Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

DDR-Rise again!?

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 829
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Nov 2006, 20:19
Komsomol
Post 03 Jan 2007, 03:44
Quote:
I see absolutely nothing in these texts about blocking with or working with the Nazis in any fashion. Am I missing something?


Text of the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact

Nazi Germany was inadvertently progressive, before its imperialism. The USSR would have been more threatened by a SPD government than a Nazi one if not for Hitler's dementia.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2693
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2006, 08:59
Party Bureaucrat
Post 03 Jan 2007, 04:26
Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? Please. That is nothing but generic Statecraft.

And no, the NSDAP was never progressive, inadvertently or otherwise. That is why they and their ilk (Freikorps) beat and killed Communists. They were used by the German bourgeoisie to smash the left from the word go.

I take you aren't a fan of the Comintern's 'third period'
Image

"To know a thing you must study it." --Dagoth Ur
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 829
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Nov 2006, 20:19
Komsomol
Post 03 Jan 2007, 04:55
Quote:
And no, the NSDAP was never progressive, inadvertently or otherwise.
Again, I quote Stalin :

So long as the Hitlerites were engaged in uniting Germany, which had been carved up by the Versailles Treaty, they could enjoy the support of the German people, who were inspired by the ideal or the restoration of Germany. But after this aim had been achieved and the Hitlerites took the road of imperialism, of seizing foreign lands and of subjugating foreign nations, thereby converting the peoples of Europe and the peoples of the U.S.S.R. into sworn enemies of present-day Germany, a profound change of heart took place among the German people against the continuation of the war, in favour of ending the war.
Quote:
That is why they and their ilk (Freikorps) beat and killed Communists. They were used by the German bourgeoisie to smash the left from the word go.
Yes and that was under Ebert's SPD dominated Weimar govt. when they really were just tools of the bourgeoisie. However, once in power, Hitler proved much more audacious than the bourgeois+aristocrats had taken him for. They wanted him as a figurehead, instead he began purging the government of monarchists and unfaithful capitalists. This was done in a very subtle way but was enough to start the assassination attempts which I assure you were not from Communist sympathizers.
Quote:
I take you aren't a fan of the Comintern's 'third period'
I've actually been defending that line consistently.
Last edited by Red Robespierre on 03 Jan 2007, 04:59, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2693
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 01 Mar 2006, 08:59
Party Bureaucrat
Post 03 Jan 2007, 04:58
Quote:
Quote:
And no, the NSDAP was never progressive, inadvertently or otherwise.

Again, I quote Stalin :

So long as the Hitlerites were engaged in uniting Germany, which had been carved up by the Versailles Treaty, they could enjoy the support of the German people, who were inspired by the ideal or the restoration of Germany. But after this aim had been achieved and the Hitlerites took the road of imperialism, of seizing foreign lands and of subjugating foreign nations, thereby converting the peoples of Europe and the peoples of the U.S.S.R. into sworn enemies of present-day Germany, a profound change of heart took place among the German people against the continuation of the war, in favour of ending the war.


Why are you drawing a line between support and progress? There is no connection. The majority of Israelis support Palestinian apartheid. The majority of Whites support the Republican party. The majority of people support capitalism. So what?
Image

"To know a thing you must study it." --Dagoth Ur
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 829
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Nov 2006, 20:19
Komsomol
Post 03 Jan 2007, 05:07
It is clear that Stalin himself saw that unification of Germany was a noble goal - "Hitlers come and go, but Germany and the German people remain."

It was progressive for Germany to regain stolen territories that were rightfully German and end its economic exploitation by the western imperialist powers. A KPD government would have taken similar actions.

It is my way to consider all evils with the good within them.
Soviet cogitations: 436
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Nov 2006, 21:54
Unperson
Post 03 Jan 2007, 18:45
I cheered the Soviet-German non-aggression pact because it destroyed the West's plan for "peace at any cost" by trying to draw the USSR into war with Germany so that the empires of England and France could be maintained by the blood of others. Nonetheless, the Soviet-German non-aggression pact did not signify any sort of alliance. In regard to the "secret protocol", the USSR was merely retaining land which soviet Russia was forced to cede to the aggressive Central Power bloc through the Brest-Litovsk treaty. However, this lost validity with the Versailles treaty.
banistansig2
J.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 605
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Apr 2003, 22:15
Komsomol
Post 03 Jan 2007, 18:53
Quote:
It was progressive for Germany to regain stolen territories that were rightfully German and end its economic exploitation by the western imperialist powers.

That's your view which those Stalin quotes have nothing to do with.
Quote:
A KPD government would have taken similar actions.

A "KPD government" could only have come to power through an armed insurrection. It wouldn't only have ended exploitation by Western bourgeoisie, but by the German monopoly capital aswell. On what basis you believe that the KPD had similar ambitions concerning the "German territories"?
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 829
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Nov 2006, 20:19
Komsomol
Post 03 Jan 2007, 22:50
Quote:
That's your view which those Stalin quotes have nothing to do with.
Greggers and yourself have sidestepped that quote. It is obviously sympathetic to the unification of German territories and opposed to the later indefensible imperialistic incursions into non-German territories. Stalin wasn't thrilled with Germany being carved up after WWI or WWII.

So long as it is democratic and no war is brought against foreign nations, Communists will always support the synthesis of territories into the most massive and centralized states possible. This is because vast political-economic units expand the battlefield and reinforce the ranks of the proletariat against against a dwindling bourgeoisie.
Quote:
A "KPD government" could only have come to power through an armed insurrection. It wouldn't only have ended exploitation by Western bourgeoisie, but by the German monopoly capital aswell.
Not likely when Germany was in pieces and under military occupation by the League of Nations in Danzig and Elsass-Lothringen (which was also occupied by French imperialists). The League of Nations were an ultra-reactionary force that had expelled the Soviet Union in 1939 for trying to liberate your country and they wanted disunited German splinter-states to prevent not only the rise of a powerful German bourgeoisie, but a German proletariat!
Quote:
On what basis you believe that the KPD had similar ambitions concerning the "German territories"?
They were prohibited from holding plebiscites, because it was clearly their desire to join Germany in a democratic fashion.

When Honecker was a rising KPD leader in the Saar he strongly emphasized German patriotism and opposition to the League of Nations/French occupation. This was the reason Nazis were so embarrassed by their lack of support in the Saarland. This experience of course stayed with comrade Honecker and was why when he encountered West German Communists from the Ruhr (in Budapest for a Communist youth event in the 50's) up to the old tricks of flying a French tricolor he got in their face and it nearly got physical.

Workers turn to Fascism only when their Communist party has somehow failed to foster a healthy proletarian patriotism.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 67
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Apr 2007, 14:32
Pioneer
Post 06 Aug 2007, 17:06
Quote:
Die Linke are the breakaway Gorbachevist faction of the SED. They are worthless.

The fact there exists no worthwhile Socialist or Communist parties in Germany (and won't until capitalism is in crisis), and the fact that tearing away Germany from America would greatly damage world capitalism and provoke a crisis means the NPD is the only reasonable party for Communists to work with. Hell, NPD members have been known to wear Che t-shirts and many German petty-bourgeois nationalists support socialist states like Belarus and North Korea. They bitch more about the abuse of Rudolf Hess by bourgeois 'Anglo-Jewish' UK than anything else.


Agreed. Die Linke is pretty worthless and is just a politically correct party. Certainly nowhere near what the SED used to be.

I also say NPD. They may not be communists, but they have a lot of Pro-DDR members and sympathizers. They are anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 77
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 22 Jul 2007, 09:12
Pioneer
Post 06 Aug 2007, 20:20
Now that you mention it newspapers and magazines tend to show more and more antisocialist articles and documentaries. It was a month ago when I saw an article -in a magazine that had nothing to do with politics- about Staasi (not sure about the spelling) and its; "personal freedom violating" actions. Remember that offspring film "The lives of others" that was awarded an Academy Award?
People in former socialist countries recall the socialist state and the bourgeois today is feeling its throne shaking. Too bad Greece hadn't felt what socialism is like first-hand (British military intervention in Athens during the civil war 1946-1949
). The two major parties are like in most EU countries, one neoliberal party and one social-democratic party, and especially in Greece each of these parties governs using the exact same laws that the other one does. And while KKE is screaming to the world to put those two parties in the same category, it seems like most people here have no faith in any political party and consider them all to act for their own profit. I recall a gallop in a newspaper showing that 80% of greek citizens have no trust in any political party. This is driving people away from facing their troubles when these originate from the ones that govern. As a comrade had once told me:"It doesn't matter even if we revive Marx and Lenin. We have to make the people understand what their interest is and who truly supports it. The power of a communist party is the people. And we must make the people realize that we and the people are one and the same"
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 12
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Sep 2007, 08:29
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 25 Sep 2007, 04:04
For its faults, the DDR was a progressive country which allowed great freedom for women and the proletariat as a whole. If the DDR was still with us to this day, I'd happily emigrate there.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3711
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Jul 2006, 04:49
Ideology: Juche
Old Bolshevik
Post 25 Sep 2007, 04:41
Quote:
I live in denmark, just north of germany-and we hear the news from germany. And now when the election has been thier i read in a newspapier that :"Its only a matter of time before germany will split up in to again."


What would be a better solution would be if all of Germany came under a DDR style regime. Germany is a major power in the European Union, and it would be very interesting to see a Proletarian Socialist Germany in the European Parliament.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1716
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Nov 2006, 17:20
Party Member
Post 25 Sep 2007, 05:19
Very interesting indeed.
Image

"The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2932
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Aug 2006, 17:30
Party Bureaucrat
Post 25 Sep 2007, 12:37
Quote:
For its faults, the DDR was a progressive country which allowed great freedom for women and the proletariat as a whole. If the DDR was still with us to this day, I'd happily emigrate there.
Same here. DDR was the most advanced society towards socialism.
Image


Ideology transforms human beings into subjects, leading them to see themselves as self-determining agents when they are in fact shaped by ideological processes. L. Althusser
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 989
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Jul 2004, 01:47
Komsomol
Post 25 Sep 2007, 21:08
Quote:
Same here. DDR was the most advanced society towards socialism.


In terms of income per capita and social services it probably was, but if I were living in Eastern Europe during the Cold War I'd personally have preferred Yugoslavia...
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.