[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.

[lukan]

I know, that I get triggered too easily ...

[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.