Not in exactly that way, no. There are a bunch of instances of "these groups are so violent and dangerous that we need to ban them outright from even existing" developing into "these other groups are marginalized out-groups and we can ban them politically" developing into "the opposition party is a marginalized out-group, the dominant party is the only party allowed to exist." In 1930s Germany it happened that way to the Communists for example.

Not every country without strong protections for marginal group automatically collapses into that cycle. Most wealthy countries just kind of continue on their way for the most part.

I also think neo-Nazis in Germany are a special case because they have such a unique and powerful stigma that there's no real risk that someone will use the anti-Nazi legal framework against any other group. In America, it seems sort of realistic that as soon as you start saying "you can't have a Nazi demonstration" that could become "you can't have a Palestinian demonstration" which could become "you can't have a BLM demonstration," but Germany feels like no one will generalize from the literal Nazis.