挂路灯人

Former Nazis from across the board were systematically parachuted into positions of power across the western world specially in west Germany and in America to fight the communists. You can plug your ears all you like but that’s the reality.

In 1957, 77% of the ministry’s senior officials were former Nazis, which, according to the study, was a higher proportion that during Hitler’s Third Reich government, which existed from 1933 to 1945.

The fascist old-boys network closed ranks, enabling its members to shield each other from justice, the study found – helping explain why so few Nazi war criminals ever went to prison. “The Nazi-era lawyers went on to cover up old injustice rather than to uncover it and thereby created new injustice,” said Heiko Maas, Germany’s justice minister, who presented the report Monday.

Most of the history you know given I’m assuming you’re European or American given your insistence on this fantasy likely comes directly from

Franz Halder

German general and the chief of staff of the Army High Command (OKH) in Nazi Germany from 1938 until September 1942. During World War II, he directed the planning and implementation of Operation Barbarossa, the 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union. Halder became instrumental in the radicalisation of warfare on the Eastern Front. He had his staff draft both the Commissar Order (issued on 6 June 1941) and the Barbarossa Decree (signed on 13 May 1941) that allowed German soldiers to execute Soviet citizens for any reason without fear of later prosecution, leading to numerous war crimes and atrocities during the campaign. After the war, he had a decisive role in the development of the myth of the clean Wehrmacht.

After World War II Halder served as a lead consultant for the US Army Historical Division. He oversaw the writing of over 2,500 historical documents by 700 former German officers, whom he instructed to remove material detrimental to the image of the German armed forces. Halder used his influence to foster a false history of the German-Soviet conflict in which the German army fought a “noble war” and which denied its war crimes. The US Army overlooked Halder’s apologia because Halder’s group was providing military insights on the Soviet Union that it deemed important in the light of the Cold War. Halder succeeded in his aim of exonerating the German Army: first with the US military, then amongst widening circles of politicians and eventually in American popular culture. In 1961, he was awarded the Meritorious Civilian Service Award,

none of the High Command got away with it.

If only that were true

Johann von Kielmansegg, General Staff officer to the High Command of the Wehrmacht, 1942-44, was NATO’s Commander in Chief of Allied Forces Central Europe, 1967-68.

Some more names I found:

– Sturmführer Dr. Eberhard Taubert worked with Goebbels in the Nazi Ministry of Propaganda where he was responsible for designing the yellow badge for Jews. After the war, he eventually became an adviser to ex-Nazi Franz Josef Strauss, German Minister of Defence from 1956-62, and was assigned by Strauss to NATO’s “Psychological Warfare Department” .

– Nazi Admiral and U-Boat commander Friedrich Guggenberger, whose U-boat sank 17 allied ships, later served as Deputy Chief of Staff in the NATO command Armed Forces North (AFNORTH) 1968-72.

– Johannes Steinhoff, a Luftwaffe fighter pilot, was made Chairman of the NATO Military Committee 1971-74, holding other NATO positions prior to that.

– Ernst Ferber, a major in the Wehrmacht, was NATO’s Commander in Chief of Allied Forces Central Europe, 1973-75.

– Karl Schnell, First General Staff officer of the LXXVI Panzer Corps, was NATO’s Commander in Chief of Allied Forces Central Europe, 1975-77.

– Franz Joseph Schulze, Chief of the Third Battery of the Flak Storm Regiment 241, was NATO’s Commander in Chief of Allied Forces Central Europe, 1977-79.

– Ferdinand von Senger und Etterline, Lieutenant of the 24th Panzer Division of the German Sixth Army, was NATO’s Commander in Chief of Allied Forces Central Europe, 1979-83.

And this is all just NATO not to mind other positions of power such as:

— West German Chief of Staff Hans Globke, Globke drafted the legal commentary on the 1935 Nuremberg laws, legalising the exclusion of Jews from public life, the theft of their assets and opening the door to their eventual murder. It was Globke’s idea to put a “J” in every Jewish citizen’s identity papers, alongside their new middle names: “Israel” for men, “Sara” for women. Globke’s fingerprints were also on laws outlawing “racial disgrace” – relations between Jews and “Aryans”. After the war, Globke confessed that he knew all about the Shoah, the industrialised murder of European Jews.

— Kurt Georg Kiesinger, served as the chancellor of West Germany from 1 December 1966 to 21 October 1969. Before he became chancellor, he served as Minister-President of Baden-Württemberg from 1958 to 1966 and as President of the Bundesrat from 1962 to 1963. He was chairman of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) from 1967 to 1971. In 1940 he was appointed to the broadcast policy department of the Foreign Office by Joachim von Ribbentrop, and became deputy head of the broadcasting and propaganda departments in 1942.

— The brutal Butcher of Lyon, notorious Nazi Klaus Barbie spent the Second World War torturing children and sending whole families to the death camps. But when the conflict ended, the Gestapo captain didn’t face instant arrest and swift justice. Instead, the US allowed him to start a new life as a CIA spy, smuggling him into Bolivia where he helped hunt and kill the revolutionary Che Guevara among other atrocities.

— General Reinhard Gehlen, the German army’s intelligence chief for the Eastern Front during World War II. At the end of the war, Gehlen established a close relationship with the U.S. and successfully maintained his intelligence network (it ultimately became the West German BND) even though he employed numerous former Nazis and known war criminals.

And also on Eichmann specifically:

The CIA concealed the whereabouts of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in the 1950s for fear he might expose undercover anticommunist efforts in West Germany, according to documents released

Dude, tried to give this a second chance, but you fucks are just regurgitating AI while accusing me of doing the same, with no fucking point.

Entirely untrue but if it makes you feel better about your self you can feel free to believe it. Also no one accused you of using ai? Are you hallucinating? You were accused of being arrogant, unintelligent and there was an implication of you being annasshole (which I feel is quite accurate given the crash out) nothing about ai that’s all you.

Spend all the money that you would inherit to pretend to be smart. Fuck all social media.

This is just a nonsense random non sequitur.

In reality, I am actually a rather nice guy, and I buy dinners for the homeless.

Hard to believe given you’ve been nothing but artogant and an asshole this entire time, but even if true so what? Do you want a standing ovation for doing the bare minimum of allegedly having human decency?

This was supposed to be a network that would protect against bots. And now we have meat puppets

More dehumanising nonsense fantasies so you can shield yourself from the fact that you are as unintelligent as you are arrogant.

Wow and now onto dehumanising me about… AI? What the fuck does AI have to do with anything?

Yes you are actually worse than the average Redditor was in my experience all the arrogance and somehow even less capable and intelligent (truly a spectacular feat I am very impressed).

Marx Engels or even any later Marxists have ever advocated for.

Marx, Engels, or even any later Marxists have ever advocated for.*

My apologies for not having perfect punctuation but your reading comprehension is truly abysmal.

Really unnecessarily aggressive for not being able to piece together the blatantly obvious fact I’m Chinese. No wonder your understanding of Marx is so poor if you can’t even manage this. Also what wall of text? It’s a sentence, a short paragraph, and 2 quotes if that’s a wall of text in your eyes it again speaks to your reading capability (or more importantly lack there of) and really demystifies how you could arrive at the completely nonsensical “understanding” you did.

Really punished those high ranking Nazis like, off the top of my head, Adolf Heusinger and Hans Speidel by checks notes making them Chairman of NATO’s Military Committee and Commander of the Allied Land Forces Central Europe (COMLANDCENT) respectively?

Where are you from?

I invite you to take a guess given the obvious context clues.

I am only speaking to what the manifesto was proposing and nothing more.

You’re speaking to what you imagined it was proposing not at all what it actually proposed not to mind when you take into account the wider writings of both Marx and Engels (as is necessary to truly understand the pamphlet that the manifesto is) both consistently differentiate between the state as an instrument of class rule and what we would call the government as an institution providing a necessary function of administration in advanced societies.

While the merely repressive organs of the old governmental power were to be amputated, its legitimate functions were to be wrested from an authority usurping pre-eminence over society itself, and restored to the responsible agents of society itself."

— The Civil War in France

State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not ‘abolished’. It dies out.

— Anti Duhring

I am also certain that you can provide nothing to back up the one world government claim (unless you choose to cherry pick and misinterpret harder than an evangelical) as it is simply not a position that Marx Engels or even any later Marxists have ever advocated for.

Truly don’t understand why we went to Lemmy to get away from pointless internet warrior kids/idiots and bots,

I don’t know about you but I came to Lemmy because my friend recommended the communist side of it as an interesting place to practice English without the racial abuse of non self hating Chinese that is normalised on Reddit and RedditorLemmy.

When now we have pointless internet warrior kids accusing people of being bots.

Sorry to hear that but I did no such thing I simply found your comment to be far too wrong and completely divorced from the material at hand for how confidently you were saying it.

Do you have a fucking punching bag, because I am not it. Why write so much to literally say nothing? Is your life so bleak?

I think I said the main things that were on my mind when I saw your comment. Honestly I don’t even know where to begin to try explain this to you given that you didn’t seem to be able to grasp such a base concept as the difference between the state and government not toind the complete strawman invention of your mind of the one world government idea or complete lack of understanding of the USSR and it’s many achievements compared to where it actually had issues.

Harrypotterism/starwarsism unfortunately remains alive and well at the heart of the empire.

The entire system depends on building a one world government with the hopes that the dictator of the proletariat, once they gain world domination, will simply step down and destroy government once and for all.

The fact you have such a shallow understanding of the material as to have this be part of your takeaway of what Marxists advocate for while speaking with such unearned confidence truly boggles the mind. A worse grasp of the material than your average Chinese school child. Not to mind the pure mind numbing nonsense of the rest of this word vomit.

You are no better than the average American conservative.

You are only interested in spreading orientalist nonsense you don’t give a shit about us stop using us as a shield for your chauvinism.

Please stub your toe hard.

Nah you’re a dehumanising asshole. I hope you stub your toe every day shithead.

Hyper orientalist from the 80s/90s transported forward in time to modern times and yet to adjust type comment.

imperialism

genocidal

I don’t think you know what these words mean.

Doesn’t really change the fact that you are commenting on a post where it is explicitly about a “victims of communism” memorial and it turns out the best they could do was a bunch of Nazis which sort of flies in the face of your whitewashing attempt in your comment don’t you think?

Also victims of communism is a ridiculous framing but that’s more of a tangent.

The post is quite literally about a victims of communism memorial that had to be taken down because it was mostly Nazis. Do you read posts before you comment?

To understand this issue, one must first clarify the distinction between socialism and communism. Socialism is the transitional stage between capitalism and communism. During this phase, the working class has seized state power and begun guiding the economy toward its next logical form. Communism, by contrast, is the ultimate goal, at this stage, through collectivization and proletarianization, class distinctions are completely eliminated, and the state (having lost its reason for existence) gradually withers away.

Here, we must define the nature of the state. The state is an instrument of class rule, a specific structure within the government through which the ruling class implements its will. Consequently, when class distinctions are abolished, the state’s reason for existence vanishes. Rendered purposeless, it naturally proceeds toward dissolution.

During the transitional phase, the key lies in controlling the “commanding heights” of the economy. These primarily encompass finance, transportation, heavy industry, and the sectors driving macro-level development. By firmly controlling these commanding heights, the ruling class of society can steer the direction of economic development, such as by directing the overall economic trajectory through the provision or withholding of resources such as capital and infrastructure.

Retaining a secondary market economy for developing industries has been the orthodox view of early socialist development since the time of Marx. Marxism is not a philosophy of moralizing. Its stance on private property is not rooted in the belief that such property is morally evil or bad, but rather Marxism is a branch of scientific inquiry that employs evidence and material analysis to objectively examine the evolution of human society, construct models, and use those models to predict future societal trajectories.

The Marxist approach to private property stems from Marx’s analysis: the material basis of private property lies in the decentralization of production, however, as production processes grow increasingly complex, markets exhibit a natural tendency toward the concentration of production. Marx termed this concentration of production “socialization.”

Centralized production rests on a different foundation than decentralized production. When centralized production is combined with private ownership, social stability diminishes, as this arrangement allows a tiny minority to exercise precise control over every aspect of society. As Lenin pointed out in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism:

Competition becomes transformed into monopoly. The result is immense progress in the socialisation of production. In particular, the process of technical invention and improvement becomes socialised.

This is something quite different from the old free competition between manufacturers, scattered and out of touch with one another, and producing for an unknown market. Concentration has reached the point at which it is possible to make an approximate estimate of all sources of raw materials (for example, the iron ore deposits) of a country and even, as we shall see, of several countries, or of the whole world. Not only are such estimates made, but these sources are captured by gigantic monopolist associations. An approximate estimate of the capacity of markets is also made, and the associations “divide” them up amongst themselves by agreement. Skilled labour is monopolised, the best engineers are engaged; the means of transport are captured—railways in America, shipping companies in Europe and America. Capitalism in its imperialist stage leads directly to the most comprehensive socialisation of production; it, so to speak, drags the capitalists, against their will and consciousness, into some sort of a new social order, a transitional one from complete free competition to complete socialisation.

Production becomes social, but appropriation remains private. The social means of production remain the private property of a few. The general framework of formally recognised free competition remains, and the yoke of a few monopolists on the rest of the population becomes a hundred times heavier, more burdensome and intolerable.

Marx predicted that as the scale of enterprises expanded, this social instability would grow, eventually becoming so acute that society could not move forward without resolving the contradiction. Given that the socialization of production is the inevitable result of the immense scale necessitated by complex production technologies, Marx did not believe that large enterprises (especially those that had grown by genuinely producing high-quality goods) could simply be broken up without destroying their technical foundations. Therefore, the structure of ownership surrounding them had to be changed, they had to be transformed from private property into public property. A moralistic analysis might argue that private property is inherently evil and should therefore be outlawed entirely. Such a mindset leads to the view that socialism is merely a matter of passing a law declaring all private property illegal, and that any nation failing to do so is an evil traitor betraying true socialism.

However, Marx’s analysis contains no moral condemnation of private property, rather the expropriation of industry is proposed for a very specific purpose: to resolve the contradiction between the socialization of production and the privatization of appropriation. Consequently, there is a necessary precondition for expropriation: the industry in question must have already achieved a sufficient level of socialization. If the state were to take over an economic sector dominated by small-scale proprietors (where production has not yet been socialized and operations are not yet conducted on a national scale) it would effectively be assuming control of a sector that objectively and materially lacks the infrastructure and technology required for nationwide operation. This would introduce a contradiction between socialized appropriation and private production. A moralistic stance ultimately leads to the pursuit of policies that run counter to Marxist analysis and are doomed to failure. Indeed, Lenin noted in The Tax in Kind that nationalizing small producers would amount to economic suicide for the party attempting it, in "Left-Wing” Communism: An Infantile Disorder, he also emphasized the necessity of learning to coexist with small producers. In The Communist Manifesto, Marx explicitly stated that it is impossible to nationalize all small producers overnight; instead, the largest enterprises must be nationalized first to foster rapid economic growth, thereby encouraging the rise of national giants and allowing for the gradual expansion of expropriation over a long period.

The Marxist vision of a classless society is not one where private enterprise is outlawed and punishable by law. Rather, it is a society where state-owned enterprises are so technologically advanced and efficient that any attempt to launch a private business would result in a total lack of competitiveness and inevitable bankruptcy. What prevents you from starting a private business is not the law, but the material conditions of the real world.

What the Soviet Union implemented was a wartime economy designed to prepare for the war against Germany. This was not the path to socialism generally envisioned by Marxists, but largely a creation of Stalin to deal with the material reality of the approachingwar in Europe, hence its designation in Chinese literature as the “Stalin Model.” It was essentially a revision of classical Marxism; while many emulated it due to its apparent short-term effectiveness, that success held true only when the economy was heavily concentrated on heavy industry.

When the time came to shift toward light industry, they encountered the very contradiction predicted by classical Marxism: the state simply lacked the material infrastructure to meet all light-industrial needs on a national scale. Naturally, black markets run by small producers emerged to fill this void. However, due to Soviet legal constraints, the state was compelled to constantly suppress these small producers who had spontaneously stepped in to address the system’s shortcomings. This once again confirms Lenin’s warning that time should not be wasted attempting to suppress small-scale producers who emerge spontaneously due to the inherent economic inefficiency of the system.

However, this situation fostered widespread corruption. Because their economic activities were fundamentally incompatible with the large-scale, nationalized production of all goods, the re-emergence of small-scale producers was inevitable forced to operate illegally, they became part of the black market, an unregulated secondary economic sector that, already operating outside the law, would leverage its influence to try to undermine the Soviet government.

In summary, China is undoubtedly a socialist country, and its development path aligns with the fundamental principles of Marxist historical materialism. Retaining secondary market-economy elements does not constitute a departure from socialism; rather, it is an orthodox and necessary means (as identified by Marx and Lenin) of developing the economy during a stage when productive forces have not yet been fully socialized. By firmly controlling key economic sectors such as finance and heavy industry, the state ensures that market mechanisms consistently serve the overarching objective of the transition to socialism. True socialism lies not in forcibly eliminating private enterprises through moralistic legislation, but in ultimately and historically transcending private ownership by developing the highly advanced material conditions of public ownership.