Germany’s firewall against neo-fascism
Posted by Thomas Klikauer and Danny Antonelli
The anti-democratic right-wing AfD – ever since it was founded in 2013 – has been perfidiously seeking to work with Germany’s democratic political parties. Cooperation between democratic parties and the extreme right-wing AfD – particularly at the municipal level in East-Germany – has been hotly debated in some conservative circles.
Since such a collaboration is extremely unlikely with Germany’s environmentalist The Greens [Die Grünen], The Left [Die Linke] and the social-democratic SPD, people alarmingly suspect that if it does happen, it is most likely to occur with the conservative CDU, with the excuse that they must work with the AfD for “practical” or “pragmatic” or “utilitarian” purposes.
They will angrily deny any “ideological” compatibility, though at their conservative core many of the CDU & CSU members march in goose-step with the neofascists.
This is not new. Throughout German history, the most devastating “teamwork” between German-style conservatism and fascism/Nazism came in the year 1933 when the conservative Franz von Papen made Adolf Hitler Reich Chancellor of Germany in a conservative-plus-Nazi coalition government, setting in motion Nazi rule that led to Auschwitz, and only ended after Germany had been destroyed and the Reich Chancellor committed murder-suicide in his Berlin bunker.
Despite widespread whitewashing after 1945 of the Nazi “Machtergreifung” (seizure of power) in Germany, people still remember the unsavory role of German conservatism in the rise of Hitler.
In fact, there might even be a rather straight line that links German conservatism to Hitler and to Auschwitz. Highlighting this link has been avoided like the plague – especially by the CDU, FDP and CSU – ever since the end of Hitler-fascism.
Undeterred by history, there have been no less then 121 real cases of such conservative-plus-Neo-Nazi cooperation – foremost in Eastern Germany – in the period from summer 2019 to the end of 2023.
Regionally, Germany’s ultra-conservative state of Saxony (Dunkeldeutschland) is represented the most with more than a third of all cases of conservative-Neo-Nazi complicity.
In all this, the far-right AfD plays a central role on Germany’s extreme right and Neo-Nazi scene. Whether 1933 or today, conservatives have been those who most often cooperate with the extreme right. This is the “AfD-CDU” link.
At a distant second, cooperation between the Neo-Nazis and a democratic party is followed by Germany’s neoliberal “FDP.” The social-democratic “SPD”, semi-socialist “Die Linke” and the environmentalist “Die Grünen” have done it too, however.
The most common form of cooperation is to join in voting for a local initiative. No less than 93 cases of CDU-AfD agreement on “what to vote for” were identified. In 74 cases the initiative came from the neofascist AfD and the CDU went along.
Cooperation with the extreme right – even at the municipal level – is very dangerous. If anything, it gives extreme right-wing parties the veneer of being “normal”, making their far-right ideologies, and Neo-Nazism seem harmless. In short, it is the mainstreaming of fascism.
Meanwhile and publicly, the CDU is keeping up the image that there is some kind of a firewall between the CDU and AfD.
It’s becoming clear that this much-treasured CDU façade of an impermeable barrier between them and the AfD does not correspond to reality, especially in all too many East German municipalities.
To keep up appearances, in a so-called “summer interview” in July 2023, CDU-boss Friedrich Merz never grew tired of stressing the importance of his party’s distinction from the AfD. In a rather typical politician-style fabrication, he immediately softened this position in the same breath.
After iterating the CDU as staunchly anti-AfD, he said, of course “local politics differs from state and from federal politics.”
Merz declared that the demarcation is only “about legislative bodies” like the EU’s parliament, Germany’s federal and state parliaments. But at the local or municipal level a so-called “more pragmatic approach” would be needed.
This is how conservatism once again opens the door for Nazis to stick their jackboots in so that door cannot be closed again.
Merz’s comments were met with a lot of criticism, even from within his own party. Among the many was:
- Kai Wegner, the mayor of Berlin since 2023.
- Markus Söder (state premier of Bavaria since 2018).
- Yvonne Magwas (vice president of Germany’s federal parliament).
- Tobias Hans, the premier of the Saarland from 2018 to 2022) and
- Norbert Röttgen (federal minister for the environment from 2009 to 2012).
They all expressed their disapproval and reaffirmed the need to clearly distinguish the CDU from the AfD.
Because of this criticism, Merz felt compelled to further “clarify” his position. He wrote on “X” (Twitter), “to clarify it again, and I have never said it in any other way: The agreed resolution of the CDU applies. There will be no cooperation between the CDU and the AfD at municipal level.”
Despite this statement of principle, the CDU is deeply split on the issue of the much-acclaimed firewall. In addition to the criticism leveled at CDU boss Merz, there are also voices in the CDU who called for a so-called “normalization” of relations with the neofascist AfD.
One of the most well-known representatives of such a pro-Neo-Nazi-appeasing position has been Michael Brychcy, the mayor of Waltershausen in the East-German state of Thuringia.
Not really by accident, Thuringia is also the home state of the AfD’s “real boss” Björn Höcke – who sees himself in a future neofascist Germany as the Führer reborn.
Neofascist supporter Brychcy argues, at least at Germany’s municipal as well as at the more significant state level in East Germany, where AfD Führer Björn Höcke has just gained even more power, “there can no longer be any progress at all” without some kind of cooperation with the AfD.
Two things are noteworthy in this. Firstly, the AfD is not about “cooperation.” The AfD is about the end of democracy. Secondly, there will never be any “progress” with the AfD.
The AfD is a deeply reactionary party that seeks to return to authoritarianism or a dictatorship, even a Neo-Nazi style dictatorship.
Worse, Brychcy himself has already involved authoritarian AfD deputies at the municipal level claiming that, “in such cases, I reject political games.” Martina Schweinsburg, CDU district councilor in Greiz since 1994, has also expressed a similar opinion when emphasizing, “a more pragmatic approach without ideological polemics and showcase speeches would certainly be good for all parties.
The reality of life is not based on party decisions.” In other words, cooperating with Neo-Nazis is “pragmatic” and free of ideology. The watch-word is “pragmatic.” In reality, this is exactly where the ideology of conservatism meets the ideology of Nazism.
In short and despite the talk of a firewall, a relationship between the CDU and the AfD exists. In the aftermath of the municipal elections of 2019, the cooperation with the extreme right at the municipal level already occupied the thoughts of many journalists. They brought several examples of cooperation to light.
Politics is a decisive factor in local community debates and decisions. Political leanings often decide whether to engage with road renovations, a playground for children or a car park, new (environmentally friendly or not) buildings, local fee regulations, the planning of commercial areas, decisions on the financing and promotion of the local youth club, initiatives that support democracy, provisions for Holocaust memorials, art and culture as well as the design of accommodations for refugees.
Such decisions have a direct impact on the life of local people. Any sort of “depoliticization” – as advocated by sections of the conservative CDU – would be fatal.
In Germany’s federal structure, a city or municipal council may or may not be considered a legislative body, but nevertheless these are political institutions with representatives elected on political party tickets.
Again and again, the false argument has been made that a local community is about simple matters and not about politics. This is a mistake.
Local decisions about, for example, a children’s playground, a tree planting campaign and questions on whether to free local pupils and students from public travel costs to and from schools are eminently political decisions.
All in all, Germany’s Political Party Law of 1967 attributed four central functions to the local level:
- recruitment of political personnel,
- conceptualization of local politics,
- opinion formation, and
- stimulating local debates through public statements by politicians.
Consequently, dealing with an extreme right party like the AfD at the municipal level remains an unavoidably political decision.
The AfD’s right-wing extremism is often accompanied by a staunch and rather determined rejection of democratic values and democratic institutions.
Based on what we know about far-right extremism, the danger of extreme right-wing actors should never be downplayed – particularly in the historical context of a country like Germany.
In the USA, the takeover of school boards and municipal councils has been going on since long before the advent of the current Republican candidate: “These communities, home to alliances of QAnon followers, anti-vaxxers, Christian nationalists, and far-right militia supporters, were not just denying elections but also attempting to control the local governments.”
And recently, the Wannsee word “remigration” was used as a dog whistle to his racist right-wing followers in a political speech by the ex-president.
When we talk about the extreme right, we tend to refer to a political spectrum associated with nationalism, racism, xenophobia, chauvinism, hate of feminism, anti-democratic attitudes, social-Darwinism, anti-Semitism, etc., as well as certain behaviors like provocation, ultra-masculinity, bullying, streets fights, ultra-misogyny, intimidation, Neo-Nazi terrorism, membership of far-right and Neo-Nazi organizations, as well as intimidation, brutality, violence, and terror.
The collective term “extreme right” can include – among others – Christian fundamentalists and self-proclaimed “life protectors”, survivalists, ethnic-nationalists, Reichsbürger, organized anti-Semites and racists, far-right climate change deniers, Holocaust deniers, groups that view women and LGBTIQ people as the enemy, neoliberal welfare chauvinists, militarists and revisionists, the so-called “new right”, and, of course, the AfD, neofascists and Neo-Nazis.
These “weird” attributes are of central importance to the AfD. The AfD offers a platform on which a variety of the far-right and right-wing extremist “flotsam and jetsam” factions, squadrons, and actors can gather in what they feel is a “safe” place.
The AfD is both an expression of far-right craziness and Neo-Nazism as well as its engine room, cranking out an endless stream of harmful propaganda fumes calculated to pollute the political environment, deprive it of the fresh air of truth, and thus choke democracy.
As if that wasn’t bad enough, the AfD’s deeply Neo-Nazi and antisemitic camp now has the party in its grip. Its predecessor – the so-called “völkische wing” has officially been disbanded.
Today, the hard core runs the party. Many of the AfD’s top apparatchiks are linked to the extreme right and adjacent Neo-Nazi outfits. In addition to the AfD, there are other – albeit small but often more violent – far-right parties like the Freie Sachsen, the Neo-Nazi squad of Der III. Weg, Die Heimat and local thugs like Pro-Chemnitz.
Unlike these local gangs and micro-parties, the AfD has become an indispensable part of local politics in East Germany.
This makes an exclusion of the AfD ever more difficult for democratic parties and elected representatives. But without a sharp differentiation between Neo-Nazis and neofascists in terms of content and language, the political and democratic discourse is likely to shift even further toward the far right.
Unsurprisingly, the view that is often put forward is that “after all, the representatives of the neofascist AfD were democratically elected.” True, but that does not make them democrats.
This is an important point. The AfD and Germany’s extreme right, just like the current Republican Party in the USA, is fundamentally oriented towards the abolition of democracy, pluralism, freedom of expression and the protection of minorities.
Consequently, any cooperation with the AfD and the extreme right – even at municipal level – is extremely dangerous. The inevitable question arises: What to do?
First off, one can differentiate a local party initiative according to whether a democratic party or an extremely right-wing party like the AfD submitted it. If it is an AfD initiative, no consent should be given by democratic parties, regardless of the specific content of the initiative. Roadblock it immediately. No success, no credit!
When it comes to AfD approval of council initiatives, the matter is a little more complex. To illustrate this, an example from Thuringia’s state politics is instructive.
When a motion to reduce real estate transfer tax was submitted by Thuringia’s CDU, it was passed in September 2023 with the votes of the neofascist AfD and the neoliberal FDP.
Unfortunately, this was not the first time that the CDU, FDP and AfD used their majority against Thuringia’s progressive “red-red-green” minority state government of The Left (red), the social-democratic SPD (red) and the environmental Greens (green) for the purpose of pushing through a neoliberal proposal.
Measures can certainly be taken that reduce the likelihood of interference by the AfD. Whether there was a secret or “wink” CDU/AfD/FDP agreement is difficult to reconstruct. Such deals are often made behind closed doors. Yet, in many cases, collusion has been clearly proven.
Meanwhile, there is no clear and conclusive evidence that this was the case for the reduction of the real estate transfer tax. But voting patterns of the CDU/AfD/FDP reveal a lot – some type of collusion must have been there.
Secondly, if a local council initiative is dependent on the votes of an extreme right-wing party like the AfD then there should be an open discussion. This was recently the case at the state level of Thuringia.
For example, in the infamous election of Thomas Kemmerich (FDP) as Thuringia’s new state premier, he was voted in by a coalition between the CDU, AfD and FDP.
At the time, Chancellor Angela Merkel called Kemmerich’s election with AfD support an “unforgivable event” that has “to be reversed.” Merkel put her foot down, heads rolled, a new state premier was elected. There was to be no collusion with the AfD under Merkel’s reign.
Whether CDU-Godmother “Mutti” (chancellor between 2005 to 2021) Angela Merkel wanted it or not, CDU cooperation with the AfD has spread its toxic spores like a fungus.
If political parties really want to prevent the far-right AfD from agreeing to your democratic party’s initiatives and implementations, political parties need a little more creativity.
In principle, initiatives for new laws should be formulated in such a way that they exclude far-right meddling. They should also assure that the AfD cannot engage in any form of “re-wording.” In short, they should be incompatible with the anti-democratic ideology of the AfD.
With a little fortitude and aforethought at municipal level, democratic political parties can negotiate a joint declaration on the exclusion of the neofascist AfD from any and all decisions.
Among other things, such an agreement could contain a clause that reads something like this: “This assembly declares its fundamental rejection of parties whose representatives stand for group-related misanthropy, xenophobia, racism and whose programs are not compatible with democratic principles.” A preamble like that can be included in all parliamentary initiatives and decisions.
In addition to commonly agreed voting behaviors against the AfD, the election of officials is also a relevant issue for the exclusion of the AfD.
This requires agreements within one’s own party and in some cases also with other parties. Of course, candidates can be rejected “per se” because of their affiliation with non-democratic parties.
In the best case, everyone agrees to refuse to vote for a corresponding candidate of the extreme right. Finally, political parties must never simply agree to an AfD proposal due to time pressure.
In the end, the issue of a firewall against the AfD is mostly an issue of conscience for Germany’s conservatives – the CDU. At every opportunity they must be reminded what cooperation with Hitler cost the nation and the world.
One can only hope that Germany’s conservatives do not make the same mistake again. The first “mistake” occurred in 1933 when the staunchly conservative Franz von Papen and the equally conservative Paul von Hindenburg made Adolf Hitler Chancellor of the Weimar Republic. One of the world’s most horrific dictatorships followed.
Without the support of the conservatives, Hitler’s Nazism would never have taken control of the country. One can only hope that Germany’s conservatives do not make the same and extremely lethal “mistake” again by enabling the anti-democratic AfD and its mini-Führer Björn Höcke to destroy democracy and establish a new murderous Reich.
Photo: A Rally of “Grandmas against the Right” – the headline means, “You’re not allowed to nod off in a democracy!”
Subscribe to Cross-border Talks’ YouTube channel! Follow the project’s Facebook and Twitter page! And here are the podcast’s Telegram channel and its Substack newsletter!
Like our work? Donate to Cross-Border Talks or buy us a coffee!
About The Author
