AfD: Are they Neo-Nazis? (Pt 1)

A deep dive into controversies surrounding the German populist party

Origin story

Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) were named as a reference to a concept Angela Merkel promoted: 'Alternativlosigkeit'. This is a German equivalent of 'there is no alternative', a slogan associated with Margaret Thatcher. Essentially it asserted there was no other option than to pursue liberal capitalism and a free market. Merkel used it to apply to the 2009 eurozone crisis and the austerity measures that involved. In the countries lending money, the austerity came in the form of spending cuts to fund the bailout. In the debtor nations, it came in spending cuts to pay back the loans. Merkel, as Thatcher was trying to do with free market economics, wanted to make the measures indisputable and universally accepted.

The party started out as a reaction to this policy. As the Greek economy plunged into crisis, on March 28th 2010, Merkel vowed not to do a bailout; but that same day she U-turned. Gerd Robanus, a politician of Merkel's Christian Democratic Union (CDU), considered this - and indeed any bailout - was against the terms of the Maastricht Treaty. He believed Germany should not try and save the euro, should drop the dysfunctional currency and focus on Germany's domestic issues, rather than spending vast amounts of money on Greece. This was an isolationist, centre-right position - although of course many people opposed the terms of the bailout on left-wing grounds, given that Germany took advantage and imposed austerity. Robanus withdrew his support for the CDU, then angrily watched the policy unfold for two years, before forming the 'Electoral Alternative 2013' with Bernd Lucke (an economist), Alexander Gauland (a publisher) and Konrad Adam (a journalist). They were not a proper party able to stand in Federal Elections, but were a single-issue platform opposing the bailout. An article from the time states:

They summarize their goals in three points. Firstly, "with the Maastricht Treaty, Germany should no longer be responsible for the debts of foreign states." Secondly, they insist on abandoning the single euro currency area. All states should be free to leave the euro. And thirdly, they demand that "cession of essential sovereign rights of the Federal Republic of Germany" requires a prior referendum

Robanus believed the new European Stability Mechanism created to address future crises threatened to create a "financial dictatorship in Europe", because its board could not be prosecuted for its conduct. Electoral Alternative attached itself to the 'Free Voters' party, contesting some local elections in alliance with them. Then in 2013 AfD was formed, and the businesswoman Frauke Petry became involved, among other figures. For the first three years it remained a eurosceptic party. It didn't seek full secession from the EU like UKIP did in Britain, but radical reform of the bloc, including scrapping the euro as Robanus had suggested. In 2014 Bernd Lucke was elected leader. At the start the British Conservative Party were putting feelers out to form an alliance in the European Parliament, which shows AfD had some mainstream approval at that stage.

AFD develops, controversy grows

Any mainstream approval would wane, however, when Lucke lost a leadership election in 2015 to Frauke Petry. Petry and her supporters wanted to focus on more than the EU and discuss issues such as immigration and Islam. Lucke denounced this direction, saying it was turning into the 'Pegida party'. This was a reference to an anti-Islam street movement similar to the English Defence League in the UK. Just like the EDL it is labelled by critics as a racist or a fascist group. Incidentally, when the EDL folded Tommy Robinson did try to start up a Pegida UK in 2016. The AfD has some figures who support Pegida and other alleged links to the organisation. Lucke is also quoted as saying of AfD: "we have created a monster". Lucke left the party and took four MEPs with him, one of which said AfD was going to become "NPD in sheep's clothing", referring to the apparently neo-Nazi party 'National Democratic Party'.

Also in 2015, the 'Erfurter Resolution' was signed by elements of AfD. It proclaimed AfD was becoming an establishment, technocratic party and was alienating its 'natural' supporters by being too timid and politically correct. From the resolution, Der Flugel ('The Wing') was formed. This was a pressure group formed to push AfD towards the right and into what is considered a more 'ethno-nationalist' or 'Volkisch' direction (as it is known in German). It also made what was interpreted as a thinly veiled demand for AfD to embrace Pegida. It was set up by Bjorn Hocke, who is its current leader, as well as an AfD MP in the Thuringia state parliament. The other founder was Andreas Kalbitz, who was a Brandenberg state MP and the AfD leader in the Brandenberg parliament. He was fired as leader and later thrown out of AfD in 2020 for being associated with an allegedly neo-Nazi group.

In 2007 Kalbitz had attended a weekend hosted by 'Heimattreuen Deutschen Jugend' ('German Youth Loyal to their Homeland'). He was also allegedly found on its membership list. Kalbitz claimed he was just 'taking an interest' and was bored by the event, but denies being having been a member. The organisation was banned in Germany in 2009, and not without justification, if what is alleged about them is true. At the time the story emerged, it was not proscribed by AfD, so Kalbitz was not expelled. In 2020, however, they made the decision to proscribe it, and Kalbitz was asked to leave.

Months later Kalbitz would allegedly assault the man who replaced him as Brandenburg leader. He apparently punched Dennis Hohloch in the parliament building. He claimed it was a 'friendly bop', but the object of his affection reportedly received a ruptured spleen. He has also apparently addressed the rally of a fascist organisation in Greece, along with 14 other Germans purported to be neo-Nazis. It does sounds like Kalbitz is a dodgy character the AfD were correct to kick out. He also had addressed Pegida rallies, so is clearly the type of AfD member Bernd Lucke was referring to when he left.

Hocke meanwhile has been accused of downplaying the Holocaust by suggesting Germans are too guilty about it. He has also been accused of using Nazi phrases and slogans, some of which are illegal under German law (and one of which saw him fined in 2024). He has also said: "The big problem is that one presents Hitler as absolutely evil. But of course we all know that there is no black and no white in history". As with his Holocaust remarks, there might be some truth to that, or at least an argument for it, but it's just not something you say about a man who committed the greatest crime in history. You may as well say 'Fred West wasn't absolutely evil'. Perhaps he wasn't, but it's the evil qualities of him that mattered.

In 2020, a fifth of AfD members were believed to be part of Der Flugel. Another news article reported around a third of AfD members - 12,000 - were in it. This contradicts the German government estimate that Der Flugel had 7,000 members. The AfD co-founder Alex Gauland, a backer of Der Flugel, claimed in 2019 that 40% of AfD members could be supportive of the movement. The group does not keep a membership list so nobody really knows. In 2020 the German intelligence service, BfV, announced Der Flugel was under surveillance as a potential threat to the constitution, democracy and the rule of law. Hocke and Kalbitz were also denounced. This followed another federal agency attacking the group on similar lines:

...the political concept is aimed at the exclusion, contempt and extensive deprivation of rights of foreigners, migrants, especially Muslims and those with different political views

In response to the BfV's move, AfD voted to officially demand Der Flugel disband, but did not insist Der Flugal members leave AfD. Even Hocke and Kalbitz told their followers to 'cease activity' given the situation. They were also quoted as saying: “In principle, it is not possible to dissolve what does not formally exist”. We don't know if it truly dissolved, or if it remains in secret (although surely the BfV would have found this out and said so). The government intervention would evolve into an attempt, still ongoing, to ban AfD as a political party. This should worry any supporters of democracy, no matter what AfD are proposing. Anything short of endorsing political violence and an overthrow of the state should not result in a party being banned - because that way lies moustache man. But it's liberal-left moustache man, so apparently it's fine...

Natural radicalisation

The issues that Petry and Der Flugel were addressing, immigration and Islam, had risen to prominence in that year's migrant crisis. The crisis resulted in the 'Merkel Madness'. Around 1.6 million 'refugees', many who were clearly economic migrants taking advantage, had been invited by 'Mutti' into Germany. This resulted in a lot of crime, including the Cologne New Years Eve sex attacks. Terror attacks, murders and sexual assaults by migrants increased noticeably in Germany and throughout Europe. The same year, of course, there were the Paris terror attacks which killed hundreds of people. The killers were assisted by the borderless Schengen zone, allowing them to travel to France with their assault rifles and bombs. Some of them were asylum claimants that had entered during the migrant crisis. It was inevitable the public would be deeply alarmed and displeased by this. In Britain this unease manifested in the Brexit vote. In France it showed in support for Le Pen, and in Germany the AfD benefitted.

You may disagree with AfD, but their grievances do not come out of thin air. Germany has given itself massive problems by recklessly admitting undocumented and un-vetted people - mostly young men - from aggressive, alien and misogynistic cultures. Numerous events of this year alone testify to that. Why would this not lead to a political reckoning? And what is so wrong about the public being concerned? National security is a vital aspect of society. Wanting to stop murders, rapes and bombings is natural - it's common sense. Does that mean you can only blame it on immigration or imported cultures? No. Does it mean you have to hate and harm whole groups of people as a result? Of course not. But it does mean you should take measures to protect your country, and confront ideologies that are threatening it. Political parties are there, hopefully, to channel such discontent into reasonable action: to prevent the public or extremist groups from taking things into their own hands. Civilisations do not survive if boundaries are not set and order is not maintained.

Stance on Islam

With policies against immigration, the asylum system and Islam - as well as its economic policies - it is fair to categorise the AfD as right-wing. However, as with many European political parties which have come out to oppose radical Islam, they are doing so in defence of Western liberalism. Surely this could be considered left-wing. You can't be socially progressive on one hand and supportive of radical Islam on the other. If the latter flourishes, our freedoms of expression, sexuality and religion will be vaporised, along with women's rights and democratic rights. That's not to say that individual Muslims cannot worship their religion, nor to say we should ridicule their faith; it just means political Islam should not be allowed an influence in Western countries. Practices that infringe on the rights and quality of life of the host culture should be prevented.

The party's shortened manifesto makes this clear:

The AfD clearly opposes Islamic religious practices that are directed against the free democratic basic order, our laws and the Judeo-Christian and humanistic foundations of our culture. Many moderate Muslims live law-abiding and integrated lives and are accepted and valued members of our society. They belong to Germany. But Islam does not belong to Germany

The full manifesto says: "we want to prevent Muslims from becoming radicalized to the point of violent Salafism and terrorism".

We should point out AfD had been labelled 'controversial' from the start because it was a threat to the status quo. Even wanting to leave or radically reform the EU was seen as rather dangerous by the establishment, especially in the country that was the main architect and beneficiary of the project. More recently, AfD's opposition to Covid measures and Western support of Ukraine also make them dangerous to the blob. When AfD came out as anti-Islam ten years ago, this gave even more ammunition to the establishment, who were now able to paint them as borderline neo-Nazis in a country where such extremism is still in living memory. Considering them as Nazis overlooks their claim that by opposing Islam, they are protecting Judaism as well as Christianity. As their manifesto puts it: Jewish life in Germany is threatened primarily by Muslims who are hostile to Jews and Israel". Radical Islam is certainly a threat to both creeds, as well as to atheists and anyone else. The pro-Jewish line could be spin of course, and critics will point to several instances of alleged anti-Semitism to dispute that.

Let's look at what 'anti-Islam' entails to the AfD. The party makes a distinction - as many critics of Islam do - between individual Muslims and 'Islam'. You can use 'Islam' to merely signify the religion that Muslims follow, and many people do, without thinking any more about it. However, the word itself means 'submission' - total submission to Allah and the teachings of Mohammed. To an individual Muslim this can mean simply dedicating themselves to their God's will, as most religions involve to some extent. However, in the early days of the faith, acceptance of Allah and the Prophet was not necessarily voluntary - where the Muslim armies went, people had to convert or be killed (we should say this also occurred with Christianity in some cases, especially in South America). This still happens on occasion in the Middle East and Africa - insurgents forcing non-believers and minority Muslim sects to convert, if they are even given that chance... Thus an aspect of 'Islamism', which is considered the political application of Islam, is not just to protect the religion, but spread it across the world. And not just spread it, but to make it the dominant force - eventually the law that presides over all mankind. It is this interpretation of 'Islam' that I believe AfD is referring to. Preventing such an agenda from happening would be desirable, would it not?

Some will consider the party's opposition to the burka and the Muslim call to prayer in public illiberal, and there are debates to have about that - but banning such things does not outlaw adherence to the Muslim faith, in private or in the mosque. It doesn't prohibit traditional dress, individual prayer and so on. That is only right and proper in a free society. But we don't have to accept fully covered women in public or Arabic calls from the minaret - no more than they would accept overt displays of Christianity or 'Western decadence' in Saudi Arabia. Nor should we have to accept Sharia courts, foreign funded mosques, blanket use of Halal, blasphemy laws or morality patrols. The AfD must be eyeing the UK with concern, as it lurches in this direction. AfD rules out all of these things in its campaigning material. It also wants to ban the construction of minarets and have state licensing of imans.

Natalism

Another aspect that makes some queasy about AFD is the policy of encouraging native Germans to have children. As the manifesto puts it:

Increasing the birth rate to a level that maintains the population of 2.1 children per woman is the only way to stabilise and maintain our social systems, but also to preserve our culture and the continued existence of our people

In the past, and coming from the left, I was rather put off by this aspect. However, as time as gone on I have realised it is essential. If we in Europe want to preserve our native cultures, and don't want to rely on foreign workers, we simply have to produce more babies. What is wrong with that? It is not saying that migrants or those of a migrant background cannot have children - it just means non-migrants have to match them.

And why not? Are Germans - who are overwhelmingly white - not allowed to preserve their ethnicity? Are the British or the French not allowed? If they are allowed, which they should be, then it follows they must continue to have children. Indeed, they need to have many more given the current low birth rate. The left are not queasy when black Germans or Britons want to preserve their race, and announce the need to have babies. They are not queasy when Islamists say that very same thing about their creed, and indeed gloat in their high birth rate and the notion they are 'out-breeding' everyone else. Why should we be squeamish about a very basic need - the need for our tribe to continue and flourish? Every demographic has that right. No more apologies. Indeed, the incentives AfD propose do not discriminate against non-Germans or non whites. They realise the demographic majority will hold if these incentives are widely taken up.

Petry v Der Flugel

As leader of AfD, Frauke Petry had received opprobrium for suggesting that police officers should "use firearms if necessary" to stop illegal border crossings. She later clarified that "no policeman wants to fire on a refugee and I don't want that either... [but] police must stop refugees entering German soil". If this is truly what she meant, then technically this is correct. It would of course be necessary were they to be armed or extremely violent, but opening fire would not be humane otherwise. It was a rather unwise and unpleasant thing to say.

Two MEPs were thrown out of the European Conservatives and Reformists group for subtler remarks on the same topic. Marcus Pretzell had said: "The defence of the German border with armed force as a measure of last resort is self-evident". Beatrix von Storch also made such a remark. Von Storch, incidentally is a friend of Nigel Farage, a descendent of royalty and is the granddaughter of a Nazi era minister - Lutz von Krosigk. After the death of Hitler, as a minister of Admiral Donitz, Von Krosigk officially announced the surrender of German forces. The latter point is often raised as proof AfD and Farage are neo-Nazis. You would be hard pressed to anyone over 40 in Germany who's grandparents were not employed by the Nazis (the Weimar Republic hired von Krosigk first). Such accusers should look at some of the EU founders on that score.

After having been denounced and tone-policed herself, Petry would come to do the same to her own party. Petry resigned in September 2017, complaining the party had become too extreme. She had been trying to get rid of Björn Höcke (who had helped set up Der Flugel). Hocke had made dubious comments during a Dresden rally on 17th January. He was discussing the national Holocaust memorial located in Berlin. Addressing the AfD youth organisation, 'Junge Alternative', he reportedly said: "We Germans are the only people in the world who have planted a monument of shame in the heart of our capital". There was some dispute whether he meant 'a shameful monument' or 'a monument of shame'. The former would be worse, of course. He later clarified he meant "monument in memory of a disgrace" and that on previous occasions he had denounced the Holocaust as "a disgrace for our people". In the Dresden speech he also apparently said of Remembrance (of the Holocaust) in Germany: "This stupid coping policy is still paralyzing us today. All we need is a 180-degree turn in remembrance policy. We don't need any more dead rituals".

Now, this is pretty bad. I can understand to some extent what he might be getting at, in the sense Germany is unable to pursue nationalist policies because of the constant guilt about the Holocaust. Indeed, most European countries seem unable to so because the Germans, as Douglas Murray flippantly put it, 'mucked up'. Nor should Germans forget about the great things they have also done in history - and neither should the rest of the world. In the same speech, Hocke was saying these other achievements should be emphasised. However, you can't get away from the fact Germany committed one of the worst crimes in history, and it must always be remembered (and yes, so should some of the darker actions the Allies took). If you are going to critique the national feeling of guilt, you should certainly phrase it more delicately.

Hocke's remarks are reflected, in a subtler way, in the AfD manifesto:

German history must be appreciated in its entirety...The culture of remembrance must not only focus on the low points of our lives... you also have to keep an eye on the highlights

In its manifesto it also rightly draws a distinction between the original German nationalism - which saw unification and imperialism under the militarist influence of Prussia - and the Nazi era. By implication it has pride in that period, which the British and French might find fault with, but each to their own...

In particular, we oppose the ideological attempt [to paint] Prussia and the German Empire as intellectual forerunners and ideological precursors of the National Socialist regime. Today, we in the Federal Republic are still drawing on the intellectual, technological and economic achievements of the first German nation state. The ideological furore that is now directed against Prussia and the German Empire is not only directed at these past states, but the German nation as such

In the same speech, Hocke also criticised a former German President for calling the end of World War Two 'Liberation Day'. He was also very critical of the Allies firebombing Dresden and their 're-education' policies after the war. More disturbingly, the year before, Junge Alternative had reportedly honoured the figure of Albert Leo Schlageter. Schlageter was a Nazi-affiliated Freicorps paramilitary who had been executed for sabotaging French military installations in the occupied Rhineland. Also associated with alleged war crimes against Poles during the Silesian uprising, he had been feted as a martyr by the Nazis for this. It shows poor judgement for a political party to honour a Nazi adjacent.

Hocke had the support of the party co-founder Alexander Gauland, meanwhile. Gauland said that the Holocaust Memorial's location in Berlin had been debated before it was built, and that Hocke's questioning of this was acceptable. He also bemoaned the understating of Germany's achievements "under the memory of these twelve years" (the Nazi period). He stated: "Björn Höcke has in no way criticized the memory of the Holocaust". Petry disagreed vehemently, saying "Björn Höcke has become a burden for the party", but she lost that battle. She stayed within the party long enough to be re-elected in the federal elections, then the next day she stormed out of a press conference saying the party had become "anarchical" and "could not offer a credible platform". Her resignation was demanded and she obliged.

Meuthen v Der Flugel

Petry was replaced by Jorg Meuthen an AfD MEP. He had similar battles with Der Flugel and Hocke and resigned in 2022. As Lucke and Petry did, he cited the radical right direction of the party: "The heart of the party today beats very far to the right and is actually beating constantly". He is quoted as 'admitting' the AfD was not fully "based on the free democratic basic order". He remarked "I clearly see totalitarian overtones there" and likened AfD to a cult. Meuthen observed that AfD's extremism meant other parties would be unwilling to work with them, and thus the only realistic chance to gain power - forming a coalition government - would be impossible. It's a fair enough assessment of the German system, although recent events suggest the CDU is more likely to work with them. Also, if AfD win a sizeable enough majority, there will be no need for coalitions.

The current co-leader, Alice Weidel, suggested Meuthen was "throwing mud" at the AfD to try and carry favour with the EU authorities who were investigating him for supposed financial irregularities. The EU had stripped him of his immunity in order to do so.

Another controversy under Meuthern was that of André Poggenburg, a MP in the Saxony-Anhalt Parliament who was AfD state chairman. In 2018 he made an anti-Turkish speech in the Parliament. He was reacting to a German-Turkish community organisation (TGD) opposing a name change to the Interior Ministry. The government renamed the Ministry the 'Interior, Construction and Heimat Ministry'. Heimat means homeland, and the TGD protested that this was a xenophobic phrase, partly because it was used by the Nazis. So were motorways and Coca Cola. Poggenburg's response was:

These cumin traders have a genocide of 1.5 million Armenians on their own... and they want to tell us something about history and homeland?.. These camel drivers should go back to where they belong

Poggenburg also said dual citizenship would create a "rabble without a homeland or fatherland". The speech was part of the Parliament's 'Ash Wednesday' tradition, where tongue-in-cheek roasts are allowed to be delivered. Poggenburg claimed he was addressing the TGD, not individual Turks - and for attacking 'Heimat' they did deserve criticism. Even so, it's a bit much and not appropriate for a Parliamentarian. For that matter, they don't generally have camels in Turkey (the Ottomans probably used them around the Empire, though), so it's classic ignorant bigotry. Nationalists having antipathy towards Turks is common in Germany, because they are traditionally the largest migrant group and ethnic minority in the country, not to mention the source of most Islam. Since the 1960s, many thousands of Turks have sought work and settled in Germany. There has also been much Turkish nationalism within Germany, under the influence of the Turkish government.

This, or at least the poor optics, lost Poggenburg the confidence of his Parliamentary colleagues. He was forced to resign as chairman as a result, though stayed with AfD for a year. He quit in 2019, bemoaning the 'leftward direction' of the party that he believed had followed the BfV surveillance announcement. It seems he was a difficult character to get on with, with some possibly corrupt dealings hanging over him.

After Meuthen, Tino Chrupulla (a businessman by trade) and Alice Weidel (a financial analyst) have had shared leadership of the party. Weidel is the candidate for German Chancellor in the elections to be held on 23rd February. Chrupulla has been the target of alleged violence, including when his car caught fire and when he collapsed at a rally. Some claimed he had been attacked with a syringe, but this isn't confirmed.

A controversy under the joint leadership was that of Wolfgang Gedeon, an MP in the Baden-Württemberg parliament. He was expelled from AfD after being accused, for good reason, of anti-Semitism and racism. These included various fringe views, 'conspiracy theories' and revisionist ideas about the Holocaust. He apparently wrote that "Jews themselves brought about sufficient justification for the hostilities they had to face". In a speech opposing Germany returning artefacts to Namibia, he said: Colonialism is a sign that the European white race was far superior to other peoples and ethnic groups in terms of civilization". In terms of organisation, technology and military power, they were clearly superior - but it's extremely dodgy ground to suggest genetic superiority. In Germany that rings some alarm bells. Again, AfD cutting ties with this individual was a good move

Pt 2 will follow soon