5 ms·

Which also leads to him making a fundamentally wrong analysis of the situation. Now before you all yell at me, let me explain where I am coming from. One of t

Which also leads to him making a fundamentally wrong analysis of the situation. Now before you all yell at me, let me explain where I am coming from. One of the great tragedies regarding the rise of fascism in Germany is that the left-wing forces did not manage to unite in time to stop it. Communists and social democrats preferred to fight each other instead. They did work together in the resistance later but then it was way too late. This is fundamental for understanding the behavior of the communists in the Spanish Civil War. Simplified, they switched strategies from immediate revolution to focusing on fighting fascism first. The Anarchist and other left-wing radicals like the POUM on the other hand wanted to do a revolution WHILE the republic was fighting for survival against fascism. Do I need to explain why such a strategy was madness? They were destabilizing the country while not really contributing that much militarily. In a war you need a united leadership, you need clear hierarchies, that is how you win. You don't win with romanticism. So what was to be done? Yes, the Republic had to get rid of these radicals. I know people like Orwell's interpretation of history because it fits with their anti-communist biases. Sure you can say the communists had plans for after the war and you might not agree with those plans if you are not very fond of communism, that is fair. But saying the Anarchists and other left-wing radicals where the good ones, makes no sense. At least the communists did focus on fighting fascism.

orwin 2y ago
There is reason other than the Soviets that prevented the communists to ally with the social-democrats in Germany: multiple deaths, smear campaigns, and genuine hatred. But other than that you're 100% correct, the Soviet stayed with republican Spain until the end despite POUM secession in Catalonia.
roenxi 2y ago
> One of the great tragedies regarding the rise of fascism in Germany is that the left-wing forces did not manage to unite in time to stop it. Communists and social democrats preferred to fight each other instead. That seems to point to some sensible people being in the ranks of the social democrats. Communism would have been a far bigger disaster for Germany than fascism - which is really saying something given that the outcome of fascism was the destruction of the nation and decades of foreign military occupation. The real tragedy here is there were 3 political groups, none focused on and successful in increasing the prosperity of the people who they governed. They needed a competent liberal tradition.
- cardanome 2y ago
  > Communism would have been a far bigger disaster for Germany than fascism This is a absolutely insane take. Especially in retrospect. Arguing that maybe some people did seriously think that fascism might the the less bad option would be a stretch and point to willful ignorance but arguing for this position now that the have the historical facts is insane. Please go visit Auschwitz, visit Buchenwald and tell me again how fascism was the better alternative. That is where the "sensible people" in the ranks of the social democrats did end up. Dead. The Nazis did not stop at the communists, not at the social democrats, not at the trade unionists, not at the Jews, not at the queer people, not a the Gypsy and Roma, not at people with disabilities, not the "antisocial" people, not at anyone really. Don't tell me how GULAGs were the same thing, they were not. Political repression in the Soviet Union was horrible but even the most intense years do not come close to the industrial scale murder the Nazis did. That es the equivalent of saying the US were not better than the Nazis because they put Japanese-Americans in camps and used the nuclear weapons. No, there were lots of messed up things but the crimes of the Nazis were of a quality that is unique.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    Fascism is like a hot stove. People touched it, then there was a very visceral "nobody is doing that again!" reaction. The fascist states flamed out - often violently - and were absorbed into more successful ideologies. Ironically the outcomes have been, relatively speaking, pretty reasonable for the descendants of the fascists. Whereas communism was just a big, ongoing failure. Countless deaths, brutal atrocities things like the Holodomor or the Chinese landlord butcherings. Nations plunged into poverty for generations. Instability and eventual collapse in the case of the USSR leading to a brutal decade and eventual quasi-dictatorship in Russia. The priority, by far, is to suppress the communists. If communism takes hold a nation is doomed. Unwinding a communist takeover proved much more challenging than rooting out a Nazi infestation. In hindsight the Germans ended up with better outcomes. It is easy to imagine an impoverished communist Germany today because the communists ended up with half of the country after the war and we saw what happened. > Please go visit Auschwitz, visit Buchenwald and tell me again how fascism was the better alternative Those camps killed a few million people. While that is terrible; if that was all the Nazis did, they wouldn't be an especially memorable reigime - it is small biscuits to Mao or Stalin. The Holodomor doesn't get special mention like the Holocaust does, it is just another footnote to the long list of people that the communists starved to death. > Political repression in the Soviet Union was horrible but even the most intense years do not come close to the industrial scale murder the Nazis did. I dunno; I suspect that the communist famines came in waves of high- and low- intensity. It wouldn't have been annual famines, it would have been bursts of millions of people dying. Picking on the Holodomor again because I have the wiki page open, that was ~4 million people in one year. That must be pretty close to the intensity of the Nazi's internal killing machine.

orwin 2y ago

There is reason other than the Soviets that prevented the communists to ally with the social-democrats in Germany: multiple deaths, smear campaigns, and genuine hatred. But other than that you're 100% correct, the Soviet stayed with republican Spain until the end despite POUM secession in Catalonia.

roenxi 2y ago

> One of the great tragedies regarding the rise of fascism in Germany is that the left-wing forces did not manage to unite in time to stop it. Communists and social democrats preferred to fight each other instead. That seems to point to some sensible people being in the ranks of the social democrats. Communism would have been a far bigger disaster for Germany than fascism - which is really saying something given that the outcome of fascism was the destruction of the nation and decades of foreign military occupation. The real tragedy here is there were 3 political groups, none focused on and successful in increasing the prosperity of the people who they governed. They needed a competent liberal tradition.

cardanome 2y ago
> Communism would have been a far bigger disaster for Germany than fascism This is a absolutely insane take. Especially in retrospect. Arguing that maybe some people did seriously think that fascism might the the less bad option would be a stretch and point to willful ignorance but arguing for this position now that the have the historical facts is insane. Please go visit Auschwitz, visit Buchenwald and tell me again how fascism was the better alternative. That is where the "sensible people" in the ranks of the social democrats did end up. Dead. The Nazis did not stop at the communists, not at the social democrats, not at the trade unionists, not at the Jews, not at the queer people, not a the Gypsy and Roma, not at people with disabilities, not the "antisocial" people, not at anyone really. Don't tell me how GULAGs were the same thing, they were not. Political repression in the Soviet Union was horrible but even the most intense years do not come close to the industrial scale murder the Nazis did. That es the equivalent of saying the US were not better than the Nazis because they put Japanese-Americans in camps and used the nuclear weapons. No, there were lots of messed up things but the crimes of the Nazis were of a quality that is unique.
- roenxi 2y ago
  Fascism is like a hot stove. People touched it, then there was a very visceral "nobody is doing that again!" reaction. The fascist states flamed out - often violently - and were absorbed into more successful ideologies. Ironically the outcomes have been, relatively speaking, pretty reasonable for the descendants of the fascists. Whereas communism was just a big, ongoing failure. Countless deaths, brutal atrocities things like the Holodomor or the Chinese landlord butcherings. Nations plunged into poverty for generations. Instability and eventual collapse in the case of the USSR leading to a brutal decade and eventual quasi-dictatorship in Russia. The priority, by far, is to suppress the communists. If communism takes hold a nation is doomed. Unwinding a communist takeover proved much more challenging than rooting out a Nazi infestation. In hindsight the Germans ended up with better outcomes. It is easy to imagine an impoverished communist Germany today because the communists ended up with half of the country after the war and we saw what happened. > Please go visit Auschwitz, visit Buchenwald and tell me again how fascism was the better alternative Those camps killed a few million people. While that is terrible; if that was all the Nazis did, they wouldn't be an especially memorable reigime - it is small biscuits to Mao or Stalin. The Holodomor doesn't get special mention like the Holocaust does, it is just another footnote to the long list of people that the communists starved to death. > Political repression in the Soviet Union was horrible but even the most intense years do not come close to the industrial scale murder the Nazis did. I dunno; I suspect that the communist famines came in waves of high- and low- intensity. It wouldn't have been annual famines, it would have been bursts of millions of people dying. Picking on the Holodomor again because I have the wiki page open, that was ~4 million people in one year. That must be pretty close to the intensity of the Nazi's internal killing machine.