Incidents at a school in the eastern German state of Brandenburg have given rise to fears over far-right sentiment in the classroom. Officials have expressed dismay, encouraging teachers not to shrink from hate.
You must log in or register to comment.
My German friends have told me for years that Nazis never went away. They are not “far-right”, they’re not neo-Nazis, they are Nazis. Gotta call them by their real name. Because this is real in Germany and also internationally and it should not be played down, like AfD is doing.
The thing is that the neo-nazi description is also correct as members of the actual “neo-nazi” movement formerly spread all over Western Germany moved to East Germany after 1990 to organize there (and given the much lower population numbers finally become a substantial amount of the population).
Where can I read more about neo nazis spreading to east Germany after 1990?
Google is your friend as that topic is widely discussed for years (so “neo nazis germany 1990 reunion” or something alike should get you enough).
But for a start (and one of the first hits i got): NY Times, 2020
This is semantics and playing it down. The term Neo-Nazi is used for any post-war “militant, social or political movement” and it’s just bullshit, because they simply never went away. They didn’t “pop up” after the second world war, they remained and it’s important to understand that. They were not eradicated, many people are still supporting the same ideology and would follow Hitler now if he someone got back alive.
It is indeed semantics as our definitoon of neo-nazi seem to differ:
“Neonazism stands for the resumption and spread of National Socialist ideas in German-speaking countries after World War II and the end of the Nazi dictatorship. National Socialist ideas were also taken up in other countries after 1945, namely in the United States, and the Nazi regime was glorified. Representatives of neo-Nazism are called neo-Nazis; the term contrasts with “Altnazis”, i.e. the carriers of National Socialist ideology who had already espoused it during National Socialist rule.”
That the common definition I’m used to so we are indeed talking about neo-nazis. Or are you assuming those are either old enough to be actual nazis or learned their views from birth in direct line from their nazi families (to categorize them as orginal nazis) instead of part of a resurgent movement using parts of the same ideology?
PS: Also you seem to assume that far-right or neo-nazi is playing something down. It isn’t. Every form of hateful far-right ideology, nazism or fascism is equally despicable. The “real” neo-nazis only get “bonus” points for also openly venerating a former genocidal regime…
The term Neo-Nazi is used for any post-war “militant, social or political movement”
If this is the quote from Wikipedia then you left out an important part:
Neo-Nazism comprises the post–World War II militant, social, and political movements that seek to revive and reinstate Nazi ideology.
Personally I think, mixing the two terms together is perfectly fine as the only major distinction is that the original Nazis were the members of the NSDAP and neo-Nazis are not. A distinction that is not really that relevant anymore especially when talking about the ideology, which is the same.
It’s a byproduct of the way the GDR was dissolved. The west Germans went through a rough time when they attempted to de-nazify themselves.
East Germany completely skipped that part. Thanks to the weird GDR indoctrination we know have a weird blob of underlying extremism. Fucking sucks and the right wing party gets an unfortunate amount of support because of it and the current politicians.
East Germany completely skipped that part.
That is absolutely not true, the de-nazification in east Germany, was much more thoroughly than in the west.
It’s sociologically similar to how the USSR (and now Russia) love to whitewash all the heinous shit the Soviet Union did around the same time - and considering that the GDR was a member state of the USSR, it’s easy to see how that created a positive feedback loop.
It is also similar to the way the US and the UK do not like looking at their own problematic history. Probably other countries too but I am not familiar enough with their politics.
Absolutely ahistorical comment. The GDR denazified much more thoroughly, especially in the conservative /monarchical-leaning juridical branch, with well known consequences (eg, lack of judges with proper education). You can make a point that the ideologically loaded suppression was fostering an resurgence after the fall of the wall, but what you write is … false.
The GDR denazified much more thoroughly, especially in the conservative /monarchical-leaning juridical branch, with well known consequences (eg, lack of judges with proper education).
But on the other hand, didn’t the SED give old Nazis a political home in the National Front, supposedly to keep them in check and prevent them from potentially becoming an opposition force?
GDR was not alone in using this strategy, but I’m not aware of anywhere that didn’t end up lending a lot of legitimacy to fascists and coming back to bite them in the end. Same story played out in my country of origin, but there it was the centre-right that decided that they should absorb the fascists in an attempt to control them, and it predictably backfired.
That’s absolutely not true. My father who is now in his 60s still had (Alt)nazi teachers in west Germany. West Germany mostly skipped denazification as it was not politically wanted. Some nazis at the top were prosecuted, sure, but most every day nsdap party officials never had any problems, kept their positions as judges, teachers, doctors and so on. Saying that west Germany was de-nazified is wrong. From what I know, denazification in the east was much more thorough, which makes sense ideologically. Why would the Soviets tolerate Nazis? No way. I think the bigger problem was that the allied nations needed a military partner against the UDSSR quickly, which meant that most Nazis just kept their position.
