4 ms·

I'm surprised this paper omits any mention of the Bavarian Soviet Republic [1]. In a paper discussing precisely what would have given the Nazi's more support, I

I'm surprised this paper omits any mention of the Bavarian Soviet Republic [1]. In a paper discussing precisely what would have given the Nazi's more support, I don't understand how they managed to omit this. Like the paper discusses there was an increasingly radicalized conflict between far left and far right groups. This first came to organized violence when a group of communists and anarchists overthrew the government of Bavaria, a German state, and declared it the Bavarian Soviet Republic. It was a brutal country for all month long that it existed. Guns were seized along with money, food, and most other necessities of the times. People's houses were stolen and given to vagrants. Factories, farms, and other production facilities were stolen from their owners and given to the workers. And the country rapidly began to face food and supply shortages, similar to what would happen to China during its "great leap forward." And these shortages were met with comments from the government such as, "What does it matter [if we do not have milk]? ... Most of it goes to the children of the bourgeoisie anyway. We are not interested in keeping them alive. No harm if they die – they’d only grow into enemies of the proletariat." And on top of all of this, two of three of the leaders of the groups that overthrew the government were Jewish, at a time when many were already blaming Jews for Germany's defeat in WW1. I'm certain there are many causes for the rise of the Nazis, but not even giving this event mention seems unreasonable. This is certainly one of the most important events in setting the stage for the political changes of the times. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarian_Soviet_Republic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarian_Soviet_Republic

matt4077 9y ago
I have no idea why this decidedly minor failed movement should figure prominently in any telling of the rise of fascism in Germany. As you state yourself, it lasted for less than a month. I will add that this month in semi-power occurred before Hitler had even joined the Nazi party.
- TangoTrotFox 9y ago
  Imagine for a minute that in some moderate sized state in the US, radical left or radical right individuals organized and violently overthrew the government by force with tens of thousands of 'soldiers.' And then they started living up to every imagined stereotype of their ideology. Can you imagine how that would change this country? How would you respond? I expect we would almost certainly end up going hard in the opposite ideological direction of whomever did it. This a crucial point in understanding how and why it was so [relatively] 'easy' for quite absurd views to start to take hold.
  - matt4077 9y ago
    Okay, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. But since you're now rather explicitly stating that the rise of the Nazis was the fault of some decidedly comical[0] anarcho-communists, I'm just going to mention that it was not. 1918/19 was a time of turmoil not easily compared to anything you may know. Very little of the events of the time fit neatly into any cause-and-effect timeline. One dominant symptom, but not necessarily cause, was open fighting in the streets between extremist groups of all stripes. You local communist pseudo-revolution doesn't even figure prominently among local communist pseudo-revolutions of the time. It's much easier to clearly identify the (rather few) Germans who didn't succumb to the temptation of fascism. Social democrats would figure very prominently in such an analysis. Every other group of society, from old elites in politics, the military, or business, from academia to the clergy, became essential to the rise of Hitler, each in their own specific way. [0]: seriously: read the Wikipedia article. Their Foreign Secretary complained to the Swiss that the key to the loo was missing!
    - TangoTrotFox 9y ago
      The initial leadership was made up of social and popular figures (playwrights, writers, etc). You need popular figures to drive numbers. These individuals were useful idiots who were in power for 6 days before communist forces, rapidly acknowledged by Lenin, seized control and began their reign of terror. And while this played a critical role in 'setting the stage' that enabled the rise of the Nazis, it certainly was not the sole cause. But in either case, simply ignoring this event is likely to lead to flawed logic.
  - crdoconnor 9y ago
    I imagine if any county in the US had an independence movement that lasted a month it would probably be starved and invaded... much like Bavaria was. I don't think a month of political chaos and severed economic ties is really a long enough time to live up to any stereotype. It would be like judging the effectiveness of the German economic machine on the basis that Berlin was still a total mess 1 month after the war ended.
  - mikeash 9y ago

matt4077 9y ago

I have no idea why this decidedly minor failed movement should figure prominently in any telling of the rise of fascism in Germany. As you state yourself, it lasted for less than a month. I will add that this month in semi-power occurred before Hitler had even joined the Nazi party.

TangoTrotFox 9y ago
Imagine for a minute that in some moderate sized state in the US, radical left or radical right individuals organized and violently overthrew the government by force with tens of thousands of 'soldiers.' And then they started living up to every imagined stereotype of their ideology. Can you imagine how that would change this country? How would you respond? I expect we would almost certainly end up going hard in the opposite ideological direction of whomever did it. This a crucial point in understanding how and why it was so [relatively] 'easy' for quite absurd views to start to take hold.
- matt4077 9y ago
  Okay, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. But since you're now rather explicitly stating that the rise of the Nazis was the fault of some decidedly comical[0] anarcho-communists, I'm just going to mention that it was not. 1918/19 was a time of turmoil not easily compared to anything you may know. Very little of the events of the time fit neatly into any cause-and-effect timeline. One dominant symptom, but not necessarily cause, was open fighting in the streets between extremist groups of all stripes. You local communist pseudo-revolution doesn't even figure prominently among local communist pseudo-revolutions of the time. It's much easier to clearly identify the (rather few) Germans who didn't succumb to the temptation of fascism. Social democrats would figure very prominently in such an analysis. Every other group of society, from old elites in politics, the military, or business, from academia to the clergy, became essential to the rise of Hitler, each in their own specific way. [0]: seriously: read the Wikipedia article. Their Foreign Secretary complained to the Swiss that the key to the loo was missing!
  - TangoTrotFox 9y ago
    The initial leadership was made up of social and popular figures (playwrights, writers, etc). You need popular figures to drive numbers. These individuals were useful idiots who were in power for 6 days before communist forces, rapidly acknowledged by Lenin, seized control and began their reign of terror. And while this played a critical role in 'setting the stage' that enabled the rise of the Nazis, it certainly was not the sole cause. But in either case, simply ignoring this event is likely to lead to flawed logic.
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  I imagine if any county in the US had an independence movement that lasted a month it would probably be starved and invaded... much like Bavaria was. I don't think a month of political chaos and severed economic ties is really a long enough time to live up to any stereotype. It would be like judging the effectiveness of the German economic machine on the basis that Berlin was still a total mess 1 month after the war ended.
- mikeash 9y ago