After WW2 two German states emerged. I'm talking about West Germany and East
Germany. East Germany had a communist socialist regime and it can be considered as one of
the successors so to say of the Third Reich, but how did GDR historians explain the Nazi past to
their citizens and in specific the rise of Hitler? How is it possible that an evil man such as Adolf
Hitler could gain power in Germany? I mean the communists of Germany should have prevented this
right? What went wrong? In this video you will learn about the East German perspective on the rise of
Hitler, 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 4 U 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. In a previous video I explained how GDR historians viewed the Nazi
era and World War II... now we're going to take a look at how Hitler according to the Marxist historians
came to power. Whose fault was that? 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 Saar
Protectorate. The basis of the future East German state was established by the Soviets. The Soviets
had around 40% of German territory occupied which was reduced to 28% 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 (SPD) and the Communist Party of
Germany (KPD) were forcibly merged to form the Socialist Unity Party 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. Do notice that Marxist historians in general
are very history-minded; they base their legitimacy on history. They see men advancing towards socialism
or communism. So how did GDR historians explain the rise of Nazism and Adolf Hitler? Let's first
take a look at the Weimar Republic: both the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich who are
seen as states where capitalism had declined into crisis-ridden self-destructive monopolism and this
is important, because the GDR historians view the Third Reich under Adolf Hitler as a capitalist
state... but this is really the case? Well no, because Hitler made use of a planned economy and could
therefore not be considered as a capitalist; he also advocated against it. Also the communists
they never spoke about Nazis but about fascists but there is a difference, I mean Mussolini he
was a fascist. Hitler was a Nazi and although both ideologies have a lot in common there are
differences; but what you do need to realize is why did the communists not call Nazis Nazis but
fascists? Well Nazism is an abbreviation of 'national socialism' and yeah... that did not really sit well
with the communists who are basically advocating socialism. According to the Marxist historians
there were three reasons why the bourgeois capitalist system survived in the Weimar and the
Nazi era: German bourgeoisie, the middle and upper middle class, was supported by the militarist and
Junker agrarian forces. Second, it was supported by the British and Americans who wanted to keep
a capitalist Germany as a bulwark against the USSR. Third, the German working class was betrayed by the
social democrats who worked with the capitalists rather than forming a united front with the
communist; united in the KPD, the Communist Party of Germany. Now let's take a look at a specific event
and I'm talking about the German Revolution that occurred in November 1918 when Germany was still
at war against the Entente. The revolution started in Kiel and then spread in land; the reason that
socialism did not triumph was the fault of the social democrats of Germany. Instead of overthrowing
the militarists, capitalists and imperialists they opted for a bourgeois-dominated constituent
assembly. Now the true nature of the German 1918 Revolution was a topic of debate among
GDR historians: eventually First Secretary of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany Walter Ulbricht interfered
with the matter and decided of the revolution shouldn't be called socialist because of the
absence of the will on the part of the masses. It would strike fear in the hearts of the West
German people that this 1918 Revolution would be paragon of what a possible German reunification
on East German terms would look like and this is so typical for how communists view history. They
don't ask themselves is this really the case... no, they just look at their current political motives
and that's how out a formed a narrative. History is used as a tool by the communists. Can we therefore
dismiss the whole East German narrative of this topic as pure political propaganda, indoctrination,
in other words: garbage. Well... no, I'll get to that later. During the 1920s the American loans of the
Dawes Plan did stabilize the American economy. Again the social democrats are blamed for not
standing up against the “monopoly capitalists”. But the German communists they are also to blame. Internal
quarrels and adventurist undertakings such as the March Action of 1921 made the party ineffective
to carry out the Marxist-Leninist principles. Only with the election of Ernst Thälmann in 1925
the party became more structured and disciplined. Nazism or - according to GDR historians - fascism was
a product of the class struggle between monopoly capitalism and workers and existed indepently
of the Great Depression. “... it is defined as an attempt of the most reactionary and ruthless
monopolies to crush the growing strength of the working class by resort to mass demagoguery, terror, and a totalitarian dictatorship. For this purpose these monopolist elements supported
a clique of fascist "thugs" who were to build up an antilabor mass movement among the petty and middle bourgeoisie. […] 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 Marx's 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. What
is also denied by the GDR historians is the role of the lower middle class when it came down to the
rise of Nazism. Looking at the great industrialists, or the GDR historians call them the 'monopolists',
GDR historians argue that they held the Nazis with gaining power. Truth is that they only gave their
financial support once the Nazis had gained power and can therefore be viewed as pure opportunists;
what this theory did attribute to the mainstream narrative was that there was now more focus on
the role of the German industrialists during the Nazi era, an aspect of history that was ignored for
decades after WW2. The buildup of fascism was a gradual one; the argument runs that
not everything was planned beforehand but each government before 1933 attributed to the rise of
Nazism: although these governments weren't fascist they were seen as standing in that direction; each
being more dictatorial, militarist and imperialist than its predecessor. Finally, in November 1932, a
considerable number of "monopolists" showed their hand by petitioning President Hindenburg to appoint Hitler chancellor, while others associated themselves informally with this request.”
So what was the role of the German anti Nazis in all this? They are generally blamed by GDR historians
for their failure of not creating a united front which could be used as a string board for mass
action against the fascists. The social democrats are singled out for their treachery but also for
their naivety: they saw Nazism as a product of the Great Depression; something that would disappear
and had to be waited out. For the communist Nazism was a product of monopoly capitalism that existed
independently of the Great Depression, although that did speed up its rise. 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 reality the story is a bit different. I mean the KPD at some point declared it was the
only anti-fascist party and that the social democrats were therefore fascists as well and
they could therefore not cooperate with them...