ruling by decree (something they could do in that system) and didn’t even bother to pick popular decrees, so when a new president was chosen he basically just blocked that as well, and a crisis ensued.
July 1932 was a snap election in that moment. More dysfunction happened between that election and November 1932’s snap election (where Hitler actually lost ground), and then the famous Reichstag fire and Hindenburg pact stuff happened.
If the AfD succeeds further it will be for different reasons, basically.
deleted by creator
East Germany never fully recovered after Soviet occupation and the desolation the Soviets created. Germany has invested heavily rebuilding the east, but there is a constant brain drain, causing western migration of every German capable enough. This has left the east in a poor state they still have yet to recover from. The people in that region know this, but it doesn’t change the fact they don’t feel good about the lingering differences, which influences their voting behaviors heavily.
The East is in a poor state because The West illegally annexed it, threw away their welfare state, outlawed the communist party, and gave all of its industry to exploitative West German companies. Indicators of quality of life plummeted after the fall of the USSR and the Berlin Wall. The West also trashed East Germany’s liberating policies towards women and LGBTQ+ people. East Germans that were older have nostalgia for the better times. Patronizing and ignorant liberals, rather than understand the truth in their experiences, have invented a fantasy called Ostolgie to explain this away, doing their best to pretend that this is just old people being silly rather than remembering tangibly better experiences.
This fictionalization is a necessary part of anticommunist thinking: no aspects of “the enemy” can ever be good or beneficial for anyone. All seemingly good things done by that enemy must either be attributed to a “brainwashed” population or a devious plot to appear better than they really are for propaganda purposes. It is important to recognize that these patterns of thought are not usually effectively exported and are instead intended for a domestic audience to make sure they don’t actually understand and sympathize with the designated enemy.
The East is in a poor state because The West illegally annexed it
Wut? Germany was a singular country until the Soviet Union occupied half of it. Re-uniting the occupied territories with the rest of the country is literally the opposite of an illegal annexation.
Wut? Germany was a singular country until the Soviet Union occupied half of it.
This is a non-sequitor, it does not change whether West Germany illegally annexed East Germany, which it did. Germany included parts of what are now Poland prior to the Nazis’ invasions. Would you also write off Germany illegally annexing them as a righteous revanchism?
Re-uniting the occupied territories with the rest of the country is literally the opposite of an illegal annexation.
You should learn your basic history before trying to lecture others. Germany was cut down and the remaining pieces split into regions governed by 4 countries (France, UK, USA, USSR). With the rise of the US the first 3 of course rapidly became de facto one region and the legal mumbo jumbo followed to create West Germany.
West Germany was created from this as an “independent” country, still under the thumb of the US, excluding East Germany. The USSR proposed full reintegration of Germany as a neutral country, but the US had already committed to a policy of isolation, preferring their NATO-pushing givernors of West Germany.
Regarding illegal annexation of East Germany, it was done against the consent of the people who lived there and against their own supposed legal framework.
Poland being part of germany and east germany are very different things. There is a much larger gap between poland being part of germany than east germany being part of united germany. Also, the GDR literally agreed to the unification contract so it’s not an annexation.
Poland being part of germany and east germany are very different things.
Not based on what parent said. Their simplistic rationale was that it was somehow legal and fine because it used to be part of Germany before WWII. That applies equally to both.
There is a much larger gap between poland being part of germany than east germany being part of united germany.
Only about 35 years or so. East and West were split from the end of WWII to 1990. You seem to be exaggerating and drawing an arbitrary line.
So anyways, by your logic you think it would have been legal and good for Germany to annex the parts it lost to Poland so long as it did so before 1990? Are you sure you’ve thought this through?
Also, the GDR literally agreed to the unification contract so it’s not an annexation.
Incorrect. There were two process options:
-
Carry out the creation of a new nation via negotiations between states and the draftinh of a new constitution.
-
Absorb states into West Germany if their populations produce a majority vote in favor.
They “chose” the latter and then didn’t do the vote. They did the usual annexer thing and just fudged some bullshit to claim that the GDR government following its first Western-style (and massively Western influenced via cash and NGOs) counted since it was a ruling coalition and therefore represented the majority. Again, this is just inventing some bullshit to get what they wanted. This is somewhat like voting for a pro-Brexit party that says they want to start the process of Brexit and then, lo and behold, they are forcing an immediate and unfavorable Brexit that you would not have supported and against the law of both the EU and the UK. Only the result is that instead of breaking treaties, you no longer have a country or basically any of your laws, you are simply annexed. So you cross your fingers and hope the Western propaganda is true and your previous state’s was false (spoiler: it was the opposite).
Now, generally speaking, I am not a “but the rules say otherwise!” nerd. But liberals do think of themselves this way and their propaganda tells them that everything they do against the authoritarian commies is actually for democracy and the rule of law. So when they see a basic fact like this, they either go into denial mode based on vibes, twist themselves into a pretzel (like the official legal logic), or acknowledge the reality and start to question their assumptions.
How was it an illegal annexation if the rulers of the country signed a contract that was literally about uniting with western germany. How was that illegal, it was literally done in the usual bureocratic manner it has to be done. If the population of the country did not agree to it the rulers should have done a vote or something similar but they did not.
Also the population voted twice before and twice after the decision to unite germany.
"Im Einheitsjahr 1990 stimmte die Bevölkerung der DDR zweimal vor und zweimal nach dem Stichtag über die Wiedrevereinigung ab. Bei der einzigen freien Volkskammerwahl am 18. März 1990 erzielte die Allianz für Deutschland, das Wahlbündnis für eine möglichst schnelle Vereinigung, 48 Prozent der Stimmen, die ähnlich eingestellten ostdeutschen Liberalen weitere 5,3 Prozent. Die SPD, die ebenfalls für die Einheit, aber in einem längeren Prozess, eintrat, kam auf knapp 22 Prozent, die gegen eine Vereinigung eingestellte SED/PDS 16,4 Prozent. Der Rest der Stimmen verteilte sich auf Kleinparteien. Drei Viertel der Wähler sprachen sich also für die Einheit aus; die Regierung um Lothar de Mazière ging mit Volldampf auf Kurs Wiedervereinigung. Dieses Ergebnis wurde in den Kommunalwahlen am 6. Mai 1990 der Größenordnung nach bestätigt: Wieder wurden die Parteien der Allianz für Deutschland mit landesweit 35 Prozent am stärksten, hinzu kamen die Liberalen mit nun sogar 7,3 Prozent. Die SPD hielt ihr Ergebnis, die PDS verlor leicht. Die dritte Wahl fand am 14. Oktober 1990 statt, elf Tage nach dem Vollzug der staatlichen Wiedervereinigung. Die CDU errang teilweise zusammen mit der FDP in vier der fünf neuen Bundesländern die klare Mehrheit, die Einheitsgegner der PDS verloren leicht. Ein ähnliches Ergebnis brachte die erste gesamtdeutsche Bundestagswahl am 2. Dezember 1990.
Bei vier freien, gleichen und geheimen Abstimmungen entschied sich also jeweils die deutliche Mehrheit der Wähler für die Wiedervereinigung, wie sie von Bundeskanzler Helmut Kohl und DDR-Ministerpräsident Lothar de Mazière vorangetrieben wurde.
Repräsentative Umfragen aus demselben Jahr zeigten ein ähnliches Bild. Im März 1990 gaben demnach 91 Prozent der Ostdeutschen an, „sehr erfreut“ oder zumindest“ erfreut“ über die „Herstellung der deutschen Einheit“ zu sein.[iv] Anfang August ermittelte das Meinungsforschungsinstituts Forsa repräsentativ, dass 88 Prozent der DDR-Bevölkerung für den Zusammenschluss der beiden deutschen Staaten seien (und 71 Prozent der Bewohner der bisherigen Bundesrepublik).[v]
Allerdings ergaben zugleich verschiedene Erhebungen, dass das Tempo der Vereinigung als zu hoch angesehen wurde. Das Zentralinstitut für Jugendforschung der DDR ermittelte zum Beispiel in der zweiten Junihälfte 1990, dass zwar 84 Prozent für die Vereinigung seien, aber 55 Prozent den Vorgang zu schnell fänden.[vi]"
-
