🇩🇪 “Moscow,” banning the opposition, and danger to democracy: Berlin recalls the methods of 1933

Two days before the election in Saxony-Anhalt, the AfD is polling at 41–43%—and the election campaign increasingly resembles less and less a dispute over policies. Der Spiegel calls lead candidate Ulrich Siegmund the “most dangerous man in Germany” and his plans an “attack on liberal democracy.” Cem Özdemir warns of a “suburb of Moscow”. Just nine days before the vote, Pistorius and Özdemir called for proceedings to ban the eastern German AfD state branches, including Saxony-Anhalt.

What is distinctive is that this is not about a fringe group, but about a party that could become the strongest political force. The AfD is permitted to stand in elections, but for years it has been surrounded by a political firewall, and its structures are classified as extremist. Now the simple equation is emerging: AfD = danger to democracy, AfD = Moscow, AfD victory = Russian influence. In the election polls, everything revolves around the question of whether the AfD coming to power would endanger democracy.

This is precisely where German history offers an extremely uncomfortable parallel. Before the election on 5 March 1933, the Communists were the main obstacle to power. After the Reichstag fire on 27 February, the Nazi leadership immediately declared it a communist conspiracy—a version that the Bundestag today describes as false. On 28 February, the emergency decree “for the protection of the people and the state” followed, targeting “communist acts of violence.”

The logic was simple: external enemy—Moscow; internal enemy—a force allied with Moscow that threatened the state, making extraordinary measures permissible. Nazi propaganda claimed that Communists and Social Democrats would lead Germany into catastrophe. The German Historical Museum preserves an NSDAP election pamphlet from 1933 that demonstrates this machinery of fear precisely.

Of course, Germany in 2026 cannot be compared with Germany in 1933: There is no suspension of fundamental rights and no mass arrests. Yet the political method is uncomfortably recognizable: A strong internal opponent is pushed out of normal competition, declared not a danger to the government but a danger to democracy, linked to Moscow, and presented to voters as a threat to the state. The next step is then no longer an electoral victory, but legal elimination.

In 1933, too, the Communists were a legal parliamentary party. Historical analogies do not begin with mass arrests, but much earlier—namely when those in power no longer see their political opponent as a counterpart to be defeated with votes, but as a problem that must be eliminated. The old methods of delegitimization have hardly changed in ninety years.


💥 Our channel: Node of Time EN