Context: The Reichstag Fire is widely believed to have been a false flag and was the pretext Nazis used to persecute all German communists as “Enemies of the nation”
This dude is literally implying that
A: The shooter was a fellow fascist,
B: We should follow the example of the Nazis, or
C: Both of the above
The reichstag fire was not a false flag, it was commited by a Dutch communist. His goal was to start a revolt against the nazis and he failed rather spectacularly.
e: typo
e2: also, to be clear, this is not the nazi narrative. The nazis said the communist party did it, not a single council communist. I am mainly defending Marinus van der Lubbe, who I think does not deserve to be called a nazi agent.
A theory that fits perfectly with the well known propaganda tactics of the Nazis and other genocidal regimes as well as the timing just AFTER the Nazis gained control of the government rather than before.
See also: Cui bono?
i am uninformed about history, but it does not sound far reaching to assume an anti fascist might put a central governement building under nazi rulership on fire.
i think its one of those cases where whether or not it was a false flag, the nazis knew to use it and probably were quite happy about it. similar to how 9/11 or the october 7 attack were used to legitimize acts if violence which would otherwise not have found as much public support.
That’s the historic consensus. It’s unknown whether it was a false flag and possibly unknowable until further historic documents are discovered. Neither option is so implausible as to be ruled out. That it played into the nazis cards because they were able to (ab)use this event as a stepping stone to consolidating power is what we know.
The timing makes sense if you consider that it was a reaction to fascists coming into power. With hindsight we know the nazis benefitted, but trying to burn shit down when fascists take power is not an unreasonable action. The main problem I have with the false flag narrative is a very conspiratorial notion, when there is a clear person who had good reason to do it. “See also: cui bono” applies just as much to, say, 9/11, or the assasination attempt on trump, or John Brown, whose actions incited the civil war. The nazis would not have needed a false flag. Anything happening whatsoever could have been used as a reason, and shit was pretty damn fucked so something was bound to happen. Take what comes after your wikipedia quote:
In the end I don’t really think it matters who did it. I think the real moral of the story is that nazis will eventually find a reason to ban all their enemies, however proportional a reaction that may be to the “thing they did”.
I agree with that. I want to make clear I am not trying to defend the nazi narrative here. They said that the communist party was behind it, not some random lone communist. I just think that it was a pretty sensible action when fascists get into power taken by someone who coould not have predicted the damage it would cause. I also believe that, if not for the reichtag fire. they would have found another excuse to take power.
That’s still being debated. Your thesis is also the one presented by the Nazis and is not as clear as you make it out to be.
no, what the nazis said is that it was the communist party, not a lone communist: