"Progressives should not make the same mistake that Ernst Thälmann made in 1932. The leader of the German Communist Party, Thälmann saw mainstream liberals as his enemies, and so the center and left never joined forces against the Nazis. Thälmann famously said that ‘some Nazi trees must not be allowed to overshadow a forest’ of social democrats, whom he sneeringly called ‘social fascists.’
After Adolf Hitler gained power in 1933, Thälmann was arrested. He was shot on Hitler’s orders in Buchenwald concentration camp in 1944."
The SPD was joining with the right to crush workers’ movements long before the election of 1933. If the KPD had joined with them in a coalition it would have represented the KPD abandoning the German workers, and events from then on would have played out largely the same because the Social Democrats enthusiastically went after the Communists along with the Nazis, and it was once the Communists were taken out that the Nazis turned their ire towards the Social Democrats.
The only ways Wiemar Germany turns out different is if a) the SPD joins, rather than represses, the Spartacist Uprising, or b) the KPD manages to take control before being destroyed. It isn’t about being perfect, it’s about preventing the forces of reaction from having a foothold in the movement.
Then let it be. A liberal or conservative society is nonetheless better than fascism. What you have described is merely a situation where socialist and social-democratic politics have been electorally defeated by conservative ones.
The KPD chose to pout and fight to the bitter end rather than recognising that because they lacked the necessary amount of influence in the Reichstag to control the government, they could not get what they wanted, nor anything near it, and could only, at best, get an extremely watered-down version of the policies they want, or even settle for the status quo to prevent regressive policies from being enacted. Or even accept a mildly regressive policy to prevent a fascist one from being enacted. This is what democracy is meant to do. You give a little, and they give a little, and hopefully, we can both get a little bit of what we want or at least reduce the amount of the stuff we hate. If all of your positions are rigidly uncompromisable, you will find that a well-designed democratic system will keep you out of government and relegated to the sidelines unless you actually hold the popular mandate.
If the choice is to saw off your left foot or saw off your head, you must choose the lesser of the two. Refusing to choose does nothing to help you, and the KPD refused to choose.
Rather than accepting this reality, the. KPD decided it wouldn’t go down without a fight. Ultimately, they failed, and wouldn’t get the chance to govern (or even exist in public) for another two decades. Only after finding external help in the form of the Soviet Union and its Red Army did the KPD finally get what it wanted, subjugating the SPD. The new SED was ushered into government, will of the electorate be damned.
In the end, both the KPD and the Nazi Party wanted to destroy the Weimar Republic because they knew they could not get what they wanted by playing by its rules. The key historical difference is that the Nazis succeeded.
I don’t fault the KPD’s leaders for what they did. After all, we here in 2024 have the power of hindsight that was not available to them. But in the end, we must recognise that the KPD’s stubbornness certainly didn’t help with the collapse of the Weimar Republic and accelerated Hitler’s rise to power.
It is an uncomfortable position to be in when you are forced to criticise the decisions of those whose values you respect and agree with. But it must be done if the goal is to learn from history and not merely flaunt it.
I mean, we’re seeing the same thing (sans the communist orgs) play out in real time across Europe now. In Britain, labor purges Jeremy corbyn and his ilk, then gets elected with a solid mandate, then promises to gut the NHS and promotes transphobic policies (for no material benefit) in the name of coalition building anyway.
What distinguishes these “bipartisan” labourists and their american equivalents from the Tories except different colored hats? Would you also blame corbyn for running against these people?
No, I would not. In an ideal world, Corbyn would still be the leader of the Labour Party while Starmer would head a moderate centre-left or centrist liberal party, and after the 2024 election, it would be Corbyn and Starmer governing together in coalition, resulting in a government that is slightly more to the left than what it is now.
But the UK’s system of elections is flawed and definitely not perfect, which prevents this.