[nvm0n2]

> a de facto Nazi Leader (Höcke)

Well that sort of language won't help. The AfD are not Nazis. This claim makes everything worse and needs to be discarded.

The National Socialists campaigned very openly on Hitler's belief that democracy was a bad system that should be abolished. Nobody was surprised when he went ahead and did that, because that's exactly what he always said he would do. They also campaigned on a very left wing agenda, with lots of talk in their speeches about comrades and ending class divisions, and they ran regular shows of strength in the streets with mass rallies of their supporters.

The AfD in contrast:

- Disdain socialism

- Do not organize massive street rallies

- Campaign on pro-democratic positions, like wanting lots of Swiss-style referendums. They say they dislike the EU because it's got a democratic deficit and they talk sometimes about a UK style referendum on leaving it, for that reason

Their opponents:

- Are left wing

- Organize massive rallies of supporters on the streets

- Take anti-democratic positions, like wanting to ban their opponents

So it's very dangerous strategy to attack the AfD as Nazis because they can just turn this around. They will say to those who listen: who is the bigger threat to the constitution? The people who spend years engaging in peaceful political campaigning (AfD), or the ones who have already had a key policy invalidated as unconstitutional and now talk about making it illegal to vote against their other policies (Ampel)?

[lukan]

Well, there was an official court case about it, with the result that Höcke indeed may be called a faschist, due to many things he said, that were often literal Nazi quotes. And he was a history teacher, so he knows what he was referencing. (and yes, I oversimplify a bit by conflating nazis with faschists, but a) I see no fundamental difference b) it is pretty much common nowdays

And the AfD in its whole is not a Nazi Party, but some sections like thuringia, the base of Hoecke, are verified far right extremists, according to the Verfassungsschutz.

And Hoecke becomes increasingly powerful within the party, many sources say he is already the de facto leader.

And I frequently read their news sites and forums. But I never read of criticism of Hoecke there - so this means to me, the rest of the AfD may not be propper faschists (yet) - but they accept that one of their main leaders is one. That tells me enough.

"The AfD in contrast:

- Disdain socialism

- Do not organize massive street rallies"

The original Nazis also did not do socialism, but rather elimenated their socialist wing soon after taking power. And the AfD surely would love to organize bigger rallies, than they already do. They just cannot, as in reality they do not have the majority behind them, unlike they like to think.

"or the ones who have already had a key policy invalidated as unconstitutional"

And are you talking about the covid money transfers? There was a court case and it was ruled not allright. But nothing of the sort that the Ampel is opposed to the constitution. There was also a constitutional ruling that the government is not doing enough for climate change. Constitutional rulings against the government happen all the time and it is simply the job of the Verfafssungsgericht to make sure that the government stays in line. A system that is somewhat working.

Hoecke on the other hand marched together with the NPD .. and the quotes he uses, well, I assume you understand german, so maybe read for yourself?

https://www.volksverpetzer.de/hintergrund/25-hoecke-zitate/

It is verified by now that he admires the Nazis and dreams of a new German Empire. That is very much unconstitutional, opposed to a wrong accounting trick.

[nvm0n2]

Was there a court case? I can only find reference to an accusation that he might have said in a speech "Everything for our homeland, everything for Saxony-Anhalt, everything for Germany", which apparently everyone should know shares the last three words with an SS slogan and that therefore saying it is indisputable signs of wanting to conquer Poland. Also Höcke claimed he didn't know this but, according to his critics, being a history teacher, he must have known really.

This supposedly famous SS slogan is a "motto applied to the blades of uniform daggers worn by the SA and National Socialist Motor Corps (NSKK)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_Nazi_Germany

For sure everyone in Germany memorizes literally everything ever printed on any physical object made by the Nazis. A totally reasonable expectation that is not at all driven by a desire to ban their political opponents. According to the Glossary, the Nazis were also fond of criticizing Das System, which is what they called the Weimar Republic. I'm sure nobody on the German left has ever railed against The System because that would be Nazi language, and certainly the Verfassungsschutz would investigate such things promptly and without bias.

This kind of thing makes Germany look ridiculous and sinister.

> The original Nazis also did not do socialism, but rather elimenated their socialist wing soon after taking power.

Hitler killed fellow Nazis for the same reasons Lenin and Stalin killed fellow Soviets. It's wrong to assume a socialist dictator would not kill fellow socialists. They always do. It's one of the things that makes them scary, even their allies aren't safe. As for the "original" Nazis, here's a quote for you:

"Socialism as the final concept of duty, the ethical duty of work, not just for oneself but also for one’s fellow man’s sake, and above all the principle: Common good before own good, a struggle against all parasitism and especially against easy and unearned income. And we were aware that in this fight we can rely on no one but our own people. We are convinced that socialism in the right sense will only be possible in nations and races that are Aryan, and there in the first place we hope for our own people and are convinced that socialism is inseparable from nationalism"

> the quotes he uses, well, I assume you understand german, so maybe read for yourself?

I spot checked a few of them but none of the sources check out. Some are 404s or paywalled. Other quotes come from writing by Landolf Ladig. From Googling it appears the German left think this was once a pseudonym for Höcke, but he denies it. The journalist who makes this claim based it on the fact that Höcke once used the term organic market economy, and that term also appears in this article. That's such a weak standard of evidence it's insufficient to make such incendiary claims.

Quote 14 says Germany isn't a real democracy because of speech controls. That he complains about being censored is then used as evidence he's a Nazi who should be censored.

In another place Höcke is quoted as saying "this Merkel system is all cartel parties that do not mean well for this country" which the page paraphrases as "Höcke wants to abolish all other parties", which is not what he said.

Another: "I am taking this party down a long and difficult path. But it is the only path that leads to a complete victory" which is paraphrased as him wanting a "Final victory" which is then presented as evidence of being a fascist.

Quote 24 says the AfD should only consider a coalition with other parties if they change their positions. This is scandalous because refusing to consider coalitions is something only his opponents are allowed to do, apparently.

This compilation comes across as untrustworthy. They have to rephrase everything he said and attribute things not written under his name, because if they didn't their thesis wouldn't hold.

[lukan]

"Was there a court case?"

There were actually many:

https://www.hessenschau.de/politik/demonstranten-duerfen-afd...

"Die Staatsanwaltschaft Frankfurt hat ein Verfahren gegen einen Demonstranten eingestellt, der bei Anti-AfD-Protesten Björn Höcke als "Nazi" bezeichnete. Es handle sich hier nicht um eine strafbare Beleidigung, sondern um ein "an Tatsachen anknüpfendes Werturteil", so die Ermittler."

So to be clear, the court did not declare him a Nazi. But close enough, that people may call him that.

And if you read a bit in his biographie in wikipedia, you should find more than enough:

https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B6rn_H%C3%B6cke

"In einem Leserbrief von 2006 behauptete Höcke im Anschluss an den Geschichtsfälscher David Irving, anders als die deutschen Luftangriffe auf Coventry 1940 seien die britischen Luftangriffe auf Dresden 1945 eine völkerrechtswidrige, geplante Massentötung an ostdeutschen Flüchtlingen in einer unverteidigten überfüllten Stadt gewesen."

"Beim Gedenken an den 13. Februar 1945 in Dresden im Jahr 2010 demonstrierte er zusammen mit Neonazis."

"Höcke ist seit etwa 2008 mit dem NPD-Vertreter Thorsten Heise bekannt oder befreundet, der sechs Kilometer von Bornhagen entfernt wohnt."

"lobte die Ideen der NPD, verherrlichte das NS-Regime, behauptete, auf den „Fleiß“ und die „Formbestimmtheit“ der Deutschen neidische fremde Mächte hätten Deutschland in beiden Weltkriegen überfallen"

"In seinem Gutachten zur AfD vom 15. Januar 2019 urteilte das Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV) mit Bezug auf Kempers Belege, Höckes Identität mit „Landolf Ladig“ sei „nahezu unbestreitbar“ und „angesichts der plausibilisierten Faktendichte nahezu mit Gewissheit anzunehmen"

So to me this is 100% Neonazi ideology and this is where he came from. Now of course he hides it wherever he can, but at least to me it is obvious, that he still believes all of it. Would you really be comfortable with such a guy as chancellor?

[nvm0n2]

> So to be clear, the court did not declare him a Nazi. But close enough, that people may call him that.

That wasn't a court case, it didn't even go to court. If there are so many, why pick one that wasn't a case? Prosecutors dropped a potential case against a protestor and said it's not a criminal insult because it's (roughly translated) subjective but evidence based?

Germany has laws against being a Nazi. Either there's strong evidence he is one, in which case there should be a criminal finding of fact, or there isn't, in which case calling him that is surely slander. There's no First Amendment in Germany to protect such people. The prosecutor's press release goes off on a political attack on Höcke. They seem to have decided that he's not actually a Nazi but it should be OK to call him one anyway, because they don't like his politics. Very bad levels of political independence from such an office.

The claim about Dresden being a war crime is one I've seen many times. Even in Britain there are people who have argued that. It's like arguing the US shouldn't have nuked Nagasaki. How is that evidence of being a Nazi?

I'm not gonna spend the time to translate more of this. None of this stuff seems legit. The left always call everyone who isn't on their side a Nazi, this whole thing with this guy looks like more of the same. The Nazis openly called for the end of democracy and praised dictatorship. Where is the AfD doing that? This guy doesn't even run the AfD.

[lukan]

Ok, I assumed you speak german but apparently not.

"Germany has laws against being a Nazi."

No we don't. There are laws against certain symbols etc. but you can be a Nazi as your political point of view. No one can prosecute you for it, but if you deny the holocaust, or wear a swastika - then yes (I actually do not agree to those restrictions btw.) But you also can openly try to convince other people of your Nazi ideology. (they came to my school to preach). The limit is in actually trying to overtake the state and abolish the constitution. But I think most states have that law.

"That wasn't a court case, it didn't even go to court."

It was a court case - but the court decided to drop the case on the grounds that it is obvious. That still makes it a court case I think.

"The claim about Dresden being a war crime is one I've seen many times. Even in Britain there are people who have argued that. It's like arguing the US shouldn't have nuked Nagasaki. How is that evidence of being a Nazi?"

I also think bombing Dresden was a War Crime. But I don't think - like Höcke - that the germans bombing Coventry (way before) wasn't one. That is Nazi Rhetoric. The war was forced upon germany and germany didn't actually do anything bad. So he wants a 180 degree turn on the memory of the 3.Reich. Which means praising it, instead of despising. The only people who argue this way, are Nazis. Simple as that. Or do you have another explanation why he wants to turn 180 degree in the view of the 3.Reich?

"This guy doesn't even run the AfD."

Not yet. The AfD started as a liberal party by a professor - all of the founders are gone now as they don't want to have anything to do with what the AfD became. And they get more extreme every year and the remaining moderates pushed away.

"None of this stuff seems legit. "

And if this is what you choose to believe, then this is your decision.

[elktown]

Probably not worth spending energy on people that are on the revisionism level of "The Nazis were socialists" anyway, they've clearly decided to shut the door on reality.

[nvm0n2]

> No we don't. There are laws against certain symbols etc ... the limit is in actually trying to overtake the state and abolish the constitution

Yes you do. A core part of Nazi ideology was the Führerprinzip. They openly did not agree with the concept of democracy. If you don't talk publicly about your desire to overthrow democracy then you aren't a Nazi, it's as simple as that. The AfD do not want to overthrow democracy, therefore, they are not Nazis.

> It was a court case - but the court decided to drop the case

Do you understand the difference between prosecutors and the court? Because it feels like this understanding is missing here. None of the sources I can find mention the courts at all. There was going to be a prosecution of someone who insulted Höcke and the prosecutors - who are not the courts - decided not to, citing their own politically biased opinions.

But if the prosecutors don't prosecute, it never goes to court and never becomes a case. Right? The opinion of prosecutors has no legal weight whatsoever, that's the whole point of having courts in the first place.

> Or do you have another explanation why he wants to turn 180 degree in the view of the 3.Reich?

You've assumed he does, but that isn't obvious at all.

I would assume that if he objects to both allied and Nazi bombing being a war crime, he just doesn't accept that the concept of a war crime exists at all. This is a very common perspective outside of the left, because the notion of a war crime assumes there is such a thing as international law that makes it a crime, which in turn assumes the existence of an international government that can make and enforce such law. But there isn't any such government, therefore international law does not exist, therefore there is no such thing as a crime that countries can be found guilty of.

The left doesn't like this idea, they're big fans of the idea of world government and thus tend to enthusiastically support courts who pass "judgements", even when they aren't enforceable by anything.

I find both perspectives understandable. People on the left often don't, which is why you extrapolated from his position into assuming he must be a Nazi.