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.
this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2025
83 points (92.8% liked)
Asklemmy
45414 readers
1036 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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).
Russia and the US have bigger nazi problems.
Yes. First as tragedy, then as farce. We're in the farce stage, for those not already aware.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Oh no! he has the pscyco brain damage
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.
Fuck off troll.
Literally every single German old enough to remember life in the DDR that I know (which aren't exactly few - I am German) recounts that time with terror.
In my entire life, I have not met a single person alive back then who wants to go back to the DDR. There's no notalgia, only painful memories.
Literally every single German old enough to remember life in the DDR that I know (which aren't exactly few - I am German) recounts that time with terror.
Define "that time". The DDR suffered a state and economic collapse shortly before it was annexed, due to general instability of the Eastern Bloc, particularly the liberalization of the USSR (which also caused its collapse). Anyone who was a teenager would have lived through something scary.
If you don't know any East Germans who preferred life back then then you have likely only spoken to people who weren't adults for any appreciable amount of time in the DDR. Or live in a very strange bubble. I have met plenty and I'm not even German.
In my entire life, I have not met a single person alive back then who wants to go back to the DDR. There's no notalgia, only painful memories.
The fact that you're literally unaware of Ostalgie suggests you are generally unaware of anything about those who actually lived in the DDR. To have lived as an adult there for, say, 20 years, they would nedd to have been born before 1950. How many 70-90 year olds do you hang out with? How many who were kids and teenagers in 1985, i.e. now 50-60 years old? I had to make an effort to meet such people, who were younger when I did.
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]"
How was it an illegal annexation if the rulers of the country signed a contract that was literally about uniting with western germany.
I just explained how. You can review the articles governing West Germany to verify this if you'd like. Are you being obtuse or did you just not read what I said?
I will ignore everything else you said until you clarify.
Edit: actually I will reply quickly to the rest because it is just quotes from one article doing the bullshitting I mentioned. They play fast and loose right off the bat, saying the peolle voted four times for reunification, twice before and twixe after. Let's look at their examples.
-
The one I alreasy described to you and that you are obtusely avoiding thinking about: the vote for members of their analog of a parliament. This is not a plebiscite for joining West Germany.
-
The exact same thing but for local elections.
-
The exact same thing but for newly entering state elections.
-
The exact same thing but for the whole of Germany.
Do you have a source for what the elections were because I provided one.
Also in representative surveys after the unification 90% of east germans were happy about it, which indicates that it was in favor of the east german population. Source: the article above
I think your point doesn't really have power if there is no proof of there not being the public votes.
I will reply to you as soon as you have sources for your claims
Do you have a source for what the elections were because I provided one.
The one you provided supports what I said. You do not seem to be understanding what I am saying. Please ask for clarification if you are having trouble understanding.
Also in representative surveys after the unification 90% of east germans were happy about it, which indicates that it was in favor of the east german population. Source: the article above
And? Doesn't make it legal.
I think your point doesn't really have power if there is no proof of there not being the public votes.
I think it does because liberals are all about feigning belief in rules and the rule of law. Right until they don't.
I will reply to you as soon as you have sources for your claims
What sources would you even need? Do you know how to talk to other people and ask them questions when you want to know something?
My source said that there were four equal elections in which the population voted in favor of the unification, although 55 percent thought it happened to fast, 80 percent were in favor.
I need sources because we are talking about facts in history that you claim to be false
My source said that there were four equal elections in which the population voted in favor of the unification
Your source said that and then proceedes to list four votes of the type I had already described. They voted for parties for general elections. For national elections in the GDR, for local elections in the GDR, for new state elections, and then federal elections with everyone in the FRG as well (which makes even less sense but I avoided quibbling). I already explained this to you two comments ago when I went through how the bullshitting worked: the law called for plebiscite but they instead just claim the results of normal elections for parties counts instead.
You have also been bamboozled by this illogic. I said it was illegal, thos source clsims it was popular and there was a hand-wavy proxy vote, and they successfully convinced you to not question the legality.
although 55 percent thought it happened to fast, 80 percent were in favor.
Polling in the GDR was very poor and you should not trust any of the polls. Many of the attempts at polling showed supermajority rejection of reunification and you shouldn't trust those, either. Funny enough, this is actually one of the practical benefits to having a plebiscite on these kinds of questions: you don't have to guess.
I need sources because we are talking about facts in history that you claim to be false
Again, for what topica do you need sources? Which things can you not look up on your own and would prefer me to grab for you? Your source was just the things I was already saying happened, it did not add anything to the conversation, though people with Reddit brain always get excited by a link and some quotes.
You can review Article 29 (the one used to absorb the GDR) here. From this translation:
"(3) The referendum shall be held in the Länder from whose territories or parts of territories a new Land or a Land with redefined boundaries is to be established (affected Länder). The question to be voted on is whether the affected Länder are to remain as they are or whether the new Land or the Land with redefined boundaries should be established. The proposal to establish a new Land or a Land with redefined boundaries shall take effect if the change is approved by a majority in the future territory of such Land and by a majority in the territories or parts of territories of an affected Land taken together whose affiliation with a Land is to be changed in the same way. The proposal shall not take effect if, within the territory of any of the affected Länder, a majority reject the change; however, such rejection shall be of no consequence if in any part of the territory whose affiliation with the affected Land is to be changed a two-thirds majority approves the change, unless it is rejected by a two-thirds majority in the territory of the affected Land as a whole."
Though again, you:
have
not
told
me
what
sources
you
need.
Di you understand now?
Can you please point out where in my source it states that it was the type of election you say it is because to me it seems to say they made public votes about the unification. Maybe there is something lost in translation as I am reading the german version and you might not be or something else.
This is also the part I need a source for: That the elections were made out to be a vote about the unification process.
The Article you stated from the GG just states what we already agreed on: That there was a vote to be held and if the vote turns out not in favor it will not happen.
Can you please point out where in my source it states that it was the type of election you say it is because to me it seems to say they made public votes about the unification.
If you were interested you could read it yourself and look at the dates and what they are referring to with their proper nouns. Every election they listed was a general election of parties / candidates, not a plebiscite on reuniting.
"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"
Do you know what Allianz fuer Deutschland was? It was a coalition of parties. When they refer to them getting 48% of votea, they are referring to their party coalition getting those votes. Liberals go on and on about this election, they even xall it the first free election in the GDR since the Nazis took over.
"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."
This is the local elections in the GDR a little later. Again they are referring to political parties receiving votes.
"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."
This is referring to elections after reunification day. This time at the state level and national. Again they refer to parties getting percentages of votes: CDU, FDP.
Maybe there is something lost in translation as I am reading the german version and you might not be or something else.
I can read German.
This is also the part I need a source for: That the elections were made out to be a vote about the unification process.
Your own source is saying exactly that. Its examples are all general elections for party representation in legislative bodies. Your own source calls this, "Im Einheitsjahr 1990 stimmte die Bevölkerung der DDR zweimal vor und zweimal nach dem Stichtag über die Wiedrevereinigung ab." For those who do not speak German, this is saying, more or less, "in Unification Year 1990 the citizens of the GDR voted twice before and twice after the reunification deadline". It says they voted for unificatikn four times but every example is a general election of parties.
The Article you stated from the GG just states what we already agreed on: That there was a vote to be held and if the vote turns out not in favor it will not happen.
No vote on the decision was held. None. Article 29 is quite cleae that the people must vote explicitly on the decision to join. It even says there cannot be more than 2 choices presented on the ballot.
From what I have read up now the unification was not done under article 29 but with a seperate contract that the elected parties from the DDR and the BRD signed to unite the parts of germany. I am not sure if this was against the article 29 but I can't find any information if it was or wasn't.
The contract didn't include anything about voting about it.
The first reunifucation document cites article 23, indicating that the GDR would enter as states (Laender) adhering to the FRG constitution, which was subject to article 29. The only other option for reunification provided for in the FRG constitution was a negotiated rewrite of the constitution, itself requiring a plebiscite, which they did not do. The "contract" does not mention article 29, but it is subject to the only two provisions in the FRG constitution for the reunification (accession if states via plebiscite and negotiated rewrite of the constitution, also requiring a plebiscite).
After the fact, liberals began coming up with explanations for why this blatantly illegal "contract" was actually fine, including things like the sourced document conflating general elections of parties with a plebiscite.
So who are you accusing of doing the wrong thing: The government of the GDR or the FRG Government, because is it still illegal annexation if the country being annexed signs a legally binding contract that it will become part of germany without a plebiscite.
Maybe it went against the GG of the FDR but then it wouldn't really be an illegal annexation but a different crime if it wasn't against the laws of the GDR or our definitions of annexation might differ.
So who are you accusing of doing the wrong thing
I'm saying the FRG broke its own laws to annex the DDR. I haven't said that this is inherently "the wrong thing", I note it being illegal because liberals pretend to care about such things.
The government of the GDR or the FRG Government, because is it still illegal annexation if the country being annexed signs a legally binding contract that it will become part of germany without a plebiscite.
There is no provision for this in the FRG's provisional constitution at the time. I linked to it and explained the two options already.