Die Linke

[Tommy4ever]

I know that Die Linke are the descendents of the ruling Party of the DDR at that they enjoy a significant degree of popularity in Germany, particularily in the East (aprox 12% of vote nationwide and 40%-50% in most parts of the East).

Can someone give me a description of their political position?

Also, do you believe there is much room for an expansion in their vote which has been steadily rising election on election for about a decade?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Program of DIE LINKE Party, First Draft (http://die-linke.de/fileadmin/download/programmdebatte/100426_draft_programme_en.pdf)

[Demogorgon]

They are actually somewhat down in the polls just now, though as the Free Democrats are below the five percent threshold that may not lead to any significant loss of seats if an election were held.

As for their policy, they are a pretty broad group, there are plenty of Old East German Communists of course, younger Communists not tied to the past regime, democratic socialists and so forth. A very significant section, probably the prevailing one in all the Western states are former Social Democrats fed up with their old parties move to the right who want to go back to the days of Willie Brandt. With such a diverse group of positions it is hard to define their particular position beyond simply "left wing". This diversity also allows for plenty of infighting as we are sadly seeing now.

They have been very successful at attracting support though and it is the first time in a long time that a party like that has been on the rise in Western Europe. They have also frightened the Social Democrats and perhaps led to them moving slightly to the left so as to stop bleeding support to them. Though right now it is the Green Party that is hoovering up their former support.

[Crimson Commissar]

I'm pretty sure they're not anything like the DDR's ruling party. They're just radical social democrats. There would be no return to the old days of German communism if they gained power, just a shift to a more left-wing, but still capitalist society,

[Tommy4ever]

I'm pretty sure they're not anything like the DDR's ruling party. They're just radical social democrats. There would be no return to the old days of German communism if they gained power, just a shift to a more left-wing, but still capitalist society,

The old ruling party became the PDS after democracy was reinstated in the East. The PDS were later the largest part in a merger that created Die Linke.

[Crimson Commissar]

The old ruling party became the PDS after democracy was reinstated in the East. The PDS were later the largest part in a merger that created Die Linke.
Many of the old eastern bloc communist parties became social democratic after the fall of socialism. You sure they were still communist at the time of the merging?

[Tommy4ever]

Many of the old eastern bloc communist parties became social democratic after the fall of socialism. You sure they were still communist at the time of the merging?

Well, it was still the same Party and a lot of the same people but I don't know what their exact politics would have been.

[Widerstand]

The SED was originally created by the Russian occupational forces and staffed with primarily KPD members and other Commies they freed from the KZs, but also Social Democrats and such - needless to say, a small minority amongst the many Ex-Nazis and Ex-Sympathizers. The Denazification, although at least attempted in the DDR, ended pretty fast. Already towards the end of the 40s, the SED opened up for ex-NSDAP members. Some figures report that towards the end of the 50s, the SED was already made up of primarily ex-Nazis. This is to be kept in mind, and overall, the SED's policies were pretty horrible (banning holocaust memorials because they are "Zionist Propaganda"; literally reproducing Anti-American Nazi-Propaganda, especially in connection with the Dresden Bombings, in the name of "Anti-Imperialism"; not to mention the wall, the bans on emigration, the StaSi, etc.) - although it has to be mentioned that the DDR did have a lot preferable to West Germany, too, for fairness' sake.

The PDS already had very little in common with the SED from what I can tell. Partially because they were forced to change their positions because of state repression (which still exists against Die Linke), but also because they weren't the same people (not 100% at least), and because they generally moved away from the left (for whatever reasons; the fall of the USSR may be one).

Die Linke is a curious party. They have some factions which are undeniably communist in orientation (minority factions I might add; according to the German intelligence report it's around 4.000 out of a total of 77.000 members, split over 3 or more factions), and they spit out leftist rhetoric every once in a while, but the majority of the party is made up of pissed off SPD members (Social Democrats), and their politics are accordingly. Also, according to some surveys, around 20% of their voters would vote for Thilo Sarrazin (right populist of the worst kind) if he had a party.

I think it's only a matter of time until they get on the government and get the chance to engage in neoliberalism and imperialism themselves, just like the SPD and Die Grünen before them (the former of which by now severed all it's leftist ties long time ago; and the latter of which formed out of a genuine leftist, often militant grassroots movement). They already started by evicting Liebig 14 in Berlin.

[KurtFF8]

Some figures report that towards the end of the 50s, the SED was already made up of primarily ex-Nazis.I have never heard anything near this claim being made, can you provide a legitimate source for this?

Edit: also de-Nazification was significantly more in depth in the East than the West.

[Widerstand]

I have never heard anything near this claim being made, can you provide a legitimate source for this?

I heard it at various informational events regarding the Nazi gathering in Dresden, but it's no obscure claim by any means and quite often made in Anti-Fa circles. At 15th June 1946, the "Unvereinbarkeitsbeschluss" was abandoned, which meant that ex-NSDAP members who were categorized as "followers" were allowed into the SED.

According to this source (http://www.welt.de/die-welt/kultur/article5673577/Braune-Geheimnisse-der-roten-Elite.html), in the area of todays Thüringen, there were 441 higher SED officials between 1946 and 1989. Of those, 263 were born before 1928 (meaning they had the possibility to join the NSDAP), and of those, 13,6% were ex-NSDAP members (we talk about high official positions in the SED here, not inactive membership or grunt work).

This (http://www.antifa-nazis-ddr.de/n/10019451.011.php) is interesting as well:
On October 30th 1945 the SMAD (Soviet Military Administration Germany) announced the expropriation of various categories of property (German state property, property of fascist and military business, property of NSDAP officials, the NSDAP elite and influential sympathizers, property of allies of the Reich). Debates which business to expropiate went on for about 2 years.
In 1947 there were widespread strikes all through Saxony because workers feared that many Nazi bosses may not be expropriated.

In 1948, the SMAD decreed the Denazification and the expropriation of the "volkseigener Sektor" (folk-owned sector), which according to them was big enough to calm the worker's unrest.

Since end of the war, Soviet Military Courts were trying ex-Nazis, about 45.000 were convicted. Between 1945 and 1955, DDR courts tried and convicted 12.671 Nazis, 106 of whom were executed. (the numbers were much higher than in the higher populated West, which also had much higher proportions of ex-NSDAP members).

Between 1945 and 1948, 520.000 ex-NSDAP members were removed from administration and industry. Of 40.000 teachers (around 70% of which were ex-NSDAP members), 20.000 were fired. Of 16.000 people employed in the juridical system, 2.500 were judges and crown attorneys (to 80% ex-NSDAP members). Around 2000 of those were fired, at the end of 1949, there were 999 crown attorneys, of which 22% were ex-NSDAP members.

Some numbers from Saxony-Anhalt (January 1947; % of ex-NSDAP members): Education 0,2%; Police 0,8%; Healthcare 25%; Industry 10%; post offices 17%; Juridical system 6%.

Now to the more juicy parts: 1953, the SED had roughly 150.00 members who were former NSDAP members or officers in the Wehrmacht (1,2 million members total). In May 1948 the NDPD (National Democratic Party of Germany) was created as a SED bloc party for former Nazis, which was part of government until the end of the DDR. In 1965, 53 ex-Nazis were part of the People's Parliament (500 seats; > 10% !), 12 were members or candidates for the SED's Central Committee, 2 were members of the State Council of the DDR (~20 members total, 10% again!), and 5 held a ministerial post in a federal government. Many ex-Nazis were influential in the creation and expansion of NVA and "Volkspolizei", had editorial posts and own editorial work groups in the newspapers "Neues Deutschland" and "Deutsche Außenpolitik". Amongst those Nazis were former SS and SA members, Gestapo spies, members of Propaganda groups, NS radio, the newspaper "Völkischer Beobachter" and "Schwarzer Korps", officials of the Ministry for Propaganda, members of the SS department "Race and Settlement", and members of "Legion Condor".

Many journalists, amongst others, compiled lists of Ex-Nazis in high SED positions, and handed them over to the party - usually with no reaction at all.



Edit: also de-Nazification was significantly more in depth in the East than the West.

The west had a large leftist revolt against the Ex-Nazi elements in the 60s (although many still remain). In the ex-DDR, some discourse today is still the exact same as under Hitler (regarding Dresden especially), and only changing slowly in the past few years.

[KurtFF8]

The majority of your reply seems to demonstrate a great effort of Denazification in the East though.

[Widerstand]

The majority of your reply seems to demonstrate a great effort of Denazification in the East though.

I don't see what that has to do with anything. "Great effort" or not, there were Nazi elements in considerably important positions in the SED and DDR government, and the SED did do a lot of bullshit, some of which was very compatible with (and adapted from) Nazi ideologies.

[manic expression]

I don't see what that has to do with anything. "Great effort" or not, there were Nazi elements in considerably important positions in the SED and DDR government, and the SED did do a lot of bullshit, some of which was very compatible with (and adapted from) Nazi ideologies.
That's a selective reading of history. The effort of DDR denazification isn't something you can toss aside just because you don't completely agree with the result. Also, what "bullshit", precisely, was adapted from Nazism?

[Widerstand]

That's a selective reading of history. The effort of DDR denazification isn't something you can toss aside just because you don't completely agree with the result. Also, what "bullshit", precisely, was adapted from Nazism?

It's not a selective reading of history. I'm not "tossing it aside because I don't agree with the result", I just don't close my eyes before the result simply because I like the process.

As far as bullshit goes: Pretty much the entire Dresden discourse about how it's been an "innocent city" that was "unjustly and cruelly" bombed and how Americans "deliberately destroyed European culture", which still exists today (usually from Neo-Nazis), existed in the DDR, and actually predates it - it's Nazi propaganda. This isn't surprising though. It was very handy for the DDR to use this type of propaganda the majority of the population already came in contact with (and accepted to various degrees) to rally up against American Imperialism in a Cold War context. Just like it's easy for the Nazis to use the old DDR propaganda to rally up for "German victims" nowadays, and get between thousands of Nazis (between 6k and 7k in past years) to march through Dresden every year!
And yes, the DDR did deny plans of building holocaust memorials in Dresden because they considered it "Zionist propaganda".

[Crimson Commissar]

It's not a selective reading of history. I'm not "tossing it aside because I don't agree with the result", I just don't close my eyes before the result simply because I like the process.

As far as bullshit goes: Pretty much the entire Dresden discourse about how it's been an "innocent city" that was "unjustly and cruelly" bombed and how Americans "deliberately destroyed European culture", which still exists today (usually from Neo-Nazis), existed in the DDR, and actually predates it - it's Nazi propaganda. This isn't surprising though. It was very handy for the DDR to use this type of propaganda the majority of the population already came in contact with (and accepted to various degrees) to rally up against American Imperialism in a Cold War context. Just like it's easy for the Nazis to use the old DDR propaganda to rally up for "German victims" nowadays, and get between thousands of Nazis (between 6k and 7k in past years) to march through Dresden every year!
And yes, the DDR did deny plans of building holocaust memorials in Dresden because they considered it "Zionist propaganda".
Are you justifying American war crimes just because they happened under the Nazi regime? What the fuck, man.

[Widerstand]

Oh my, so I guess I should go to the other Demo on the 19th and march with the Neo-Nazis against "American war crimes" instead :rolleyes:

Unless of course one really believes that Dresden was an "innocent city" and that the Americans just wanted to "destroy European culture" and that we should all boohoo about the "innocent" Nazis and their supporters (while of course dismissing the fact that there were a lot of Jews from Dresden who died as Zionist propaganda) - in which case I really don't know what to say. But of course this kind of revisionism is rampant about those parts of the left who believe everything as long as all the enemies of the SU are bad ones (sometimes going as far as to completely write the allied involvement in WW2 out of existence!), including the rather comical claim that the German masses just sorta walked behind Hitler because he happened to be in charge at that time (which of course is convenient if you hope they will walk behind the communist vanguard just as easily!).

[Tommy4ever]

Oh my, so I guess I should go to the other Demo on the 19th and march with the Neo-Nazis against "American war crimes" instead :rolleyes:

Unless of course one really believes that Dresden was an "innocent city" and that the Americans just wanted to "destroy European culture" and that we should all boohoo about the "innocent" Nazis and their supporters (while of course dismissing the fact that there were a lot of Jews from Dresden who died as Zionist propaganda) - in which case I really don't know what to say. But of course this kind of revisionism is rampant about those parts of the left who believe everything as long as all the enemies of the SU are bad ones (sometimes going as far as to completely write the allied involvement in WW2 out of existence!), including the rather comical claim that the German masses just sorta walked behind Hitler because he happened to be in charge at that time (which of course is convenient if you hope they will walk behind the communist vanguard just as easily!).

The Terror Bombing of Dresden killed as many as 1/4 of a million people and destroyed an entire city. That's slightly more than the combined deaths from the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

To say that calling this attrocity what it was makes the DDR government Fascist is at best ridiculous and at worst deeply insulting. Just because the same views were shared by the Nazis does not make this any less of a tragedy. It certainly doesn't make the SED Fascist.

[Widerstand]

The Terror Bombing of Dresden killed as many as 1/4 of a million people and destroyed an entire city. That's slightly more than the combined deaths from the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

No one in Germany (except Nazis) still speaks of any number even remotely close to 250.000 victims (which would be half Dresden's current population by the way). Today's estimates are around 18.000 (and peak at 25.000), which by the way is far less than in other cities (for example Hamburg, where estimates are between 40.000 and 50.000). Some historians trace the notorious "350.000 victims" claim back to Nazi propaganda, in which they simply added a zero after the real estimates.

Even fucking David Irving (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Destruction_of_Dresden) corrected his numbers drastically (from 100.000-250.000 to 50.000-100.000), and this is a guy who believes the holocaust didn't happen and that fascism wasn't such a bad thing after all.

And no, not the whole city has been destroyed. 15km² (around 5% of the current size) were completely destroyed and in 60% of the city area buildings were damaged, but parts of the North and Northwest were almost completely left intact. Compare to Hamburg again, where 80% of the homes were severely damaged (with 33% of residential buildings completely destroyed), leaving 900.000 people on the street. The whole harbor had also been destroyed.



To say that calling this attrocity what it was makes the DDR government Fascist is at best ridiculous and at worst deeply insulting. Just because the same views were shared by the Nazis does not make this any less of a tragedy. It certainly doesn't make the SED Fascist.

Some facts:

1. I never called the DDR fascist. (Although it certainly could be said they were extremely totalitarian with the Stasi, the Wall and whatnot).
2. I never called the SED fascist either.
3. They didn't just "share the same views", they directly copied from Nazi Propaganda (for example the alleged "innocence" of Dresden and the "deliberate destruction of European culture").

You don't get around acknowledging point 3 when you want to analyze why it is so easy for Nazis to latch onto already existing, state-sanctioned Dresden memorial ceremonies and mobilize 6000 Neo-Nazis to march through the inner city with general apathy or even support from the rest of the population, or why Neo-Nazi ideology spreads like wildfire in the former DDR. Unless of course you don't want to analyze, because keeping your world view intact is more important.

[Crimson Commissar]

3. They didn't just "share the same views", they directly copied from Nazi Propaganda (for example the alleged "innocence" of Dresden and the "deliberate destruction of European culture").
Again, how is this nazi propaganda? Just because the Nazis made the same claims? I find it fucking disgusting how you're defending war crimes against innocent civilians simply because those civilians MIGHT have been Nazi supporters. Sometimes, it's inevitable that we'll end up sharing the same viewpoints as capitalists do, or nazis do. As long as we aren't advocating private property or Nazi racial policies, I don't see the damn problem.

[Widerstand]

Again, how is this nazi propaganda? Just because the Nazis made the same claims? I find it fucking disgusting how you're defending war crimes against innocent civilians simply because those civilians MIGHT have been Nazi supporters. Sometimes, it's inevitable that we'll end up sharing the same viewpoints as capitalists do, or nazis do. As long as we aren't advocating private property or Nazi racial policies, I don't see the damn problem.

Right after the bombings the Nazi spread this message about Dresden being an "innocent city" (how the fuck can a city be innocent?), that Dresden was the "highpoint of European culture" (???) and that this is why the Americans bombed it (of course they didn't bomb it because it was full of Nazis and Nazi industry and served as a major railroadpoint to support the eastern front, no, they just wanted to kill good European culture :rolleyes:)- oh and that 350.000 died in Dresden (which is demonstrably false). Several times, the DDR's propaganda regarding Dresden (and a few other eastern cities) uncritically reproduced these exact same claims, sometimes even in the exact same words.

And please, attacks against innocent victims? There are enough reports of the nights of the bombings were people stopped Jews from removing their David-Stars (which the Nazis forced all Jews to wear), etc. 5000 Jews from Dresden were killed, Dresden had considerable industry (not as big as in other cities, but not non-existent either), and served as a support line for the eastern front.

And maybe YOU don't see the fucking problem, but I see 5000-7000 Nazis each year who march through Dresden and whose ideas about Dresden and WW2 match perfectly with those of many citizens and even with those that have been produced by official institutions for ages, and many German Antifa are wondering how the fuck that happened in "denazified" Eastern Germany.

[The Grey Blur]

this anti-german stuff is so stupid. the bombing of dresden was a war-crime, simple as that.

[Widerstand]

this anti-german stuff is so stupid. the bombing of dresden was a war-crime, simple as that.

Then I suggest you go tell the thousands of German Anti-Fa who march through Dresden each year that they are all counterrevolutionary, imperialist, Anti-German and stupid.

[Dire Helix]

As far as bullshit goes: Pretty much the entire Dresden discourse about how it's been an "innocent city" that was "unjustly and cruelly" bombed and how Americans "deliberately destroyed European culture", which still exists today (usually from Neo-Nazis), existed in the DDR, and actually predates it - it's Nazi propaganda.

The bombing of Dresden being a war crime was the official Soviet line. The governments of other Socialist Block nations usually tended to repeat whatever the Soviets said. It has nothing to do with Nazi propaganda.

[Crimson Commissar]

Then I suggest you go tell the thousands of German Anti-Fa who march through Dresden each year that they are all counterrevolutionary, imperialist, Anti-German and stupid.
Well the only people who would be dumb enough to march with the intention of insulting victims of an imperialist war crime HAVE to be Anti-German counter-revolutionaries.

[manic expression]

As far as bullshit goes: Pretty much the entire Dresden discourse about how it's been an "innocent city" that was "unjustly and cruelly" bombed and how Americans "deliberately destroyed European culture", which still exists today (usually from Neo-Nazis), existed in the DDR, and actually predates it - it's Nazi propaganda. This isn't surprising though. It was very handy for the DDR to use this type of propaganda the majority of the population already came in contact with (and accepted to various degrees) to rally up against American Imperialism in a Cold War context. Just like it's easy for the Nazis to use the old DDR propaganda to rally up for "German victims" nowadays, and get between thousands of Nazis (between 6k and 7k in past years) to march through Dresden every year!
Sorry, but that's weak. Really weak. Nazis jump on all sorts of things and try to turn them to the right. Why calculate leftist positions based on what the right does? Nazis like industrial production...should we go back to medieval farming in order to avoid the association?

The bombing of Dresden was, as far as I understand it, practically an act of revenge on a mostly civilian population. It was neither strategically nor tactically necessary, and its damage is still felt today. Just because Nazis try to manipulate that while lacking any legitimacy to do so doesn't mean jack squat when it comes to the truth.

Next you'll be telling us that the firebombing of Tokyo and the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was all good and that only Japanese ultra-nationalist monarchists should say they were bad.


And yes, the DDR did deny plans of building holocaust memorials in Dresden because they considered it "Zionist propaganda".
When and where, please. The plain fact is that the DDR did build Holocaust memorials...what do you call Oranienburg?

[Widerstand]

The bombing of Dresden being a war crime was the official Soviet line. The governments of other Socialist Block nations usually tended to repeat whatever the Soviets said. It has nothing to do with Nazi propaganda.

Am I talking fucking German or what? There was Nazi Propaganda which said exactly the same as the DDR propaganda, and no it wasn't that "the Dresden bombing was a war crime", it was that Dresden was a "unique city", and "innocent city" which was targeted by the American because of it's "cultural heritage". This argumentation and wording can be traced back to Nazi publications immediately after the bombing, and it's very different from saying "the Dresden bombing was a war crime."


Well the only people who would be dumb enough to march with the intention of insulting victims of an imperialist war crime HAVE to be Anti-German counter-revolutionaries.

I don't see how this post is anything but apologizing for Naziism. Feel free to show me where I'm wrong; you just denounced the whole spectrum of resistance to one of Europe's biggest Nazi gatherings, if not the biggest Nazi gathering.

[Widerstand]

Sorry, but that's weak. Really weak. Nazis jump on all sorts of things and try to turn them to the right. Why calculate leftist positions based on what the right does? Nazis like industrial production...should we go back to medieval farming in order to avoid the association?

I don't see what you are saying, are you asking why Leftists should not literally reproduce Nazi Propaganda for their own aims? If a leftist said "well capitalism is bad because bankers are jews" would you agree with that? No? Then why should I agree with "look at these evil American Imperialists and how they destroy the innocent Third Reich"?



The bombing of Dresden was, as far as I understand it, practically an act of revenge on a mostly civilian population. It was neither strategically nor tactically necessary, and its damage is still felt today. Just because Nazis try to manipulate that while lacking any legitimacy to do so doesn't mean jack squat when it comes to the truth.

I don't know whether or not it was necessary, but it certainly was not as outstanding as some portray it to be (as I demonstrated above).



Next you'll be telling us that the firebombing of Tokyo and the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was all good and that only Japanese ultra-nationalist monarchists should say they were bad.

I'm not saying that only Nazis say the Dresden bombing is bad, neither am I thinking the bombing of Dresden was great. I'm saying that copying Nazi-Propaganda because it suits your aims is bad, and the SED did that. They could've criticized the Dresden bombing all day long for all I care. I'll tell you what, I don't even care about their reproduction of Nazi propaganda that much (most of which is demonstrably wrong however), but I care about the fact that several thousand Nazis gather in Dresden each year and that the populace doesn't really care, precisely because they have been fed this propaganda for decades.



When and where, please. The plain fact is that the DDR did build Holocaust memorials...what do you call Oranienburg?

Where, in Dresden. When, around the early 60s. One SED member (I'm fucking bad at remembering names) wrote an open proposal to create a monument in Dresden for the victims of the Holocaust, the SED turned it down with the reason of it being "Zionist Propaganda".

[Dire Helix]

Am I talking fucking German or what? There was Nazi Propaganda which said exactly the same as the DDR propaganda, and no it wasn't that "the Dresden bombing was a war crime", it was that Dresden was a "unique city", and "innocent city" which was targeted by the American because of it's "cultural heritage".

Yep, "A unique and innocent city that was bombed out of spite". I heard it in the USSR first. Must`ve been Nazi inspired.

[Widerstand]

Yep, "A unique and innocent city that was bombed out of spite". I heard it in the USSR first. Must`ve been Nazi inspired.

Actually yes, it was first found in Nazi publications during the immediate aftermath. I don't know if it was copied by the USSR or not (though it seems likely that the SED copied it), but Dresden certainly was not "innocent", and I'd yet like to see proof of it's outstanding "uniqueness" (also that quote doesn't mention the supposed cultural importance as a motive for destruction).

[Dire Helix]

Actually yes, it was first found in Nazi publications during the immediate aftermath. I don't know if it was copied by the USSR or not (though it seems likely that the SED copied it), but Dresden certainly was not "innocent", and I'd yet like to see proof of it's outstanding "uniqueness" (also that quote doesn't mention the supposed cultural importance as a motive for destruction).

If the Soviet/East German stance on the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki closely resembled that of the Japanese militarists, would you say the Soviets/DDR were rehashing the Japanese propaganda.

[Widerstand]

If the Soviet/East German stance on the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki closely resembled that of the Japanese militarists, would you say the Soviets/DDR were rehashing the Japanese propaganda.

But it's not "closely resembled" it's literally the same fucking phrases. It's not "resembled" it's fucking copypaste.

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

But it's not "closely resembled" it's literally the same fucking phrases. It's not "resembled" it's fucking copypaste.

Why do you even try? This is RevLeft. God forbid someone throw a wrench in the deification and worship of "actually-existing-socialism".

[Q]

As interesting as this derailed topic has been, could the talk about Dresden be split off to a new topic?

[ellipsis]

I support their free condoms. other than that i don't know a thing about them.

[Widerstand]

I support their free condoms. other than that i don't know a thing about them.

wut free, last time I checked you had to pay form them in their online shop :confused:

The two things Die Linke is useful for is making interesting political inquiries (such as about Mark Kennedy or the number of pepper spray cans used up during the CASTOR protests - a little below 3000 by the way - ) and for organizing buses to certain events every once in a while (though it's not like that couldn't be done by others, ranging from your regular trade union to a random autonomous antifa group).

[manic expression]

I don't see what you are saying, are you asking why Leftists should not literally reproduce Nazi Propaganda for their own aims? If a leftist said "well capitalism is bad because bankers are jews" would you agree with that? No? Then why should I agree with "look at these evil American Imperialists and how they destroy the innocent Third Reich"?
I did not say that leftists should agree with whatever Nazis say. I said that just because Nazis try to manipulate a sentiment to the right does not make the sentiment wrong.

Also, bombing Dresden is not at all the same as destroying the Third Reich. From what I've read/seen/heard, it was very much motivated by the British wanting to exact revenge on the German people for the bombings of London. Think about it...bombing an old town doesn't affect industrial production or destroy military installations or assets. It just kills civilians and robs future generations of a history that could have been preserved.


I don't know whether or not it was necessary, but it certainly was not as outstanding as some portray it to be (as I demonstrated above).In the context of WWII, it's almost impossible to be "outstanding". That's not the point. The point is that it was unnecessary and caused a great deal of death and destruction for no strategic or tactical reason.


I'm not saying that only Nazis say the Dresden bombing is bad, neither am I thinking the bombing of Dresden was great. I'm saying that copying Nazi-Propaganda because it suits your aims is bad, and the SED did that. They could've criticized the Dresden bombing all day long for all I care. I'll tell you what, I don't even care about their reproduction of Nazi propaganda that much (most of which is demonstrably wrong however), but I care about the fact that several thousand Nazis gather in Dresden each year and that the populace doesn't really care, precisely because they have been fed this propaganda for decades.That is only because a.) the DDR was right in condemning the bombing of Dresden and b.) Nazis jump on anything that they can. I understand your priority is opposing Nazis today, and I find that admirable, but I think it is also important to identify why Nazis are trying to manipulate the bombing of Dresden. You can't fight the lies without recognizing the history involved, wouldn't you agree?


Where, in Dresden. When, around the early 60s. One SED member (I'm fucking bad at remembering names) wrote an open proposal to create a monument in Dresden for the victims of the Holocaust, the SED turned it down with the reason of it being "Zionist Propaganda".I know this is unreasonable on my part, but can you show me the proposal or at least the basis of what the proposal was? If the monument was going to twist the Holocaust in a Zionist light (which can happen), that's much different than if it was a truly genuine monument turned down. I honestly don't see why the SED would put so much time and effort into memorials in Oranienburg and elsewhere and then stop it from happening in Dresden.

And yes, Q is right...perhaps this issue can be split.

[Crimson Commissar]

It does seem a bit strange that they wanted to put it specifically in Dresden. There doesn't need to be a holocaust memorial in every damn city, anyway.