Communist Germany

What do you think would have happened if Germany became communist immediately after World War One. It seems they might have come close to this happening.

would be a poor and or a shithole like every other country to fall for the communism meme

There's a possibility that the Soviets would turn on them because the German communists were anti-Leninist. It's also likely that the capitalist powers would put pressure on Germany or invade it, then blame socialism when it collapsed.

it would be communism made in germany, it would work perfectly and induce mass autism

It would have been the only actual first world country to have fully embraced the principles of Marxism.

We would have had an actually competitive model for a capitalist replacement, not one based off of some run down second world shitholes still trying to industrialize

Compare DPRK with Bangladesh faggot. DPRK is far richer and has far better living standards

(You)

But how does it compare to a more closely related country?

They can see the stars, we can't.

Luxemburg and Liebknecht didn't have Lenin's authoritarian streak, and the bourgeoisie would have one hell of a time trying to portray the German Revolution as a bad thing. We might have fully automated luxury communism by now.

freikorps ftw

this commies get out

>These commies would have actually been different
Lmao, communist delusion is amazing

>It would have been the only actual first world country to have fully embraced the principles of Marxism.

It would have been worse than Nazi Germany in all ways, as by definition communism requires ABSOLUTE state authority with no exceptions, then the leaders just miraculously step down and no-one ever tries to seize power ever again.

It just achieves feudalism again. National Socialism (note not fascism) was the only doctrine that genuinely put the working man at the forefront. But even Nazi Germany was corrupted by corporatism.

>Luxemburg and Liebknecht didn't have Lenin's authoritarian streak

That's why they lost.

>my special blend of herbs, spices, and marxism would have actually worked unlike all those others

>was the only doctrine that genuinely put the working man at the forefront
*front

Oh user!

[spoiler]That is also true though...[/spoiler]

>s by definition communism requires ABSOLUTE state authority with no exceptions, then the leaders just miraculously step down and no-one ever tries to seize power ever again.
And by definition National Socialism requires that we take out loans to buy guns to shoot the guys giving us the loans.

But remember the part where the Communistic second world shit-hole defeated a first world National Socialist Country? One of the leading decisive factors in why Barbarossa went so shitty for the Nazis was how poor their intelligence on the Communists were: they (and most of the world) assumed that the Nazis were going to steamroll them, especially considering how badly Russia got it's ass kicked when it was run by ultra-nationalists a generation earlier. But when 150 estimated divisions turned into 600, they realized how badly they fucking underestimated a communist economic juggernaut running at full steam war economy.

I mean, you could argue that it was because everyone ganged up on them, but they do that to themselves: pick fights they can't win, and then cry about how everyone is persecuting them. Plus "everyone" turned around and did that to the Communists as soon as all the National Socialists had been taken care of, only it was a long, grinding war of economic attrition

I dont think theres any other unit id rather be a part of in history then the freikorps,

reeeeeee commies

>Germany goes communist
>Allied powers intervene and easily crush it unlike Russia with easy logistics and manpower available
>done

Or

>Commies come to power
>defeat allied powers or no intervention
>authoritative leader takes advantage of weak heads ( i.e Luxemburg)
>Germany turns to shit hole communist state with constant famine during recession
>like all communist nations it fails miserable millions dead
>generations later Western upper-class university students declare it not real communism

>They can see the stars, we can't.
I can see plenty of stars lol, especially in the winter. What kind of polluted mega city do you live in?

>fully automated luxury communism

Too much salt here.

3rd.

pic related is the execution of Eugen Levine
>Levine

>>Germany turns to shit hole communist state with constant famine during recession

why would that happen if Germany was a modern industrialized capitalist country at the time of revolution?

we have literally no examples to conjecture from. stop with the assumptions, it makes for bad history.

I think you mean
>>>/reddit/

...

trips of truth

so you're making fun of a country that recognizes the damage of light pollution and the unsustainable materialism of the neoliberal order?

Friendly reminder that America leveled just about every standing structure in the North, and that they moved their entire industry below ground.

Seeing how there's a lack of non-meme answers:

The Hungarian Social Republic wouldn't have collapsed.

The Reds would have won in the Finnish Civil War

The USSR would be in a much better position economically seeing how they now have access to German industrial knowhow and resources.

The USSR would probably be dominated by what I our timeline we would calls the left opposition (seeing how the Right opposition advocated the continuation of the NEP as a means of extending the influence of the Soviet state to the peasantry and was a response to war communism)

Sturmtruppen is the only unit that comes out on top for me

most of mainland Europe falls to socialism. UK and particularly France will spend every last ounce of their will to prevent it from happening. Poland is particularly fucked. It will not win the '19 war. The Treaty of Versailles becomes a scrap of paper as half of Europe falls to proxy war, civil war, and active war. France will get caught up in the maelstrom and it will likely end up a social republic by the end of it either by democratic vote or by direct insurrection. UK will watch monarchy after monarchy fall in absolute horror as its dreams of Europe free from a sole-hegemony are buttfucked before its eyes. It will be pushed toward closer ties with America as a direct result.

fascism still happens but it will rise instead as reaction to the red order particularly in socialist italy, france and germany. The scare of '17 in America ramps up to an intensity beyond even that of '49. Red Summer leaves a lot more people dead than as history. V. Debs will spend the rest of his life in prison. The Jazz Age is lessened and tempered by fear of communism. It will still be prosperous, much like the 50's was for America as well, but it will be prosperous and guarded. The Great Depression will not happen, it will be a smaller depression on the scale of perhaps the Long Depression. FDR does not come into office.

Despite success in Europe, the reds will have a much more difficult time subverting the colonial nations who may use the opportunity to resist their master's yoke or pressure for autonomy. Socialistic reform, if any, will be slow and piecemeal. The lack of a viable working class in the colonial regions will be the major concern once the chaos in Europe abides.

Soviets will pressure China after mainland Europe is locked. The civil war may begin early.

>It would have been worse than Nazi Germany in all ways, as by definition communism requires ABSOLUTE state authority with no exceptions

You're thinking of Socialism and Leninism.

>And by definition National Socialism requires that we take out loans to buy guns to shoot the guys giving us the loans.
what.
If thats a reference to Jews, thats kind of dumb and completely incorrect.
Weimar republic Germany didn't take out loans to fund its rearmament, and it went bankrupt remember?

>the Communistic second world shit-hole defeated a first world National Socialist Country?
Wrong.
Nazi Germany and Japan were facing off against the rest of the world powers.
Germany fought all of them more or less alone, seeing how much of a liability the Italians were.
>The Communist economic juggernaut
The communists economics were a shambles.
Planned economies don't work. Period.
The Russians needed lend lease for a reason. Beyond that they spent years beating out the Nazi's, losing literally millions of men I might add, by weight of numbers mostly. It helped they developed some good tanks and planes though.

The German intelligence is a somewhat valid point, especially regarding length of the war as lack of winter clothing and vehicles ready for the russian environment was a decisive factor.
But the Germans largely lost as Hitler put defensive generals in charge of the front, not the offensive generals it needed, thus removing momentum and initiative.

Also, I never claimed anything about the Nazi's being amazing. Just that Communism is terrible. That said NS is the only truly revolutionary ideology in the last few hundred years with regards to helping the working people.

>but they do that to themselves
Some truth to this, but also a lot of misconception; the European powers, especially France and Russia didn't want a strong Germany, to the point they were prepping for a war with Germany before Hitler was even in power.

Weimar Republic went bankrupt during the hyperinflation, not in 1933. And they did take out loans, just not for rearmament.

>why would that happen if Germany was a modern industrialized capitalist country at the time of revolution?
Because it wasn't.
Versailles took much of their industrial base, and central banks ruined the Weimar Republics economy so bad it crashed.
Communism's methods are a death knell for economically stricken nations.
This isn't an assumption. History time and time again shows communism ends up as ultra repressive neo-feudalism every time.
It even fucks up nations with shit tons of oil, and countries that actually achieve modernisation (read China).
Hell Communism fucked Russia up so badly after the USSR collapsed, modern economics couldn't recover like they did in east Germany and the balkans/baltic states because Russia had had communism for so long, no-one remembered what private ownership was. So a few ((businessmen)) were able to quickly acquire oligarchy over the economy and stifle it further.

Socialism equally fucks up modern industrialised nations, though to a smaller degree.

Note, I don't think Capitalism is perfect here, but it actually is a proven method when adopted.

He actually isn't wrong on that. Though it's unclear whether that is because Bangladesh is just that bad, or that the DPRK just isn't that bad.

>fascism still happens but it will rise instead as reaction to the red order particularly in socialist italy, france and germany.
But thats largely what fascism and especially NatSoc were anyway...

Na, communism has to go through the aforementioned stage to reach the communist utopia stage. And socialism and leninism are just variations on the communist ideal.

>counterfactual history

muh fan fiction

you're all idiots

>Weimar Republic went bankrupt during the hyperinflation, not in 1933. And they did take out loans, just not for rearmament.
Rearmament actually started before 1933.

The Army was practically a state institution in Germany, and the Weimar republic let them do their own thing as long as they supported the republic, which they often didn't even do anyway.

And rearmament is one of the main reasons the Nazi economy recovered so quickly and effectively, aside from relaxing corporate restrictions and destroying unions etc.

Also, National Socialism never took out any loans, period - they introduced the reichsmark and banned usury...

So I'm unclear what point you are making, but the one I'm seeing is flat wrong.

Right now you're repeating Nazi propaganda.

>they introduced the reichsmark and banned usury
You know this is not true?

>they didn't introduce reichsmarks
(we both know they did)

>they didn't ban usury
this I'll compromise on, they didn't for fractional reserve banking, and they still utilised national debt. Nazi Germany quickly became corporatism, and Hitler was economically illiterate, so it's not a surprise really.
But national debt works very differently to regular loans/debt.

Also, how are objective historical facts nazi propaganda?
I studied this period with some detail. A lot of propaganda on both sides, but;
- the nazi rearmament did start before 1933
- the Army was practically a state institution, iirc someone dubbed it "a state within a state"
-rearmament was a major reason the German economy recovered so quickly after total collapse
-Usury was banned, just not completely - his manifesto was just to get him into power, he kept very few of the promises within.
-the reichsmark was introduced and played a significant role in the recovery of the economy, and it didn't work well with international currency exchanges, as it was essentially barter. Thus Germany ended up more or less bartering with foreign nations.

To note, I'm not pro-Nazi. I'm just not anti-Nazi either. Both sides are propaganda stances and harm historical analysis.
I'm not going to ignore objective facts; Nazi Germany wasn't a terrible place by a long shot.
Economic factors were a significant aspect of the war, the others being appeasement evidently failed and Germany was getting so powerful that the other Euro nations, especially the eternal sceptic UK, got uncomfortable with that.

>I'm not going to ignore objective facts; Nazi Germany wasn't a terrible place by a long shot.

What about those communities that got persecuted by the Nazi regime for no good reason whatsoever? Are you that utilitariat?

>Economic factors were a significant aspect of the war
What about the fact that these economic factors were manifactured by the Nazis?

>Nazi Germany wasn't a terrible place by a long shot.

If you completely ignore everything that went horribly wrong, then sure, it was great.

>Luxemburg and Liebknecht didn't have Lenin's authoritarian streak

It's easy to be non-authoritarian when you don't actually have any power to defend. I personally have a hard time putting Rosa alongside such people as Lenin and Stalin, but what if she had won? Would she have really been the leader? Or would more extreme forces have inevitably taken over? Think about Trotsky and Stalin. Who's the say that Rosa wouldn't have ended up with an icepick in her head and somebody else in charge?

>Nazi Germany wasn't a terrible place by a long shot.

>certain minorities were put in fucked up ghettos and then sent systematically to automated death camps
>those who were not oppressed had to join a military campaign and dying en masse, giving to Germany countless new widows and orphans, while also decimating Germany's youth

>good by a long shot

The Titanic's maiden voyage was great if you ignore everything that happened after April 13.

>it ended badly so the whole thing should be written off entirely!
But why not the same reasoning for communism?
Commies killed tens of millions of religious groups and minorities. And still do.

I literally can't be bothered to go through a "some jews died so everything related to this is awful" episode.
Jews have massacred people, and been massacred. They are an unfortunate people for sure. But they aren't innocent.

>What about the fact that these economic factors were manifactured by the Nazis?
Is this even a question? Do you have any examples of manufactured economic factors?
Cursory reading on the economic history of the period should make it clear to the dullest mind that economic factors played a part in the war and hitlers rise.

AGAIN: I never said it was perfect, and I don't even fucking like Nazi Germany. It was just a lot better than a lot of the alternatives though. Are you incapable of understanding relativity? Also, working conditions, and living standards WENT UP for the population.

And the war years were bad yeah; systematic allied bombing played a major part in that. As did the Germans own autistic over-engineering and arrogance. But the average german, even the soldiers, had it pretty good up until the end = which were external factors that amounted to all the worlds superpowers.

my final point - Communism is awful. It's killed HUNDREDS of millions, and it only ever ends up as neo-feudalism at best.
If you can't get your head out of your own ass to read history of communism, or better yet TALK to people who lived under communist regimes and hear how fucking awful it is... well you are beyond a lost cause.

>Commies killed tens of millions of religious groups and minorities.

Not sure what your point is.

>I literally can't be bothered to go through a "some jews died so everything related to this is awful" episode.

Well, unfortunately, killing innocent people is generally considered bad so it needs to mentioned.

>It was just a lot better than a lot of the alternatives though.

Like what? There was no problem in the Weimer Republic that required any dramatic fixes.

>Communism is awful.

Agreed, but that has nothing to do with this.

It wouldnt be possible thanks to Versailles
Either the Entente would have went in and replaced it with something else(which wouldnt have been hard) or it would have collapsed 10 times worse than Weimar under all the economic pressure

>Well, unfortunately, killing innocent people is generally considered bad so it needs to mentioned.
>Commies killed tens of millions of religious groups and minorities.
>Not sure what your point is.
Thats my point.
We treat nazi germany with a hatred that clouds logic and objectivity - it's actions were bad, you're right.
But communism and oftentimes capitalism get a free pass, despite communism killing millions more in genuinely systematically genocidal ways.

>Weimar republic
was weak. To the point it let the army walk all over it (despite the army being the reason Versailles was signed in the first place!)
On paper it was great, even more free than America was. In practice though, it was often times no better than anarchy, and the people suffered through shitty economic policies that gutted an already weakened Germany. And it turned a blind eye to social unrest that went unabated despite threatening the very notion of the republic itself. It's as responsible for the rise of Hitler as Neville Chamberlain and his policy of appeasement.

I'm a liberal republic favouring individual myself, so I can see a lot of good in Weimar. But I've read and heard enough to know it was deeply flawed.

I don't want to derail the thread further though, so I am taking my leave now.

This entire argument is a strawman because it relies on the premise that communism is considered "okay" whereas Nazism isn't. Try running for any public office as a communist and see how far you get.

See Russia or China for examples of what happens to countries like that who undergo Communism.

And after ww1 it was not like another user said the way it was before, broken from the war and being dragged along by the allied powers.

Every single country that undergoes communism turns out this way and you tell me we have no examples to look at, get off this board please.

You are either uninformed or simply lying. Reichsmark was introduced in 1924 to combat hyperinflation. This is not even questionable, it's an information you will find in every book about Germany's history.

About usury. They didn't change anything. Interest rate was still 4% like during the Weimar Republic. Where are you getting your information from?

Fake pic obviously it was staged after. Still though the only good red is a dead one.

Someone extreme would have taken over, Stalin wasn't even considered after Lenin there where i believe 4-5 others and yet he played them all, turned them against each other and got on top using extreme methods.

>That said NS is the only truly revolutionary ideology in the last few hundred years with regards to helping the working people.
Not at all
Conditions for workers on the Reichsautobahn were literally concentration camp tier

source on that?

I've read they were decent jobs for unemployed people, not unlike the New Deal. Nazi Germany did away with labor unions, but also sought to basically guarantee work for workers.
I wouldn't call that concentration camp tier.

If they united with the Soviet Union (unlikely but if Trotsky stuck around or someone similar), all of Europe would be Red right about now. France had a pretty big socialist movement, and Span would have flipped considering the civil war. Italy couldn't defend itself against three twigs let alone a united northern Europe. It's more likely every major power would have invaded Germany to prevent this from happening at the outset of a communist revolution; they gave up Russia only because of war fatigue back home. They would never give up Germany and risk a unified Marxist front.

>They would never give up Germany and risk a unified Marxist front.
But would the Russians give up having a powerful, industrialized first world nation as an ally?

Friendly reminder that the north invaded the south and if you start somthing don't cry about losing your factories when you lose.