• 0 Posts
  • 11 Comments
Joined 5 months ago
cake
Cake day: May 1st, 2025

help-circle

  • no, what the nazis said is that it was the communist party, not a lone communist:

    Despite the fact that Marinus van der Lubbe claimed to have acted alone in the Reichstag fire, Hitler, after having obtained his emergency powers, announced that it was the start of a wider communist effort to take over Germany. Nazi Party newspapers then published this fabricated story.[19]


  • 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:

    The consensus amongst historians is the Reichstag was set ablaze by Van der Lubbe;[4] some consider it to have been a part of a Nazi plot, a view Richard J. Evans labels a conspiracy theory.[5][6]


  • 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.