The Reichstag Fire

[bolchevik]

J. Duncan yes you are right : any book written by nazis or past nazis is suspected and critized because these men were nazis ; you know why, because being nazis is not neutral.
Why do you say only communists account have meaning ? Do you have any communist account talking about Reichstag's fire ? Who is absurd and ridiculous ? I didnt read the Brown book, sorry i dont know what you are talking about. :roll:

ps : You should read a little before qualifying someone you don't know by the term "obscure" http://www.bibliomonde.com/auteur/franc ... y-786.html
He was professor of history in Oxford before teaching at La Sorbonne (university of Paris, the french Harvard if you prefer), he talks fluently 9 languages and have written many books on Churchill, De Gaulle (an other obscure french ?), and has collaborated on the making of numerous documentaries... you still say he is an "obscure french" ? If you think all French are obscure (excepted Pétain), i don't think you have your place on any forum talking about WWII on the internet.


phylo_roadking : Diels' account must be criticized... who knows if Hitler doesnt play comedy ? Who knows he didnt know it was a nazi machination ? Hitler has always acted by perversions and lies...
After all, what did he say ? He didn't have any clue of what was happening, but of course the first opinion he had was "it is a communist plot"... why did he say that ? Because he knows who was acting behind all of this, and he knew Nazis were the real authors of the Fire... that's why he already say "it's a communist plot". By acting like this he killed two birds with only one stone : he killed the detested building symbol of democracy and Weimar Republic ("defeat's regime"), and he kills the communist opposition which was the first and hardest opposition he had in Germany.

[phylo_roadking]

who knows if Hitler doesnt play comedy ? Who knows he didnt know it was a nazi machination ? Hitler has always acted by perversions and lies...

In that company that night....he would have played the leading man, not the straight man to Göring's comedy turn. Remember - it wasn't exactly for "public" consumption there was noone there outside the secure inner Nazi circle EXCEPT Tom Delmar,who they "trusted" as far as they trusted anyone, at least as a sympatheti ear. There was noone there to play a game FOR...

Diels' account must be criticized...

Of course it is. Diels later had to flee Germany for his own safety, and his account(s) of events must always be viewed critically with an eye to making sure to what degree he is or is not whitewashing his own part in various events The point being - IF he could have said worse about what Göring, Hitler et al did that night - he would have, to play down his own involvement further.

He didn't have any clue of what was happening, but of course the first opinion he had was "it is a communist plot"... why did he say that ? Because he knows who was acting behind all of this, and he knew Nazis were the real authors of the Fire... that's why he already say "it's a communist plot".

It MIGHT do you better to find out more about the many months of active KPD opposition to the "coalition" Cabinet and Hitler's rather chaotic rule of Germany after February 1933. Hitler, Göring and Goebbels had the KPD, the NSDAP's main and STILL very active oppostion, on the brain....in fact, membership of the KPD six weeks after Hitler became Chancellor was HIGHER than ever before!!!

[bolchevik]

In that company that night....he would have played the leading man, not the straight man to Göring's comedy turn. Remember - it wasn't exactly for "public" consumption there was noone there outside the secure inner Nazi circle EXCEPT Tom Delmar,who they "trusted" as far as they trusted anyone, at least as a sympatheti ear. There was noone there to play a game FOR...

As you say except Sefton Delmer (not Tom Delmar). But is that trivial ? Of course not. Delmar was maybe nazi sympathisant, he has maybe german blood in his veins, but he still be british and non-member of the party ; and above all he was international reporter... He was a particularly loved one cause Schlabrendorff phoned him between the 2 reporters he called that night to cover the event...

Of course it is. Diels later had to flee Germany for his own safety, and his account(s) of events must always be viewed critically with an eye to making sure to what degree he is or is not whitewashing his own part in various events The point being - IF he could have said worse about what Göring, Hitler et al did that night - he would have, to play down his own involvement further.

Absolutely not... Diels was first Gestapo's Chief (!) and was just substitued and downgraded at the favor of "worst nazis"... he was threatened but Göring protected him (he was married to Göring's cousin) saving him the life two times. But he never fled abroad... ! He always stayed in Germany...

It MIGHT do you better to find out more about the many months of active KPD opposition to the "coalition" Cabinet and Hitler's rather chaotic rule of Germany after February 1933. Hitler, Göring and Goebbels had the KPD, the NSDAP's main and STILL very active oppostion, on the brain....in fact, membership of the KPD six weeks after Hitler became Chancellor was HIGHER than ever before!!!

Yes this was a salutary act, but it was useless and too late...
In fact the reason to be of the NSDAP was the fight against communists during the after-war of 14-18... Communists and nazis always fought in the streets of Germany... it was the case again in 1933... those who defended democracy and freedom in this time and place were the communists, this was the communist blood that has flooded in the streets to fight against nazis ascension... Deads were many and many... the tension growing up in 1932-1933 as the nazis were pulled up to the power by german bourgeoisie...
I can give you some number if you want... Goebbels talk about it very well in his Diary for example.

In the Reichstag it is obvious that communists led the opposition toward nazis... that's why he burned the Reichstag to ban KPD of the political life... ban KPD of the Reichstag... to isolate them. Reichstag's Fire premitted the vote of the Full Powers to Hitler... all Reichstag members voted for him, excepted socialists (who were not yet in jail or killed) and obviously the communists (who were already killed or in jail)... the firsts because the didnt like Hitler and didnt trust his version of Reichstag's Fire ; the seconds because they were forbidden since this famous night !!!

[phylo_roadking]

As you say except Sefton Delmer (not Tom Delmar).

Dennis Sefton Delmer wrote for the Daily Express under the name "Tom Delmer".

He was a particularly loved one cause Schlabrendorff phoned him between the 2 reporters he called that night to cover the event...

Actually it was Ernst "Putzi" Hanfstaengl, Hitlers' Chief of the Foreign press" who phoned Delmer.

Communists and nazis always fought in the streets of Germany... it was the case again in 1933... those who defended democracy and freedom in this time and place were the communists, this was the communist blood that has flooded in the streets to fight against nazis ascension... Deads were many and many... the tension growing up in 1932-1933 as the nazis were pulled up to the power by german bourgeoisie...

Wellllll...APART from then COOPERATING in the Berlin Public Transport Strike of 1932...!

[bolchevik]

Dennis Sefton Delmer wrote for the Daily Express under the name "Tom Delmer".

Why did he use a pseudonym ?

Actually it was Ernst "Putzi" Hanfstaengl, Hitlers' Chief of the Foreign press" who phoned Delmer.

Right, i would like to correct this but you were faster

Wellllll...APART from then COOPERATING in the Berlin Public Transport Strike of 1932...!

You talk about the 25th november ? You forget to tell that nazis forced workers to stop the strike, whereas communists would like to continue it...

[phylo_roadking]

Why did he use a pseudonym ?

A lot of writers did and still do. And it was less a psuedonym, more of a nickname, he was known as Tom to his friends and colleagues.

You talk about the 25th november ? You forget to tell that nazis forced workers to stop the strike, whereas communists would like to continue it...

Actually I'm thinking of the strike of the 3rd of November that the KPD and RGO started, but the Nazis joined...at Goebbels' insistence!

You're also forgetting the "Red-Brown Alliance" of 1931 in an attempt to win the plebiscite that would have brought about the dissolution of the Prussian Parliament...

You're ALSO forgetting that on October 18th, 1930, the German Reichstag rejected a motion of no confidence proposed by both the NSDAP and the KPD!

In the majority of cases before the Reichstag and the Prussian Landtag before January 1933 both Nazis and Communists joined ranks when they were voting in favor or against the issues confronting them. For example, there were 241 issues to be voted on in the Reichtstag and the Prussian Landtag in 1929 and 1930. In 140 cases – 70%! – Communist and Nazi voting behavior was identical

But to return to the bus strike...April 22, 2008, PipeLineNews.org, San Francisco -

Both Communist and Nazi trade unions played a leading role in organizing a public transportation strike in Berlin in November 1932. Early November 1932 the "Berliner Verkehrsgesellschaft" (BVG), a municipal transport organization, announced a cut in wages. Due to the severe economic crisis there was simply not enough money to pay all the BVG workers. Parliamentary elections were scheduled for November 6, and Communist and Nazis expected to make significant gains if they were to play a leading role in an anti-BVG strike. The Communist "Revolutionäre Gewerkschaftsopposition" (RGO) and the Nazi "Nationalsozialistischen Betriebszellenorganisation" (NSBO) simply outmanoeuvred the moderate trade unions in the central strike committee. This was in line with what KPD party chief Ernst Thälmann had said in October 1932: "When strikes are being organized in firms and companies, it is absolutely essential and desirable that Nazis are invited to take part in the Strike Committees."

This was part of the "common front strategy from below" recommended by high ranking Comintern officials. Instead of forming alliances with moderate Social-Democrats (invariably denounced as "Social-Fascists") the Communists joined ranks with the equally extremist Nazis. Hitler's notoriously violent SA-men or "brownshirts" and Communists marched together through the streets of Berlin – even destroying busses whose drivers had ignored the call to strike

[bolchevik]

Why did he use a pseudonym ?

A lot of writers did and still do. And it was less a psuedonym, more of a nickname, he was known as Tom to his friends and colleagues.

OK. That's just that in your first post you talked about a Tom Delmar ; indeed it's not a pseudonym since it's Tom Delmer.

***

About the nazis and the strikes of the automn 1932 : (which is not the subject of this topic)
The participation of the nazis during te strikes of 1932 is just pure demagogy just in order to steal some votes to the communists (their mortal enemies)...

After the elections of july 1932 Nazis thought they have won high-class and middle-class. They thought they just need to win the low-class and they will win the next elections. The next elections will be in november 1932. In order to win the low-class they ordered to organize and infiltrate the workers movements. The order was : where KPD is we must be !

So its not really the communists who became closer to nazis but it was the nazis who came into the fields of communists !
Not to be their friends, but to kill them !

But this was a wrong tactic.
The verdict had fallen the day of the elections : nazis has stolen some few votes to the communists, but they lost so many votes in the middle and high-classes that their score was worse than in july 1932.

[phylo_roadking]

About the nazis and the strikes of the automn 1932 : (which is not the subject of this topic)
The participation of the nazis during te strikes of 1932 is just pure demagogy just in order to steal some votes to the communists (their mortal enemies)...

After the elections of july 1932 Nazis thought they have won high-class and middle-class. They thought they just need to win the low-class and they will win the next elections. The next elections will be in november 1932. In order to win the low-class they ordered to organize and infiltrate the workers movements. The order was : where KPD is we must be !

So its not really the communists who became closer to nazis but it was the nazis who came into the fields of communists !

I don't think you read carefully enough...

...was in line with what KPD party chief Ernst Thälmann had said in October 1932: "When strikes are being organized in firms and companies, it is absolutely essential and desirable that Nazis are invited to take part in the Strike Committees."

The KPD was saying where WE are the Nazis must be alongside us! In other words - completely the other way round.

And it came from ABOVE the KPD....

This was part of the "common front strategy from below" recommended by high ranking Comintern officials.

The KPD brought the Nazis into those many and various cooperative actions I listed, just as much as the Nazis wanted/needed their support in various political institutions to get things done/stop things happening...

I know it's rather unpalatable a set of truths - but the history is there to see - for several years there had been cooperation both at street level AND at high policial institutional level between the KPD and the NSDAP on many things, just as much as there was streetfighting and differences between them at other times.

[bolchevik]

Ernst was not leader of any syndicate but of KPD.
He told it not because he was friend of Hitler... but because he thought that by letting nazis coming into strikes the communists could denounced their true nature (capitalist behaviour, ennemy of the low class), and by this way it would drive away low class from nazis...

I told nazis wanted to penetrate low class after july elections. But it was also a mean for the nazis to test the reactions of the low class at their contact, to test what would be the behaviour of the low-class in case of nazis would take power.

Finally nazis saw that it was too dangerous to lose high and middle class to win low class (they had lost votes!)... but they have also seen that low class was not so hostile to them... so it gives confidence to them on the road to power. The lesson was that they could take power without the support of low-class. The lesson was that Hitler could liquidate his low-class wing of his party (Strasser et alii), that he will do during the long knives night.

[phylo_roadking]

Ernst was not leader of any syndicate but of KPD.
He told it not because he was friend of Hitler... but because he thought that by letting nazis coming into strikes the communists could denounced their true nature (capitalist behaviour, ennemy of the low class), and by this way it would drive away low class from nazis...

It's a pity MOSCOW seems to have thought differently to you...from the same article I referenced earlier -

This was part of the "common front strategy from below" recommended by high ranking Comintern officials.

But a number of influential Communists did not see Hitler as an enemy but as an ally. Dimitry Manuilski, a high ranking Soviet Comintern functionary in charge of German affairs, addressed a Comintern meeting on December 15, 1931, saying:

"The chief enemy is not Hitler, the chief enemy is the system of Severing (Social-Democrat Interior Minister of Prussia, V.), Brüning (Reich Chancellor), Hindenburg (Reich President). With Hitler's help will we first destroy the Social-Democratic Party apparatus as well as the Brüning state apparatus. In the present phase of the development of the German revolution Hitler unmistakenably is our ally."

Herman Müller, a Social-Democrat who had been Reich Chancellor between June 1928 and March 1930, tried to make a speech in the Reichstag on October 17, 1930. But he was constantly interrupted in a very aggressive manner by both Communists and Nazis. Even the Moscow Pravda commented favorably on the Nazi outburts in parliament, saying that the behavior of the National Socialists was "much more proletarian" than the behavior of the Social- Democrats."

And the history of ground-level Cooperation goes back further than 1929...

Albert Leo Schlageter: both a Nazi and a Communist "martyr" (1923)

In May 1923 Communists and Nazis organized joint acts of sabotage against the occupation of the German Rheinland by the French.13 (In January 1923, Hitler's NSDAP already had 55,000 members.) This occured after the French executed a popular German resistance fighter named Albert Leo Schlageter. Although there are conflicting reports about Schlageter's possible affiliation with the Nazis, both Nazis and Communists equally hailed him as their hero. The NSDAP and other nationalist parties organized commemoration ceremonies in Schlageter's birthplace Schönau on June 10, 1923. In an attempt to build bridges with the extreme right, Karl Radek, a prominent Soviet member of the Comintern's Executive Committee (ECCI) who played an important role in organizing the German Communist movement, hailed praise on Schlageter in a speech on June 23, 1923:

"All the time I had before my eyes the corpse of the German Fascist, our class enemy, condemned and shot by... French imperialism... The fate of this German nationalist martyr should not be passed over by us in silence, or with a contemptuous phrase. Schlageter, a courageous soldier of the counter-revolution, deserves honest and manly esteem from us, soldiers of the revolution... Schlageter is dead ... At his grave his comrades vowed to carry on his work."

Debating an ECCI draft resolution on Fascism, Radek pleaded for an alliance with "German patriotic circles," a common front between Communists and revolutionary nationalists "against Entente and German capital." "On the basis of this speech," Franz Borkenau writes, "the Communist Party started a so-called Schlageter campaign, which led to a number of public discussions between leading Communists and outstanding Nazis about the aims of the impending German revolution."

As I said before - I know these are unpalatable truths for you - but that doesn't make them any the less true

[bolchevik]

All you say is propaganda... Communists never allied nazis... they just killed each others in the streets. Face the truth.
What X or Y said at any moment would not change this pure reality. You are totally deforming the purpose of what you are quoting. Kominform didn't say Hitler is our ally... Kominform just say : Hitler did not ally other parties, so he could grab portions of other parties, so he could weaken the other parties, so Hitler is not our main opponent =, furthermore actually Hitler got not the power, so he is not our main opponent too... its does not mean nazis and communists are friends...
***
Shortly after Reichstag's fire some thousands of communists were put in jail... soon the prisoners were so numerous that nazis shall create concentration camp to put them in... First concentrations camps result from Reichstag's Fire and imprisonment of communists... at the summer of 1933 their number reach 100.000...
***
Karl Radek was excluded from communist party since 1927 ; his politic has failed, that's why he was excluded.

[phylo_roadking]

Kominform didn't say Hitler is our ally... Kominform just say : Hitler did not ally other parties, so he could grab portions of other parties, so he could weaken the other parties, so Hitler is not our main opponent =,

"This was part of the "common front strategy from below" recommended by high ranking Comintern officials."

All you say is propaganda... Communists never allied nazis... they just killed each others in the streets.

"But a number of influential Communists did not see Hitler as an enemy but as an ally. Dimitry Manuilski, a high ranking Soviet Comintern functionary in charge of German affairs, addressed a Comintern meeting on December 15, 1931, saying:

"The chief enemy is not Hitler, the chief enemy is the system of Severing (Social-Democrat Interior Minister of Prussia, V.), Brüning (Reich Chancellor), Hindenburg (Reich President). With Hitler's help will we first destroy the Social-Democratic Party apparatus as well as the Brüning state apparatus. In the present phase of the development of the German revolution Hitler unmistakenably is our ally.""

"In the majority of cases before the Reichstag and the Prussian Landtag before January 1933 both Nazis and Communists joined ranks when they were voting in favor or against the issues confronting them. For example, there were 241 issues to be voted on in the Reichtstag and the Prussian Landtag in 1929 and 1930."

Face the truth

I'm not the one here needs to. As I said - I know this is all pretty unpalatable for you, but unfortunately it's also FACT.

[bolchevik]

What are your sources ?
***
Anyway Dimitri was not member of KPD... he was not german... whatever he says or whatever you do interpret his words, you cant deny NSDAP reason to be is fight against communism ; you cant deny KPD was only party to fight Nazis in german streets ; you cant deny KPD was the only physical ennemy of nazis ; this was true before Reichstag's Fire, it will still be after : during spanish war (1936.1939) germans were the biggest quota to fight against Franco and his ally Hitler who sent him troops and military goods.

[phylo_roadking]

you cant deny KPD was only party to fight Nazis in german streets ; you cant deny KPD was the only physical ennemy of nazis

There seems to be only one propagandist around here; and you're not that good at it...

You've forgotten the RGO, the Revolutionäre Gewerkschafts-Opposition; in many cases membership overlapped with the KPD, but it was still an separate organisation....and it TOO both fought the Nazis AND collaborated with them at times! And until it petered out, the late 1929s ALSO saw more militant action against the Nazis by the Reichsbanner Schwarz-Rot-Gold (the Leage of Republican War Veterans)...

Oh....and let's not forget it wasn't actually the KPD fighting "in german streets"...it was actually the RFB, the Rote Frontkämpferbund And of course the youth wing of the RFB, the Rote Jungfront...

And remember - in the 1920s and early 1930s - both in the days of the Stahlheim and the early NSDAP....the POLICE fought both sides when violence broke out!

What are your sources ?

"This was part of the "common front strategy from below" recommended by high ranking Comintern officials."

Kommunistischer Widerstand 1933-1945 : "Sozialfaschisten."

"But a number of influential Communists did not see Hitler as an enemy but as an ally. Dimitry Manuilski, a high ranking Soviet Comintern functionary in charge of German affairs, addressed a Comintern meeting on December 15, 1931, saying:

"The chief enemy is not Hitler, the chief enemy is the system of Severing (Social-Democrat Interior Minister of Prussia, V.), Brüning (Reich Chancellor), Hindenburg (Reich President). With Hitler's help will we first destroy the Social-Democratic Party apparatus as well as the Brüning state apparatus. In the present phase of the development of the German revolution Hitler unmistakenably is our ally.""

Quoted in: Rheinischer Merkur, July 28, 1978, see: Konrad Löw, Warum fasziniert der Kommunismus? Eine systematische Untersuchung (Cologne: Institut der Deutschen Wirtschaft/Deutscher Insituts-Verlag, 1983), p. 199.

In the majority of cases before the Reichstag and the Prussian Landtag before January 1933 both Nazis and Communists joined ranks when they were voting in favor or against the issues confronting them. For example, there were 241 issues to be voted on in the Reichtstag and the Prussian Landtag in 1929 and 1930.

Michael Koth, Rede in Leuna, December 21, 2000 (wws.kds-im-netz.de), Michael Koth is a former high ranking Communist Party official in East Berlin. He later joined the controversial "Kampfbund Deutscher Sozialisten" (KDS) which seeks to build bridges between Socialists, Communists and (neo)-Nazis.

Both Communist and Nazi trade unions played a leading role in organizing a public transportation strike in Berlin in November 1932. Early November 1932 the "Berliner Verkehrsgesellschaft" (BVG), a municipal transport organization, announced a cut in wages. Due to the severe economic crisis there was simply not enough money to pay all the BVG workers. Parliamentary elections were scheduled for November 6, and Communist and Nazis expected to make significant gains if they were to play a leading role in an anti-BVG strike. The Communist "Revolutionäre Gewerkschaftsopposition" (RGO) and the Nazi "Nationalsozialistischen Betriebszellenorganisation" (NSBO) simply outmanoeuvred the moderate trade unions in the central strike committee. This was in line with what KPD party chief Ernst Thälmann had said in October 1932: "When strikes are being organized in firms and companies, it is absolutely essential and desirable that Nazis are invited to take part in the Strike Committees."

Streik bei der Berliner Verkehrsgesellschaft (http://de.wikpedia.org/wiki/streik_bei_ ... gellschaft). See also: Heinz August Winkler, Der Weg in die Katastrophe. Arbeiter und Arbeiterbewegung in der Weimarer Republik 1930-1933 (Dietz Verlag Bonn, 1990), p. 765-775.

It was in the spring of 1931 that the so-called "national opposition" consisting of Hitler's National Socialist Party (NSDAP) and German conservative nationals (DNVP, DVP, and a group referred to as Stahlhelm) proposed to held a plebiscite (Volksentscheid) on the dissolution of the Prussian Parliament to bring about the fall of the government. Initially, the DKP rejected the proposal describing it as "Fascist betrayal of the people." Soviet Communist Party leader Joseph Stalin did not agree with this DKP line. Using the channels of the Comintern, Stalin instructed the German party to adopt a different line. Consequently, the German Communist Party leadership announced on July 22, 1931, that they would join what was now suddenly termed a "Red Referendum."

Hermann Weber, Hauptfeind Sozialdemokratie. Strategie und Taktik der KPD 1929-1933 (Düsseldorf: Droste Verlag, 1981), p. 40;

Hagen Schulze, Otto Braun oder Preussens demokratische Sendung (Frankfurt a.M.: Propyläen Verlag, 1977), p. 664ff;

André Gerrits and Tim Graaf, Sociaal-democraten, communisten en de ondergang van de democratie, in: Socialisme en Democratie, April 1983, p. 24ff.;

E.H. Carr, Twilight of the Comintern 1930-1935 (New York: Pantheon Books, 1982), p. 42, 46.

[bolchevik]

Well i prefer when you go in details.

You've forgotten the RGO, the Revolutionäre Gewerkschafts-Opposition; in many cases membership overlapped with the KPD, but it was still an separate organisation....and it TOO both fought the Nazis AND collaborated with them at times! Oh....and let's not forget it wasn't actually the KPD fighting "in german streets"...it was actually the RFB, the Rote Frontkämpferbund

i underline, it is more nuanced !

I see that all your sources were printed in RFA during cold war, and in USA during the same time... check the neutrality of it, we understand more how anticommunist it is.
You recognize yourself that one of the author was a neonazi (Michael Kote)... that's clearer suddenly !

ps : your true source is not this http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/3438 ? i hope it's not an islamist site...