After the Second World War two German states emerged: the Federal Republic
of Germany; West Germany (FRG) and the German Democratic Republic; East Germany (GDR). How did
East Germany (the GDR) look at its Nazi past? How did the GDR Marxist historians explain
the Nazi past to their citizens. The GDR was kind of one of the successors of the
Third Reich; they were both totalitarian. Well in this video you're going to learn
about the East German perspective on the Nazi era and World War II; keep watching.
Good to have you back on the channel; if you're new: I'm Stefan, I'm a Dutch history teacher and
I like to hustle history for you. And if you find it interesting, well consider subscribing and also
hit that notification bell. If you want to support me you can do so via Patreon, PayPal or via a Super
Thanks. When on the 8th of May 1945 the German armies laid down their weapons the division of Germany
came into effect: according to Allied agreements the territories in the east - East Prussia, Pomerania
and Silesia - went to Poland and the USSR. In the west the Western Allies Great Britain, France and
the US set up their occupation zones. There was also the Saar Protectorate. The basis of
the future East German state was established by the Soviets. The Soviets had around 40 percent of
German territory occupied which was produced the 28 percent after the transfers to Poland and the
USSR I just mentioned. The Soviets did allow four political parties to develop in East Germany
but they had to work according to communist principles. In April 1946 the Social Democratic
Party of Germany (the SPD) and the Communist Party of Germany (the KPD) were forcefully merged to form
the Socialist Unity Party (the SED) which later became the governing party of East Germany. Those who opposed
this were arrested, jailed or sent to labor camps. The Soviet secret service (the NKVD) had set up
several concentration camps in East Germany by sometimes using former Nazi camps. “For a crucial
year Stalin let events in Germany float. He allowed his soldiers to introduce a regime
of terror in the east, not exactly conducive to the future establishment of socialism. He
seemed more preoccupied with looting what could be of use to the Soviets than with establishing
order in his occupation zone. If the Soviet zone, after the initial chaos, for a while seemed to work
better than the west, this was due not so much to Stalin as to Red Army administrators
and the German Communists who had come back with them. They were more than ready to take over the
centralized planning systems that had existed in Nazi Germany and to rely on them in order
to get basic infrastructure and production going wherever possible.” In 1949 the GDR was established...
it's worth noting that communist countries are notably history minded: they see men moving towards
socialism or communism. They base their legitimacy on history, so how did GDR Marxist historians
explain the Third Reich and the Nazi era as well as World War II? Well, for that we have
to take a look at the Third Reich's predecessor. I'm talking about the Weimar Republic: both the
Weimar Republic and Third Reich were seen by the GDR historians as states where capitalism
has declined into crisis-ridden self-destructive monopolism. And this is a very important thing
because the Marxist historians they viewed the Third Reich as a capitalist society... but this was not
really the case, because Hitler made use of a planned economy. Also the communists they never spoke about
'Nazis', no, they spoke about 'fascists'. And there's a difference between fascism and Nazism. I mean they
have a lot of similarities but there are also differences. Now why did the Marxist historians
speak about fascists? Nazism is an abbreviation of National Socialism and yeah... that didn't really sit
well with the communists who were like striving towards socialism. The difference between socialism
and communism, yeah, that's a whole theoretical debate I'm not gonna get into; I mean go all
out in the comments if you want. I do want to quote: “From the Marxist perspective the resort to fascism
involved no major change of policy on the part of the great bourgeoisie, but merely a shift from what
is viewed as a bourgeois-parliamentary dictatorship to a fascist-terrorist one.”
The difference between bourgeois capitalism and fascism was one of degree. Now what is interesting
is that one fundamental aspect of Nazism is being ignored by the Marxist historians and I'm talking
about the leadership principle, the Führer cult. By Marxist historians Hitler was just seen as
a frontman of monopolist interests and paying attention to him would divert attention to the
real culprits and another reason why the Marxist historians don't mention this I think is because
they had leadership cultism as well. Therefore it's understandable they don't elaborate on it
as much. Now where they also don't elaborate on are the humanities of racism that were carried
out by the Nazis. These were all characteristics of the capitalist order GDR historians believed
the Nazis were part of. According to them Nazism could never be defeated in the current system but
by the destruction of this system mass action was therefore needed but the German communists
they failed to set this up. Also because the social democrats were unwilling and therefore
the communists they lacked the strength. In the East German view the Nazi era was a culmination
of state monopolist capitalism. The step up in ornaments production and lowering of living
standards was proof of this and that's where the true cause of World War II lies according to them.
“For Marxists, however, the evidence concerning the dominant role of the "monopoly bourgeoisie"
is conclusive since monopolists must go to war in their unending new markets and raw materials.” In
the run-up to World War II the British and French had a policy of appeasement: the policy of making
political, material or territorial concessions to Germany in order to avoid war. Rather than a
national policy GDR historians think this was a class policy. If the British and the French would
take part into a anti-Nazi coalition earlier World War II could have been prevented. And to be fair
there is some truth in this because they didn't acknowledge the security needs of the USSR. The
authors hailed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact because it kept the isolated USSR (the socialist state
the Western powers refused to join) out of a war but in reality it postponed the war for the USSR
and it made the Nazis and Soviets allies in all but name. Not to mention the suffering of the countless
people living in their 'spheres of influence'. The Phoney War was seen as an extension of the
appeasement policy and the Fall of France was due to the French reactionary class rather yielding to
fascism instead of fighting it. The British won the Battle of Britain only because the Germans
were busy focusing their attention on the East again. The German New Order that was carried out
in the occupied countries with its exploitation and forced labor was seen as the ultimate monopoly
capitalism. The fact that different population groups, for example Nordic people from Norway
versus Slavic people in Poland, were treated way differently is largely being ignored. The Axis
invasion of the USSR was seen as the ultimate war of imperialism versus socialism: it was the
main front of the war, which is true. Most German divisions fought on the Eastern front and it was
also the front where the war was being decided. Which to be fair is also true. The Western help
to the USSR, think of the Land Lease Act which basically kept the Soviet Union from falling
apart, yeah, that is mostly ignored. And however the GDR historians acknowledged that the Western
powers made sacrifices as well, such as D-Day, the landings in Normandy, they do claim that the Allies
postponed these landings in order so that the Nazis could inflict more losses on the Soviet
Union and although this is true to a certain degree we must also not forget that the United
States wanted to liberate Western Europe rather than it come under the influence of the USSR. The
extermination of the Jews, the Final Solution, was together with the mass murder of Slavic people
and other non-German seen as a perpetuation of the role of the German monopolists. The key
element of Nazism was his racial doctrine Marxist historians view this as a tool of capitalism. To
be fair although the racial component of Nazism is therefore largely ignored there is some truth
in the claim that the racial policies were also used by the Western powers to exercise
power over their colonies. Although the racial doctrines of the Nazis were way more extreme.
World War II was not just a military contest but was fought over revolutionary social issues also.
East German literature devotes much attention to the communist plans for post-war for Germany. The
National Committee Free Germany: a German anti-Nazi organization that operated in the Soviet Union and
paved the way for the first true socialist state on German soil thanks to the USSR. Unfortunately
GDR historians wrote the Western powers blocked this and this culminated into the division of
Germany. One GDR historian claimed: Historians must not only interpret the world, they must also change it.
And this brings us to the essence of history... what is history? History is studying the past via
available sources. A key element to communist historians is politics. Therefore history must
be written in such a way that it is in line with communist politics. Questions like 'to what extent
is this really the case?' (TIK) are barely asked by a Marxist historians. Their narrative must be in
line with their current politics.