Has anyone ever considered what Germany might have been like in the 1920s and 1930s had the German Communist revolution...

Has anyone ever considered what Germany might have been like in the 1920s and 1930s had the German Communist revolution of 1919 actually succeeded? Luxemburgist Communism seems fascinating and it would have certainly been a far different Socialist state than the Soviet Union was, but more than anything I'm curious as to what Germany would have done politically had the Luxemburgists gained power.

An even bigger shithole then Wiemar or East Germany.

>that nose
and people wonder why Hitler was so hellbent on jews. Communism was the anti-thesis of NS, and in his eyes a jewish invention.

But to answer your question I think it would have been dissolved in to the greater Sovjet State

/pol/babbies please leave.

same shithole as any other socialist state

>people who disagree with me from /pol/

Why do ask for opinions if you just berate those who don't agree with you?

It would have led to the destruction of Europe, the Freikorps, and Nationalists were the only reason Bolshevik tyranny didn't span from Vladivostok to Ireland.

If you idolize these traitors then.

>>>/leftypol/

How are they disagreeing with me? I never said I thought it would be good or bad, I asked a serious question about what effect it would have had on history. They're just shitposting their ordinary /pol/-tier memes about Socialist states and not contributing anything to the discussion.

You obviously don't agree with "/pol/ tier memes about socialist states"

No I actually possess a minimum amount of knowledge on what the different forms of Socialism are and their history.

So if you don't disagree with them, why ask people who people who post them to leave?

>why ask people who people who post them to leave?
Could I get that in English please?

No ;)

What kind of socialist state that Soviet Union would become wasn't clear by 1919. In any instance, Soviet influence would have been massive (Germany and the USSR cooperated just fine in the interwar years anyway) and once Stalin takes power he would have all of continental Europe at the sweep of a hand, and then he would execute all important political dissenters. Which he did, just now there would be more of them to take care of.

It would have been an absolutely soulless, ugly shithole like literally every proto-communist state in history

But Stalin wasn't even recognized as a top dog in Europe until after WW2. It could arguably have been the more democratic Communist Germany that ended up influencing the Soviet Union most.

I mean, I guess, but this is the problem with all alt-his discussion. What happened, happened for a reason. It turns into a lot of speculation based on nothing substantial.

A communist revolution in Germany would most likely have been a drawn out and costly civil war just like in Russia, and it would change a lot of the political landscape in Europe. Hard to say what happens then.

Commieboos can't handle dissent. Comes from the one party system their so hellbent on forcing onto others.

Most likely this. Germany always had a special place in the communist mindset and if we assume germany goes commie without a costly civil war it is likely that it wouldn't have been Stalins sock puppet.

Better. Ebert was a fool for trusting the generals and the army.

Much better

On the contrary, it would have been all the more reason to make it one.

Just because they call themselves communist doesnt mean they are all best buddies

>Rosa Luxemburg succeeds in the revolution
>yay
>It isn't full on Stalinist and doesn't kill millions of people
>Luxemburg Germany gets it shit kicked in by Stalinist Russia and becomes a puppet

>commiebros will actually defend this

Somehow non-authoritarian communism never seems to work except maybe in very small groups of willing participants.

>Implying the soviets would have been capable of doing that.

>Its another "Communism has bever been tried" episode

Then you're a masochist or a retard. German army delayed the shitholization of Germany by good 25 years by crushing the commies.

Honestly outside of maybe those central Asian shitholes (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan etc) there isn't a country where communism improved anything. It's cancer: the ideology.

>there isn't a country where communism improved anything

Name one.

Russia? Nope
Baltics? Nope
China? Nope (only got successful after switching to capitalism)
Poland? Nope.
East Germany? Nope.
Czechoslovakia? Nope.
Hungary? Nope.
Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam? Nope.

>Russia? Nope
You think being a literal serf is preferable to being able to have an education, healthcare and guaranteed basic needs?

This is terrible bait.

>serfs
>in 1917
>communist education

Serfdom was long abolished and many of the formerly landless peasants became landowners, forming a new class - the kulaks. Commies completely destroyed this by stripping them of all posessions and locking them up in labor camps and kolkhozes, effectively recreating serfdom / manoralism.

It's like a fat girl with tits - quality of life advancements hardly count when you have to kill millions of your own people and commit mass theft to do it.
The positive change of the USSR has been seen in less time, with less death, in postwar Asian nations like South Korea and Singapore, by the use of state capitalism. Slaying droves of their own people and confiscating their wealth to inefficiently fund their five-year plans is not justifiable even if it did drag the Russians out of feudalism kicking and screaming.

Soviet biotechnology was GOAT though I'll give them that.

>Serfdom was long abolished and many of the formerly landless peasants became landowners, forming a new class - the kulaks

Kulaks never made up any more than a 10th of the peasant population and actively worked against the others through their control over grain sales and burning of crops. After these pests were liquidated (at no small human cost) grain shipments to the cities increased and industrialization was accelerated.

>justifying enslavement of an entire class

Why are commies such edgy manchildren? The point is that communism resembled serfdom more than Nicholas' Russia did.

Good job totally ignoring the education, healthcare and basic needs there kiddo. Guess it made sense to though because it pretty much refuted your argument completely and you knew you couldn't defend yourself from it.

Also if you think the level of freedom in the USSR during Stalin's period represents what life was like for the average Russian throughout the entirety of the existence of the Soviet Union then you have no idea what you're talking about. And by the way serfdom was abolished only in name in 1861, most of the Russian countrymen were so oppressed even before WW1 by their landlords it was practically the same thing.

Soviet healthcare was notoriously horrible, read what Solzhenitsyn had to say about it.

There was no serfdom whatsoever in the 1910s. Uneducated commies like to peddle this meme but they literally have no proof, it was real only in their mind.

Is that really your best argument?

Okay Alex Jones, where's your proof then?

>proving a negative

Pretty sure the burden of proof is on you.

Soviet biotech? Need to know more intensifies..any sources?

Look up Lysenko

>A common saying in pseudologic is "You can't prove a negative." This is, as the hatnote up top says, simply not true. This is clearly not true because any statement can be rewritten into the negation of its negation. Any provable statement can be written as a negative. For example, "X is true" can be rewritten as "X is not false", a negative statement! If "X is true" can be proven true, then you have also proven a negative statement "X is not false".

Nice try ;)

So no proof whatsoever, that's what I thought. You fucks are a bunch of liars, you actually KNOW there was no serfdom but you're reluctant to admit it because it would obliterate your ideological narrative.

>Solzhenitsyn
Of all people you couldn't have chosen worse. His whole shtick was shitting on Soviet Union. I mean, he had a reason for that, but I wouldn't trust what he wrote 100%.

>actively worked against the others through their control over grain sales and burning of crops.

[NON-COMMUNIST CITATION NEEDED]

>it's a "Solzhenitsyn is wrong because he disliked the Soviet Union" episode

Here's the problem though, everyone who witnessed the Soviet Union first hand were either communist true believers who would naturally paper over any of the regime's flaws, dissenters who were locked up or killed, foreign visitors who never saw the real thing, or Solzhenitsyn.

Commies BTFO

You won't find one because commies are incapable of self criticism. Their precious religion is always right and the big bad capitalist man is always trying to keep the red man down.

I know because I'm Venezuelan and according to the pieces of shit who ruined my country, there is no economic crisis. According to the Finance Minister even the concept of inflation is "an imperialist construct". And Venezuela would be a socialist utopia if it wasn't for those evil small business owners who have all the food, but dey keeping it from da poor man, so wez gotta make em hand it over.
Because that's how business, or in the kulak's case, agriculture works right? You make products and then don't wanna sell them so you can be an evil Scrooge oppressing the poor because you love the CIA, until the heroic revolutionary government can come to punish you in the name of the poor.

There's no reasoning with commie animals, they're following a religious agenda that demands the extermination of any opposition to their autism.

Why do you assume it would've turned out completely different than the Soviet Union or any other successful communist revolution?