Hearted Youtube comments on TIKhistory (@TheImperatorKnight) channel.
-
11000
-
3900
-
3600
-
3500
-
2900
-
2800
-
2600
-
2500
-
2500
-
2400
-
2300
-
2300
-
2300
-
2200
-
2200
-
2000
-
1900
-
1900
-
1900
-
1900
-
1900
-
1800
-
1800
-
1800
-
1800
-
1700
-
1700
-
1700
-
1700
-
1700
-
1700
-
1700
-
1600
-
1600
-
1600
-
1500
-
1500
-
1500
-
1500
-
1500
-
1400
-
1400
-
1400
-
1400
-
1300
-
1300
-
1300
-
1300
-
1300
-
1300
-
1300
-
1200
-
1200
-
1200
-
1200
-
1200
-
1100
-
1100
-
1100
-
1100
-
1000
-
1000
-
1000
-
1000
-
1000
-
1000
-
1000
-
1000
-
1000
-
1000
-
1000
-
998
-
989
-
988
-
984
-
976
-
971
-
971
-
967
-
961
-
955
-
953
-
939
-
938
-
928
-
925
-
924
-
912
-
898
-
897
-
896
-
895
-
892
-
879
-
876
-
875
-
874
-
872
-
866
-
863
-
854
-
853
-
850
-
850
-
849
-
846
-
843
-
842
-
842
-
840
-
838
-
833
-
832
-
830
-
818
-
817
-
804
-
796
-
793
-
789
-
785
-
780
-
774
-
773
-
770
-
767
-
761
-
757
-
756
-
755
-
755
-
746
-
743
-
738
-
736
-
728
-
723
-
717
-
714
-
714
-
the video is good, but there are a few points that are worth adding or correcting:
Firstly, Plotinus was not a Christian, he was a pagan, but some of his students were Christians and ended up influencing early Christianity. It's important to define this because the relationship between Christianity and Platonist philosophy changes depending on the period.
Secondly, Plotinus didn't just disagree with some Gnostics, his thought was incompatible with any Gnostic strand. Gnosticism is based on dualism, the idea that matter and soul are completely separate. Neoplatonism has its main thesis in the idea of monism, that the physical world and the world of ideas coexist and are not separate.
Thirdly, as important as Saint Thomas Aquinas was for the development of Western thought, to associate the Renaissance as a sequence of his thought is absurd. Historically, the renaissance occurred through the reintroduction of Neoplatonist thought in the West, especially by the Greek philosopher Gemistos Plethon, who was an influence on the creation of the Platonist academy in Florence.
Fourthly, Kant did not revive Platonism, because the philosophical current never died.
Fifthly, Nietzsche was not a hermetic, his thinking was based on biology and materialism, far removed from any dualist theory. His greatest influence, apart from Schopenhauer, whom he sought to surpass, was Heraclitus, who was also not a dualist.
Sixthly, although Giovane Gentile was an important fascist intellectual, it makes much more sense to trace the political origins of fascism to Georges Sorel's national syndicalist movement.
Seventh, as much as the video identifies the origins of the mystical aspects of Nazism, it fails to identify its political origins which are unknown even to the people who propagate these ideas. National socialism is an Austrian ideology developed by several individuals, but primarily by a man called Rudolf Jung, who was responsible for giving the ideology its theoretical body, in his main work “Der Nationale Sozialismus: Seine Grundlagen, Sein Werdegang, und Seine Ziele”, or “National Socialism: its Foundations, its Development, and its Goals”, which was published in 1919. I've always been fascinated by the fact that people discuss national socialism so much, but few people are able to pinpoint the creator of the ideology (Jung himself considered himself the Marx of national socialism).
Eighthly, Julius Evola was never of the third position, Evola was a reactionary with various mystical influences, he was always critical of the political aspects of fascism and national socialism, but this association exists in people's minds because he already praised mystical ideas that existed specifically in the SS. He didn't approve of national socialism because he saw it as a plebeian and anti-aristocratic movement, but he saw something of value in the SS, as conservative and noble. He even has a book called “Fascism seen from the right” in which he criticizes fascism for being a revolutionary and nationalist ideology derived from the French extreme left. Associating evola with the third position is wrong, but there are people who take inspiration from some of evola's positions, but this is generally the meme ideology of the dissident internet right, which associates antogonistic thinkers (it's a question of vibes, not ideology).
The video is good, but as the subjects covered are obscure by nature, it ends up creating some meaningless and superficial associations, connecting things that should be more separate (as in the case of the renaissance), or ignoring fundamental pieces (such as Sorel and Rudulf Jung). Despite this, the video is a great starting point to discuss these topics.
713
-
710
-
702
-
693
-
684
-
680
-
677
-
677
-
675
-
674
-
672
-
669
-
667
-
661
-
657
-
655
-
653
-
649
-
647
-
646
-
644
-
642
-
638
-
The "Come to grips with the enemy and attack, attack, attack" mentality had been a very British thing for a long time at that point. In all of Britain's colonial conflicts it was a rare thing for British troops to face an enemy with anything like the level of discipline, training, and equipment that they had. It was not an uncommon thing for the British army to rout enemies through aggressive action even at a severe deficit of numbers. Prior to WW I it was uncommon for the British to face a peer enemy, unless they were fighting the French.
At sea, this attitude was even more exaggerated. Britannia had ruled the waves for countless generations at this point, and not only had an enormous navy, but the quality of her forces ship-for-ship would not be disputed until the Americans (who were themselves heirs to British naval tradition) began asserting themselves at sea in the 19th century. It was expected of a British naval captain to be ultra-aggressive, and many victories were had by the Royal Navy even when under tonnage and outgunned.
Churchill came up in an age where strategic and tactical aggression had served the empire very well for a long time, so it is not surprising that his natural tendencies would lean in that direction. His greatest fault in this area, IMO, was in not learning the lessons of the first world war that the nature of warfare itself had changed, and in underestimating the logistical complexity of modern mechanized warfare.
636
-
635
-
634
-
634
-
634
-
632
-
631
-
628
-
626
-
625
-
623
-
620
-
619
-
614
-
613
-
606
-
604
-
602
-
600
-
599
-
598
-
597
-
596
-
596
-
596
-
594
-
594
-
588
-
587
-
I greatly appreciate your efforts to create this very impressive video about my grandfather, Friedrich Kellner. As I scrolled through the comments, I noticed two people wondered about the authenticity of the diary. I posted a response to Ozdave McGee's question about it and then realized I should have posted it as a separate response directly to you, so it can be shared by all the viewers. I hope it is all right for me to repeat that post here. I am the grandson of Friedrich Kellner and the editor and translator of the Cambridge University Press edition of his diary. I understand how original source documents can raise questions about authenticity, particularly in light of the "Hitler diary" fraud of many years ago. The ten original notebooks of the Kellner diary, which include almost 900 handwritten pages in the Old German Sütterlin style and more than 500 newspaper clippings and illustrations from Nazi-controlled newspapers, were exhibited in Berlin and Bonn by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation (associated with the Social Democratic Party) in 2009 and 2010. The diary was readily authenticated not only by age, paper and ink but with a comparison of numerous official handwritten documents written by my grandfather when he was the courthouse administrator in Laubach from 1933-1950. His diary was published in two volumes in Germany in 2011, under the title "Vernebelt, verdunkelt sind alle Hirne" ("Darkened and clouded are all the minds"), and in 2012 the German government subsidized a paperback edition to make it available at a reduced price for educators and students. The city of Mainz, where my grandfather campaigned against the National Socialists, has designated Friedrich and Pauline Kellner's burial site a "Grave of Honor." The town of Laubach, where he risked his life to write the diary, now has a street named after him.
586
-
583
-
581
-
579
-
576
-
573
-
570
-
570
-
569
-
567
-
567
-
567
-
566
-
561
-
559
-
557
-
556
-
555
-
554
-
554
-
552
-
552
-
549
-
547
-
547
-
545
-
541
-
539
-
538
-
534
-
534
-
532
-
532
-
531
-
531
-
530
-
530
-
528
-
527
-
525
-
523
-
523
-
523
-
523
-
523
-
522
-
521
-
520
-
519
-
518
-
515
-
515
-
515
-
511
-
510
-
510
-
507
-
503
-
501
-
501
-
500
-
500
-
497
-
497
-
496
-
492
-
492
-
490
-
490
-
487
-
486
-
485
-
485
-
484
-
484
-
483
-
479
-
478
-
476
-
473
-
473
-
472
-
471
-
469
-
468
-
468
-
468
-
468
-
468
-
467
-
464
-
462
-
461
-
461
-
461
-
461
-
460
-
460
-
459
-
458
-
458
-
457
-
456
-
455
-
455
-
455
-
454
-
453
-
452
-
448
-
447
-
446
-
446
-
446
-
445
-
445
-
444
-
442
-
441
-
441
-
440
-
440
-
439
-
439
-
438
-
437
-
437
-
437
-
437
-
437
-
436
-
436
-
435
-
435
-
434
-
433
-
433
-
432
-
431
-
430
-
430
-
430
-
429
-
428
-
428
-
427
-
427
-
427
-
426
-
425
-
424
-
424
-
423
-
419
-
419
-
418
-
417
-
415
-
413
-
413
-
413
-
412
-
412
-
411
-
410
-
All this "H was not a socialist" comes from Marxism. Under Marxist doctrine only it is socialism; all other forms of society that are not Marxist are not socialist. Further, all other things that call themselves socialism, but are not Marxist, must be overcome first so there is only one, pure, Marxist socialism. Thus, because H hated Marx and some of Marx's theory he cannot be considered a socialist by Marxists. What it ignores is that there are a huge number of socialist theories, many of which are quite different from Marxism. If you look at what H did and wrote, he is a socialist, but he is not a Marxist. However, since Marxism unfortunately dominates the discussion, he gets called a capitalist since if you are not Marxist, you are capitalist under their twisted theory.
405
-
405
-
405
-
405
-
403
-
Hi TIK, great video!
During the pandemic I went deep into the "ancap hole", so I think I can answer few of your questions.
1. Is man always rational?
Short answer is yes, but we have to specify that it is a weaker definition (aka more stuff is applied to it) than what are we thinking of as rational in common speech. In misesian understanding, action is necessarily rational. That is when man has goals, he uses means that he thinks are the best to achieve them. It is impossible to think "I want A. If B then A, if C then not A. Therefore I'll do C to achieve A". It does not matter if the action actually results in fulfilment of the goal, what matters is what person is thinking, because it is driving his action.
2. Is there a market for a state?
No, because state is by definition coercive. If taxes are optional, so you can choose not to pay and use alternative services, it ceases to be a state. In the words of Murray Rothbard "the State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion" (Anatomy of the State p11).
If you want the alternative name for ancap, to break negative conotation of anarchy and capitalism, there exists one: voluntaryism. And techically it is better description of what the ancaps stand for - society where all interacions are voluntary.
As you are already familiar with the "capitalism" part (thanks God for the Mises Institute), for the "anarchy" part I recommend Larken Rose. He has an active yt channel with lots of content regarding the subject of REAL anarchism and anti-statism, presented in an easy way for everyone to understand.
There is also a great compilation of Larken's speeches "Statism: The Most Dangerous Religion" - https://youtu.be/QKfT5zv9WRs
There are a lot of other good vids on yt on that topic too. I can link some more materials if someone is interested in exploring these ideas further.
403
-
403
-
402
-
402
-
402
-
401
-
400
-
400
-
400
-
399
-
399
-
398
-
398
-
398
-
397
-
395
-
394
-
394
-
394
-
393
-
391
-
I've have studied the Habsburg Monarchy for most of my life. Austria Hungary is very overlooked when people speak about it. For once people ignore that Austria-Hungary was not just Austria and Hungary. Austria Hungary was composed of many Kingdoms such as the Kingdom of Bohemia, the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria, the Kingdom of Croatia and many other realms, many of these realms followed the demographics they were seted in. Nevertheless to say this Kingdoms had all their own Diet's/Parliaments [Also, It's not christian Socialists, but Christian Social, it refers to Christian Integralism]. Though I would argue Kaiser Karl was not that irrelevant. Kaiser Karl was more de facto sidelined by the Social Democrats who assumed power in his back and forced him out of power. And once the Kaiser was away, well, the other Kingdoms within the Habsburg Empire started going away since the key factor who united the whole state was the Kaiser. The War also caused a huge famine through the Empire and both supplying the people and the army was a very hard job (also considering that Austria had been fighting in Galicia and Transylvania (fertile lands and historical agricultural camps) heavily affected the Empire's food production. Though the War Grain Agency did not apply to the entire empire. Austria had no authority over Transleithania and other de facto independent structures. However, the social democratic party was very influential in the runing of the late war Habsburg Empire administration (some argue it wa son purpose sinde Karl Renner was a republican and orchestrated the end of the Monarchy in Austria at least). After the end of the Russian War in 1918 austria asked desesperatly for ukranian grain and the fact it came very very late (if it actually came) is subject of some controversies. There was also the beurocratic apparatus witch was.... quite a problem since there was no real central authority but the already mentioned many identitys. About the slavic civilians thats not really that simple. The radicals in the Governament did yes blame them... but both Kaiser Franz Joseph I and Kaiser Karl I neither gave authorization for that. During the war, the figure of both Kaiser's were actually a unifying factor for the people since they were very active with helping the poor and hungry. Kaiser Karl I did also try to ask for peace, but the allies rejected (Sixtus Affair) and Kaiser's Karl many attemps to bring peace gave Kaiser Karl's the Blessed statue. As you rightly said, the end of the Empire was tied to Germany, not bcs of an internal or "huge revolution". Though, in 1848, the Hungarian people sided with austria. The problems in Hungary at the time came more bcs of the historical ruling hungarian class vs the Habsburgs conflict. In 1848 atually the empire's peoples who werent hungarian like croats, slovaks, romanians.. etc etc.... actually sided with austria, one known case was Josip Jelačić.
Kaiser Karl also made more than one peace offer, since his first days in the throne in 1916 he had been trying to reach peace, offering compromises and concessions. In the end, Austria-Hungary reason to collpase was, as you said, the will of foreign powers (and I would even add people like Karl Renner). I don't necessarily agree with the Empire being internally deslegitimize (since even in 1918 there were many people like in croatia who was still loyal to Kaiser Karl and even the people of Hungary who helped Karl two attemps to regain the crown from the political hungarian elite (and irony when you consider the historic Habsburg conflict with the Hungarian elites).
390
-
390
-
389
-
387
-
386
-
385
-
383
-
382
-
381
-
381
-
381
-
381
-
381
-
379
-
379
-
378
-
378
-
377
-
376
-
375
-
375
-
374
-
370
-
370
-
370
-
370
-
368
-
368
-
368
-
367
-
366
-
366
-
366
-
365
-
365
-
364
-
364
-
364
-
364
-
362
-
362
-
361
-
361
-
361
-
359
-
359
-
359
-
359
-
358
-
358
-
356
-
356
-
355
-
355
-
354
-
353
-
353
-
353
-
352
-
352
-
351
-
350
-
349
-
349
-
348
-
347
-
347
-
347
-
347
-
347
-
346
-
346
-
344
-
344
-
343
-
342
-
341
-
339
-
338
-
338
-
337
-
It is instructive to note that before WW2 fascist parties, whether German, Italian, or the British variety under Moseley, were deemed to be a new type of socialism, while after WW2 the historians of the 1950s dubbed them 'extreme right' because most, if not all, of the historians, AJP Taylor, Hobsbawm, etc, were either marxists or extreme-left in their politics, and tried to distance the socialist cause from the camps and killings. It just wouldn't do to call the fascists and Nazis 'socialists', which in fact, they were.
You just have to look at the amount of otherwise educated people who think of fascism and Nazism as being on the right on the political spectrum to realise how successful these first chroniclers of WW2 were.
337
-
337
-
336
-
336
-
335
-
335
-
335
-
334
-
334
-
333
-
333
-
333
-
331
-
331
-
331
-
330
-
330
-
330
-
329
-
328
-
327
-
325
-
324
-
324
-
324
-
323
-
323
-
323
-
322
-
322
-
321
-
320
-
320
-
320
-
320
-
319
-
318
-
318
-
318
-
317
-
316
-
316
-
316
-
315
-
Marxist always try to say Schacht was responsible for the recovery in Germany and was the guy behind Hitler. This was not the case at all, he was only responsible for temporary privatization measures that were also largely a myth. Schacht is a man fired by Hitler and put into a concentration camp for trying to kill Hitler, a man who was called;
“An exponent of world capitalism and hostile to the state’s revolutionary approach to economics” by Otto Wagner the head of the Nazi economic policy branch.
Schacht was a liberal economically and was against state intervention in commerce. He was against the state-sponsored programs to combat unemployment. He also hated the MMT stuff Feder came up with before Keynes. This is from Adolf Hitler by John Toland, Schacht was told;
“I have called you in order to hand you your dismissal as president of the Reichsbank” Schacht took the piece of paper extended to him. “You don’t fit into the national socialist picture it reads”.
All this does is indicate that Hitler hated him and this is further solidified in Hitler’s Table Talk where he called him a freemason, a tool, and an obstructionist. The guy was used then removed after he was done being useful.
Even when they bring up Big Business propping up Hitler that’s also a flat out Lie and Cope. German Big Business and The Rise of Hitler by Henry Turner, Mr. Turner writes;
“To What extent did the men of German big business undermine the Weimar Republic? To what extent did they finance the Nazi party and use their influence to boost Hitler into power? As should be evident by this point the answer in both cases is a great deal less than has generally been believed. Only through gross distortion can big business be afforded a crucial or even a major role in the downfall of the republic.
The early growth of the NSDAP Took place without any significant aid from the circles of large-scale enterprise. Centered in industrially underdeveloped Bavaria, tainted with illegality as a consequence of a failed beer hall putsch of 1923, saddled with a program containing disturbingly anti-capitalist planks and amounting only to a raucous splinter group politically, The NSDAP languished in disrepute in the eyes of most men of big business throughout the latter part of the 1920s. The major main executives of Germany proved with rare exception resistant to the blandishments of Nazis including Hitler himself, who sought to reassure the business community about their party’s intentions. Only the electoral breakthrough of 1930, achieved without aid from big business drew attention to it from that quarter. From The Development and Character of the Nazi Political Machine, 1928-1930, and the Nsdap Electoral Breakthrough;
After weighing all the evidence. We must recognize that the financial subsidies from industry were overwhelmingly directed against the Nazis. Bulk of the funds in the party treasury came from membership dues.”
This an echo of what Peter Drucker, an American writer, and university professor, stated in 1939:
“It is not true that ‘big business’ promoted Fascism. On the contrary, both in Italy and in Germany the proportion of Fascist sympathizers and backers was smallest in the industrial and financial classes. It is equally untrue that ‘big business’ profits from Fascism; of all the classes it probably suffers most from totalitarian economics and Wehrwirtschaft.”
Explaining this point even more thoroughly is James Pool in Who Financed Hitler;
“The party's financial substance was however made possible not just by the donations of the most generous contributors but by the day-to-day income from the average members. Every member of the party was expected to pay his dues of one Mark per month and give whatever his means would permit, but since many of them were unemployed there was very little surplus income. You have no idea Hitler later told Gregor Strasser what a problem it was in those days to find the money to buy my ticket when I wanted to deliver a speech at Nuremberg.
Looking back at the financing of Hitler’s political activities from 1918 to 1923 one thing is particularly interesting. Many historians have contended that the national socialist party was financed and supported by big business? Yet as has been seen only two of Germany’s major industrialists FritzThyssen and Ernst von Borsig gave anything to the Nazi party during these early years. Donations came from some conservative Munich businessmen who were at the height of the communist danger as well as small Bavarian factory owners like Grandel, the Berlin piano manufacturer Bechstein and the publisher Lehmann. But none of these men despite their wealth could fit properly in the category of big business.
There is no evidence that the really big industrialists of Germany such as Carl Bosch, Hermann Biicher, Carl Friedrich von Siemens, and Hugo Stinned or the great families such as the Krupps and the leading bankers and financiers gave any support to the Nazis from 1918 to 1923. Indeed few of them knew this small party from Bavaria even existed. Most of Hitler’s donations came from wealthy individuals who were radical nationalists or anti-Semites and contributed because of ideological motivation. To a certain extent the wealthy white Russians fit into this category; they could also be looked on as the only real interest group that hoped to gain a definite political-economic objective from their aid to the Nazis”
The historian Richard J. Evans even says this in The Coming of The Third Reich;
“The Nazi Party depended on such commitment [fiance from the grass roots]; much of its power and dynamism came from the fact that it was not dependent on Big business or bureaucratic institutions such as trade unions for its financial support.”
You also have Schleicher a conservative who attempted to "tame" Hitler into cooperating with his government by offering him vice-chancellor and threatening him with an anti-Nazi alliance of parties, the so-called Querfront ("cross-front"). Hitler refused to abandon his claim to the chancellorship and Schleicher's plan failed.
In response to this Goebbles said;
“The Notion of the Führer as Vice-chancellor of a bourgeois cabinet is too grotesque to be taken seriously.”
This entire narrative of fascism and nazism being capitalism in decay is fucking stupid. I can say this as a Fascist, WE ARE SOCIALIST! And Nationalist. Anyways in the modern context I’m more concerned about nationalism vs globalism anyways.
Besides one of the people behind Fascist Syndicalism is Edmondo Rossoni; he was a “fascist syndicalist” who was a major trade union leader in Italy and played a large role in formulating syndicalism in Italy, which left its mark via the Italian Corporate System. In Mussolini’s Il Popolo d'Italia newspaper, he claimed that “only the Fascist syndicates could complete the revolution.” In the early 1920s, Rossoni’s trade unions threatened the industrialists so much that it was even speculated by some industrialists on whether to hire communists to fight the fascists.
In the book Italian Industrialists From Liberalism to Fascism this is written in the Liberal-Fascism section;
“Salvemini continued: “now the industrialists are no longer content with Mussolini. They are not as manageable as they wished.” At the end of actual, referring to information passed along to Donati, editor of the Catholic newspaper Il Popolo, Salvemini noted: “An industrialist of Turin told Donati that in his circle people are beginning to ask themselves if it might now be wise to pay the Communists to fight the Fascists!” In early May, the future Communist leader Palmiro Togliatti wrote to Gramsci in Moscow that “The Industrial classes are rather wary of the new regime, fearing unpredictable developments in the class struggle with Fascist syndicates.”
You have a history more so of Big Business financing communists not fascists or nazis. In fact I would just say look at modern social media companies or George Soros with BLM to Antifa. Fuck these people
315
-
315
-
314
-
314
-
314
-
313
-
312
-
312
-
311
-
310
-
309
-
309
-
309
-
308
-
307
-
307
-
307
-
305
-
305
-
304
-
304
-
304
-
304
-
303
-
303
-
303
-
303
-
303
-
303
-
302
-
301
-
300
-
300
-
299
-
298
-
298
-
298
-
298
-
297
-
296
-
295
-
295
-
293
-
292
-
292
-
291
-
291
-
290
-
290
-
289
-
289
-
289
-
288
-
288
-
288
-
288
-
288
-
287
-
287
-
286
-
286
-
285
-
285
-
284
-
284
-
283
-
283
-
282
-
282
-
282
-
281
-
One point missed, but insignificant to the larger point TiK is making, is that why Gold even became the standard. It's not, as the author he quoted said "because it's shiny and people like to make jewelry out of it" but because it has 0 loss. In ancient times it was one of only a couple known materials that could retain it's full weight, hence it's value, over time. No matter how many times you remelt it it remains the same. It does not rust or decay. Yes there were gems that also have 0 decay, but you cant melt it combine it with other gold and use it. Once you chip a diamond, it's always chipped.
We now have "rare earth minerals' of which some of these newly discovered materials also have similar qualities, but to the ancients it was primarily gold. Silver also has and has been used in certain nations instead of gold, but because of it's abundance, doesn't have international value for trade that gold does. Nor does it have as many actual uses because simply a value holder.
0 loss is somewhat of a misnomer. Gold does have some loss when smelting, but it so so low it would take constant smelting over hundreds of years for that loss to significant enough to be noticeable. We are talking something like 0.000000~1%. Only extremely low low quality or Fools Gold has greater loss.
281
-
281
-
280
-
280
-
280
-
280
-
278
-
278
-
278
-
277
-
277
-
276
-
275
-
275
-
275
-
274
-
274
-
274
-
273
-
272
-
272
-
271
-
271
-
270
-
270
-
270
-
269
-
268
-
268
-
268
-
267
-
267
-
266
-
266
-
266
-
265
-
265
-
265
-
265
-
264
-
263
-
As one of my profs said in 1981, "no lie in history is greater than the lies told about the WW2 era". As we went through that era in his class, he constantly emphasized that almost nothing in any historical reference could withstand actual scrutiny against primary sources. Now, this was long before a lot of primary information became available from Russia, Germany, Japan, Italy, and indeed, even the US and UK.
Over the years, reading many history texts on the period 1930-1945, I agree completely that almost everything written prior to the mid 1980s is shyte and 95% since then is shyte.
263
-
262
-
262
-
262
-
261
-
After watching this video I can only think: WTF Halder, WTF...
Personally I don't even buy the argument that logistics was the main problem to get reinforcements to the Don bend and Stalingrad just beyond. TIK I don't know if you are familiar with how the Germans reinforced there divisions in the field, but I will explain regardless because of my argument.
Basically every German infantry division was raised from a number of regiments which originated from a certain part of Germany. Germany was divided into a number of military districts called Wehrkreis. These conscripted, trained and raised regiments which in turn where formed into divisions within the Wehrkreis. This meant that divisions originated from a certain part of Germany with its own local customs, dialect etc. When mobilised and deployed these divisions still had there ties to there Wehrkreis. This is where there corresponding Erzatsheer units, the replacement army where located for the units in the field. One such tie where reinforcements. These where trained and marched in battalion size to a division and distributed there over the units. This ensured that the division remained homogenic in terms of manpower. It also was meant to encourage the acceptance of replacements into the ranks. They came from the same region, they might know each other from back home, same customs etc. Forging the brotherhood right from the start so that veterans would also look out over them to keep them alive and make them wise to the do's and don't of combat. It was a very good system in that regard.
Therefore in the German system a replacement is not a statistic to be send somewhere at random. No, they are recruited and deployed to divisions tied to the same Wehrkreis. That makes the process of replacement not very flexible. That of course works both ways. Now TIK, you demonstrated that the Germans where reinforcing all over the line. That makes sense with this system. It however does not explain why 6. Armee was starved of reinforcements. I don’t know to which Wehrkreis the divisions in Stalingrad where tied, but I can hardly imagine that there respective Wehrkreis ran out of reinforcements and all others didn’t. To me it seems that the troops in Stalingrad basically got denied reinforcements because some other divisions belonging tot he same Wehrkreis, but in a whole different army of even army group got priority for some bizar reason. It would make sense if the units in Stalingrad belonged tot the same Wehrkreis as the units fighting the battles of Rzhev, but that sounds rather unlikely seeing as there where seventeen German Wehrkreis.
So I am back tot the original point, WTF Halder, WTF…
This is just a massive strategic blunder. If you attack with one army group, make sure they get reinforcements because they will lose the most men. Sure, the Rzhev sector needed reinforcements because of constant Soviet attack, and so did Leningrad, but the south needed it more.
This also puts into perspective why the Germans attacked Stalingrad, and why they stalled. I think I have some reason to doubt that Paulus would have attacked if he knew he would not be reinforced any time soon. The city was destroyed and well within artillery range so why bother if you can't make up losses? Sure, taking the city shortens the lines and covers the flank, but the prime objective of the entire army group was flank security and blocking the Volga, not taking the city. That objective could be done without taking the city. Denying any traffic on the river for a prolonged period would virtually cripple the Soviets. This because they would lose access to 90% of there fuel production, regardless of German success in the Caucasus. That fact alone should have been worth sending tens of thousands of replacements of just keeping some divisions in the area as a reserve and deploying them, rotating a few battered divisions out when necessary. Holding positions along the Volga would have killed off virtually the entire Soviet tank and air force, as well as cripple there economy. I would trade the Rzhev sailiant for it and order a withdraw, no questions about it.
Yes hindsight, I know. Still, the OHK must have known about Soviet fuel production and there shipping via the Volga.
261
-
261
-
260
-
260
-
260
-
259
-
259
-
259
-
259
-
259
-
258
-
258
-
257
-
257
-
257
-
257
-
256
-
256
-
256
-
256
-
256
-
255
-
255
-
254
-
253
-
253
-
252
-
251
-
251
-
251
-
251
-
251
-
250
-
250
-
250
-
250
-
250
-
250
-
249
-
249
-
249
-
249
-
249
-
248
-
248
-
248
-
247
-
247
-
247
-
247
-
247
-
246
-
246
-
246
-
245
-
245
-
244
-
244
-
244
-
244
-
243
-
243
-
243
-
243
-
243
-
242
-
242
-
241
-
241
-
241
-
241
-
240
-
240
-
In order to land 2 armies in Sicily, an armygroup sized force, the Allies assembled up to 3000 ships. Most small ships, landing craft, transports, but also cruisers, destroyers and aircraft carriers. Not even the Soviet Black Sea Fleet and its Axis fleet counterparts together could match that. I think that explains pretty much why no amphibious operation of Armygroup size was possible. The biggest amphibious operation that the Reich ever did was Norway, which involved transporting 7 divisions by air and sea, and it took the entire Kriegsmarine surface fleet, luftwaffe air transport units and some seat on the pants improvisation. And that had the advantage of being fairly close to their logistical bases, having to cross only a short distance from Germany. And even then the Kriegsmarine suffered critical losses.
Hey TIK, currently in the last volume of Glantz's Stalingrad quadrology. I thought you were almost there now that you're covering Operation Uranus, but having read what happens after, to quote from Quantum Leap, oh boy.
240
-
240
-
239
-
238
-
238
-
238
-
238
-
238
-
237
-
237
-
237
-
237
-
236
-
236
-
236
-
236
-
TIK, I disagree with many views you have, most notably on economical ideology. However, as an historian, I look with high regards your work. It is not flawless, no work is and yourself admit that, but it is honest, and this is the furthermost importance: you admit your affiliation, you notify your public on which areas you may come with biais, and don't try to hide any political agenda (not saying you have one). Many historians try to hide their agenda, with false pretention of objectivity. Yourself admited you are not objective, but only try to be, and never hide your political or ideological affiliation. This mean what you seek is the truth, through knowing you won't certainly uncover it all (for none can), at least, your intentions are sincere, your work serious. I regularly promote your channel, often with a warning to say "this guy have this ideology, but his videos are worth being watched". Your stuff is sourced, your video have a very rare quality in doing so for a youtuber (and I see a lot of "historian youtubers" who say a lot of crap, and very few who have a trully worked content), we can argue on many things, but for the most, your interpretation of the war is for me correct.
Beyond that, as a military historian, I can say it fit well many patterns on military history to some point: neither germans nor soviets were perfect war genius, and in fact were full of flaws both. This is a regular thing. Amateurs in history tend to search for "military genius" or "tactical superiority", for example speaking of the romans legions or Gustave Adolphus army or Napoleonic armies. They first forget that soldiers in war are not standardised units on a video games with "stats". They are people, and the fight they do is a unic event in history, and history never repeat itself unlike what many says. You have only one battle of Austerlitz in all history, it appear the french did won that fight, less because their plan was "masterfull" than they were actually a bit braver than their enemy that day. The next day at waterloo, they were more scarried. The better veteran troops can be shattered in fear by the most new recuits of an untrained army. Surprising things happen all the time, and sometime, even if you can explain many things, you can't explain it all. Its like looking at a car crash accident: you can have some elements of answer as to why it happen that way, but you cannot have it all.
Keep on your work, you are doing great.
235
-
235
-
235
-
235
-
234
-
234
-
233
-
233
-
232
-
232
-
232
-
232
-
232
-
232
-
231
-
231
-
231
-
231
-
230
-
230
-
230
-
230
-
229
-
229
-
229
-
228
-
228
-
228
-
227
-
227
-
226
-
226
-
226
-
226
-
226
-
226
-
226
-
225
-
225
-
225
-
225
-
224
-
224
-
224
-
224
-
224
-
223
-
223
-
223
-
223
-
223
-
223
-
222
-
222
-
222
-
222
-
221
-
221
-
221
-
220
-
220
-
220
-
220
-
219
-
219
-
219
-
219
-
218
-
218
-
217
-
217
-
217
-
217
-
217
-
216
-
216
-
216
-
216
-
216
-
216
-
216
-
215
-
215
-
215
-
214
-
214
-
Ive heard 34 million before, (and the ~26+ million dead, mil+civilian), but given the population was around 170 million, the scale is just mind boggling, and easy to forget. They needed to produce 20+ million rifles, ammo, mine all the iron, ship it, food, clothes, everything, with 20% of the population enlisted at some point and everything else.
214
-
214
-
214
-
214
-
213
-
213
-
212
-
212
-
212
-
211
-
211
-
211
-
211
-
211
-
211
-
211
-
211
-
210
-
210
-
210
-
210
-
209
-
209
-
209
-
209
-
208
-
208
-
208
-
208
-
208
-
208
-
208
-
208
-
208
-
207
-
207
-
207
-
I actually wrote my bachelor based on this topic, it is very interesting :D However I dont really agree with everything you state in the video, since the versailles treaty and the topic of reperations had many more consequenses than just the amounts paid. The currency the reperations was to be paid in, and the political consequenses of the lack of german payments is just as important to keep in mind, especially for Germany. There is also the topic of the treatys impact on international economic coorporation, which was also affected by the treaty of versailles. This again impacted the world economic crisis due to lack of international coorporation in many instances. However it is important to underline that the treaty itself was not what caused the economic crisis in Germany, and the world, it was an element that made it worse. Germany among other things, had become heavily reliant on exports to US and loans mainly from US to get foreign capital, to pay reperations and remain liquid/competetive. When the crisis hit, the german banks had major issues to replenish their reserves either from foreign loans or the reichsbank, which contributed to the crisis in the country.
207
-
207
-
207
-
206
-
206
-
206
-
206
-
205
-
205
-
205
-
205
-
205
-
204
-
204
-
204
-
204
-
204
-
204
-
204
-
204
-
204
-
204
-
203
-
203
-
202
-
202
-
201
-
201
-
200
-
200
-
200
-
200
-
200
-
200
-
199
-
199
-
199
-
199
-
198
-
198
-
198
-
198
-
197
-
197
-
197
-
197
-
197
-
197
-
197
-
196
-
196
-
196
-
196
-
196
-
196
-
195
-
195
-
195
-
195
-
195
-
195
-
195
-
195
-
195
-
194
-
194
-
194
-
194
-
194
-
193
-
193
-
193
-
192
-
192
-
192
-
191
-
191
-
191
-
191
-
190
-
190
-
190
-
190
-
190
-
189
-
189
-
189
-
189
-
189
-
189
-
189
-
188
-
188
-
188
-
188
-
188
-
188
-
188
-
188
-
188
-
188
-
187
-
186
-
186
-
186
-
185
-
185
-
185
-
185
-
185
-
184
-
184
-
184
-
183
-
183
-
183
-
183
-
182
-
182
-
182
-
182
-
182
-
181
-
181
-
181
-
181
-
181
-
181
-
181
-
180
-
180
-
180
-
180
-
180
-
180
-
180
-
180
-
179
-
179
-
179
-
179
-
178
-
178
-
178
-
178
-
177
-
177
-
176
-
176
-
176
-
176
-
176
-
176
-
176
-
176
-
175
-
175
-
175
-
175
-
175
-
175
-
174
-
174
-
174
-
174
-
174
-
174
-
173
-
173
-
173
-
173
-
173
-
173
-
173
-
173
-
173
-
173
-
173
-
172
-
172
-
172
-
172
-
172
-
172
-
172
-
171
-
171
-
171
-
171
-
171
-
There was a point I almost fell into despair: I have a beloved sibling who has diven DEEP into ultra-far-left Marxist/socialist thought. He did this in large part because he bought into the idea that Capitalists were totalitarian fascists and that Nazis represented the inevitable outcome of capitalism. I've tried to show for years (I have a history degree and background, this sibling didn't) to show otherwise, but he's been taken in utterly by their ideological blinders. I showed him your Hitler's Socialism, other videos... he said he had watched them and doubted you had sources to back your position up. I asked him how many of your sources he'd reviewed... he didn't seem to know you had posted them OR how many direct quotes you used. Which told me what I needed to know: Like most, he simply didn't pay any attention at all to what he didn't want to agree with. When I shared a compiled link to your sources directly, he refused to actually open and look at it, saying he didn't have time. Yet he has a bookshelf full of books written by socialists and even two by Bernie Sanders... and they conveniently were all placed on a bookshelf in their guest bedroom. When I visited, I went through them all to see how many had scholarly bibliographies and references. Almost none did. FML. What alarms me most... is my sibling is -smart-. He has a Master's degree and maintained a 4.0 GPA basically his entire life. But that intellect seems utterly incapable of immunizing him from these ahistorical propagandists who twist words until they have no meaning, and weave self-contradictory hogwash together and then smugly proclaim their logic as unimpeachable, when it is, and their conclusions the "scholarly consensus" when it is anything but.
171
-
171
-
170
-
170
-
170
-
170
-
170
-
169
-
169
-
Hey, Tik. I discovered your channel not too long ago, and I must say, you truly know how to present facts and arguments in an enlightening way. Figured I'd let you know that I believe I know your pain when it comes to talking with these supporters of socialism. In fact, the person I'm about to refer to called himself a lenin-marxist. I'll try to summarize and keep it brief...
Big shocker, he was in denial about Hitler being a socialist, one of his arguments being that socialists cannot be socialist if they murder other socialists. Eventually, as I pressed on with my own arguments (while referencing your videos on occasion), he resorted to calling me a fascist (insisting that it is a right-wing ideology). He claimed that business owners (capitalists) weren't really doing any work themselves. I tried to convince him that Burger King workers shouldn't think that they are the ones creating the profits on their own, because it is the owners/managers who are paying for the locals, electricity, tools and other supplies, so that the workers may work. He then actually asked "what is preventing the workers from paying for the supplies themselves", despite having gone on about how much these common workers struggle financially.
Soon enough, I basically asked "so, you think it's right that workers can just walk in the door of a private business, and then 'democratically' kick out the rightful owner once you become many enough?"
Without hesitation, he said that is they way it should be, because these "evil capitalists" should find work like "the rest of them". At that point, I believe I got the explanation on how he could ask such a stupid question to begin with. It's hard for me to believe that people like him are nothing more than petty thieves. But that would actually give him too much credit. He didn't simply not deny Lenin murdering farmers for "the greater good", but that it was justified, because they "sabotaged the farmers with less earth".
And wouldn't you know it, this lenin-marxist is a history teacher.
But yeah, that's basically it. And they did exactly what they did to you; they dismissed any and all sources provided to them. And every time I questioned his sources, or said "but that was then, it is different now", he resorted to throw around 'fascism' again. It... It really is a case study when you talk with these people yourself.
169
-
It is genuinely quite distressing how, just 70 years after these events, people have already begun to forget the human aspects of the war, and started hyper-focusing on the military matters. People talk about the Wehrmacht like it wasn't the Military Arm of a Genocidal, Mass-Murdering dictatorship that devastated the World.
I think that the problem is that we in the west; Americans, Frenchmen, Brits; The war that we waged against the Nazi Regime was an ideological war, but it was also a political one. We are white, Christian, Westerners. We weren't the group that Hitler sought to exterminate. That's not to say that American or British soldiers were treated well by the Germans, but, what they went through was positively an all expenses paid vacation in comparison to what Soviet prisoners had to endure.
I suspect that the War of Extermination in the East is one of those things that you can't fully comprehend if you weren't there to see it yourself. The systematic destruction of an entire people is not something we have experienced in Western Europe since the days of the Thirty Years' War, at least.
When we are studying the Eastern Front, we must acknowledge that we are coming to it as people who don't fully understand just how devastatingly tragic it was. You can look at a book and see that millions of Soviet civilians were murdered, you can do some quick maths and realise that 14% of the Soviet Population perished during the conflict, you can know all of these things, but I don't think we can ever fully understand it. Our minds simply aren't build to be able to even imagine millions of people, never mind comprehend their deaths.
I suppose this is partly a good thing, since it can be argued that we are more objective. But, at the same time, I think we should be highly hesitant to single out any one action in the East as being particularly barbaric, because the entire context of the conflict was that the Germans were seeking to completely eradicate the Soviet peoples. We can sit back and laugh at the Soviets, make fun of them for their immense losses, and downplay their sacrifices, but, in doing so, we are more or less ignoring what the conflict was actually like, and instead, projecting our own experiences on the Western Front onto the Eastern Front even though the two were different by an order of magnitude.
This isn't a new thing, by any means. When Zhukov met Montgomery for the first time, he was very annoyed because Monty tried to convince him that El Alamein was a similar battle to Stalingrad. Zhukov got very exasperated trying to explain that not only were they very dissimilar, but that Stalingrad was about an order of magnitude larger.
I'm not saying any of this to claim that the Soviets were "the good guys" or even that they deserve our respect, just that, I'm tired of Western Historians sitting in their armchairs and judging the Soviet Peoples for their immense sacrifices without even trying to understand just how destructive that conflict was.
169
-
169
-
169
-
169
-
168
-
168
-
168
-
168
-
168
-
168
-
168
-
168
-
168
-
167
-
167
-
167
-
167
-
167
-
167
-
167
-
167
-
167
-
166
-
166
-
166
-
166
-
166
-
166
-
165
-
164
-
164
-
164
-
164
-
164
-
164
-
163
-
163
-
163
-
163
-
163
-
163
-
162
-
162
-
162
-
162
-
162
-
162
-
162
-
162
-
162
-
I had originally intended to go to my local university for a 5 year master's degree in architectural engineering until the pandemic hit. Everyone lost their collective minds, we switched to online learning, and I, someone on the spectrum with a preference for hands-on learning, couldn't adapt. I withdrew from classes, and while I was depressed and felt like a failure at the time, it was probably the best thing that could have happened to me. Right now, I'm at the local trade school halfway through my associate's degree in precision machining, paid in full by scholarship, and I've got a paid internship position at a machine shop thanks to my instructor and his industry contacts. It may not be as fancy or prestigious as a piece of paper and an office in some downtown highrise, but I found what works for me, and life is finally looking up.
162
-
161
-
161
-
161
-
161
-
161
-
161
-
161
-
161
-
161
-
161
-
161
-
160
-
160
-
160
-
160
-
160
-
160
-
160
-
160
-
159
-
159
-
159
-
159
-
159
-
159
-
159
-
159
-
159
-
159
-
After the 20-odd years I have been reading books and watching documentaries about the Second World War, I can confidently state that your Battlestorm Stalingrad series ranks amongst the best I have ever seen. Over the span of many years, you have brought to life a singular battle that the major production companies tend to devote a single hour to at the very most. You have presented information that I have never even heard of before, and torn down the myths that the Red Army and the Wehrmacht, and the world in general, have propagated over the decades. This documentary series, your documentary series, stands almost alone for the scale and completeness that I have only ever seen a few times in my life. It is my earnest opinion that Battlestorm Stalingrad has set the gold standard for in-depth documentaries, and that the bar it has set is a deserved high one. I eagerly await your series on Gazala, and I know it will be of the utmost excellence that you continually strive for. Thank you TIK for all of your hard work, and thanks again to those who helped you make this landmark series possible.
158
-
158
-
158
-
158
-
158
-
158
-
157
-
157
-
157
-
157
-
157
-
156
-
156
-
156
-
156
-
156
-
156
-
156
-
156
-
155
-
155
-
155
-
155
-
155
-
155
-
155
-
155
-
155
-
155
-
155
-
155
-
@aquilatempestate9527 Have you been paying attention over the past 20 years? Yes, Wall Street has a long history of prioritizing short term profit over long term stability. In fact, it can only be this way. If the average life span of a person is around 76-80 years, and the working life span is say, 20-65, then focusing on short term rather than long term profits makes sense. After all, in the words of Lois XV, "Après moi, le déluge".
Greed is an interesting factor in all this. These people want their riches now, not in 50 years. How does waiting until after your own death to get rich benefit you? These are people who will create fortunes, but cut off their own children from that wealth.
154
-
154
-
154
-
Dear TIK,
Thank you for covering the Maus and I think you did a good job on most of your points, certainly better than almost all other Youtube videos out there.
You have, however, missed some points that would greatly support your thesis and make more sense of the situation.
1) The doctrine of the heavy tanks. Unlike what you mentioned in the video, the Germans did not switch doctrine mid-war. The breakthrough role for the heavy tanks dates back to 1937, when the Infanteriwagen (formerly Begleitwagen verstaerkt) was renamed into Durchbruchswagen (literally breakthrough vehicle). This role would remain with German heavy tanks all throughout the war, up to the E100.
You are correct that, until Barbarossa, this development of heavy tanks kind of languished, and picked up only after that, with the heavy tanks first appearing on the battlefield in 1942.
Now, it is interesting to have a look at this doctrine. It involved battalion sized independent units (schwere Panzer Abteilung) which would be used when a strong enemy defensive line was encountered. The unit would be transported to behind friendly lines (by train, truck) and then used to punch through the enemy defensives and do limited local exploitation. They were supposed to be able to handle any terrain (hence the insistence on waterproofing, wadding and low ground pressure). After the breakthrough and limited exploitation was done, the Panzer Divisions would move through the gap created by the heavy tanks and carry out the proper exploitation. The sch.Pz.Abt would then be withdrawn behind enemy lines for maintenance and repair.
This explains why they were allowed to be gas guzzlers: They were supposed to be used infrequently for a limited time and distance.
This explains why they were maintenance heavy: They were supposed to receive regular maintenance before and after the action, with large breaks between combat.
That they mostly never got to be used like they were intended to is a wholly different matter.
I know you mention this, but I don't think you stressed it enough or gone into it enough.
2) You overestimate the involvement of Hitler in the project. Yes, he was important, but there were other important players in the project, notably Heydekampf, Wa Pruef 6 and Krupp.
3) The most important thing to note is that the Maus was cancelled in October 1943! While there was some limited design work still being done (and the E100 being constructed by Adler, which is a very interesting can of worms by itself, but was only considered a test chassis), it was never at the intensity or even with the chances of seeing combat from before.
The P1000 was only worked on from June 1942 to 17th December 1942. Then it got murdered and bye bye birdie.
A couple of other smaller things to note:
Yes, a large number of Tigers have been lost to self-destruction rather than enemy action (probably not half), but the main issue were neither the spare parts nor the fuel (both of which were important problems, though), but the absolute lack of a recovery vehicle that could extract the vehicles from where they broke down and bring them in for repairs/etc.
For the breakthrough doctrine idea, both the French and the Soviets are probably far closer to the Germans than the British.
The Tiger's development line goes back to the Durchbruchswagen, not to the Grosstraktor. Yes, you can draw some more fanciful lines to the Grosstraktor, but the clear line of development starts at DW.
Otherwise, excellent job, nice to see people actually looking into the history and the sense behind these vehicle and not just going for the memes! Congratulations!
154
-
154
-
154
-
154
-
154
-
153
-
153
-
153
-
153
-
153
-
152
-
152
-
152
-
152
-
152
-
151
-
151
-
151
-
151
-
151
-
151
-
151
-
151
-
151
-
151
-
150
-
150
-
150
-
150
-
Hi TIK, a longtime fan here. One thing I've been thinking a lot about recently is ideological Nazism, Volkish Blood and Soil Philosophy, and the link between it and the socialism of the Nazis. You explained this a little bit in a previous video, talking about how, unlike Marxism which focused on class struggle. Nazism focused on racial struggle. In this vein, I've been reading Darre and other volkish philosophies. and they strike me as inherently collectivist and lend themselves to a socialist worldview. I think this link between the philosophical underpinnings of Nazism and the practical economic realities, presents a cohesive worldview that the Marxists can't explain. Why would a philosophy grounded in the group Aryan identity and continuation of the race via "blood and soil" be some hyper-individualistic, pro-capitalist, "the individual matters" in economics? These aren't compatible worldviews, and the philosophy and racial theory of these leading Nazi thinkers directly support social (racial) ownership of the economy.
150
-
150
-
149
-
149
-
149
-
149
-
149
-
149
-
149
-
148
-
148
-
148
-
00:04 🧠 Ideologues often evade providing clear definitions or answers, resorting to vague, abstract concepts, making meaningful discourse challenging.
02:55 🤯 Ideobabble, characterized by complex, unintelligible language, serves to exclude those outside the ideological circle, perpetuating confusion.
06:12 💡 Ideologues prioritize abstract ideas over concrete reality, communicating in nebulous terms to assert superiority and justify entitlement.
07:59 📜 Hegel's philosophy, influencing Marxism, Fascism, and National Socialism, centers on the idea of humanity as a mirror reflecting God, seeking self-completion.
16:14 ❄ Early philosophers like Thales and Pythagoras, influenced by mystic beliefs, laid groundwork for ideologies merging religion and philosophy.
19:56 🔀 Heraclitus' emphasis on change and contradiction profoundly impacted philosophy, despite some notions being logically flawed.
22:11 💡 Hegel's concept of "Aufheben" influenced Marx's Historical Materialism, emphasizing change.
23:02 🔄 Fascist and Marxist ideologies derive their emphasis on change and struggle from Heraclitus's philosophy.
24:54 🌍 Movements like Marxism and Fascism prioritize change and abstract concepts over concrete policies.
26:43 🤔 Heraclitus's philosophy challenges the concept of reality, proposing two realms: Appearance and Reality.
28:33 🕵♂ Cults manipulate followers by undermining self-esteem and promoting blind faith over reason.
30:56 🧠 Plato's World of Forms suggests a reality beyond the material realm, influencing subsequent philosophical thought.
34:37 🎩 Hegel's dialectic aims to reconcile contradictions, leading to the transcendence of material reality.
38:20 🔄 Hegel's dialectic mirrors the Christian Trinity, emphasizing a process of synthesis towards higher understanding.
39:42 🌌 Dialectical Materialism seeks to transcend material reality through the reconciliation of contradictions.
42:55 🕊 Hegel's approach to God avoids defining Him directly to avoid self-refutation within his dialectic.
45:35 💭 Hegel aims to destroy his conscious mind to approach unconsciousness, believing it brings him closer to God, echoing a desire for unthinking obedience seen in cults like National Socialism.
46:57 🧠 Coercive persuasion in cults leads to dependency on the group, eroding critical thinking and reality perception, fostering unthinking obedience.
48:22 🚶♂ Marching in movements like National Socialism served to divert thoughts, kill individuality, and foster a sense of community through mechanical, ritualistic activities.
49:43 🌟 Destructive cult leaders often possess messianic visions, seeking to change the world for their own purposes, echoing traits seen in Marxists, according to Ross from "Cults Inside Out."
50:39 🎩 Hegel's pursuit of Absolute Knowledge parallels cult leadership, with followers like Marx, Gentile, and Hitler adopting similar tactics.
51:31 🌐 Ideologues avoid defining terms like socialism to maintain a magical abstraction, preventing concrete definitions that could undermine their ideologies.
52:52 🔄 Ideologues resist defining concepts to preserve their magical abstracts, aligning with dialectical materialism's rejection of materialism and preference for abstraction.
53:46 ⚠ Ideobabble perpetuated by ideologues seeks to manipulate minds, leading followers to delusion and mental instability, urging viewers to ground themselves in objective reality.
147
-
147
-
147
-
147
-
147
-
147
-
147
-
147
-
147
-
147
-
147
-
146
-
146
-
146
-
146
-
146
-
146
-
146
-
146
-
146
-
146
-
146
-
146
-
145
-
145
-
145
-
145
-
145
-
144
-
144
-
144
-
144
-
144
-
144
-
144
-
144
-
144
-
143
-
143
-
143
-
143
-
143
-
143
-
I was formerly a business owner. Specifically, I owed a retail franchise that is very well known, which rhymes with 7-Beleven, and at the end of my franchise term I sold my stores to another franchisee. Now, my business was a mini state. It was a complex economic entity, it was a complex social order, and as much as I tried to eradicate it, it was also unfortunately political. What it was not, is coercive. However, that does not mean there weren't rules. Oh yes, there were rules. Lots of rules. I worked under rules, my employees were subject to rules, and my customers were subject to rules. (Every company has rules for their customers, they just like to lie to you about it and make you think that you can do as you please, but you can't. It's just not good marketing to tell a bunch of entitled jerks that they can't be entitled jerks while on the premises.) And the only penalty for breaking the rules - with the exception of theft or violence - was loss of money or income, or being banned from the property. So I say all this to make the point that all of the relationships in this mini state were voluntary and consensual, but that does not mean that these voluntary arrangements are without rules. Even in Ancapistan, there are rules, but they are agreed to by consent, not force.
143
-
143
-
143
-
143
-
142
-
142
-
142
-
142
-
142
-
142
-
142
-
142
-
141
-
141
-
141
-
141
-
141
-
141
-
140
-
140
-
140
-
140
-
140
-
140
-
140
-
140
-
139
-
139
-
139
-
139
-
139
-
139
-
139
-
139
-
139
-
139
-
139
-
139
-
139
-
139
-
138
-
138
-
138
-
138
-
138
-
138
-
138
-
138
-
137
-
137
-
136
-
136
-
136
-
135
-
135
-
135
-
135
-
135
-
135
-
135
-
135
-
135
-
135
-
135
-
134
-
134
-
134
-
134
-
134
-
134
-
134
-
134
-
133
-
133
-
133
-
133
-
132
-
132
-
132
-
132
-
132
-
131
-
131
-
131
-
131
-
131
-
131
-
131
-
130
-
130
-
130
-
130
-
130
-
130
-
130
-
129
-
129
-
129
-
129
-
129
-
129
-
129
-
129
-
129
-
129
-
129
-
128
-
128
-
128
-
128
-
128
-
128
-
127
-
127
-
127
-
127
-
127
-
127
-
127
-
127
-
127
-
127
-
127
-
126
-
126
-
126
-
126
-
126
-
125
-
125
-
125
-
125
-
125
-
125
-
125
-
125
-
125
-
124
-
124
-
124
-
124
-
124
-
124
-
124
-
124
-
124
-
123
-
123
-
123
-
123
-
123
-
123
-
123
-
123
-
123
-
123
-
123
-
122
-
122
-
122
-
122
-
122
-
122
-
122
-
122
-
122
-
122
-
122
-
121
-
121
-
121
-
121
-
121
-
120
-
120
-
120
-
120
-
120
-
120
-
120
-
120
-
120
-
120
-
120
-
119
-
119
-
119
-
119
-
119
-
119
-
119
-
118
-
118
-
118
-
118
-
118
-
118
-
118
-
117
-
117
-
117
-
117
-
117
-
117
-
116
-
116
-
116
-
116
-
116
-
116
-
116
-
116
-
116
-
116
-
115
-
115
-
115
-
115
-
115
-
115
-
115
-
114
-
114
-
114
-
114
-
114
-
114
-
114
-
114
-
114
-
114
-
114
-
114
-
113
-
113
-
113
-
113
-
113
-
113
-
113
-
113
-
113
-
112
-
112
-
112
-
112
-
112
-
112
-
112
-
Tik, hammer the heck out of this. During the second video you did on this topic you blew my mind.
I've a number of interests ranging from religion and theology to history (especially early medieval, Reformation, Civil War and French Revolution) to folklore and occultism, the latter in the sense of a regular person having a grim fascination with true crime.
You really threaded the needle with the gnostic relation to socialist ideologies.
I found listening to their talking points and understanding where they were coming from both unsettling and strangely familiar - like when Bilbo says "it's mine, my precious" and Gandalf responds "Its been called that before, but not by you."
When you hear it for the first time it sounds, forgive my language, batshit. The occult aspect of National Socialism has long been seductive and the domain of fringe pseudo-history, but you've approached this with such academic rigour it's beyond doubt.
This field has been so neglected for ao long and it is of such importance for the understanding of modern history and current affairs, not to mention the very nature or humanity, and I can't help but feel your work will be of huge importance to future generations.
It's making me reasses how I view the religious conflict from thw Reformation onwards - there are more than a few Protestant denominations I'd now perhaps recognise as having gnostic elements.
By the way, my daughter is looking forward to the school holidays she can binge your videos so she can "learn history properly" as she put it.
I know you're not a Christian, but God Bless you
112
-
112
-
112
-
112
-
112
-
This topic is usually ignored by most arm chair historians, great for you to take on but I think you have just scratched the surface. You are entirely correct that inter service and even inter component (think infantry vs armor vs artillery) rivalry and incompatible doctrine is the key issue. What kind of communication technology available is only the a secondary issue.
I spent 28 years with the US Navy, much of that attached to the USMC. You might not believe this but staff officers would spend literally days in meetings planning an operation that if all went well would be executed in just a few hours. Amphibious operations, planned at sea were the hardest. Long conversations over blinker light still occur in the 21st century.
I am perhaps biased to think the USMC is the best among US Forces in getting combined arms right. There is a focus on the infantry, and ALL other forces understand by doctrine and training that this is were the effort is. This includes Air, Heavy weapons, transport, communications, engineering and logistics. This might not always been true - but it certainly is now.
When things happen quickly then training and doctrine take over. If you are unexpectedly attacked, you cannot take days to plan a response. That is when you need to depend on all other components to know their job and keep up with the commander’s orders.
You make an excellent set of points in regards to tactical radio being early in development but strategic radio was well established. The usefulness of the technology improved during the war and this was evident by radio sets being issued to smaller and smaller units.
If you truly want to understand how commanders make decisions in times of war, you must understand how staff work is undertaken, it’s importance and it’s flexibility or lack there of. A commander, above the company level might say I want to go and attack there. If his (or her) staff can’t make it happen then his or her desire is irrelevant. Tactical and strategic alternatives are limited by logistics AND staff ability to plan/execute it.
Although not as sexy as studying a brilliant flanking maneuver, studying how this was ordered, planned and executed has more to say about the successful outcome then the concept alone.
Great topic. Charlie
112
-
111
-
111
-
111
-
111
-
111
-
So I always got confused even as I tried putting myself into the shoes of an American of that era seeing that. This give me so many more answers and I really am impressed by how you use one part of the past, to give nuance and answers to other questions, especially how the narrative changed. You're right. We need to look back as if we were there as much as possible, not our current standards.
This gives me a surprising insight, the subversion of the west started much earlier than we expected, as you described. I honestly has no idea that the fist decades of the Cold War, the Holocaust was unknown. Though I should not be surprised as much as I am that the Marxists are the ones behind the narrative as the west accepted it. This falls in line with the time Herbert Marcuse and the other academic Marxists had taken over education, Paulo Freire being the one who changed education for the worse.
I look forward to your videos on eugenics, not because I support the idea, but because you're the right guy to present that kind of topic. Tanks are fun to learn about, and I love tanks, war strategy, but sticking to them has allowed some truths to get buried. This is why I say don't "stick to tanks!"
111
-
111
-
111
-
111
-
111
-
111
-
111
-
111
-
110
-
110
-
110
-
110
-
110
-
110
-
110
-
110
-
110
-
109
-
109
-
109
-
109
-
109
-
Hey TIK, I like these explanatory snippets from history. Especially about Mussolini, a fascinating and intriguing figure. After typing this all out I realize this goes way beyond the scope of your video. Nonetheless, your comment 'everyone supported the war, the SPD, Lenin, the French socialists' got me thinking and reading a few books that happened to be on my desk. As such, the short comment is: would it not be a good suggestion for a follow-up video in one of your Q&A vids to investigate the war sentiment in respective countries. Especially the social-democrat parties are fascinating case studies, as they were linked by their Second Socialist International and 'international socialist solidarity', so to say. I think your Q&A template would suit an in-depth explanation of these topics. I'll post my sources at the bottom of this comment, in case you do find it interesting.
You are right about socialist parties supporting their respective governments becoming the norm, but the SPD was one of the first and it caused a row among socialists (and especially Lenin). You said Lenin supported the war, but this was a little bit more nuanced. The parties that opposed the war indeed were few and many Russian parties numbered among them.
The fact that the German socialist party (SPD) did support the war really struck the wrong chord with socialists all over the continent. The SPD was the largest and arguably most influential party of the Second International (1889-1914). During the Stuttgart Congress of the Second International socialist parties agreed that they should do "all in their power to prevent their governments from waging war in Europe or elsewhere." (Service, 225). Consider their surprise (and subsequent anger) when they heard the news that the German SPD, the party most socialists thought would be the vanguard of the proletarian revolution, voted in favour of Germany's war budget! The notes of an informal conference of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) show a resolution condemning the German SPD (and the French social-democrats for joining the 'bourgeois cabinet'). The RSDLP (and Lenin), at the beginning of the war, explicitly stated their first and foremost task was resisting and fighting 'Tsarist chauvinism' instead of being 'plotted as wage slaves against wage slaves from another nation'.
As a small historical footnote, Kropotkin (the well-known anarchist) supported the First World War as he saw Wilhelm II and the German Reich as the biggest autocratic threat and evil. Now here's where it gets really interesting (imo). After some deliberation, Lenin decided Marxists should "welcome German success at war with Russia". Lenin compared Russian Imperial soldiers (drafted from peasants and workers) to radical right-wing thugs (the Black Hundred gangs). Lenin faced an extraordinary amount of criticism from his own Bolsheviks. He just compared men that were supposed, according to Marxist theory, to advance the revolution to anti-semites, criminals and no-good thugs. So much for class alliance. Anyway, Lenin did 'support' the war, as you said, but for the complete opposite reasons the SPD, the French socialists and Kropotkin supported the war. He wished victory for the enemy of Russia, in the hopes that it would allow him to wage his own revolution. As both of us know, this was closer to the truth than many of his contemporaries would have guessed.
Just a minor detail to be honest, but I happened to read about it a while back. I found the fact that Lenin loathed the Russian Tsar more than a foreign imperial power interesting.
Lenin, V. I. (1946). VI Lenin. Selected works. Vol. II. Foreign Language Publishing House, Moscow 145-147.
Robert Service. Lenin: A Biography (Pan Macmillan, 2000) 225-227.
109
-
109
-
109
-
109
-
109
-
109
-
109
-
109
-
108
-
108
-
108
-
108
-
108
-
108
-
108
-
107
-
107
-
107
-
107
-
107
-
107
-
107
-
107
-
107
-
107
-
107
-
107
-
106
-
106
-
106
-
106
-
106
-
106
-
105
-
105
-
105
-
105
-
105
-
105
-
105
-
105
-
105
-
105
-
105
-
105
-
As an American, I have no problem at all with the British involvement in the battle, in fact, I'm sad that they have been, for the most part, left out of it. So, I'm glad TIK and others in recent years have been correcting that. I'm happy they were able to help. And Montgomery, from what I've heard from TIK, did the right things. So in the end, an American victory, with some good British help.
104
-
104
-
104
-
104
-
104
-
104
-
104
-
103
-
103
-
103
-
103
-
103
-
103
-
103
-
103
-
103
-
103
-
103
-
102
-
102
-
102
-
102
-
102
-
102
-
102
-
102
-
102
-
102
-
102
-
101
-
101
-
101
-
101
-
101
-
I'd also like to add that when someone like Hitler or Goebbels is talking about "races" - there's a lot of conceptual polysemy going around. Normal polysemy is when a word has different meanings in different contexts (i.e: "I'm going to play outside." vs. "I'm going to see a play tonight."). Conceptual polysemy does this with the concepts, i.e: "race" meaning one's skin color vs. "race" meaning <insert cult version of race>.
In the Nazi case, influenced by Helena Blavatsky, "races" are a spiritual thing. "Aryans" become the "Fourth Root Race" (if you're wondering, according to Blavatsky / theosophy, we're currently in the Fifth Root Race, and apparently Atlanteans are one of the earlier ones, if I'm not misreading the craziness). So, when the average German was hearing "race", they're thinking, well, Germans, and Poles, and Romanians and Jews and so on, but the actual Nazi? They're thinking of all this weird gnostic cult "spiritual race" stuff. How would you get Gunter the farmer to believe the guy at the head of the government is talking about "spirit races"? That'd be nonsense, no one is that crazy, certainly not the leader of Germany! Hegelian Dialectic at work: take two things which are not the same (race defined on biological terms and race defined in the cult 'spiritual race' styling), see them as the same the same in kind, but different in degree, and conflate, conflate, conflate, conflate... until the war ends, and the German citizens tell you they were caught in a spell.
Turns out, they weren't exactly lying.
101
-
101
-
101
-
101
-
Regarding armored trains. The error of calling trains 677 ("Uzbekistan") and 708 ("Komsomol of Uzbekistan") "BP-43 series" is encountered in some russian books as well. Usually in those that are not dedicated specifically to armored trains. The reason is rather mundane - after losses of 1941 a number of non-standard armored trains were constructed. On the one hand, they were made from whatever builders had immediate access to and could be constructed quickly, on the other - a number of new ideas were tried out by different plants. "Uzbekistan" and "Komsomol of Uzbekistan" were built at the end of 1941 and used more compact cars with a single tank turret per car (older cars were larger with two turrets) and new armor layout.
BP-43s were developed in 1942 (the first train was built in November) as an amalgamation of "what works best" of these experiments, including single turret cars. So a lot of historians don't bother with deeper research. "It has single turret cars - it's BP-43, why look further?". The main difference is that these two trains had weaker AA-armament than later BP-43s (a couple of quad 7,62 machine guns instead of 37-mm autocannons), so "Uzbekistan" was really lucky. And after Stalingrad, at least №708 was upgraded to BP-43 standard. Which helps the confusion greatly :)
Also, to add a little bit to the confusion (but it may help in the research for further events, as these trains were prominent throughout the entire battle) - researchers usually call them №677 and №708, but they received these numbers only in December 1942. Prior to that (including events at Abganerovo), their numbers were 1/28 (or simply №1 in some documents) for "Uzbekistan" and 2/28 (№2) for "Komsomol of Uzbekistan".
101
-
101
-
101
-
101
-
101
-
100
-
100
-
You said it yourself. Rather quickly Kesselring has two corps worth of divisions available for defense and the counter attack. Whichever corps commander lands, even if it wasn't the tumid Lucas, has to 1. Land successfully (not easy) 2. Secure the beach and begin offloading essential manpower and equipment 3. Build foothold capable of holding against counterattack. 4. Establishment a logistical supply point to support further ground operations. 5. "Punch out" to the hills eastward to take off pressure from Cassino and to impede the lines of communication from Rome.
How is that possible with a single corp? That corps shortly after landing, based on Sicily and Salerno, is going to get hit by a large force of panzer and panzer grenadier combined arms attacks, as well as other infantry and Luftwaffe divisions, plus under air attack (the Allies did not have air dominance yet). Would it better to have the corps strung out a dozen miles or so from the beachhead? Remember that for any advance, units must be positioned on the flanks of the lines of communication to protect it (further bleeding off manpower)? Or to be in a consolidated position closer to naval guns that can support (as proven in Sicily and Salerno)? If you go in absolutely knowing you don't have the proper strength, that you're conducting an amphibious attack against an enemy that outnumbers you, you'd be a damned fool to send your most capable and mobile forces outside of the range of the beach before further forces could be landed.
Both Clark and Lucas both stated emphatically beforehand that there were not enough forces available to be allocated for the landing and side operation. Basic military training says you don't conduct an amphibious landing in a completely separate operational area against numerous corps defending using a single corps. Its not going to work unless the enemy are demoralized or led by fools or cowards, neither of which apply to the Germans.
The Anzio landing and flanking operation, as pushed by Churchill, Alexander, and others, was just a stupid idea, they didn't have the forces for it, being that Italy had turned into a side show for the expected invasion of France. In fairness, it wasn't executed well either, both Clark and Lucas screwed up very badly in their own ways. But they were handed essentially an impossible objective to start.
100
-
100
-
100
-
100
-
100
-
100
-
99
-
99
-
99
-
99
-
99
-
99
-
99
-
99
-
99
-
99
-
99
-
99
-
99
-
99
-
98
-
98
-
98
-
98
-
98
-
98
-
98
-
98
-
98
-
98
-
98
-
97
-
97
-
97
-
97
-
97
-
97
-
97
-
97
-
97
-
97
-
97
-
97
-
96
-
96
-
96
-
96
-
96
-
96
-
96
-
96
-
96
-
96
-
96
-
96
-
96
-
95
-
95
-
95
-
95
-
95
-
95
-
95
-
This is perhaps the first time, where I would say I disagree objectively with you.
Claiming that Paulus is not to blame, is to deny the responsibility and power he has as an army commander!
The encirclement itself is also at least partly his fault... That Manstein had a big part of the responsibility, does not exclude Paulus, Paulus has first hand evidence that the airtransport does not work, he knows the conditions of his troops, and the situation he is in, and he is a staff officer, so he should know logistics!
That Manstein can use the 6th army in Stalingrad to pull the two armies out of the Caucasus, thus sacrificing 6th army, does not remove the real position that Paulus is in... Most of his sub-commanders (on the general and colonel level) agreed on the idea that it would be better to pull out... Add to that, Prussian tradition, that a sub-commander can disregard order if said order does not correlate with the situation on the ground, points to the inactivity of Paulus.
Was he sorely to blame, or should he even have the majority of blame, that is a question I would be far more interested in... But claiming that he is not to blame, is to make Paulus an even more passive cataract that he seems to have been.
94
-
94
-
94
-
94
-
94
-
94
-
94
-
94
-
94
-
94
-
94
-
94
-
94
-
93
-
93
-
93
-
93
-
93
-
93
-
93
-
93
-
93
-
93
-
93
-
93
-
93
-
93
-
93
-
93
-
93
-
93
-
93
-
93
-
93
-
93
-
92
-
92
-
92
-
92
-
92
-
I thought this was fair and to the best of my knowledge very accurate, so would like to see you do a video about the end of the USSR. The narrative usually goes something like socialism is terribly inefficient and the people wanted freedom, so the system collapsed. It is much, much more complex than that, so I'd be keen to hear your take (I am a history and ancient history major).
Some examples of this complexity:
In the West we are still told how inefficient socialism and the public sector is. But Soviet industry had proven itself to be very efficient and productive. WWII for example. After the war it continued, with the huge numbers of MIG fighters and T-54/55 tanks being produced. Shipping, farm equipment etc. Massive post war expansion of industrial and social infrastructure. Space exploration that was ahead of the West for a time. So was it really inefficiency to blame?
A referendum later during the Gorbachev era resulted in the Soviet citizens actually voting to keep the USSR together and continue the socialist system. Ukraine and the Baltic states abstained from this vote, but the rest of the republics voted in favor of the motion. Whether it was a clear majority, or more of a tight race, the idea that "everybody wanted freedom and celebrated the fall of the USSR" does not seem to hold true. That disrupts the narrative that there was a popular revolt against socialism that was supported by the majority of the people. In the satellite countries, yes, but it was not so clear cut in the USSR. Support for socialism was still very strong, so was it really a mass yearning for the capitalist American Dream?
The empty supermarket shelves did not happen from the end of WWII through to the very late 1980s, yet are portrayed as normal life in the USSR. Many of those photos are from what Russians call the 'hard years' and they associate it with 'liberal reforms' i.e., privatization. If life was so bad during Soviet times, then why do Gallup polls tend to show that Russian people think life was better then? It can not all be nostalgia surely. To portray life in the USSR as empty shelves and bread lines would be like taking photos of staving farmers in early 1930s USA during the Great Depression as being typical life under capitalism. it is typical life during times of severe economic crises and is not exclusive to one system or the other.
The Soviet economy ran out of reserves. This is always put down to communism failing because it simply does not work. There is little factoring in the impacts of Chernobyl, Afghanistan, Ronald Reagan's arms race setting out to "outspend the USSR into oblivion", etc. The USA is on record as setting out to make Afghanistan into the USSR's Vietnam. They set out to make the USSR collapse by several methods and did very well at it. So was the collapse of the USSR only the fault of communism?
The USSR depended on oil exports, but the international price of oil was deliberately deflated. It left the USSR with a budget shortfall, that combined with disaster and war caused them to turn to the World bank and IMF for funds. Those loans came with privatization strings attached. Socialism can not continue to function if socialist industry is privatized. -- p.s. We are currently seeing the tail end of another deliberate oil and gas price deflation aimed at hurting Iran, Russia and Venezuela.
There is little grasp of the effect of US money generously distributed to Soviet officials and officers from their embassy. When Yeltsin and the communists came to a head, tens of billions were distributed from the embassy to ensure Yeltsin had enough allies. The USA would act again to ensure that Yeltsin won elections and even boasted about it in Time magazine. Probably a coincidence but a popular saying among the USA's wealthy at the time was that everybody has their price. Coincidence or not, US money bought Yeltsin a lot of friends. We are told that communist officials were corrupt and the people had had enough of it. Many were corrupt, but who was greasing their palms?
There is a lot more i could point out, but obviously even from this much it was a lot more than the simplistic ideologically driven 'communism collapsed because it does not work' talking point we were given by the BBC and CNN etc.
92
-
92
-
92
-
91
-
91
-
91
-
91
-
91
-
91
-
91
-
91
-
91
-
91
-
91
-
91
-
91
-
91
-
91
-
91
-
91
-
91
-
91
-
90
-
90
-
One thing I've noticed when becoming educated on any subject is a distinct 3-step process. You start out in the field saying, "I don't know." and then you learn quite a bit, and you say, "Okay, I think I've got it." and then the final stage after spending a ridiculous amount of time on a subject is something of a crisis of faith where you come to the conclusion, "I don't know, but I understand why I don't know a little better."
Moral philosophy was this way for me. There is no final resolution between the relative and the absolute, the subjective and the objective. There are philosophies that are rationally irrefutable, but must be rejected nonetheless (solipsism, nihilism, fatalism - to name a few). But I understand things better now, and have insight into why people act the way they act. We all have to live with a certain amount of paradox. It doesn't have to stop us from being good people or pursuing truth.
TIK - the commenters who are bothering you simply don't understand nuance. They want a black and white world that simple doesn't exist. History obviously isn't 100% objective. Neither is it 100% subjective. It's somewhere in the middle. I see nothing controversial about that opinion. The investigation is part of the fun. We do our best, and knowledge can still be extracted from it even if we don't have a fully clear picture.
And those denizens of that cesspool called Reddit can go to hell. They'll disagree with your work just because they don't like your haircut. Disregard them. I forbid you from getting demoralized :^)
PS - 40k Battlestorm series when?
90
-
People have this caricature version of Nazis in their mind, ranting madmen foaming at mouth, spewing hatred and nonsense. Nobody is actually taught how mistaken principles can lead people into a form of reasoning that logically leads them to evil.
More than tens years ago, I was in college, and took a course on the Holocaust. It was for higher level history students who, presumably, knew a bit more about history than the average student. But when it came to primary source readings, they'd see something like Alfred Rosenberg or Gottfried Feder, and they could not believe those men were Nazis. Their arguments were entirely too rational. These people were too intelligent and educated to be Nazis. They believed Nazis were only the unwashed, stupid, and hateful masses.
That's the problem with dehumanizing evil people in history. They become other-ed so much that people can't ever recognize similarities they might themselves bear to those people.
90
-
90
-
90
-
90
-
90
-
90
-
90
-
90
-
90
-
90
-
90
-
89
-
89
-
89
-
89
-
89
-
89
-
89
-
89
-
89
-
89
-
89
-
89
-
88
-
88
-
88
-
88
-
88
-
88
-
88
-
88
-
88
-
88
-
88
-
88
-
88
-
88
-
88
-
88
-
88
-
88
-
88
-
88
-
88
-
87
-
87
-
87
-
87
-
87
-
87
-
87
-
87
-
87
-
87
-
87
-
87
-
86
-
86
-
86
-
86
-
86
-
86
-
86
-
86
-
86
-
86
-
86
-
86
-
86
-
86
-
86
-
86
-
86
-
85
-
85
-
85
-
85
-
85
-
85
-
85
-
85
-
85
-
85
-
85
-
85
-
85
-
85
-
84
-
84
-
84
-
84
-
84
-
84
-
84
-
84
-
84
-
84
-
84
-
84
-
84
-
83
-
83
-
83
-
83
-
83
-
83
-
83
-
83
-
83
-
83
-
83
-
83
-
Hi Tik, I've been thinking on the topic of influencing for years. Here are some takeaways:
-Some people can't be influenced, I believe it's due to the self-determination principle of each individual. If someone simply says no, no matter what, you simply can't get to them. You can provide truths, but truth is, many people simply don't care about truths. Their values are misplaced, and so, they keep reverting to those values every time you present them something. Also, changing yourself is hard and painful, especially when not done out of your own free will, but due to someone else's criticism.
-The best you can do is present positive subjects, as historically accurate, entertaining and helpful as possible, which would naturally extend your influence to the maximum. So rather than present:"why socialism is wrong", maybe go for:"why capitalism is wonderful". Also, maybe link the good in the socialist ideas(fairness, having security, the state being kind to the individual, helping the poor) and present how capitalism does just that.
-Avoid direct criticism of the people you're trying to convince
These are just a few of the conclusions I reached, I could go on but I don't want to bore you.
Thanks for your work, I like getting accurate information on WW2.
83
-
83
-
83
-
83
-
83
-
83
-
83
-
83
-
83
-
83
-
83
-
83
-
83
-
83
-
82
-
82
-
82
-
82
-
82
-
82
-
82
-
Well, in russian language sources (from personal accounts to huge studies) medical service is mentioned quite a lot. Basically, the image of girl nurse pulling the wounded from the battlefield is one of the main parts of WW2 narrative in all former USSR. And there are a lot of studies in russian, but I don't know of any translated in English.
Basically, the Red Army medical system was less focused on medical attention in the field, but more on triage and evacuation.
And, according to official figures at least, it worked rather well. Lethality rate among the wounded was on par with americans - 2-3%, while lethality rate for wehrmacht wounded on the Eastern Front was about 10%.
And 72,3% of the wounded soviets were returned to the frontline.
For example, there are some figures for one of Stalingrad hospitals from July, 1 1942 to August, 15 1942: 13,6 thousand wounded received, 262 died. ("История военных потерь" Б. Ц. Урланис, 1994. (Urlanis, "History of military casualties". I have no idea, whether this book was ever translated though)).
However, there are some caviats:
1. This system worked well for the wounded, but was terrible for the sick. The latter were sometimes openly disregarded. Basically, "You don't have gaping bloody hole anywhere, stop bitching and get back to the frontline!". And this disregard for the sick still present in the modern russian army even in peacetime. Until you have serious fever and can't stand straight anymore - don't even think about complaining.
2. The Red Army had a lot of well-taught surgeons, but was rather low on atnibiotics. Allmost all of the penicilline was lend-leased.
3. Triage and evacuation system worked well, when there was an opportunity to send wounded back. Lightly wounded were treated on the divisional level, more severe wounds - in army's or front's hospitals (and even further back). But the frontline medical units didn't have any facilities to treat the wounded. Their job was to stabilize your condition to a degree and send you back. But if your regimental\batallion medics can't send you back - you're screwed.
And also (frankly, I don't know, whether it can be applied to WW2, but at least since the 60s it works that way) in russian army every single instance when a soldier get at least one "day-off" from the medics (to treat cold and fever for example) - this is reported as "sanitarium casualty". And every single time when this treatment period is prolongated - it's another "sanitarium casualty".
82
-
82
-
82
-
82
-
82
-
82
-
82
-
82
-
82
-
81
-
81
-
81
-
81
-
81
-
81
-
81
-
81
-
81
-
81
-
81
-
81
-
81
-
81
-
81
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
Personally, I think Deniers are not so concerned with denying the Holocaust as they are with distracting us from other topics surrounding the Nazis. Every minute we spend proving the Holocaust happened, something only a very small minority genuinely don't believe, is a minute we are not addressing the misrepresentation of who the Nazis actually were politically and its consequences for social discourse today. In other words, the Holocaust being denied is arguably less important to address than the fact people don't know who the Nazis really were and are using them as analogues for modern political movements that are decidedly un-Nazi, thus promoting dangerous political movements that do share commonalities with the Nazis.
By way of example, as noted by TIK, Nazis were socialists and authoritarians. They were not pro-Capitalist and definitely not libertarian, but due to decades now of letting mostly left-wing historians set the narrative that Nazism was the opposite of Marxist Socialism because Nazism saw Marxism as a primary opponent, people use the term Nazi today to describe libertarian movements when it should be obvious that is not the case. How can people who argue for less government, more personal freedom, and individual responsibility be associated with a political movement that demanded complete obedience to the State? Because kids read that the Nazis were "right wing extremists" in books written by left-wingers, libertarianism is considered right-wing by Socialist standards, and no one is making a serious effort to correct the misperceptions because socialists benefit from people not supporting libertarians because those people think the libertarians are nazis.
Makes one wish one drank heavily...
80
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
80
-
79
-
79
-
79
-
79
-
OK, this one "hit home" because my Great-Grandfather survived this 1945 raid as he lived in Dresden (all his life 1871-1957). But no worries, I am not triggered (especially not by these number discussions). Bruno Robert Gelbrich, having been a teacher, made handwritten diaries in Old German handscript. I can read it, but many German cannot. It is appalling to read his own witness account on that. But, You may be surprised to hear that he expressed no hate nor anger against the allies; he would always write rather neutral. But and the end of the war, his only single ranting ever in that diary (6 volumes BTW) was about the WINDBAG Goebbels ...
TIK, I need to thank You personally for this video because You - of course unwittingly - You brought home to me what I was missing in my own puzzle about it. Guess what: the only two books I have about Dresden were from Irving (a 1964 issue) and McKee (1983). If or not these books were worth reading was not the question for me then in the 80s, when I started reading as a teenager: I was just lucky to find any books at all about it ... and there were many more, but they were beyond my budget ... today I have MANY more books also about Hamburg and Berlin (also where parts of my family come from) on the same topic, of the WW2 air raids. What triggered me 40 years ago was not the "number battles" nor even the cruelty of it all. It was the few stories my relatives told me. And I wanted to know what happened, and why. The What is easiest, the Why is hardest. So over 40 years I was on a private hobby-historian hunting, but what I could never do like You did, was a comparison of all these sources to draw a conclusion.
Please continue. Stick to tanks and banks. Thanks
79
-
79
-
79
-
79
-
79
-
79
-
79
-
79
-
79
-
78
-
78
-
78
-
78
-
78
-
78
-
78
-
78
-
78
-
78
-
78
-
78
-
78
-
78
-
78
-
77
-
00:04 ⚔️ Paulus refuses surrender, commits to orders despite grim situation at Stalingrad.
00:28 🛡️ 14th Panzer Division left with minimal troops, lacking supplies and artillery, facing certain death.
01:27 🏙️ Gumrak airfield falls to Soviets on Jan 24, grim scenes of frozen German casualties discovered.
02:22 ✈️ Last aircraft leaves inadequate Stalingradskii airfield; wounded left behind face dire fate.
03:15 💔 Airlift fails, 6th Army's situation dire, horses and wounded suffer amidst harsh conditions.
05:33 🦠 Typhus spreads, affecting 90% of men; becomes significant factor in aftermath.
06:03 🍞 Rations fail, devastating consequences; German resistance weakens.
07:20 🇩🇪 Swastika flag raised, symbolic stand in apocalyptic conditions, but meaning lost.
08:19 🗡️ Epidemic of self-deletion among German soldiers; dire medical conditions.
09:14 🇷🇺 Stalin praises troops for significant victories, but Stalingrad remains unconquered.
11:55 🔄 Hitler orders creation of new 6th Army, leaving the besieged 6th Army to its fate.
16:48 🏰 6th Army split in two, each pocket containing roughly 50,000 men, half of them wounded.
17:43 🚧 German units disintegrate, leaders struggle to maintain coherence; priorities shift to survival.
19:34 🤝 Generals debate surrender, but Paulus refuses; conflicting accounts emerge regarding Seydlitz's actions.
21:25 🇩🇪 Some want to surrender, others want to fight; divisions and decisions become complex and varied.
22:48 🕰️ Historical narratives suggest Paulus may have been perceived as a puppet, but evidence is inconclusive.
23:15 📜 The portrayal of Paulus as a fanatical Nazi was avoided to deflect blame from German generals and white-wash the German Army's image.
25:03 🔄 Soviets withdrew the 24th Army for rest and refit, emphasizing the shift towards relying on artillery and tanks rather than infantry.
26:28 ⏳ Soviets conducted a slow, methodical approach to minimize casualties, as they knew Germans were on their last legs, starving, and exhausted.
28:21 🛑 Critical shortages of medical supplies and overcrowded hospitals resulted in grim conditions for wounded soldiers.
31:24 ⚔️ Reinhard's attempt at a breakout failed, leading to the disintegration of the 103rd Panzer Battalion.
34:09 🏳️ Romanian resistance at Stalingrad ended, culminating in the surrender of Dimitriu and his men.
35:34 🚀 Shumilov's forces closed in on Paulus's headquarters, marking a critical turning point.
38:45 🏳️ German resistance in the southern pocket collapsed, resulting in a large number of prisoners.
41:25 🇩🇪 Some Germans were unwilling to surrender and attempted to break out, despite grim prospects.
77
-
77
-
77
-
77
-
77
-
Hi Tik! To me, this a truly moving video.
Still, I would encourage you to not be frustrated after all. I think your economics and politics videos provide highly relevant insights into the history of the last hundred or so years and are MUCH more digestible to the casual viewer than any book might ever be. That is a huge achievement and will be a tremendous legacy. And given the Internet's possibilities, it might be around for thousands of years. If humanity might ultimately prove to have the cognitive potential to come to terms with its issues and move into a bright(er) future, I am sure that your work will prove to be invaluable as you helped tieing such a huge number of open ends in some essential spots.
However, I personally would ask and encourage you to find a way to "move on" from the verbal fire your critics are directing at you: I strongly believe you should not suffer from the knowledge you acquired and shared so bravely but rather bring its potential to bear, eventually reaping any benefits. Therefore, please do not let your critics tie you down in a debate where your opponent can and will negate any of your successes by not complying to reason with impunity. I cannot imagine that this is anything but a waste of your precious time. (Somehow I figure some of the historians and economists whose works you keep on citing seem to have been in a similar position. What did they do? Some of them seem to really have moved on from what surely must have been similarly disheartening experiences.)
Also, I don't think it is appropriate to keep on attempting to persuade those who actively refuse beyond reason. Instead, once you have certainly fulfilled your duty to give everyone an honest opportunity to debate the subject and to learn and develop their knowledge and world view, I kind of think that it is not only reasonable, but also your ultimate duty to leave behind all those who still are evidently not interested in accepting facts even despite overwhelming evidence. (Some will figure it out sooner or later, others won't. Why bother? I wouldn't think that an individual is to blame for the group failing, ultimately letting down all the group thinkers, but I might be mistaken.)
Humanity does not evolve if the most curious don't leave the cave until the least curious are leaving, too.
PS: Please also realize that what you do and did has afaik never been done before with such clarity to such a huge and diverse audience on a unified platform, thus certainly bringing an unimaginable number of world views and biases to the table. While it certainly speaks volumes about your work ethics and what crazy high standards you seem to impose upon yourself, I guess you really shouldn't focus on the summit you might have not reached yet, but rather give yourself the well deserved praise for any step you move upwards on a maddeningly undesirable route that I tend to think no one has ever gone before.
77
-
77
-
77
-
77
-
77
-
77
-
77
-
77
-
77
-
77
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
76
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
Not-so-fun Fact: Indian troops were used even after the Japanese surrender, specifically to quell local, nationalist movements in South-East Asia, such as in Indochina and Indonesia. These forces were comprised of Indian, Gurkhas, and British troops in the British-Indian Army, and around half a dozen or more divisions took part in this.
Actually, they formed the largest component of British Indian forces in the largest battle involving British forces after the Second World War: the Battle of Surabaya, 10—31 November 1945, against Indonesian youths and nationalist troops. About 18 thousand British Indian troops took part in this battle, mostly from the 5th Indian Infantry Division (two brigades and other non-brigade components) and the 49th Indian Infantry Brigade, against around 30 to 50 thousand Indonesian fighters.
75
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
75
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
Glad we can have a serious discussion about this, and I trust it interests many people here :)
I'll definitely release an answer in the coming weeks, because there are many things to say and the structure of this response video has already formed in my mind as I watched yours. For the moment I'll only say this: in my opinion hindsight is point #1 to consider, not #7. Everything depends on this. And YET, even without hindsight, I'll argue that:
1.
A breakout would not have been a 100% logical decision during Uranus, BUT it could have succeeded with much better chances than you put it (I'll develop, but my main argument is that at this time there was just a very theoretical screen by Soviet troops around 6th Army, and those red units that took position here and there were at the end of their resources, had absolutely not formed any solid defense even locally, and so on, so that it was not a credible blocking issue). But again, I agree this was not a decision to make without hindsight.
2.
A breakout during Wintergewitter was way more logical to consider because by this time the precarious situation of 6th Army on the long-term was becoming very clear. It was definitely something to consider (and was very much considered by 6th Army's Command) even though it was more difficult than before, due to Soviet units having time to entrench around the cauldron. But here again, I believe people generally underestimate the benefits of a breakout, even a chaotic and disastrous one, AS OPPOSED to the "benefits" of staying in the cauldron.
As for the interviews, I agree of course that it was easier to speak like this 30 years after. But I'm sure by the time of Wintergewitter many officers genuinely thought like this. So it's a very, very different thing to discuss options during Uranus than during Winter Storm...
74
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
74
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
73
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
72
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
Great job as usual, sir :)
Let's put some fuel in the discussion about the city's evacuation.
There is plenty of archival data on evacuation orders, and there is none about Stalin's alleged ban. So the authors claiming the latter tend to indicate anti-Soviet propaganda. But Let's stick to facts.
In 1939 the population of Stalingrad was 445,000 people. From June 1941 to March 1942, another 441,000 refugees from threatened cities of the western part of Russia proceeded to the evacuation center of Stalingrad. It thus increased by two for a total of about 900,000.
Yet by July 17 (the official beginning of the defensive period), the city was back again to 400,000. That is, even less than the initial population before it doubled due to the refugees. And that's because evacuation from Stalingrad was already going on since the spring of 1942, when the Wehrmacht was still hundred of miles away...
From July 17 to August 23, even before the first extensive bombing of the city, evacuation was going full swing: another 100,000 had been evacuated in just over one month.
Before August 23, evacuation went according to plan, and the crossings more or less coped with the load. Then after this date the situation became complicated. Crossings were mercilessly bombed, and there was no time to build new ones.
Nevertheless, 28 crossings worked constantly, through which civilian population and wounded soldiers were taken to the rear. Apparently, also contrary to "instructions" from Stalin.
Accounting for the evacuated in such conditions, of course, was difficult. Therefore, the data varies.
In his memoirs, M. A. Vodolagin noted that 150 thousand people were evacuated from the Tractor, Barricades and Red October districts from the end of August to October.
Academician A. M. Samsonov believed that from the end of August until the first days of October, 65 thousand were evacuated from the sole Voroshilov district, and 60 thousand from the Red October.
I. A. Piksin, Secretary of the Stalingrad Civil Committee of the CPSU, noted that 300 thousand people were evacuated from August 24 to September 14.
B. S. Abalikhin believed that from August 23 to October 14, about 400 thousand people were evacuated from the city.
There is discussion about precise figures only. There is no arguing whether evacuation actually happened or not.
There is no documentary evidence of Stalin’s order to forbid evacuation from Stalingrad. Neither verbal nor written.
Evacuation proceeded through crossings, along three bridges, and with the help of the Volga Flotilla. From Saratov to Astrakhan, 50 ferry crossings were carried out for more than 130 ferries to concentrate troops and materiel in the Stalingrad region. Engineers built several additional bridges.
Between September and November 1942, the flotilla ships transported 65 thousand troops to Stalingrad, up to 2.5 thousand tons of various cargoes, and more than 30 thousand wounded and tens of thousands of civilians were evacuated over the river.
During the evacuation, the main task was not to document the number of people removed from the city, but to take out as many women, children and wounded as possible.
About 100,000 civilians could not be carried over the Volga and remained in Stalingrad. The vast majority of the population remaining in the city sheltered in basements. For instance on September 8, the Deputy Head of the NKVD Directorate for the Stalingrad Region, Major Biryukov, reported to the secretary of the regional Party Committee A. Chuyanov, that about 1,000 women and children were located in the shelter at 69, Republican Street. "The shelter is crowded, there is no lighting, they use a torch light. 250 g of flour a day is given as food. Water is taken from the Volga. No medical care."
The remaining population continued to take refuge in basements and bomb shelters even during the occupation of most of the city by German units. It often happened that whenever Germans occupied a house, civilians remained in the basement. Almost all German memoirs of veterans tell about such a "neighborhood". In the famous Pavlov's House, there were dozens of refugees in the basement as well.
So in summary: evacuation had been going on a long time before the fighting reached the city, and no one forbade it. On the other hand, it could arguably have been accelerated so that all Stalingrad citizens could have been evacuated. Logistics were a common issue in the Soviet Union, and it's also true that the Army had complete priority on civilians: there was unfortunately no choice, if it was to win the war at all.
So few had been written so far on civilians during the Battle for Stalingrad. Owing to recently released archival data, it becomes possible to study this topic on new grounds.
71
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
Excellent work TIK !
I appreciated the variety of sources you used, the wonderful graphics, plus the switch in perspective by inserting a segment where you were visible & spoke directly to your audience.
Furthermore, i feel that you did a good job of keeping things interesting by switching between info & events of different 'scales', all the while maintaining a perfect balance between describing the fighting using the map & symbols, versus the 'big picture' strategic picture; versus info & anecdotes involving key individuals or small-scale events.
Overall, there were no moments when I felt flooded with too much info, nor were there any points where the presentation lost momentum, became repetitive, or lacked relevance to the discussion. The pacing was perfect.
I know that you've been working very hard on this battlestorm, and IMHO, the final product reflects your thorough research, your attention to detail, and your abundant passion for the topic.
Well done TIK, and thank you! 👍👍
71
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
Correct about Pliev's 3rd Cavalry, but don't agree about Malinovsky's 2nd Guards on the Myshkova on19th December: at this date only a few advanced elements had reached the line, nothing to do with the almighty army which was fully there only 4 days after.
But anyway, these are but details, the bottom line is: YES they lacked the means for a proper breakout, BUT should they have tried an unprepared one, would less than 10% of the entire army have succeeded in escaping? Certainly more than that. Even if a little more than that this would have been enough to justify it, as opposed to stay in the cauldron. So again, not necessarily a coordinated retreat, but just an uncoordinated one still would have been a better solution than nothing. Of course it's hard to imagine an Army commander issuing such an order as "leave everything and just run for it!" and yet whatever crazy, this was the least crazy solution.
And thumbs up for the space marine voice over 😂
71
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
71
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
70
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
69
-
68
-
68
-
68
-
68
-
68
-
68
-
68
-
68
-
68
-
68
-
68
-
68
-
68
-
68
-
68
-
68
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
Love your video. Also, glad to see how butt hurt all the socialists in the comments are.
I would point out one thing: I think the confusion in academia comes largely from a complete misunderstanding of capitalism, as much as a misunderstanding of socialism. In order to argue that Hitler was a capitalist (not a socialist), one must adopt an absurdly expansive definition of capitalism, whilst at the same time adopting an extremely narrow definition of 'socialism' as Marxism. In doing this, one can acknowledge the evidence of Nazi socialism, whilst denying it and saying it was capitalism. They may think gov interventionism is part of capitalism. If they didn't, they'd have to admit that western countries aren't capitalist, and they couldn't blame all the problems of society on that bogeyman. They might have to consider that gov interventionism is part of the problem (a large part in my view), but most academics are ideologically opposed to doing so. It's so much more 'rational' to centrally plan everything, they think. Free markets are too messy, too unpredictable, too unequal.
Oh, also I subbed to your channel, on the strength of this video. I was looking for a well researched history channel.
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
67
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
66
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
65
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
64
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
63
-
Let me tell you a true anecdote. Most of my life, I was doing statistics and math for biologists, many of whom were Hegelians. Many times, they wanted Everything to converge Perfectly and Everything to lead to the same conclusion, without even a slightest deviation. In order to test them, so I know how to approach them, I used a following example:
Djokovic played against Nadal. Djokovic won. He won 3:2. However, Djokovic scored 21 games, while Nadal scored 30 games. Djokovic had more aces, but without statistical significance, while Nadal had... blah, blaah, blah.... Who Won the game? Who is better player?
100% of simple people (farmers, photographers, truck drivers, contractors...) will give you a funny look and say - Djokovic won! Who cares about the stats?
About 80% of PhD Academic Minds will tell you: well... I think that the total number of points...
Wait! Tennis... Is played to 3 sets. Djokovic won, 3:2. Djokovic has the trophy. Djokovic is celebrating. Who played better? Who won?
Well, I think that your point is...
Who won?
But the games and sets, so...
--------------
At that point, I just give them the simplest option, and don't even try to explain anything, because they cannot comprehend nor appreciate anything.
BTW, in biology, 90% of Facts comes from authority, 3% from Logic, and the rest is marketing (my personal estimation)
62
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
I think there's a point that TIK has not considered, even though it strengthens his position even further: Had Paulus simply ordered his men to pick up their rifles and start walking, what was to prevent all the Soviet forces on the north side of the pocket to start a general advance south? If Rokossovsky's forces had been able to advance south over positions abandoned by the Germans, the pocket would have collapsed even before it was formed. Consequently, I think that an uncoordinated withdrawal was not an option.
Of Course, Paulus could have ordered his most exposed forces to withdraw first, while the rest of his forces held their positions and then gone for a "staggered" withdrawal - but wasn't that, more or less, what he tried? To some extent, isn't this what Luigi suggested. Free up forces to create unit capable of operation against the southwestern Pocket frontline. However, I this would take time and events would (and did) overtake such attempts.
Or perhaps Luigis suggestion was simply to have each division split their forces up in two groups. One left behond for a suicide mission and the other to fight it's way out as independant Kampfgruppen? I seriously doubt this would work, as TIK has already shown that it was the combat units of the German divisions that had taken the heaviest casulaties, and now those depleted units were suddently to double their workload?
I do disagree with TIK that Paulus must have believed that the airbridge "could" (realistically) have worked at this time. I have argued that the Germans basically failed to supply the 6th Army while they held the rail lines open, so hoping for an airbridge to succeed where the rail system had failed, must have been more of a prayer than a realistic hope. But I do agree that that prayer must have seemed the best option open to the Germans at this particular point in history. Also, an airlift doesn't either "work" or "not work", it will automatically work to some degree. Paulus may well have hoped to recieve a significant portion of the needed supplies by air, leaving his forces able to defend until a counterattack by superior German forces from the west (Der Manstein Kommt).
62
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
62
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
61
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
60
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
Hi TIK, thanks for the amazing video, I just watched it! Stellar work as always!
I kind of feel bad about asking cause this sort of thing might usually for patreon users and If this is the case feel free to reject my request (due to personal circumstances I’m not able to become a patron) but I was hoping for a book tour. I know you have your sources in ur vids (so awesome btw, currently burning my way through “when money dies” wondering y fergusson stated that “the initial stages of inflation started in 1914 when he goes onto state that the currency was inflated by the bank law of 1875” page 9. Oh wait, back on track sorry.) but I was hoping for a brief tour of your sources and briefly what the books contain in case we haven’t seen them. (From the vids I’ve been able to make Out Hitler and his generals, pol of sed, both on ur left side (now own the new zeitelmann book ^-^), the black book of communism, black cross, red star 4, behemoth and a few others, but some are kind of hidden behind you or other books or have small spine texts. As someone who has bought 3 mises books, the new zeitelmann book, vamp. Econ, when money dies and the downfall of money, I would be thrilled for a relatively short book tour.
Either way, thanks for your amazing vids and once again, sorry if I’m asking for a vid which should be covered by Patreon.
59
-
59
-
Hey TIK,
Love your videos and I totally get the struggles you are having "showing your work" to ideologues. It is great that you are trying this outreach, but I wouldn't let this derail your entire channel. You make great content and you are totally right about what makes yours stuff awesome. I don't want a 5 minute video about the eastern front... I want your extremely detailed analysis about the tactics, politics, economics and equipment. So, I would hate to see you burn out trying to convert people who are not going to see your reason no matter what you do.
If you want my feedback, I would say keep doing what you are passionate about. Let the comment section be a dumpster fire if thats what it takes. If you have the energy to respond to people with legit arguments or reasoning, then do it. I am a long time watcher of your stuff, and have never commented before, I can only assume that this is the case for most of your viewers. We are the silent majority and we don't want a noisy, disingenuous minority to ruin your channel!
Keep up the good work!
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
59
-
TIK, I have studied history and dealt with anthropology, sociology and the importance of concepts and I see that you are a really, really well read person. You made a very long video, with a lot of conceptual discussion, and I am afraid you were missing a mark: your critics do not realize the importance of proper grasping the concepts they use and the more you explain them, the less they will understand. Maybe have a proper video (series) dealing with the importance of concepts and using WW2 as a case study. I am rooting for you, though, because I like the way your videos make me raise questions on the topics you discuss, which is like you say, the essence of history - make you want to debate. Cheers!
59
-
Recently, when I was reading Robert Gellatley's book "Backing Hitler", I stumbled across a section regarding the Nazi T4-program. I usually take reading such harrowing events on the chin, but the part in which it was described how doctors would lock mentally disabled children in rooms to starve to death really punched me in the gut, and I had to put the book down in revulsion.
As I did so, my two nieces and one of my nephews (all of whom are toddlers) came running into the room, laughing, playing, and enjoying their lives. Something about the juxtaposition of what I had just read, and the presence of those kids---free and innocent of the evils of the world---really made me see things differently and made me appreciate things so much more, once I put everything into perspective, and not to take ANYTHING for granted. Needless to say, I became the fun uncle since that moment.
59
-
59
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
58
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
57
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
56
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
How can I give you a million likes? This issue is so important for understanding history and yet at the same time so often misrepresented. The only real difference on the ideological level is that nazis are national socialists and soviets are international socialists. Nazis were just as opposed to conservatist or classical liberal (depending on which net of definitions you use - US or European), i.e. "right wing" ideals as the soviets. How can a political party, whose program literally included the complete destruction of their own capital city and rebuildilng it in a postmodern style to represent "the new order", widespread social works and wealth redsistribution, state controlled enterprise and a a centralised economy subservant to the military be referred to as right wing.
I thnik this is because left leaning politicians are so dominant in contemporary politics, they need to invent newer and weirder ways of differentiating between themselves for the benefit of the voters so they make up absurd stuff like "well, they said <God> once at some point in their life, so it must mean they're right wing", which has little to nothing to do with the actual problem. Ron Paul is a right winger (in Europe I would struggle to find any real one at all, that's not completely obscure...) and nobody needs to subscribe to or like the ideology or policies he promotes, but tell me how the NSDAP's policies were more like those proposed thereby rather than soviet ones.
Also just got to the point about the government type and economic system being issues in need of separate analysis. Ok thats it, I might just set up a patreon account just to support you.
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
55
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
Hey TIK, thanks a lot for this very thoughtful video, I would love to see a continuation of this debate.
My thoughts are as follows:
- The outbreak of war in 1939 must be solely blamed on Germany for obvious reasons. Yes, you could argue that Poland was unwilling to accept the German annexation of Danzig, which had a German majority, but in my opinion Hitler had already shown his colours with the destruction of Czechoslovakia just half a year earlier. In addition, and this is very important, UK and France were in no mood for war just 20 years after the last devastating war had destroyed an entire generation of their young men und wasted enormous ressources. Just look at the UK: they were in financial trouble even before the war, and althought hey ended up on the winning side, they were basically bankrupt and lost their empire which had lasted for centuries. France had even less intention to fight a war with Germany, as the last war had taken place on French soil and probably so would the next one. In fact, I would say that UK and France carry the least blame of all nations involved (although this is clearly up for debate)
- However, I would argue that the conduct of Roosevelt before the USA's official declaration of war was highly belligerent towards Germany, TIK does a fantastic job of pointing this out in the video (I mean, supplying war material to one side while simultaneously officially ordering to shoot at the other side's naval vessels is hardly neutral). And the reason therefor is, in my opinion, quite simple and has more to do with practical considerations than political ideology:
France and UK had nothing to gain from a war with Germany, however, the USA had everything to gain, and they gained everything. WW2 transformed the USA from an isolated economic powerhouse into a militaristic superpower, and I would argue that the USA were the only true beneficaries of WW2 (the Soviet Union also became a superpower, but was it worth 27 million lives?) In 1941, Roosevelt basically saw things like this: the war would exhaust UK and France and destroy their colonial empires, and both Germany and the Soviet Union would grind themselves down, so if he played his cards correctly (which he did), he could establish the USA as the world's dominant power. If you dont believe this, then just look at the Suez crisis of 1956, you will see that the USA had absolutely zero interest to help uphold the power of UK and France.
Now before you hate on me, I am not saying that the USA provoked WW2, but i think that Roosevelt decided to become involved for his own benefit. Even if the Western powers in 1939, UK and France, were planning a war against Germany (which makes no sense, they declared war only to defend themselves), this does in no way justify Germany's terrible atrocities, especially since they were no part of the war effort.
TIK, i would love to hear your opinion on my arguments. And keep up the great work!
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
54
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
53
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
Criticisms of Pienaar can be found in David Brock Katz' South Africans versus Rommell. A few days ago I added comments re.Pienaar in your Patreon section (Blue Moon Rising). I will repeat them here : I have just completed watching your Crusader series. I was intrigued by the conduct of one of the South African Commanders, Pienaar. A recent book 'South Africans versus Rommel' by David Brock Katz gives more info on this controversial Afrikaner soldier. I wonder if Pienaar's unusual background explains why he was so obstinate and oppositional? His family fought the British in the Boer war of 1899. Pienaar was only 5 or 6 back then and was sent to a concentration camp with his mother and four siblings. His family farm was burnt down by the British. Now that, surely, is enough to develop a lifelong ambivalence and contempt towards the Brits. I'm speculating here, but these experiences would be hard to shake off. Katz, like you, is critical of Pienaar's conduct in Crusader and is dismissive of Pienaar's 'mythical' victory against German Panzers at Taib el Esem (on Nov 25th 1941). This so-called 'heroic victory' was a 'non-battle", according to Katz. But Pienaar's reputation survived: "Despite being difficult, obstinate, and temperamental, flouting orders or just disobeying them, or being lethargic in obeying orders, his ability was not doubted by the popular press." Katz writes: "His relationship with Gott was fraught with animosity and he actively disliked his commander. His view of orders was not one of accepting them blindly - rather, in accordance with Afrikaner military culture, he saw them as the opening position in a debate." Another observation on why Pienaar's reputation survived: Katz says that Pienaar "achieved close to hero status in South Africa, a situation no doubt propelled by his untimely death in an airplane accident on December 19, 1942, at age forty-nine."
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
"I couldn't tear myself away from this disquieting vision. All along the vast horizon, the Russians had lit hundreds of braziers, not to warm themselves, because they must certainly have kept their distance from them, but to dazzle our observers. And in fact, when the eye traveled to the east bank, it remained fixed on those fires. Everything else, by contrast, was plunged into darkness, and this enabled the enemy to effect numerous changes which we could reduce only with difficulty. We were able to see little with flares, but their radiance, although intense, was reduced at least to half strength by the enemy's arrangement of alternating light and darkness." (Forgotten Soldier, Sajer, Pg. 74-75).
^ memoir excerpt from a German logistics gefreiter, who was present on the Don River bend during Operation Uranus. Not sure how accurate this memory is, but it's interesting nonetheless.
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
52
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
TIK, gotta say that you connected a few dots I had somewhere in the back of my brain again. I knew about the discrepancy between German and Soviet units and that might explain some things about performance, but I didn't make the connection on the massive burden this would place on an army commander.
The Germans tended to do there reconnaissance well to identity a weakness and exploit this by concentration of force. If you then figure out that one enemy division is way understrength, you have your tactical schwerpunkt. I therefore was thinking more along the lines of having several small units which the Germans could easily defeat in detail because they lack coordination and the ability to support each other.
It only goes further as you point out. If you have a bunch of "infantry blobs" with little organic support units facing off against a German panzer division, then I can imagine why they utterly fail to hold them for even a day. Try holding the line with a 5000 man division or brigade with a few AT guns and artillery pieces and mortars. Descending on you is a full German Panzer division divided into three Kampfgruppen with a panzer battalion, two motorised infantry battalions, and an artillery battalion. They can easily overwhelm you.
To make matters worse, there is barely any communication with neighbouring units. Even if you can ask them for help, they can't help you. They are probably being shelled by German artillery and are pinned down. So far I connected all the dots. Then the problems get even worse. All these units are screaming for help at the same time to the army commander and his often inexperienced staff. This happens all across the line because the Germans are probably attacking or shelling the entire army sector its front line with the full force of a panzer army and probably some artillery attached from the army group level, and the Luftwaffe.
So you as a Soviet division commander ask for help from the army commander. Well, he is receiving these screams for help from every unit along the front line. Some want artillery support to counter German artillery fire. Others think they are being attacked while there are not, while others are being attacked. Utter chaos ensues. Try getting al those separate units to help you and this one division, where it matters. Even if support arrives, nobody is actually in command of all these units. That allows the Germans to utterly destroy these "armies" in detail. The command system and the massive information overload on army commanders only makes the job easier for the Soviets.
51
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
@TheImperatorKnight My commitment to logic I suppose, which is ironic considering that I arrived at Fascism at the first place.
The first thing that cropped up was Fascism's open Totalitarianism,, which coincidentally was also the same thing that drove me from what little connection I had to National Socialism (I was only connected with the ideology at an aesthetic level, as the only policy I liked was the non-territory grabbing element of "Heims Ins Reich" and your "Hitler's Socialism" video rapidly drove me from that ideology), as well as warded me off from Marxism-Leninism. I had already read George Orwell's 1984 at that stage and was wary of anything Totalitarian.
The next was Fascism's economic policy, specifically Autarky. Everyone's tried it, from Mussolini to De Valera to Franco to Hitler to Stalin (though Stalin's was part-forced part-imposed), but nobody can make work an unworkable policy. Import substitution is one thing, but deliberately not importing goods that you actually need is insanity, and squandered Italy's early lead in Aviation and Combustion Engines.
I also found issue with Militarism, for obvious reasons. Corporatism is massively flawed. Class Collaborationism is the best of the bunch.
Ultimately, when you presented me with points that I could readily access the sources of if I so wished, I wasn't willing to put commitment to ideology over commitment to the truth and logic.
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
Nigel Askey: "Even in Kursk in mid 1943, incredibly, they were mounted a serious offensive when the 'overall force ratio' was well over 2 to 1 in the Red rmy's favour."
First of all, the 'overall force ratio' in the battle of Kursk was not well over 2 to 1, it was theoretically 1.7 to 1 in the Soviets favour (780,000 vs. 1,338,000 in total) but the 1,3 million Soviets were garrisoning all around the Kursk salient extension and all of its depths and lines, and the Germans didn't attack the whole Kursk salient, they attacked only two points hoping to achieve a breakthrough... So in the places where the Germans attacked they had a massive local numerical superiority because not all (not even a half) of the Soviet troops at the salient were involved in the battle since they were located at the front's section between the two German pincers or at the front's section outside them or in the last lines of defence which the Germans didn't reach
Remember when you said something about to "concentrate at two or more locations simultaneously on a long front, they can attack with massive local superiority, achieve a breakthrough and encircle the section of the front between the two breakthrough points." in order to diminish Soviet victories? This actually describes German strategy and can be applied here in the battle of Kursk more than any other in any other battle
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
47
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
46
-
The problem here is that you are merging two different things. I'm not defending the marxists position, I'm just explaining what they believed.
You are mixing in your references and in your summary of Marx position two different levels. Two levels that were extremely separated and well defined in the marxist doctrine: structure and super-structure, aka economic structure and political/cultural structure.
In marxist theory the real deal, the real essence of the society is the economic structure. The super-structure is just determined by the underline economic structure. (Again I'm not defending this view here, I'm just describing the point).
When you talk in the video about "democracy and freedom", accusing Marx to lie about that, you are just missing the context of the Marx doctrine. Marxists socialists/communists didn't believe you could have a "democracy" if the underline economic structure was a capitalistic structure. This is what they call "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie". Yes of course you can vote, and you can have a limited amount of freedom, but this is just an illusion. Under the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" you will never have a real democracy and a real freedom, because the economic structure is not changed. And the economic structure is all that matters.
This two levels cannot be mixed.
Did Marx want a dictatorship, as you insinuate in the video? To answer that you have to clarify first what is the level you are considering. The economic structure? Than yes. Marx clearly and plainly said that the worker class should conquer the political power to change the economic structure to enforce a "dictatorship of the proletariat".
Are you instead talking about the political level? Than the answer is: your question has no meaning for a marxist.
Because the political level is determined by the economic structure. You cannot have an economic system where the worker is in power, and at the same time a super-structure where the worker is oppressed. And vice-versa. (Again I'm not defending this position, I'm just reporting it).
So for a marxist if you change the society, remove the class system, changing the economic structure of the society, you will necessary have a society where the workers will have the power in the super-structure too. Is not an option.
About the role of the State, this problem occupy a lot of space in the marxist literature, with many different ideas. The core concept however is that the State exists only to handle the class struggle, to protect the dominant class. If there are no classes, there's no need for a State. The end goal of the communist is to reach a classless society where there's no State.
At the core of Marx ideas there's infact anarchism, like Bakunin (the famous anarchist). The problem is what to do during the transition.
The very next day after the revolution, the working class is in power, do we still have class conflict? For Marx the answer is yes. We still have the class struggle, because the bourgeoisie lost its power but it's still there. So the State (in the hands of the working class) has to protect the revolution.
All the concepts of "totalitarian states", "democracy", and so on, are meaningless for a marxist. There's no lying, everything is explained in plain sight. If the working class has the power (inside the STRUCTURE!) than necessary they will have the power in the super-structure, therefore the State will be used by the working class to protect themselves. The State is just a tool for the working class, in the same way as during the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie".
Why social reforms are bad?
They are bad if they are used to preserve the capitalistic economic structure. That's the entire point. Because, as we said, for a marxist is the economic underline structure that matters. If you give something to the working class to keep them slaves, that's bad, even if the little something you are giving them is locally good.
The king can keep all the power for himself and, at the same time, be generous granting something to the peasants. Is it bad giving something to the peasants? No it's not. But the structure as a whole, the society as a whole is terrible, the slave system is not abolished, and the king is still the king.
What makes the king a king, for a marxist? The economic structure.
Again, everything is written in plain sight. For marxist the "capitalistic democracy" is just slightly better than the "capitalistic dictatorship" (super-structure concept), because the real deal, the economic system (structure) is the same in both systems.
If the working class wants to be really free has to change the structure.
All of this may be very wrong, but this is not a totalitarian idea masked as "democracy". Marxists don't want a democracy at super-structure level. Marxists simply don't value the political system (super-structure) as much as the economic system. If you want to understand them you cannot mix these two things.
46
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
As a regular viewer of this channel, i have to say that i do like every type of video you publish (economics, non battlestorm military videos, Battlestorm, politics, etc). I think the jewel of this channel is the Stalingrad series and as such, quality should always be the priority, no matter how long it takes to release. Even once a month would be fine, as you said, most of your financial support comes from the Battlestorm viewers. They will keep supporting the channel. You can publish shorter and less demanding videos every week about the other topics (economics, politics, etc.) To keep the regularity of the channel.
By the way, i want to say that your health, friends, family and private life comes first, so take all the time you think you need to rest, chill, or do other activities. Very few creators provide the quality you do.
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
45
-
@TheImperatorKnight I was going to make similar points to MrsPrgames, but much of what I wanted to say is there. A few additional things.
1) As someone who has studied Aquinas' thought, you need a line connecting him to Augustine and Christianity. Aquinas' project (which he succeeded with) was to merge Aristotle's philosophy with the neo-Platonic Christianity of Augustine, and is at least as influenced by Augustine as it was by Aristotle. You might also want to add Aquinas' sources such as Maimonides and Averroes, but maybe that complicates things too much.
2) Plotinus was also heavily influenced by Aristotle.
3) I think you need to add the stoics to the ancient Greek section. They had an important influence later.
4) In the Medieval section, Ockham is very important and needs a mention. He largely wrote in reaction against Aquinas (though still as an Aristotelian), so there is a connection between Aquinas and Ockham, although a significant departure in the ideologies. Ockham is seen as the father of nominalism, which was influential in the mechanist and empiricist branches of modern philosophy, while Aquinas is the main supporter of moderate realism. However, Ockham was also a fidelist and suspicious of the power of pure reason, which leads into Kant. (Where it goes depends on which parts of Ockham's philosophy you take and which part you neglect.) Modern Roman Catholicism follows directly from Aquinas (with very little difference, except in those parts of it which have been influenced by liberation theology which is influenced by Marx).
5) The Renaissance largely emerged from Ockham's thought and ancient stocism.
6) Combine Ockham and Augustine and you get Luther, who was an influence on Kant and the Hegel (although I doubt that Luther would have agreed with much that they wrote).
7) I agree that Rosseau needs to be added. As a philosophical father of the French revolution, his influence was important, especially on the German philosophers around the time and just after Hegel, and there was some influence on Hegel (although this is an area I don't know that much about). His thought influences everyone descended from Kant, although tracing the precise line of descent needs someone more knowledgeable than me on this part of philosophy to figure out. Rosseau was influenced by the ancient Greeks, but most importantly in reaction against the thought of Locke, and his descentants such as Hobbes.
45
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
TIK, about (27:00 -31:00) and the misallocated replacements: I think that the situation of Army Group Center (and partly Army Group North) might be worse than it seemed to Liedke;
The 'front line' between Demyansk - Cholm - Velikiye Luki was still a "bleeding wound" of small outposts and a few strongholds, regularly infiltrated by large masses of Soviet Forces, becoming partisans and "bandits" in wast stretches of those army group's rear areas - right up until Riga and Daugavpils (hundreds of kilometers), with almost no security forces to fight them (those were partly securing the front line, or were securing the alleged 'rear', unknowingly becoming the 'front'). I have this as part of a "Army Group North Monthly Situational Reports Jan - Dec 1942", where the front lines at that sections is respectively marked and soviet activity noted. This huge gap had to be filled, sooner than later, as the soviets might not have strength (logistics) to push forward from there at a time, but would become so in time.
The rear areas of Army Group Center needed to be cleaned up as well, from partisans and broken up smaller soviet forces, up to larger formations in rear-area 'caldrons'.
Those areas were mostly forests and swamps, very infantry heavy.
Without shortening the line and releasing thus a lot of locked soviet forces, this wouldn't have been possible.
I assume, that this had an impact on the replacements. I can't tell in more detail, as a greater picture on this is not available to me.
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
43
-
Former dialectic preacher/follower. I was lulled into a very vague gnostic group during a tough time in life which made it easier to fall into. It was just more comfortable and reassuring to believe in whatever they said and it also provided a community of people in similar situations echoing and reinforcing whatever the ‘preacher’ said. I never got beyond the casual stage though as the group disbanded before then.
However, I ended up recreating a cult once I realised I had knack for it and the ‘followers’ enjoyed it. Of course, they were just feeling what I felt in the previous group, but the false positive reinforcement was so strong that I started believing in my own words too. I told myself it was helping them just be happy and that sheer willpower and belief held power far beyond what was realistic. Thankfully, I snapped myself out of it when I saw how devoted some people were becoming and left. I couldn’t bring myself to denounce everything I had ‘preached’, but I hope they all came to the same realisation.
On the tactics used by gnostic cults, mostly lonely folks or people going through some form of crisis would voluntarily accept and even seek out the cult so that they could feel some sort of higher ‘purpose’. This was the key to getting young men in especially; the women would also be drawn by the higher purpose, but the sense of community and trust in a higher figure was what got them most of the time. It was essentially just gaslighting people, teaching them to gaslight themselves, and then the cycle would continue. Purposefully using vague terms and words made consoling them easier and it had mystique that the younger ones deemed ‘cool’ - like an insider club they want to get in on.
On the structure of gnostic cults, there was always a natural hierarchy that formed on a personal level. The first preacher would connect with a few people; those then started openly supporting the preacher, making them look somewhat legitimate to outsiders; this accelerated the pace of newcomers .etc. An interesting to note is that the first few followers would entrench themselves into the hierarchy by using ‘seniority in the organisation’ as their power. I didn’t even try to reinforce that, but it simply formed by itself at some point. Favouritism from the head preacher would dictate what order people grouped themselves in, and the old guard would vehemently suppress any rising stars that got my attention. This created a lot of infighting once the group got large enough, and this was the main cause behind the previous cult’s disbandment. It was essentially a two-way feedback loop of gaining and returning favours.
Other interesting note: we openly called our group a cult when talking between insiders, but this just heightened the sense of exclusivity and in fact, some newcomers were drawn by that word specifically.
I talked to someone from the first cult a long time after the disbandment and we pretty much just both view it as a cringy period of our dumber times. I’m glad the second one never reached the point of devotion as the first, but I definitely manipulated what I said unhealthily even if I believed it was good for them. If anyone reading this recognises my username, I’m sorry and hope you are at a better point in life.
TL;DR, gnosticism preys on crises during people’s lives and has a parasitic quality that corrupts the top as well as the bottom which then destines itself towards fracturing.
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
On the "airlift debate" debate: we should consider that this wasn't a well-prepared debate, but closer to a crisis meeting where people spitball suggestions. Also note that they're not planning for a full-winter airlift, but just to supplement Paulus' supplies until Manstein can break the Soviet line. Likewise this isn't to keep Paulus operational, just to keep him alive.
With that, it could well be that Jeschonnek just spitballs the idea of an airlift (but unsure how much it could actually do). HItler phones Goering to prepare it, and asks Jeschonnek to calculate. Then goes to East Prussia, where Zeitzler expresses his doubts and points out the calculations are a perfect-case scenario.
From this, 6th army gets the estimate. This all seems reasonable enough. Jeschonnek isn't flipflopping, he's just offering help but unsure how much it will be worth.
Finally, a part may be that they didn't have the same idea. Perhaps Hitler mainly thought of a short-term supply to keep Paulus' forces alive until Manstein got there, while Zeitzler was thinking of an airlift alike Demyansk that would last for months. We tend to take the latter view due to General Hindesichtes' information.
I think that resolves most. The point of Goering agreeing with Jeschonnek may not be odd: it's not the first time Goering loses the war by overestimating his grandiose plans to win it.
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
41
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
@TheImperatorKnight Honestly yes, the information presented about the Indoeuropeans was correct.
The distinction you made between linguistics and "race" is very important, though often misunderstood.
Pinpointing the PIE homeland has sparked a lot of debate in the past, the linguistic approach used in the video is fascinating, and as you most probably know the pontic-caspian steppes have been indeed recently confirmed through genetical analysis as the correct location.
If I can add something I know that in some Veda passages noble aryan peoples are described by some uncertain translations as blonde, of course this doesn't prove they were actually blonde, but this inspired many baseless hypothesis that traced them back to Germany or some Nordic location. This plays a role in the "corruption of the blood" idea: as the original aryan people from Germany mixed with the lesser local peoples unpure populations were born.
Another very interesting fact is that actually naz1 propaganda and Hitler in his speeches usually emphasized more the concept of the "nordic race" compared to the aryan one, in fact german supremacist intellectuals had to cope with the fact that also Latins, Slavs and others spoke "Aryan" (indoeuropean) languages, so they came up with an internal division that saw the "nordic" peoples of scandinavia as the top and originally the most aryan one.
I can confirm thid based on the references Hitler makes about race I read, he speaks more often about "Nordic" or "Germanic" peoples rather than Aryan ones.
It should be kept in mind that these ideas were not homogeneous and different thinkers had different hypotheses over the course of decades.
It's very interesting nonetheless that a real discovery in the field in linguistics inspired so many baseless ideas that had a great impact in world history, I feel this is almost a forgotten story today and this confirms you try to go deeper than what conventionally taught.
Keep up with the great work!
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
40
-
@MrReco12 "opened up her own successful newspaper"
She co-founded a newspaper, which was a strictly political organ of her party. Her whole adult life revolved around politics. From what I can see in a quick search, she really never worked a proper job. Maybe as a tutor, that could work, but a quick search does not even mention that, so I suspect she didn't do much of it.
""not truly capitalist" because they have a central bank"
Is it, though? If the currency is controlled by the government, if they can (and arguably do) hyperinflate it at will, thus robbing everybody of their savings, how does it relate to the central tenant of capitalism, which is the private ownership of the means of production?
How much do you really own, if all the numbers on your account can be made worthless at will? What's going to happen if you can't pay all the taxes, which can also be administered at will?
Your property will be taken by those who actually already own it, that is the government.
40
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
When I discovered your video on Hitler's Socialism last year, you taught me much that had answered many of my questions on th political ideology of the National Socialists, and why they are Socialists, because i never believed Hitler and the National Socialists were/ are a 'far right' ideology and not Socialist. I still have so much trouble when I being up this truth that the National Socialists are Socialist. I still use your original videos on it as my evidence, and still get fire aimed at me. You've become one of my favorite Historians, among others like Mark Felton. I respect how detailed you go into everything, and address the hard truths.
You're right about the Critical Theorists and Social Justice movements. I have increasingly been seeing the Critical Theorists and other western Socialists on a mirroring path, so I have now come to call rthem 'Racial Socialists' or in case for gender, Gender Lysenkoism.
I still hear so much that National Socialists were 'stakeholder capitalists', but I disagree with the concept of them being Capitalist.
We must know the truth of history, so that we can anticipate and improve our future. and right now. certain National Socialists near Russia concern me, but everyone is denying their existence too.
I'll be buying this very soon mate.
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
TIK, next time this issue arises, you could make a review of the Schlinder's List movie, analyzing how it depicts the way the main character has to run "his" business.
It's interesting how Schlinder is initally not depicted as an entrepeneur who owns a factory or who wants to invest capital, but as a pennyless adventurer who starts the movie befriending the nazi officers in order to be assigned a contract and a factory to produce supplies for the army. Then we have that lovely scene were Schlinder's jewish accountant, Itzhak Stern, explains to him how much money he must pay to each kind of worker according to state regulations (depending on if the worker is a german, a pole, or a jew). Then we see how Schlinder's factory is moved by the nazis to a concentration camp, and how the one calling the shots in "his" factory isn't Schlinder, but the concentration camp commander, Amon Göth, who not only provides Schlinder with the workforce but also reserves the right to massacre and replace it whenever he likes. As the movie advances, Schlinder expends more and more of his time trying to protect his workforce from the guy who has the real authority, and expending more and more of his profits to bribe nazi officers in order to save the lives of his employees, ending the movie effectively pennyless again.
So, throughout the movie, we can see how the Nazi State provides Schlinder with the Means of Production (the Factory), tells him what to produce, assigns him production quotas, sets the prices and wages, provides the raw materials, and even owns the Labor (the jewish slave workforce). So much for capitalism and private-owned-and-run business!
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
@TheImperatorKnight Living in Germany, we learned a lot about the time from the 1920's to 1949 in school. A bit of reformation and French Revolution at the beginning and then only Third Reich all the time, nothing else in history class. It is of course important to learn about these things, but I feel like every politician or civil servant who has to decide what we learn in school want's to be the "good guy" who thinks that raising awareness of our dark past is the most important thing. So nobody wants to be the guy who says "ok, enough of that stuff, there are other things to learn". Because of that, we never talked about communism and its problems. We never even talked about the GDR. I knew of course that bad things happened with communism, but no one ever explained to me that these things were direct consequences of the communist ideology. In addition to that, the teachers, the media, and the surrounding society in general, lead me to think about politics in one dimensional terms, where right is egotistical, violent, old school and outright evil, while left is thoughtful, critical, modern, empathic and just cool.
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
I think one of the biggest issues people often have is they fail to understand what Nationalism even is. A Nation is an Identity, not lines on a map. It can mean almost anything under the sun when you break it down. Why do you think almost every Community thrives to make flags to represent themselves? Because they've created a Nation. They've not created the Nation State that they live under, they're often hostile toward the Nation State. But they've created their own nation within an already existing Larger Nation. The Nation State system has been confused with Nationalism, and many people actually think Nationalism is exclusively racist or Statist. Which isn't really true. A lot of Nations have no "State." But the Nation exist. Many Nations existed as slaves of other larger States, and throughout most of European history there were no Nation States, the Nation existed under the surface ruled by Monarchs and Lords who often had little in common with the people's they ruled. Why today is the era of the Nation State is because most of those Communities formed their own "States" often built around some kind of similar Identity, ie Nations, Nation States. But this happened after the fall of Monarchism, so their National Identity was the glue used and at times failed when forming their new "States" again hence Nation States.
In this context, the Working Class is an Identity, it is a Nation. As TIK has explained many times, it actually makes Marxist Nationalist who mascaraed as Internationalist. Because Marxist don't understand what a Nation even is. You see this with a lot of Leftist today who are obsessed with Pride Flags, they literally created their own Nations, their own Identities, and proudly go around parading it in front of other people's faces. They're Nationalist even if they refuse to admit it.
Nationalism in short is a very gray, murky word when you really break down what it means to be a "Nation." The American Nation for example wasn't built around Ethnic or Racial Lines. American Nationalism as little to do with Race, though some white supremacist, and black supremacist will argue otherwise from opposing camps. Nationalism doesn't = Racism in short, but Nationalism can equal Racism. Today many consider Nationalism and Racism to be the same thing which is just so blatantly wrong that it openly shows those who think that, literally fail to comprehend what a Nation even is.
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
Tik's voluminous and thorough work is a gift to historians everywhere. But is this really the case? Yes, yes it is!
Seriously, another brilliant and to the point work challenging the conventional narrative. A few things come to mind immediately.
As a complete amateur, a consumer of historical thought but not a producer, your work is more about simply opening my mind to alternatives. As such, the exact motives of various authors who clearly got things wrong is less important to me than it is to you. It's hard for me to cast aside Shirer, because like you it was my first read on WWII. But it's clearly very flawed, and I can't thank you enough for pointing out his flaws.
But what is the bias that makes his work flawed? Again, I have less reason to care than you do. But in this I think you pinned it down well - he praised Haider. The real genesis of all the flawed analysis in the West really seems to be Haider more than anything. He's certain the origin of the Madman nonsense that you so rightly mock.
It may be worth time for you to examine Haider's influence and that alone. Again, as a reader and not a writer on this topic I'm more interested in new perspectives and anything that can be called objective truth. But the poison of Haider runs very, very deep in conventional understanding of WWII.
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
You are best identified as a Libertarian. Believe it or not, Brazil boasts a significant "Ancap" community, which, in turn, is highly diverse in terms of ideas. Consequently, to encompass this diversity, we commonly refer to ourselves as Libertarians. Overall you're in the right direction reading Mises, Rothbard and Hayek.
To answer your question:
If there's a market for a State, can we deny the market?
No, individuals should have the freedom to choose which state they want to be a part of, without being automatically bound by birthright. Currently, this contractual obligation exists, but it should be abolished. States would operate in a decentralized manner, competing like enterprises to attract immigrants by offering higher standards of living. Essentially, envision a large condominium with its own laws, police force, education and welfare system.
A common misconception is that we are against the existence of the state altogether. In reality, we are opposed to the state's monopoly. Consider the inability to choose whether or not to pay taxes—failure to comply would result in imprisonment. This represents a monopolistic control.
Envisioning how an ancapistan would function can be challenging. However, I believe it would involve microstates the size of cities, where companies would operate freely, providing employment opportunities and services to these cities, nothing like we don't see it today, because capitalism just works.
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
Finaly the part 2, I'm glad: some other history youtubers I love have sometimes this tendency of lacking rigor in the following of their series and some "ep1" remain orphans. In France, the schism happened at the Congress of Tours in 1920 and unlike what most believed, the majority of the Rad Socs deserted and join the new communist international: the Rad soc as a party of war lost the preference of the low-income peoples and the anarchists were dead or in jail, nature hates emptiness. I complete agree with what you say about leftists rethoric: if you are not with them you are a fachist, I have the same problem, for my university's friends, I'm a rightist nearly a nazi, for my more...concervative friends, I an awful leftist nearly a communist, there is nothing mature to get from politic partisans.
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
I think an important factor not covered in the video is the terrain that Devers wanted to attack into. The Kaiserstuhl hills would have been a major strategic impediment, making the proposed attack and push to outflank the German 5th or 19th armies incredibly difficult. If Devers attack had gone ahead, it is very likely it would have quickly ended up in a very difficult position, trying to force a way through well defended terrain that gave the defenders a significant tactical advantage. Units would have had to have been pulled from other areas of the line to reinforce Devers. I think the German response would have been to put enough troops into the favourable terrain to stall and hold Devers advance, but no necessarily try to push the Allies back across the Rhine. Holding the large numbers of troops the Allies would need between the Kaiserstuhl hills and the Rhine would probably have been viewed as sufficient. Ultimately I think Eisenhower was right to stop Devers' attack over the Rhine, and I think he was also right that as a commander Devers had a habit of being rash, over promising and under delivering.
As for the argument that the orders weren't clear, I can see both pros and cons. That Eisenhower's weren't perfectly clear is true, they could have given more detailed instructions for Devers including the conditions under which a crossing of the Rhine should be attempted, and other stipulations. Equally, I think it is reasonable for Eisenhower to expect that a 4 star general of Devers experience to have enough strategic foresight to realise that crossing the Rhine into Baden-Wurttemberg in late 1944 was not a reasonable or practical option given the situation at the time. I think that if Eisenhower had given detailed conditions for Devers to attempt to cross the Rhine, he would have been accused of micromanaging his army group commanders, and arguably justifiably so. It is interesting that Eisenhower was not aware of Devers plans to cross the Rhine until the meeting at Devers HQ, which makes me think that members of Eisenhower's staff might have been trying to keep Devers' somewhat questionable plan from happening, or to avoid a confrontation between Devers and Eisenhower. I think overall, while both Eisenhower and Devers have made mistakes in this situation, Devers plan was deeply flawed and as a 4 star general, he should have seen those flaws and either made modifications to remove them if possible, or if not, accepted that he wouldn't be able to cross the Rhine in late 1944 as to do so would harm the overall Allied effort to defeat Germany.
Devers openly criticising Eisenhower in his HQ after being ordered not to cross the Rhine strikes me as deeply unprofessional in light of the situation. It serves no purpose other than to soothe his bruised ego, and undermines the troops confidence in the entire command structure.
Edits for grammar and clarity.
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
You seem familiar with the Mises Institute, so I'd call your attention to the fact that the people in that general "ecosystem" have sorta been coming around to acknowledge, in the past decade or so, the vital importance of topics like culture and religion when discussing politics and economics (Michael Rectenwald is a good example). What I recall from the 2000s was a lot more "pure NAP libertarianism" stuff.
In a nutshell, the discussions have been moving in the direction of: a high culture (high trust, individual responsibility, industriousness, high savings rate, etc.) is not simply downstream of political & economic liberty, but also a requirement for said liberty. A lot of writers throughout the ages have pointed out that a dissolute population is incapable of handling liberty, as we can see even today. So it's something of a chicken-and-egg problem.
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
I couldn't agree with you more, history needs revisionism. ( I prefer to call it investigation) I'm 58 years old and because of historians like yourself Parshall, Tully, Citino, Glanz, Hata, etc I've learned more history in the last 10 years than I had in the previous 48 years. I believe that the first duty of a historian is to get it right regardless of how many attempts it may take. A good historian is akin to a good detective, willing to fully investigate all material and all the sources available, and to avoid producing a biased or false interpretation of events. At this you and your so called "revisionist" colleagues excel, and I enjoy the different (and correct) interpretations a new generation of historians have provided me.That being said, I have just one problem with revisionism, this being when a historian attempts to interpret history by interjecting contemporary, values, morals, ethics, or attitudes onto past events. I believe that history was made in the then and there, not the here and now, and by judging it based on contemporary standards, a false narrative is often rendered. The reason I enjoy your work is that due to your in depth research you seem to " get into the head" of your subjects, always avoiding judging and interpreting them by modern standards, or by the established (and often false) narrative. Keep up the good work. I thoroughly enjoy your videos, and like potato chips ( crisps) as soon as you turn out one I want another......Thanks Much!!
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
Yeah, yeah! I love this video! I was born in a communist country and raised as a socialist. Emigrated to a somewhat capitalist society, and some individuals told me, to my face, that socialism is good. Not in writing on a YT comment section, but to my face, face to face. I tried to argue, and there was no point. He was born to promote socialism, and I was born to avoid it. So I ended up telling him that he was right and walked away. I wanted to tell him that I grew up in socialism and life was $#!7... and that he's full of life. But I am a guest in a foreign country and respect them. Looking at your video, I wanted to laugh! I need to laugh... I need to picture 2 girls sharing one cup, and all I can do is laugh. I laugh cos TIK hadn't broken character when he said that out loud. And it's funny how socialists get so crossed about a simple discussion. It's weird how humanity is programmed to be socialist. Or is it? I see it as being comfortable. Socialism is YOU being comfortable. You get born, you are raised to follow a pattern, you go to school to learn how to follow the rules, you get a job because you know how to follow the rules, and then you get married because the people need you. And anything you do outside of this pattern is criminalised by your family, friends and, last but not least, society. The term for that is social pressure. Oh... and if you want to do something in private, you need to hassle; you need to learn something about money cos the state makes sure you know nothing about money. Then you learn from people that evolve with you, like TIK, and don't stick only to tanks. Love it, TIK! Keep up the excellent work! I know so many socialists that tell me that capitalism is wrong because of the big corporations... tell them that these are socialist entities and not capitalist, and they jump to your throat... ask me how I know. 😅
31
-
31
-
31
-
@TIK, I will provide you with one example where my history degree has been extremely advantageous. I work in the aviation industry and it is shockingly sad that my engineering, management, and program management colleagues do not read or cross reference the complex customer, industry, and regulatory requirements on how to build commercial and military aircraft and subcomponents. I use history techniques of references sources and locations (document numbers, page numbers, paragraphs) to end wasteful idiocy of people talking out of their ass and wasting peoples time. History techniques have also taught me to look at direct sources, evidence, and non-emotional understanding of the debate to just present facts and best summary of the data. I would not agree completely that history degree is worthiness. It maybe worthless to get a highly economic potential in the free markets, but history degree did teach me to think and analysis information which has served me well.
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
I don't comment often, but I have been watching for a long time.
I just wanted to let you know that I consider you as a credible man, honestly trying to find the truth to the best of your ability. Now I am not a historian at all, but as a reasonable and educated person, your arguments make sense, you are not crazy!
- I am however not sure why you are spending so much time on the inevitable haters? I see it come up more and more in your videos, and while one should be careful with surrounding oneself with 'yes men', there is also dishonest actors trying to waste your time.
I reckon you need some sort of filter for 'waste of time' and 'legit person with legit intentions, with legit questions and criticisms'.
About the point of leftist not engaging with your point and going for the 'gottcha' at every opportunity, I see this too, and to me, it points towards their own dishonesty.
- They are indeed not trying to figure out what is true, but rather to win the tactical argument there and then.
In my experience, people can have a hard time to let go of their ego 'in the moment', especially in public forums where they might lose face.
In such cases, I find it advantageous to clearly make the point, but then not pushing it too hard, because when they are out of the situation and have slept on it, or 24 hours later, they'll usually come around. This has worked for me on friends and family, not sure if it will work on a stranger, especially a leftist.
- I have speculated for years; is it possible for a person to understand the free market and 'capitalism', and still be a socialist? - I was also a socialist, until I understood basic economics and the brilliance of the free market.
I think the answer is no. The arguments, the data, the evidence is just overwhelming, there is no way a person can still be a leftist; AFTER having reviewed all the available evidence.
According to my logic tho; all leftists are dishonest or ignorant, typically both. What other conclusion can one come to? It will take months of daily conversations with the same leftist to have any chance of conversion, a futile endeavor considering the scale of the problem.
Overall I think logos arguments are ineffective vs these people, because the leftist think in emotion, 'feel' as it were. And reality and truth does not always make one feel good.
Dont be disheartened tho TIK, you are doing a FANTASTIC job, really! Be among people who value and appreciate your virtues, or get out and find them!
If you don't, I fear for your happiness and wellbeing!
All the best from Denmark!
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
Happy to see someone really taking this on. It is of course exactly true, and critically important that people understand it, which is why so many with an ideology to sell try so hard to obfuscate it. Hitler was a lifelong and committed Socialist, just like Mussolini. Hitler derived his Socialism directly from the model put forth by his idol Richard Wagner, who, musical genius aside, was a seminal force in patriotic variants of Socialism.... If you went to dinner with the man, you would end up talking politics, not music, apparently, like it or not... WW2 in Europe was in its vastly largest part a war between National and International Socialism, and the various states that got dragged into their bloodthirst... which is hardly a selling point for fashionable socialists of today... Then there is the ugly reality that although socialists today will try and tell you that Democratic Socialism in a strong industrialized nation has never been tried, Hitler was ELECTED, democratically, overwhelmingly, on the Socialist ticket, selling a socialist plan on a socialist platform.... and that's just history, folks...
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
Now see, here's the thing: I have no job, and am probably unemployable. I'm a writer (tabletop RPG supplements) and I haven't published anything in way too long. I am essentially leeching off of my parents. And yet, just by the fact that I have a budget, and really try to stick to it, as hard as I can, I'm actually in a decent spot monetarily while I try to get my shit together. I know how money works, and I know how to not spend beyond my fukken means!
Also, I'm aware that all of those things are bad things, and I want to overcome them. I just don't know how, and it kinda pisses me off.
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
Hi TIK, here in Germany we have the same problem with the German railway. Delays, etc. And apparently just like yours, our state propaganda claims that our railway was privatized because it is listed on the stock exchange. Nevertheless, it is still financed by taxes, the state controls the railway and all shares belong 100% to the state. In addition, the state has the monopoly on the state lines and there is no competition (there is only one railway company here in Germany that is allowed and that is the Deutsche Bahn or in English German Railway“). However, the left claims it is privatization and the free market is to blame. As you rightly said If it is controlled and financed by the state, it is not privatization. It is only privatization when you have freed it from state control, the private owner has no restrictions from the state and has to finance everything himself, and from his wallet, not the taxpayer!
P.S I love your Videos and would like to hear a response :)
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
His objective is the exact opposite, the fortune of the "Traditional Narrative" that downplays the Soviet efficiency and role in the war was constructed by the Nazi-simpathizing US Government, who had Halder under its wing, the head of the German High Command who reported directly to Hitler himself, the Americans even gave him a medal for telling them his biased experience about the Eastern Front. The new narrative, the one that's most accurate, gives merit for German defeat in large part to the Soviets and NOT to the Americans, not because they're politically biased (both he and say Beevor for example are anti-socialist)but because it's the truth. The Soviets won because they beat the Germans on the field of battle.
Now, does he make errors? Certainly, every historian does, his anti-communism brings him towards a form McCarthism that is laughable to see in the 21st century and he is utterly convinced he knows socialism as Marxism when in reality he grossly misinterprets both. These are enormous errors in my opinion, but this doesn't stop me from giving him credit for making a great and engaging documentary, even though I might not agree with his political stance. He's not winking to the alt-right, he never did, he's strongly opposed to negationism and never praised the results of any Axis regime. He's a moderate, I don't like moderates and I don't agree with their depiction of socialism and denounce their close-mindedness, but if I had to preclude myself from every study, book, documentary or work of art made by a moderate I would be much less knowledgeable.
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
@TheImperatorKnight I'm not living there at the moment so I'm relying on what I read or see videos of. Regarding "inflation" (by the modern definition), it's been in the hundreds of % and climbing for quite some time, making the 150% jump in 2 months I experienced there back in 2018 look quite stable by comparison. Hence, the willingness to try a radical shift with Milei. And hence, the plan to transition off the Peso to the Dollar, which Argentines have already been using for capital transactions for many years.
He's completely eliminated half of the government departments already... in a country where 55% of the registered workforce were employed by the government in some capacity. Unlike the typical pandering politician, he's stated all along that the transition to a free and prosperous market would be quite painful. And yet, things were so bad that most of the country was willing to give it a shot anyway, after a century of socialist hegemony (minus Macri 2 presidents ago, who accomplished too little too late for a smooth course correction). I'm guessing right now is probably around the height of the "birth pangs" of the necessary correction. From what I've heard, the inflation rate has at least shrunk from the previous trajectory already.
He's at least wise enough to understand that spending cuts take priority over tax cuts when you're actually trying to fix the problem and not just buy power. He is, after all, an actual economist and self-described anarcho-capitalist in principle. But also smart enough to recognize that jumping into such an ideal head-first isn't the way to get there, and that "better" is beats sticking so ardently to "best" ideals that nothing ever improves (a big problem in our space of the political sphere).
So obviously what's needed is for foreign investment to start capitalizing on the earnest attempts to transform into a more market-friendly economy. I think the first trickling as already started, but it's clearly going to take time to earn the trust needed to really get the ball rolling. I'm actually very seriously considering how I might be able to invest in that process myself. For once, I see a potential opportunity to help build a structure truly worth building. Perhaps I'll even move down there whether part- or full time, which I've already considered seriously in the past (I already have dual citizenship). There's a lot of potential for growth in logistics, as I see it.
My reservations are likely the same as any other investor. How much is this movement a fad vs. a proper, long-term redirection? Will the resolve to do things right crumble in the face of the current growing pains and restart the cycle all over again, or will we finally break that cycle and show the this generation what a force for good a free market can be? After Macri's far more moderate attempts to correct things, the socialist establishment regained power after one term (though he did still get 40% of the vote in a non-binary system). They doubled down and screwed things up so bad that they've elected the chainsaw guy, though. The desperation of the situation along with the internet allowing the spread of ideas like on this channel seems to have ignited a fire of a far more principled, free market uprising than the usual aimless "lets try ANYTHING that seems different."
So, I'm cautiously optimistic, and I think at the very least we'll be able to see the beginnings of the fruits of progress before the next election either makes or breaks this course correction trajectory. Milei, despite (or perhaps because of) the bombastic showmanship, has been doing a great job of articulating the principles of economics and liberty in the years leading up to this, so a lot of his base is well-equipped to frame what's happening in terms that ease the fears that would normally give way to the metaphorical "return to Egypt".
Thank you for listening to my Ted Talk and "¡Despierten Leones!" ;)
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
Great little short video, good distinction that points out a flaw that many people make!
However one flaw i will point out: just because Churchill locked up Mosley and his fascist gang, doesn’t make him not a fascist. Not saying he was a fascist, or anything close to it (his ideology and beliefs simply do not line up with it, at least as far as i know), but that simply locking up people of a certain ideological conviction does not mean you do not share the same ideological conviction.
I bring this up because this is a common argument made by those who claim Hitler wasn’t a socialist, because he locked up other socialists, even though the Soviets and other communist regimes also locked up other communists, but (for the most part) are still considered communist (or “socialist” or whatever).
Just thought i point that out since “locking up those of the same ideological convictions doesn’t mean you don’t share those same ideological convictions”, is a big sticking point for the argument for Hitler being a socialist! Anyways, love your content, and have a good day!
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
@TheImperatorKnight I usually don’t consider it polite to respond to a youtuber when they’ve already responded to me, but here I feel it’s warranted for anyone else who sees this thread.
I don’t believe Christianity starts, or any other moral system ought to start from either self-acceptance or self-hatred. The starting point is something objective. Whether you believe in the metaphysics of the system or not, the standards are quite real. And so ‘self-hatred’ can only ever be a reaction to one’s own real inadequacy. Moreover, the story of humanity in Christianity begins with our creation in the image of God, with humans ordered to all things good. Original sin is not the starting point, original justice precedes it. That may sound trivial but the order of causality here informs the way Christians see sin. We, each of us have a drive for goodness, a drive for God, which we choose to ignore in our measure, through our own free choice; just as the first man rebelled through his own free choice. There is no individual tenet in Christianity which is impossible or impractical to adhere to, yet on our own, the sum of all of them overwhelms self-discipline. That is where Grace is required, and where I think you are more or less correct that many Marxists find their ethics degenerate. Christian morality without God is less than worthless. The Luciferian morality of ‘do what thou wilt’ is at least undemanding. And ‘do what thou wilt’ is all a subjective morality that starts at self-acceptance or indeed self-hatred can ever really demand. When the only arbiter is I, there’s simply no other principle involved.
I also think that in the 21st Century, it’s far rarer to see a convinced Marxist who begins from a religious background; not an authentic one, anyway. The morality of leading Marxist voices today, especially among the young generations is not austere or self-sacrificial. It’s not demanding. It’s decadent, and individual, and selfish. It exalts personal failing in all forms as the rejection of oppressive societal standards. Fatness, ugliness, effeminacy and sexual baseness are all cherished by Marxists because they are a product of individual will. Of the denial of society, which cannot be separated from the denial of objective morality: the denial of virtue.
I thank you for responding, and I don’t imagine that I’ve convinced you, but the exercise is enjoyable nevertheless.
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
Tik, I love all of this. I'm very happy you are attacking this Hegelian nonsense head-on. The most important quote from you, IMHO, is "Don't listen to what they say, look at what they do." I think we can back away from all of the garbage that has polluted this and be very pragmatic.
That's my one quibble with your argument. You are a bit deep into their dogma, which is a useful perspective, but you don't have to be.
My perspective on this? Having studied Eastern philosophy extensively I am always struck by how it is difficult for Westerners to understand. The reason for this is that the Western world has a strong bias towards seeing everything as a conflict of some kind. Marxists, for example, tend to go on about "continuous revolution" because the struggle is eternal. The Eastern world tends to look for a balance, a resolution to conflict. This simple change in perspective makes pretty much all of this Hegelian nonsense irrelevant. Moving history forward? Um, no, quite the opposite.
This is why I think that what you are starting here, and I do think it's only a start, is so vital. So much of what has come into Western philosophy in the last few hundred years only perpetuates conflict pointlessly. It obscures reality. This is not to say that Eastern philosophy is perfect, but there is a lot to learn from everyone.
Again, there are many ways to see the flaws in this approach. I love how you trace it back to gnosticism but I do think that a pragmatic approach is always the best. Minimizing conflict, seeking balance, is just far less exhausting.
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
In regards of the italian in Russia: I did some research Regarding the debate on Soviet-held POWs, i think that could help post here some data and fact on ARMIR POWs: the primary sources i use are "Pubblicazione CSIR - ARMIR campi di prigionia e fosse comuni, Edizione 1996" and "ARMIR" of Emilio Vio Sopranis. The autor is a survivor of detention but the book isn't a memoir but a full history book which makes extensive use of numerous Italian and Russian sources. Unfortunately i don't think that there is a English translation of the book at the moment. If the number of pages is needed i'm here to provided it. The "Pubblicazione" is available online.
Let's start with the official data from KGB's archives, that report 64.400 names: of this around 10.000 were identified by the date of capture as ex-POWs of Germans. The repatriated soldier of ARMIR after the war are 10.087. So therefore according to these calculations, the captured soldier are around 54.000 and dead soldiers while in detention are around 44.000. Probably this 54.000 soldiers are not all the captured during the operation Little Saturn but the exact number of captured soldier cannot be established with absolute certainty:
- The Italian historical office of the ministry of defence report (in 1977): 3.010 officers and 81.820 soldiers dead or missing.
- Valdo Zilli in his "Gli Italiani prigionieri in URSS: vicende, esperienze, testimonianze" conjectures (based on the military reports of both sides and the memories of survivors) that of the 84.000 losts, around 20.000 died during the fighting.
- The Italian delegate at UN commission for prisoners of war in his report estimate 70.000 ARMIR Pows.
- The communist sources (Palmiro Togliatti at radio Mosca on 5 May 1943 and the Journal "Alba" around february 1943) report that around 80.000 italian soldiers are captured. This is probably a propaganda exaggeration but it seemed right to mention this sources for the sake of completeness.
We don't have reliable data on the death of the soldiers died during the trasportation to the detention camp, but it is estimate that in this phase died around 20.000 soldiers (pag. 33 of the "pubblicazione"): the nicknamed "Davai March" ("Davai" in russian mean: "forwand, walk!") and the trasportation on the train (which are not heated) were particularly brutal and for the most part made without food.
We have the data of the deaths of the soldier in prison camp ordered for date (Pag. 33 of the "Pubblicazione"): of the 40.027 deaths, 31.230 are in the first 6 months of the 1943, this fact is coherent with the report of the survivors (chapter "i campi di concentramento per i prigionieri di guerra" of the book): in this phase there were very few provisions, no heating system, epidemics of typhus and dysentery and almost nothing medical care. After suffering for the "Davai March", for the train trasportation, for the retreat in desperate condition and for the fighting there, the situation proved destructive for the soldiers. After June the mortality shrank drastically (Pag. 33 of the "Pubblication"): around this period rumors circulated among the prisoners that Stalin gave the order that "no prisoner must die from now on".
My take on this is that the initial lack of supply, medical care and heating system highlight that the Soviet simply weren't ready for handle such a large number of prisoners and that only at a later time (with the end of the critical moment and the food and medical supply of the lend lease) they managed to cope with it but it is possible that besides this the Soviets chose to not to allocate enough resources for the POWs in this phase due to lack of means. Anyway i think that this data certify that the worst period for the prisoners are the first (due to the mix from the exaustion before the capture, the harsh condition of their travel to the camp and the lack of supply on the first month of 1943 in camps) while afterwards the conditions improved. Yes, it is not possible generalize this data to the all POWs in Soviet hand but i think that this is useful piece of the puzzle.
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
As TIK has made this a topic on the strategic bombing campaign I thought I would post the RAF Bomber Command operational performance figures from Sept 1939 to May 1945 to give some perspective on the numbers involved.
Source: “The Bomber Command War Diaries: An Operational Reference Book” researched from the Squadron Operations Record Books (Air 27 series) held at the Public Record Office, UK.
There are individual squadron details available from the same source but are far too numerous to detail here so these are for the Groups to which the squadrons were assigned. The petrol-carrying flights made by Halifax squadrons in September and October 1944, and the food-carrying flights to Holland and the prisoner-of-war evacuation flights made by Lancs in April and May 1945, have not been included, it is not clear if losses that were due to accidents are included in these figures.
No. 1 Group
Battles 287 sorties, 6 lost (2.1%)
Wellingtons 12,170 sorties, 395 lost (3.2%)
Halifaxes 137 sorties, 12 lost (8.8%)
Lancs 43,836 sorties, 1,016 lost (2.3%)
TOTAL 56,430 sorties, 1429 lost (2.5%)
No. 2 Group
Blenheims 11,311 sorties, 421 lost (3.7%)
Bostons 1,215 sorties, 41 lost (3.4%)
Flying Fortresses 52 sorties, 3 lost (4%)
Mosquitoes 793 sorties, 40 lost (5%)
Venturas 868 sorties, 31 lost (3.6%)
Mitchells 221 sorties, 6 lost (2.7%)
TOTAL 14,460 sorties, 542 lost (3.7%)
No. 3 Group
Wellingtons 20,584 sorties, 608 lost (3%)
Stirlings 15,895 sorties, 577 lost (3.6%)
Lancs 26,462 sorties, 380 lost (1.4%)
Other types (mostly on resistance and radio counter measures operations) 3672 sorties, 103 lost (2.8%)
TOTAL 66,613 sorties, 1,668 lost (2.5%)
No. 4 Group
Whitleys 9,169 sorties, 288 lost (3.1%)
Wellingtons 2,901 sorties, 97 lost (3.3%)
Halifaxes 45,337 sorties, 1,124 lost (2.5%)
TOTAL 57,407 sorties, 1,509 lost (2.6%)
No. 5 Group
Hampdens 15,771 sorties, 417 lost (2.6%)
Manchesters 1,185 sorties, 69 lost (5.8%)
Lancs 52,262 sorties, 1389 lost (2.7%)
Mosquitoes 1,133 sorties, 13 lost (1.1%)
Mustangs 6 sorties, 0 lost
TOTAL 70,357 sorties, 1,888 lost (2.7%)
No. 6 (Canadian) Group
Wellingtons 3,287 sorties, 127 lost (3.9%)
Halifaxes 28,126 sorties, 508 lost (1.8%)
Lancs 8,171 sorties, 149 lost (1.8%)
TOTAL 39,584 sorties, 784 lost (2%)
No. 8 (Pathfinder) Group
Wellingtons 305 sorties, 17 lost (5.6%)
Halifaxes 2,106 sorties, 77 lost (3.7%)
Stirlings 826 sorties, 37 lost (4.5%)
Lancs 19,601 sorties, 444 lost (2.3%)
Mosquitoes 28,215 sorties, 100 lost (0.4%)
TOTAL 51,053 sorties, 675 lost (1.3%)
No. 100 (Bomber Support) Group
Halifax 3,383 sorties, 23 lost (0.7%)
Flying Fortress 1,465 sorties, 4 lost (0.3%)
Stirling 1,235 sorties, 13 lost (1.1%)
Liberator 615 sorties, 3 lost (0.5%)
Wellington 589 sorties, 1 lost (0.2%)
Mosquitoes 9,346 sorties, 76 lost (0.8%)
Lightnings 101 sorties, 2 lost (2%)
Beaufighters 12 sorties, 0 lost
TOTAL 16,746 sorties, 122 lost (0.7%)
Bomber Command also had a number of training units and many of these units despatched aircraft on active-service operations.
TOTAL 4,235 sorties, 133 lost (3.1%)
EDIT: A combined TOTAL 376,885 sorties, lost 8750 (2.32%)
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
Good thing we have the Nuremburg Code now, which stops brutal, unethical, authoritarian governments and medical establishments from forcing medical treatments on the world's populace without their consent.
"The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion, and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment."
So as long as we follow that to a T, tyrannical governments won't be able to use the medical establishment as an excuse to violate our rights or bring in some sort of near martial law for years on end.
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
You know why I only watch TIK now for Second World War history now on YouTube? Because he’s the only historian that I’ve seen/noticed actually include more than just history in his videos. TIK covers the politics, the economics, the philosophy, the sociology/psychology, sometimes even the religion into his history videos. Because history is not just ‘history’, it encompasses so much more than that. TIK not only does this, he does this in an unbiased manor. I’ll admit, when I first watched his videos I was sceptical - because it challenged my ‘mainstream’ knowledge and outlook on the Second World War - but I decided to watch another video as I was intrigued, then another, and another. Eventually I had watched all his videos, he has opened my eyes to challenge the status quo on the history of the Second World War, and every other point in history. For this reason, I can not recommend TIK high enough. Please keep up the excellent work, and the high quality, and thoroughly researched, videos!
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
I was born near Dresden and I live in Dresden and I was basically fed the Dresden myth since childhood. Dresden, the innocent city that was destroyed for no reason, when the war was already over, hundreds of thousands of people killed,the targeted machine gunning of fleeing civilians by allied aircraft, all that stuff was something you were told by your parents, your grand parents, your teachers (as early as elementary school), by everyone. It was something everyone just knew and that noone would ever bother to question, it was (and to a certain degree still is) a part of the Dresdeners' identity. And simply because it has always been a part of their identity many people here simply refuse to believe anything else, no mather what historians say and what evidence you show them.
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
i love these, day by day, blow by blow, superb videos, it's the only way to make sense of the 3000 mile? long farcical scenario that is the front line, the losses, the hard yards, the russian captain, buried alive, dying, blown conscious and leads a counterattack, this has to be the turning point
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
Your answers to this are really wise. It's not her fight and she reminds me of my younger self. I applaud how you are encouraging her to learn on her own, but you also give a strong reality check, as harsh as it is. You also use good humour in this as well.
The way the Gnostic Postmodernists (this is my placeholder name for the current Gnostics) won, was by not fighting at all, they won by subversion, so your advice: "The Game" and nudging, is the the best advice to give.
It's not the responsibility of 13 year olds to fight for truth, freedom, and all that. It's ours. I'm not a faith based person, I even called myself a materialist in the past because I believe this is the only world we got, but that understanding of reality, and kids like this teenager girl, tells me they deserve better than that crappy education.
I was lucky to have a History teacher, who was a war vet, falklands and Desert Storm, that taught me the truth about National Socialism, not sure how he got away with it, but he let me truly ask and learn.
That said. i've self learned most of my true knowledge so I endorse that advice TIK. You yourself have taugh me much, so even though your faith in humanity is dead. Let me try to be a necromancer for a bit and tell you, thank you for for teaching and guiding me to more knowledge. I hope to be one who can teach others, or use my knowledge to make things better.
Edit: my own literacy is terrible lately, forgive me for that.
21
-
21
-
21
-
My sincerest gratitude TIK, I cannot understate how astounding this video was for me. You opened up this topic for me and I'm very excited to start exploring this on my own. Please keep up your good work! I have a comment on one of the points that you made:
Regarding a point you made on 19:57, I don't beleive St. Augustine flat out rejected the "Book of Revelation" in the New Testement. From my reading of the source you provided, its seems that he only rallied against those people who impose gnostic interpretations of the book, namely the concept of the "Kingdom of God" being a literal eternal material utopia that can be created on earth by people. I would also like to note that I'm not rejecting the the main point that there are gnostic influences on Christian thought. So far there seems evidence for this, as you presented in your other points.
"There he roundly dismissed the
literal belief in the millennium as 'ridiculous fables' and then
boldly declared the realm of the thousand years to be the reign
of Christ in his church in the present saeculum that would
continue until the Last Judgment and the advent of the eternal
realm in the beyond." - Source: Eric Voegelin - p.109
Looking at the direct reference that was used for this from St. Augustine's work:
"The evangelist John has spoken of these two resurrections in the
book which is called the Apocalypse, but in such a way that some
Christians do not understand the first of the two, and so construe the
passage into ridiculous fancies."
Source: https://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0354-0430,_Augustinus,_De_Civitate_Dei_Contra_Paganos,_EN.pdf (The City of God, Book XX. Chapter 7)
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
I know the military that operates with a price system that TIK is proposing sounds crazy, but it's not quite as far-fetched as you might think. Post-Roman but pre-modern war in Europe largely worked this way. Look at Medieval and Renaissance warfare where knights literally had to pay for their own arms and armor. Their labor as warriors was owed to their lord as sort of primitive contract that paid for their right to collect dues on their manor lands.
Later in the Middle Ages, starting in Italy, armies became largely private and professional. Condottiero would be contracted by local city states to wage war on their behalf and these mercenary captains would hire their own soldiers who usually had to pay for their own arms and, especially moving into the 15th Century, were compensated on the basis of written contracts. Individual soldiers would frequently move to and from different mercenary companies based on their wage rates and were compensated based on their equipment and experience. There's a good video on Landsknechts by SandRhoman that goes into this a bit. It's pretty fascinating honestly.
It's admittedly very hard to imagine how these sorts of systems would work in modern wars, but to a large extent that's probably because modern wars are far less profitable for the people who are paying for them. And if I had to guess that's probably because the people who decide when and where to go to war nowadays are the not the people paying for them. Medieval and Renaissance lords paid for their wars with rents and dues that were viewed as their private property. If the war got too expensive for their liking, they'd break it off and negotiate terms.
In modern times the resources belong to taxpayers, but are managed "on their behalf" by elected or unelected officials who either way supposedly "represent" the people. Both Hitler and Stalin were dictators, but Nazi Germany and the USSR were not viewed as their demense from which they could personally derive revenue and that they could pass down to their heirs, but rather the property of the German People or the Workers of the Soviet Union on who's behalf they, the great and wise leaders, made decisions. It's always easier to spend someone else's money.
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
Losing your faith is painful, and people will go through lengths to justify anything to keep it. Because humans are a social creature, and they understand fully that it will mean they become more alone outside of the in-group. That's why almost everyone will sacrifice themselves to the organization they claim their allegiance to, be it religion, politics, company, or any other kind of organization.
I understand this very well, having done this journey not only once, but twice. The most recent being actually from socialism to libertarianism. The journey itself is cleansing, but i fully understand the reasoning of those that refuse to do it. It's a common trait, and a logical fallacy at that. (sunk cost fallacy) They're too invested socialy to the particular group. I don't know how many people i know that hate their job, with a passion even. Yet they stay.
They really don't understand freedom, nor do they understand independence, economy, politics, or pretty much anything. It's a condition coming from conditioning.
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
Actually TIK has been very measured as a historian. He’s taken fair scrutiny over the likes of Rommel, Hitler, Stalin, Chuikov, Zhukov, Browning, Richie, Cunningham, Auchinleck and (shudder) Pienaar based on evidence, and without taking sides.
His presentations are as good, if not far more thorough than just about any professional (ie commercial) production I’ve seen over thirty years.
A good example of impartiality is the video about the different statements of Market-Garden’s aims, as described by Eisenhower and Montgomery, and it’s fairly clear that Ike was more credible. So much for anti American...
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
A great compilation of information here and your overall argument of Hitler being an implicit Odin-worshipper is somewhat convincing, but I must criticise your understanding of the Germanic paganism these occultists drew upon. These topics require more primary sources, steering clear of someone like that amateur McCoy.
Tyr (pronounced "tee-yer" and not "ti-er") is not the "antithesis of Odin"; he is often mistakenly made out to be a god of law and order, based on a very tenuous link with a Roman inscription by Germanic mercenaries posted in Britannia, "Mars Thingsus", or "Mars of the Thing (assembly/court)", Mars being the closest equivalent to Tyr/Tiwaz. Tyr was worshipped as a god of war and self-sacrifice (he sacrificed his hand in the jaws of the growing Fenrir, a malevolent entity born of the trickster god Loki). He is the foster-son of Odin, a member of the Aesir rather than the Vanir--like Odin--and there really isn't that much distance between the two theologically.
"Tyr" as a word also simply means "god", which is why Odin is sometimes described as "farmatyr", "sigtyr", "hangatyr"; it's simply a style of naming within Eddic verse. Any of the Norse gods could be described as a "tyr", whilst Tyr is named such as a title, much like Frey, whose name isn't actually "Frey" which means "lord", but "Yngvi/Ing". Another example being Freyja, which just means "lady", whose name is actually something like Easter. Tyr's 'actual name' isn't known. So, the point at 37:06 doesn't really make any sense
I really would suggest binning The Viking Spirit, its got a lot of outdated info and mistakes in it, and McCoy isn't formally-educated on any of it and it shows!
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
Hello TIK, I have a question. In your older videos you mentioned that the big reason for going East was to implement full autarky, and that control of the vast resources of the East were vital to keeping the German war machine up and running, and that Germany could not wage a war of movement without oil. However, in this video you said that autarky "didn't work". How exactly would it not solve Germany's poor strategic situation? Sure, socialism did more damage than good, but autarky? It seems to me, at least, that the successful capture of the Caucasus would give Germany enough oil to keep the war going as long as she needs, provided that she manages to retain control over the oil fields and that they don't get destroyed. Furthermore, the Ukraine was supplying Germany with food, something which she desperately needed to avoid starvation thanks to the Allied blockade and the lack of foreign trade. Could you perhaps clear this up?
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
Allow me to swerve from the WWII-era German economy to current economic affairs that we all can see happening today (if we dare actually look) — It is about the condition of the United States economy (and by connection, the global economy, due to globalization)
It is important to understand that the Federal Reserve follows the economic policies set by the Federal government. The Federal Reserve is no longer a completely independent agency.
— Figures used are taken from the chart website used in the above video —
The US currency supply 30 Dec 2007 is a modest $1.4-trillion. On 31 May 2021, the US currency supply reached a whopping $19.2-trillion. On average, that is an increase of 100% per year, since the 2008 financial crisis. Putting that into even greater perspective, it is a mind-bending 1,300% increase in the US currency supply over that 13 year period. However, we find the largest jump in sheer volume when we look at the period, 13 January 2021 thru 31 May 2021. During this period, the US currency supply went from $3.8-trillion, and reached that whopping $19.2-trillion figure. This means the US government created $15.4-trillion — that's a 500% increase in only 5 months! Anyone that has taken Economics-101 will understand that such government actions will inevitably have adverse effects the economy.
Well guess what? There has been a very noticeable effect, and it is being felt right now by everyone in the United States. For the past few months consumer prices across the board have been slowly yet steadily rising. US Government economists claim the rising prices are only due to shortages in the supply chain caused by reopening the economy after the 1.5 year global pandemic shutdown. They also claim the prices will return to normal once businesses reach their pre-pandemic production capacities, and returning truck drivers start to once again deliver the increasing supply of commerce. When all this happens, the economy will be fine... you'll see.
I'm completely skeptical of these claims, because I have been waiting since 2008's financial crisis for the US economy to force a policy reset. What I mean by "reset" is the moment when one economic policy becomes moot, and is no longer applicable to the current economic situation, and a new and different economic policy must be developed and implemented to steady the economy, so it can recover. To borrow from Professor Mark Blyth's (google/YouTube him) computer analogy; think of the entire economy as a computer, and the economic policy that runs it as the software that operates it. At present, the computer is running on 40-year old software that has been periodically updated. But now, it appears that software is going to cause the computer to crash. A new economic policy (the software) is needed so the next iteration of the economy (the computer) can run smoothly again... for 40-50 years, when it should all happens again (because history shows that this does happen periodically, ~twice a century).
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
I was raised with altruism and self sacrifice to be ideals. I had a doting mother and an distant father. Depression and anxiety became difficulties in my adolescence. To deal with them I saw a shrink who basically enabled me to medicate the symptoms with prescription stimulants, tranquilizers and antidepressants. Later this would morph into illicit self medication with heroin which began during university and threw me out of sync with life and into jails, prisons and other institutions. Until my recovery 15 years ago, I was very left wing in my ideology. Today I am completely opposed to all leftist thought and doctrine. ..I mention this political shift because I believe it was the prime mover of my destruction, and shifting away from it was the catalyst for the recovery. You nailed it with the self loathing. It was an integral part of the self destruction and it is still a difficulty even after I've identified it as being only counterproductive. Looking back on it all I can see now that the depression and substance abuse were merely symptoms the warped worldview you are describing. ..However this was never addressed. Instead such symptoms were looked at as the root causes by any professional help I sought. None of which ever helped. It took me over 40 years to figure out what you are saying (more or less.) Don't let anyone tell you that what you are saying isn't extremely helpful. The one thing I would add to what you say is that it's important to realize that even the greatest thinkers are people and are prone to error whether it's A Rand, T Sowell, Buddha, Einstein or whoever they are still human. They have much help and truth to offer, but no one is complete or perfect in their thinking. And inversely, people like Marx, Lenin, Kant and other people you and I would consider mislead or generally wrong do have some accurate information to offer. People are not binary and holding either blind faith or absolute contempt of any person always to leads to disillusion. I hope this is helpful. Keep up the good work.
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
I was uncertain at first. On one hand, I thought it would be a nice bludgeon for me if Hitler was a Socialist, but on the other, I had been under the assumption that he wasn't for quite some time. However, I found myself using the phrase "Nazism was socialism for the Germans" when describing what Nazism was to others. This was already a tacit admission that the Nazis were socialists, so frankly, I wasn't really being honest with myself from before. The first hour was difficult to get through as there was a lot of logic and definitions to go over and I was listening rather than watching. But, by the 2 hour mark, it had became brazenly apparent that the Nazis were, in fact, Socialists, and I had found the remarks of them being capitalist to be absurd. When you started talking about "reprivatizing" I said aloud "Reprivatizing to who? Aquaman?!" (Of course, I had a sneaking suspicion that it was gonna be his own party members). To say I was convinced would be an understatement. I almost felt tempted to stop watching after you explained their ideology because it was so apparent. Yet, I stuck it out to the end, because I knew there was more.
I'm glad I did.
Honest to God, it's a real shame that something so obvious is also something so controversial and that this lie has been perpetuated for almost 80 years now. I just hope this video gets more traction, and that it breaks that 1 million mark soon.
18
-
I dont comment much TIK because usually I just enjoy simply watching your videos as part of my normal Monday routine. It's a luxury for me. I have a few things I look forward to on Mondays, and like anyone I don't like Sunday closing and a new week of work beginning but your Monday videos give me something to look forward to - just so you know really, I'm grateful for this.
I honestly don't dare if you make mistakes, your a person just as much as I am and we make mistakes, so what? Honestly... who bloody cares - it doesn't change my opinion of you or the work you produce, if anything it confirms how difficult it is doing what you do, which is completely something I understand and this is why I don't care that you might make mistakes sometimes.
Also, if you are getting depressed about something then telling us all is a good thing to do, you shouldn't hide that or feel bad about it, get it off your chest and find a close comrade to give you a hug, I would if I could.
And yeah I really don't envy you doing this stalingrad series, it's a monumental task and it will last the ages, at some point (if not already) your content will be used in educational systems around the world in history classes relating to WW2.
You have become a legendary youtuber and you deserve more subscribers, views, likes etc. You deserve sponsorships and whatever else is a good thing for you as a content creator.
Relax mate, you're always doing a great job. If you need to slow down, regroup and reschedule and compose yourself then take the time you need to do so.
None of us want TIK to be a casualty or go MIA.
I look up to you and I wish you the best. Look after yourself and enjoy what you do. I wish you well and your loved ones well.
Edit: I just signed up as a Patreon to demonstrate my support for this content - I guess this video convinced me to finally become a Patreon to someone on YouTube. Quite nice to be a little bit more involved now lol.
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
A note on the Anglo-Indian Army for non military historians. British ruled India had its own Army, it was actually the largest all volunteer Army of WWII (there was no conscription in British India).
Most, but by no means all, officers were British, with increasing numbers of Indians being commissioned as the war went on and by the end of the war there were at least two Indian Brigadiers. Newly commission British officers were generally posted to a British unit serving in India, for a while, before going to their Indian or Gurkha unit. Thus a British officer of the Anglo-Indian Army served with Indian, or Gurkha, troops for his whole career, learning the language and customs of his men and having little to do with the actual British Army, even though a large part of the British Army also served in India.
Generally a Anglo-Indian infantry brigade would have two Indian or Gurkha, battalions and one British battalion, most, but not all, artillery was British and later in the war, in Burma, there were Indian tank regiments ( as in Britain mostly former cavalry regiments).
By contrast the vast majority of Commonwealth officers, from Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada were part time reservists (although many had WWI experience) since none of those nations then maintained much in the way of regular forces in peacetime.
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
@TheImperatorKnight Tik, you have an EXCELLENT quote at 10:15 for your argument that Nazis were, in fact, socialists.
"... of the struggle which takes life from the individual to give life to the community."
This is the core tenet of socialism... the subjugation of the individual in service to the society/community.
It is the foundational ideology of, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." - Karl Marx.
That is, perhaps arguably, THE most "noble" tenet of socialism... the "justification" for everything they want to do, and the source of their perceived "right" to do so.
With this one statement, AH proves you've been right all along, that he WAS a socialist... while he also demonstrates the reason it is... "problematic".
You may not be aware of it, but Dr. Jordan Peterson studied the Holocaust, to see how it COULD happen... as well as the Soviets, gulags, etc.
The human "herd instinct" is a vital part of it... and YOU have addressed that, sort of, from your historical perspective. HE could add to it from a psychological POV... and hormonal... which of course impacts the psychological as well.
I HIGHLY recommend that the two of you do a live stream or something like that.
Briefly, though, with my limited understanding, there are 3 main hormones at play.
Dopamine - the body's "carrot"/reward.
Cortisol - the body's "stick"/punishment... (shame and guilt)
Serotonin - "hierarchy", social status...
Applying those to YOUR video about AH in the 30's...
AH kicked the Jews OUT of the "Aryan herd"... which made everything which followed more "tolerable" to the "Aryan" people.
(EXACT same thing, slightly different methods, that led to the Holodomor and Great Leap Forward, among other things... "Those who don't know HISTORY...")
From THERE, dopamine would naturally reward "good Aryans" for BEING "good Aryans", while cortisol would punish them for NOT being "good Aryans".
Then, as your own video pointed out, he made it impossible to BE "good Aryans" and NOT be evil to the Jews.
In turn, this brings the "hierarchy hormone" into action... further rewarding people for being evil with "social status"... within their own heads.
Likewise, it triggers a further internal reward for being evil to non-members of the herd... "sadistic glee"... or punishment (stress) for NOT being evil to them.
Likewise, it also explains a great deal about the differences in how the war was conducted between the Eastern and Western Fronts... because as you know, AH also demonized the Slavs (and Rom).
THIS is really going to trigger some socialists and SJW's... but...
ALL normal humans ARE "herd animals", BUT...
Socialism almost certainly is going to appeal FAR more to people who are usually more "agreeable" (the psych. character trait) while individualists are more likely to be repelled by it. Likewise, by BEING more agreeable, they are almost certainly going to be more SUSCEPTIBLE to it... and "brainwashing"... which explains one reason that they usually (always? almost always?) end up being so god-awful EVIL.
As you've pointed out SO many times, in order to accomplish their socialist "utopia" (goals), they NEED vast amounts of centralized power... which is then going to attract the psychopaths and sociopaths like flies to turds... and like Stalin and Hitler (and others), they won't stop at much (if anything) to climb to the top of the ladder to wield all that power... which is just another major reason that the "socialist utopias" devolve into evil and lead to atrocities.
Of course, those kinds of people will even kill their closest ideological rivals to PREVENT them from CONTINUING to be rivals... just as "certain" people in history did... here's pointing a finger at a certain guy with a small dark mustache, as well as "Uncle Joe", etc.
Damn... I can already see their heads exploding... and I haven't even hit the "reply" button yet... Well, here goes...
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
I love your videos mate, I myself, growing up here in the US, I was a liberal and a democrat in my younger years, and always believed the republicans and conservatives were the "bad guys" in politics or at minimum, not representative of my beliefs, my values, my views, my interests. Of course, this is before I learned who I was and what I personally stood for; only maturity and self-awareness could change this. And this was all before I truly understood and read about American history and politics, and surprise, none of my new realizations of how wrong and misinformed I'd been my whole adult life came from school, college, family or university, it came from doing my OWN reading and research, AND from actually speaking to actual conservatives and republicans, asking them questions and listening to their answers. I was open-minded enough to listen, to question, learn, to analyze, to re-assess, and accept new wisdom and new ideas. In the end I realized my former ideas and belief system were not based in reality, facts or common sense. I soon realized the truth about the democrats and the far Left in general and I became aware of their ongoing corruption and lies that have been spun since the progressive era, WWII, and since the civil war. Keep up the great work.
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
Definitely in for a treat this week, two videos, you're spoiling us.
For me, my journey in history started from birth. I was a brat, my father, my grandfather, my uncle, great uncle, numerous members of my family had or were serving and I was surrounded by it. I grew up on books, stories and movies that were related to history, especially military history. I went to parades, barracks, tattoos from such an early age it was bound to draw me in.
I did my own service when I came of age, i immersed myself in military life.
When I left and pursued a civilian career I kept a love for military history. Then since I moved to Finland, seeing how poor Finnish histrography is in English, I decided to attempt to help by doing Finnish Military History. But this journey has been like yours, it helps me improve myself. I see how I can improve my work life (I'm running a kitchen at present), how to deal with the unexpected, inspire my team, how to teach my son. How to be a leader that can effectively be the centre of his unit but also not need to be a hovering bee.
The accusations you received of being bias (I have had similar in my answering of history questions online or running my blog) is normally a good indication that you are pushing their cognitive dissonance. When you are accused of being Pro-Finnish, Pro-Soviet and a Nazi apologist in the course of a single article, you know that you are doing right and presenting information that rubs individuals up the wrong way and that aren't comfortable with confronting their entrenched but wrong beliefs.
I appreciate the time you take to create these videos, to help educate us, to dispel popular history myths. I wish I could do more to support you than my comments and likes but alas my own situation is difficult but the future is one of fluidity and so who knows what I may be able to do then.
Keep up the outstanding work.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
Another wonderful video. Why do I think your work is important, and so very useful? Because you diligently cite all your sources and quote other historians and historical persons involved directly. So when a rabid Socialist tries to bullshit you by saying "Prove what you are saying is true - you can't!", no, I actually CAN. I can point out all these hard facts and quotes you have dug up, and use the hard work you have done to refute these lazy, dangerous idiots. Thank you TIK, you are doing extremely important work, even if you sometimes feel frustrated and burnt out. This is so damn important because Socialism has become so popular amongst the historically illiterate and disenfranchised these days who didn't live through it's early horrors, and have no real frame of reference as to why it is so dangerous. The lessons humanity learned then are being forgotten, and so they MUST be constantly re-taught every generation or they will be repeated to the tune of economic collapse, dictatorship, genocide, and famine. The myth that history's biggest bogey-man, Hitler, was a Capitalist and therefore Capitalism is evil, needs exposed and taken away from the Socialists who try to use that bull to demonize Capitalism and push their ideas, and the fact that he was indeed a Socialist added to the mountain of evidence that Socialism always leads to devastating human misery. I don't want to live in a Socialist state with those horrors. Thank you for fighting this fight for my sake, and all our sakes, even though idiots must make it very unpleasant for you sometimes. Hope my sincere thanks and encouragement bolster your spirits.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
I think you are confusing political ideas with war needs. Most of the polices of all states during wars are done in the CONTEXT of war.
What hitler or the US did to try and win the war (supporting the established industrialist lobbies etc) was mainly done as a temporary concession to help the war effort.
But the POLITICAL plan in the long run was different. Hitler wanted to eliminate capitalist competition and put everything under the control of the state. That was not possible during the war for obvious reason, but hitler showed many times that he despised capitalist competition as he considered it a "jewish trick".
They got him in power? Yes but just because they wante dto use him as a tool. And hitler wanted to use them too. The same with Mussolini etc...Industrialists tend to search for a "strong man" in moments of need. That doesnt automatically mean that that "strong man" fits their political ideas. Cooperation doesnt mean anything. Thye had a common enemy: the Red socialists. That doesnt mean that Hitler was a capitalist.
"Nazi germany was not socialist" of course, because Hitler did not have the TIME and RESOURCES to do it. But that doesnt mean that his END GOAL was a socialist one. Look, Ill give you one simple exemple: what is the utopian exemple to follow in the minds of both Comunists and Nazis? ITs SPARTA. Why? because in the legend, Sparta is seen as a socialist state where everything works togheter as a single organism, where the State is EVERYTHING and the citizens exists in function of it. This shows how close Communism and Nazism were.
"hitler -socail democracy" not at all..where did you get this? Hitler hated democracy, he mentions it in the book and calls it "the dictatorship of the masses" or somehting like that. He despised Parliaments and voting, he wanted an ORGANIC STATE where the citizens worked togheter as one. As an hive. I dont understand where u got this "social-democratic hitler" from...
UK and US welfare policies were stop gap decisions to support the war effort, once again it doesnt mean anything...even Bismark in the 1800s put up welfare policies..he didnt do it because he was a socialist, he did it for convenience to stop the sindacalists and german socialists from taking too much votes.
The "common ownership" of the means of production in the USSR was a goal never achieved and its basically the same as in Nazi germnay. Hitler wanted all industries to be controlle dby the State tru the Nazi party, which is exactly what Stalin did with the USSR industries controlled by the Communist party.
Where do you see these "big differences"?
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
Hey TIK! Long time fan here and I do feel guilty for not being a Patreon of yours. I am struggling financially with this CPI being over 10% since JULY 2022! I will support your channel as soon as I get my side hassle going ("better be out of the system instead of in it"). I really don't want to find myself in 2030, being happy and owning nothing... definitely will never move to Oxford.
Nevertheless, keep on doing what you do. You are evolving and some of us are evolving with you as well, and crave for this sort of content. WWII is "nice" and all, but this sort of content is needed. I have the impression that you are explicitly being sarcastic with your "modern day" messages and for a good reason. Please focus less on the Woke crowd and more on the "Red Pill" and socialist people out there. You've been a socialist and you now know the cure. I am now sure that this is your calling. Don't give up, don't burn out, don't criticise the establishment and give us food for thought. You got this!
Thank you so much once again, TIK, and please keep a clear mind. Don't forget that you are addressing a lot of people that don't take the time to criticise you. The ones that are making all the noise are quite thin on the ground, don't let them trick you into believing that they are the majority. Even if I'm not a Patreon just yet, I am sure that the ones out there appreciate your effort. Good luck and have a great day!
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
except you're disregarding the fact that with Market Garden, it wasn't one armoured division, it was three army corps that were making the assault. The problem was that due to the fuel shortage issues, the other two flanking corps couldn't get their start at the same time so were always too far behind. The "plan" was a good plan and even the Germans thought so - the execution was screwed over by a) Gavin not taking his primary objective, causing XXX Corps to be left on the wrong side of the Waal for too long, and b) Eisenhower not having the balls to say to Bradley, NO, you are NOT going to have the use of half of IX Troop Carrier Command from the 17th to the 20th of September, so that we can drop ALL of the airborne elements on day 1 - IX Troop Carrier Command was created to drop the airborne troops, not to act as FedEx for 12AG, but that's what they were doing!!!!
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
If you're looking for a change of pace, consider going all out in a new direction. Have you considered a Pacific battle? Iwo Jima. Okinawa. Guadalcanal. Or naval, like Midway, Leyte Gulf or the battles off Guadalcanal. Or still WW2 and European, Fallaise Pocket? I'm stoked for Gazala. Loved your earlier work on North Africa. I, for what its worth, prefer the individual episodes vs the 3, 6, or 10 hour compilation videos. But hey, the stats don't lie, so if it takes dropping one 3 hour long video vs three 1 hour long vids to get the views, so be it. The content is worth it, no matter how it come out.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
Ok, these observations are brilliant, thank you so much for breaking the numbers down. I've been reading about Stalingrad and Operation Blau for forty years, and have not seen the simple, by Army Group #'s, replacement breakdown like this before. But maybe I can offer an explanation.
I don't think Halder alone can be scapegoatted here. I think I read,- memory hazy- that the German General Staff was very much of against pursuing Operation Blau, even when it was being considered by Army Group South as a single entity (wrong strategic axis entirely). Furthermore, as the plan evolved and split Army Group South into two, these two subsequent entities were ill-advised formations doing ill-advised work (from the point of view of the German General Staff) at the end of an extremely long supply line, different gage tracks, no petrol, and armored formations already out of gas, BEFORE the replacement issue you described so well comes up. As you pointed out, it took Paulus 2 weeks to be reinforced with the petrol he needed to keep moving. SO simple conclusion, they could get guns and butter, or bodies, but not both. And they were not well prioritized because:
Again- problem was that the strategic axis makes no sense even to a layman, forget a schooled staff officer- (Glantz does break this down somewhat in some diagrams, but does not address this issue specifically). The push SHOULD have been at Moscow, and not on the Southern Flank, extending AND SPLITTING the flank into areas of poor supply, infrastructure and reinforcement capacity. I believe Hitler made a political decision to push for Operation Blau, but this was about resource management (oil) and insisted on an operational/strategic focus that no one thought advisable- and I think his hand in turnj was forced by some fuel agreement renegotiations with the Romanians (from whom he's getting most of his oil at this point).
In other words, if you look not at German replacement rates, but German oil production and anticipated needs for this period, you'll understand why he wants to push at the oil fields. This is not post 1944 crazy Hitler, but the guy with the Big Picture still in mind.....But the German General Staff was absolutely not in agreement, and obviously they knew they could scarcely supply what was there to begin with. They weren't stupid, nor that slow to react if you really think about it.
In any large scale organization, reported losses from one quarter are then adjusted on the next. Many current corporations are too large and too many layers exist to react DAILY to what is going on. No army is that nimble. No one has that picture accurately, until the month is over and the tallies are added up. You cannot remake military replacement policy change in a month. So I think the Wehrmacht reacted as quickly, indeed quite quickly for an organization that would make Walmart look small, in a quarter, to the losses they projected inaccurately for. It was too little too late, but I don't think it was but two things: Institutional paralysis, and an overall reluctance strategically to buy into a 'plan' that was no 'plan' at all, but a reaction to a political (and strategic supply) need. Because as you point out, the replacement policy was inexplicably AWAY from the tip of the spear.
Lastly, and I think this might be also a point to consider-the Germans did the unthinkable in Russia, and they managed the early part of the war with, what by middle 1942, might be considered 3 reasonably experienced Army Group staffs.
Where did the 4th materialize from, or were AG A and B essentially skeleton halves of what was once AG South's command and staff structure? Either way, you would have had half the experience, doing twice the labor, on a front not well supplied to begin with, for a seriously compromised strategic direction, split in two, requiring accurate replacements and supplies would have been impossible. Rememer each AG might have somewhere between 200 and 500000 men, could have been considered the equivalent of most small countries entire armed forces, to be run on the move, in combat, thousands of miles from home. I doubt these were efficient formations, by German standards (meaning quite efficient compared to the rest of us).
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
Hi TIK. Your five hour marathon (or a reformatted thereof) should be a standard resource in every school. I got interested in economics and inoculated against socialism at an early age as I was forced to revise for my A levels back in 1979 by candlelight because the Labour government couldn't keep the lights on.
I've always had an interest in WWII because my father was in it from day 1 and subbed to your channel because of your excellent coverage of the various campaigns in Africa. Your conclusions as to the strengths and weaknesses of the leadership and politics in that theatre tally up exactly with what my father, who had been freshly promoted to captain prior to shipping out, and a number if his colleagues had say on the subject; often using very short words. In short, you are spot on with your analysis.
What I think of as your magnum opus was an eye opener for me. I mentioned in its comment section that it was, and still is, the best video on YouTube. Once you see it, no other explanation of the "why" makes sense. Always thought Halder was a bit of a to55er, but had otherwise bought into the "Hitler is a madman" narrative, with all the obvious contradictions that follow.
To th naysayers, read the Vampire Economy. Then try saying Hitler and his regime was capitalist. Then move on to Hitler's Beneficiaries. Then reassess your view on the entire conflict.
Many thanks TIK. Keep up the good work. Have you thought about publishing? The prodigious research you must have carried out must mean that most of the leg work is already done. If you ever get around to it, count on at least one pre order.
All the best, sir.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
Tik, this was interesting and informative as always. I sincerely love the way you challenge conventional thinking and take the discussion to primary sources. It's invaluable. Please forgive the length of my response, but it's been a long time coming and is a reflection of how much I value your work.
But honestly, I think your personal perspective takes you away from objective analysis of the situation - let's call that the primary analysis of these valuable primary sources.
If your goal is to say that Nazi Germany was socialist because it had a centrally planned economy, I can accept that. It's what they clearly did and it's one decent definition of "socialism." Let's ride with that.
Rhetorically speaking, however, the word "socialism" is highly problematic as it means so many things to so many people. I don't particularly find it useful any longer for this reason. The same can be said of "capitalism," a term that is used to describe free-market bottom-up systems as well as mercantile autarkies. There is a practical problem with both of these, as public discussion shifts far too easily between systemic approaches and ideologies that actually conflict.
I honestly think that there is a better way to view both Italian Fascism and German Nazism, which you wisely separate.
Before World War I, political alignment in Europe was organized along a left-right axis that could best be described as Whig-Monarchist. The package of enlightenment liberal ideas that made up the "left" was a constitution, various rights, and some liberalized freedom to do business apart from the state. The "right" was more centralized around the good of the state, defined primarily by the divine right of the monarch.
After the war, the "right" had no reason to exist at all. There were monarchists around, yes, and in Italy there certainly still was a king. But generally that position was disgraced. The idea that Versailles, et al, was a total victory for enlightenment liberalism reasonably did not set well with everyone, especially in nations that had little history of such a government in practice.
Enter Fascism and Nazism as a concept.
Divine right was replaced with "the people" as an organizing excuse for authoritarianism, but the primacy of the state remained in place. Central planning was less of a goal than an assumption, a retreat back to the days when monarchs weilded genuine control over everything. But with this new excuse it could be argued that it was all living up to the supposed zeitgeist that drove everything.
Your discussion of unions today drives this home, I think. It's not that they didn't exist, it's that they were co-opted and formalized into the state and frankly used in ways that were obviously counter productive to their genuine mission. There is no problem at all arguing that the Soviet Union did essentially the same thing, as does China today. It's for "the workers," yes? Or is it all for the state? Well, we made them one in the same so there's no conflict, problem solved.
As a way of analyzing history, this is useful. But it doesn't really teach us a lot for today. We can see all kinds of authoritarian regimes doing similar things in the name of "the people," but it seems far more useful to accept this as just an excuse rather than any useful ideology. For this reason, assigning this invention to anything with relevance in current politics feels like we are giving gangsters and sadists far too much heft by playing their game.
Strong central planning, as a concept, is an ancient idea that has always caused problems in the long run. It doesn't matter whether you do it in the name of God or the people. It is desirable only by scoundrels who, history teaches us, use ideologies as cover for their narcissism and theft.
That is not to say that there isn't a role for a state to genuinely serve its people, and that includes watching out for long-term trends that will affect them later in ways that the free market isn't pricing in today.
Modern economies are a mix of the only real political economic types - free market capitalism, autarky, and socialism. It's how they mix that is important and how information about potential changes is transmitted to the markets that matter. The free market thrives on good information, and a government that provides it only helps the market work better for the long term. Also, there is a place for a solid guarantee in the availability of basics like water, food, and energy. And yes, we can and should take care of the old, the young, and the vulnerable out of simple decency.
Where did the Nazis fit in this analysis? Well, there wasn't a free market. They had no decency at all, really. So it was pure autarky in an almost medieval sense. When you look at it this way, can you see why I think of it as a replacement for monarchism once the Kaiser fled to Holland?
I can say all of this and still thank you for your videos, as I really enjoy them. I even agree with you in a general sense. I simply feel that as we look at history and hope to learn from it that we do not allow ourselves to focus on any particular lexicon that has clearly changed meaning with time, especially terms that have so many different definitions today that they are hardly useful in conversation.
That's my problem with your analysis here. I could describe it as a quibble or a fundamental disagreement, depending on how many pints we had when discussing it. And that, my good man, is something I would absolutely love to put into practice.
Thank you again for your work. You sincerely make me think and that is the greatest gift anyone can give another. Cheers, mate.
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
Glad to hear too, but I think, and I know you've got a Mount Everest load of topics and subjects to cover already. A video on Hilter's loss of reality would be enlightening. As a Warhammer person, and a 40K guy, I've quite use to the idea, of massive big things happening, and the psychological impact of all that, happening and coming down on one individual, or a handful at most. Fiction stuff I know, but something like that would be illuminating. Just a thought.
Take care, and don't burn yourself out too soon. See ya next video.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
I am arriving VERY late to the party, which - given how educational, intellectually stimulating, and thought provoking the videos have been for me - is most unfortunate! So, it is with apologies that I share a few questions:
1. Would it be fair to suggest that the comparison between the purging of senior & junior officers in the Soviet Union, and the sacking of senior & junior officers in the U.S.A. is helpful, but quite limited, because the majority of new, young officers in the U.S.A. had the luxury of waiting between 1 and 4 years before they would be tested in battle for the first time? For the young, recently trained officers in the Soviet Union, they would be thrust into the most deadly war in human history all at once, without having the opportunity to learn from the battles occurring in another continent?
2. Were there great purges of senior & junior officers in the French Army prior to 1940, or was the rapid defeat of the French Army in 1940 due to the fact that it did NOT purge leaders who were stuck in a WWI tactical mindset?
Thanks!
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
This is TIK at his best, totally owning this discussion and this is from someone who hates some of TIK's videos, I hated the ''Churchill is an idiot'' and his over simplistic/condescending views of faith and spirituality and creation when he does take those topics on. However, regards deep politics and political ideology TIK is very entertaining, compelling, informative, controversial, logical and more, this is genius level, being overwhelmingly good in all categories. TIK owns politics and political ideology, probably economics as well. Very well done TIK, I almost didn't bother because I thought you seemed a bit condescending with very little strength of argument or real evidence in some videos. But I feel this is the only place for understanding politics and be entertained at the same time, cheers.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
We're screwed! The central banks have been printing tremendous amounts of money since 2008s housing bubble. The trillions pumped into the banking system to prevent its collapse didn't raise interest rates at all and even to this day interest rates are held artificially low by central banks and government intervention. When it comes time to pay the piper, and that time will come, it will have a most devastating on citizens. This Corvid-19 pandemic may just be the straw that brings the whole system down to where a total reset will be necessary on Capitalistic economies. Capitalism works, and the only government intervention should be to regulate to ensure unscrupulous people do not use the system to fleece money for themselves at the cost of the overall economy. The government's first thought should be of the welfare of it's population, as that is where their strength and power comes from, regardless of what type of government is in power. For capitalistic economies, laws to prevent predatory lending, derivative trading, etc. that can have private entities topple the entire economy should be the government's focus, and not manipulating the economy itself.
One of the adverse aspects of government intervention in the economy with the manipulation of interest rates caused banks to devise new ways to make profits. No longer could interest rates be used as a profit maker, at least not near to the degree it had done in the past. This caused them to get into the mortgage market and offer mortgage backed securities. When the mortgage market seen the demand unscrupulous mortgage brokers began pumping all kinds of crap into the system, leading to 2008. Unfortunately, it's not as simple as this, but books (plural) have been written to explain why 2008 happens. A good way for the common person to get a grasp would be to watch the movie, The Big Short, and the documentary/movie, Too Big To Fail.
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
Just finished watching this and your other video (Hitler's Socialism | Destroying the Denialist Counter Arguments), and I must say bravo. I have never watched any videos on youtube in the last 10+ years that actually cite all their sources (and now there is a whole pile of books I need to acquire, thanks).
One of the things you mentioned that I had never really considered until now (especially in light of the last several months), was your opinion that publicly traded corporations are actually socialist to some degree. If I were to plot them into your pyramid, I would guess they would initially be inserted into that transition zone, and move further up depending on how much material benefit they receive from the government directly. It's probably one of the reasons I have big aversion, and disgust for so-called "crony-capitalism", which based what I have just watched is basically a form of socialism (and why I don't like it).
I know it might not have it's origin's in WW2 (or it might...I have honestly no idea), but I would be fascinated if you did do a video on the origins of that term (crony capitalism), also if there is alternatives to supporting your work besides patreon (I am not a fan of that company, and have zero desire to give them any money).
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
I am not sure if you will read this. However I think I can answer your question about "how a Dialectic thinks". I was not personally one, but I feel I understand it. I will be using my own terms to explain it.
I think it's rather simple. This thought process is fundamentally based on an "emotional" logic. You are right in that those who are in the cult. Do not think for themselves, for they have been swept up in a new form of thinking entirely. Emotional logic, or rather, emotional subversion. Here is how it works: They are presented with something that seems "profound" or "altruistic" or "just". This then triggers the emotional response that this is "good". For example, communism is "good" because on it's surface it is about redistribution of wealth. it is about tearing down the old social order in favor of one that "remakes" the world in a way where all are equal. This, and the language around it. Are presented in such a fashion that they trigger emotional responses in the person who is listening/reading. Since the dialectic is being used to turn off the rational logical side of the person's thought (keep in mind I am not necessarily saying the ones falling for this are idiots, in fact many are intelligent).
This is how Hitler was so effective. He would pair his claims, his words, and his beliefs with "profound" ideas, and would use extravagant methods to frame them. Simple things like how he "was inspired not by intellectuals" but by "the people or volk". That the youth of the future would not be hounded by "class division". They those who joined the NaSoc regime would find "purpose" in the nation and in the race.
This, in the mind of the one who does not think about what he is being told. Is usually powerful enough to convince them of the "rightness" of these ideas. They are emotionally subverted and convinced. All without truly needing to speak clearly about what they are actually saying. This is why, as you said, many dialectic prophets are bad at writing. Since the means they have to convey their ideas are done in a way that reduces the glamour of their words. They must speak in even more flowery terms to try and convey the emotional "idea" rather than the logical "meaning".
I hope this sort of conveys why this is so strange. To someone who digests what they read and hear before accepting it. This all sounds insane. To the person who is emotionally subverted however. These ideas can be sound and sensible. Then, the dialectic prophet equips those who have been subverted with their own internal logic. Cult like vocabularies they can throw at whoever speaks against them. Since the people outside the cult will be utterly confused. This can come across as victory, as a triumph.
I hope this kind of helps explain how I see it. Perhaps you could put it in better words than I. Thank you.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
To be able to argue on YouTube, of course.
Joke aside. Primarily because it is a good exercise for a brain. I am a physicist and the bulk of my work is creating models and predicting outcomes based on various input variables. So when you are discussing a single event in history it is never A->B, it is more like an entire tree of events and decisions over sometimes centuries that led to something. So it was really interesting for me to go and look for all the little details, creating a model.
Then, for a military history in particular, it was a love of chess and strategy games. Never really gave me the depth I required so when I turned to real world history, I was satisfied. When you come to the point where you discuss some operation but your first thought is "logistics" instead of type of weapons they carry, you know you've hit the level required. Because once again, that higher level of thinking, required to model complex things like a huge front, is what gets my brain wheels turning and makes me happy.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
There's no difference between Socialism and "National" Socialism. Socialism is Socialism regardless of who is part of any particular Socialist group. Your point (@dr1flush) that everyone has a right to participate has no bearing on what socialism is in and of itself. You may want to call it "National Socialism" because Hitler wanted his country to be for "Aryans" only, but my question now is: do you even know what "Aryan" means? To apply it to Hitler's opinions now shows that you really don't know what it means--who the term refers to. And if Hitler had known he probably would have avoided using it at all for his "super" race ideas/concepts.
Also, regardless of what your university "professors" have taught you, Socialism is one of the worst governmental systems (in its pure form) ever conceived because it ignores human nature completely. You cannot do that and really believe whatever your concept is will work. There is no organization or group of any size that will function as you might think it will if you ignore human nature in conceiving it. Humans will ruin any and every good idea you come up with at some point or other. All you can do is choose the best of them and then fight back hardcore against the dark parts of human nature and/or design them into your potential governing system. To date, the best working system is Laissez-faire capitalism, not the watered-down form of it we all now live under, which was slowly forced on us through rampant unethical bureaucracy (sadly unforeseen by the founding fathers of the United States) and through individuals that want to use Socialism/Communism (they are both Marxism, so don't try to tell me they're different--they aren't different in any way that matters in real-world terms) to control all of us on this sad planet.
Socialists teach socialism because they want power, not because it is a worthwhile system. It has never worked and it cannot work until everyone on the planet chooses it because they believe in others that they don't even know. Without that belief and trust in all others (particularly those pushing for that kind of state) those with any influence in the "party" will begin to lord it over any and everyone as much as they can. You've heard the idiom: power corrupts; absolute power corrupts men and women absolutely.
No. I won't apologize for not including any other genders in that statement because despite what the idiots in your university classes have taught you, there aren't any others (well, except maybe, just maybe there's a hermaphrodite gender. Gender is not a mere psychological concept, it is also a biological thing and biology doesn't care about your mindset or feelings (maybe scientists do so they can learn more about the human mind and brain). You and your "professors" and all the trans folks can claim that their mental illness is a real thing all they want. That will never change the truth. You cannot change your sex regardless of how you feel inside, so get a handle on your feelings and stop allowing them to control your thinking because "that way lies madness." You may think you can have a sex change, and sure you can but that kind of surgery is being pushed by the AMA and other morally corrupt elements in our society just so they can make money from you for the rest of your life. Because without those hormones, no surgery will help you be who you think you are. These are lies disseminated throughout our society literally by "the forces of darkness" who don't give one single shit about you or your gender dysphoria.
I agree that your feelings are valid, but so are mine and I refuse to allow my feelings to dictate my actions because that is the stupidest way to interact with the world. The appropriate way is to think about your feelings and push most of them away from your mind and thinking because they aren't valid and should not be acted on. Acting from your feelings alone can lead to incredible violence, which is exactly what Hitler and his supporters did. They acted in the worst ways based solely on their feelings. You are not always right, your party isn't right, your group isn't right... no one and no group is right 100% of the time. That's why we need real discussions, not immature word battles on the internet (and elsewhere) because no one wins those. Everyone loses arguments made in bad faith, with only the idea that you and you alone have the right idea and no one else does. Unless they agree with you. If our ancestors thought that way we wouldn't even exist, particularly if you believe in evolution. We would have either destroyed ourselves or our environment would have destroyed us because we didn't listen to any discussions and only one person made all societal decisions, because no one on Earth is perfect and everyone makes mistakes. People do things that are mistakes all the time and think nothing of it.
tl;dr: Grow up. Think. Debate. Confront others when you question their thinking. Stand up for freedom of speech, not for forcing words into the mouths of others. I'm done now.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
I used to be an AnCap, and you summed up perfectly some of the reasons I no longer am one. I think the desire for it is understandable to someone who has just recently taken the red pill. (realized they've been lied to the State Education system, the Statist Media, and realized excessive State power has been one of humanities greatest historical enemies)
I became an ANCAP at 18, and started distancing myself after I got into some nasty arguments with Libertarians, and started to see that some of these people are completely insane. I've always had some degree of respect, and a soft spot for combat veterans, because my family has a long history with the military.
One of my Uncles was in Afghanistan, a Nephew died in Afghanistan (both him and my Uncle joined becauseof 9/11), my grandfather served in Vietnam, my Great Grandfather, and a very old distant Cousin (he was brother to my Great Grandfather) both served in World War II. One was a Marine who fought in the Pacific, and the other was Army Paratrooper, he fought in Europe.
I've seen PTSD tear otherwise good men apart, along with their families. Something that I started to notice amongst AnCap/Libertarian spaces after some time aligning myself with that camp, was this Anti War attitude. While I consider myself Anti War (at least Anti Offensive rather than Defensive War), this attitude bled over into a hatred, or at least general disregard for Veterans, and the Military.
While I think there is a lot to be criticized about the Military as an institution, at least as the US Military exists right now, and I becmae a lot more open to hearing them, I could never bring myself to disregard, or hate Veterans like some of them did. I had no problem with disregarding the Police, I was thoroughly in a "F*ck The Police" mindset at he time, because I figured "Cops aren't our friends, that means they are all our enemies!" But of course if someone took this attitude with the Military, I changed my tune. I don't hqveany Cops, or former Cops in my family, so of course this was easy for me.
I eventually got into a particular venomous argument with a Libertarian, who said my Nephew deserved to die in Afghanistan, because he was just a hired Statist Mercenary, who was sent over there to kill children. I told him "First of all, he didn't kill anyone, he died during his first tour. Second of all, I know you can't be this much of a heartless piece of sh*t, and not be extremely miserable. Maybe the Military will straighten you out lmao." I said that last part just to screw with him, I didn't actually believe there was any good reason to join the Military then. I still don't right now, but for a moment I wanted to reach my hand through the Phone screen, and knock his teeth out.
I took a look back on some 9/11 footage last year, and I remember seeing Police Officers running into the building to help people, and I started to think to myself, "A Police Officer might ruin your life, by sending you to prison for Cannabis possession. A Police Officer might also run into a burning building to save your life." I also remembered a video I saw of a SWAT Officer performing CPR on an infant some time before that, and I remembered that Kyle Rittenhouse wanted to be a Cop himself, before the night in Kenosha.
I started to consider my attachment to Veterans in my family, and how someone might feel over a Cop in there family (especially one that lost his life), and my opinion on Police started to lighten. I didn't think viewing them with such a black and white, "us against them" lens, was right, nor very good for me. Hatred eats away at you, and I can tell you that some self proclaimed AnCaps/Libertarians are filled to the brim with it.
My opinion on the Military as it stands go like this,"The institution is corrupt, it wastes a lot of taxpayer money, it's funded by our taxes which are forcefully taken from us, but I can't bring myself to hate Veterans. They are typically just young people who were fooled into jumping into the meat grinder. They were then chewed up and spat out by our Government, and were just expected to be able to just readjust, and they get spit on in their own homeland, but heartless, self righteous scumbags."
My opinion of the Police goes like this, "Our entire justice system needs to be reformed, and no Cop is truly our friend. Perhaps they aren't all of our enemies either, and they are still human at the end of the day."
I'm not an AnCap for other reasons now, I believe that the State should at least be wittled down to a great extent, before we start to consider getting rid of it entirely. However that is the main reason, why I started to distance myself from those labels, and beliefs somewhat. Marxists have a problem with tribalism, they have this "Us against them, if you aren't with us, you are against us" attitude. Inevitably that leads to them eating each other as some put it, "You aren't a radical enough Communist, Fascist swine!"
Libertarians have the same problem, ironically enough for a bunch of people who believe in Individualism. "Oh your new to Libertarianism, and you aren't quite sure about legalizing all drugs, including the most deadly ones yet, because your cousin died of a Heroin overdose? Well obviously that's just because you aren't a real Libertarian, you Statist swine!" I do believe all drugs should be made legal by the way, but I can understand why someone who is new to Libertarianism might not.
I believe in the core principles of Libertarianism, the Non Aggression Principle, Individuality over Collectivism, everyone is born free with inalienable rights, most of which are laid out in the Bill of Rights, etc. I don't call myself Libertarian anymore, because so many Libertarians, have fallen for some of the same tribalist poison, that the Marxists fell for.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
So I watched the whole video TIK and Axiom and since you asked us what we think, I've summed it up:
1) I DEFINITELY love the format and would want another TIK-Axiom chat.
2) I really, REALLY, REALLY agree with TIK on the How-I-Know-I'm-Right point. This method, accepting fallibility, looking through sources and presenting arguments is something I truly approve of. I don't know philosophy but I am interested in religion. For example, with this method (looking at the order in the Universe, the Prophecies of the Old Testament, the witnesses of the Apostles and the claims of Christ in the Gospels) I came to the conclusion of Christianity.
3) As a teacher in a Government school I really liked Axiom's Education comment, and let me give another example. A few weeks ago we taught Medieval castles to the kids and instead of boring them with studying-by-heart details I dedicated the lesson to problem-solving skills, namely terrain I should and should not build a castle on. I really liked the kids (12 yo) thinking about water sources, clearing trees for maximum visual effect, heating and high ground!
4) Stick to Comic Sans :D
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
Love ya TIK and I love every time you talk about this topic because it gives me better understanding and better capability to refute the anti-free-market folks, but I also will say I think your attempt to refute your opponents is rarely going to work, not to say not to try or that you won't break the hold of the evils of socialism, but most of them aren't socialist just because they don't listen to others. Its because they're mentally ill, deranged, or otherwise indoctrinated without any individualism, most socialists are a subject of what Yuri Bezmenov described, where they are so indoctrinated they can't ever possibly think of separation from their obsession where even the boot on their neck would not convince them that they are wrong. This is most especially because of the government's intervention into schooling and the corrupt nature of education systems since the late 1800s where they became "publicly funded". The government wants more power and control, Keynesian economics and socialism gives them more power and control, so they've devised manners to indoctrinate people in such a way that they can't even understand basic language without that indoctrination, it becomes a core part of their identity and thus they are inseparable from the indoctrination. This is why they get violent to opposition and why they refuse to listen. Some people are not susceptible to this like you TIK, who seemed to be more confused by the indoctrination instead of being indoctrinated, or me who was always opposed to listening to the school's indoctrination (I always considered it worthless and thus did not listen) from an early age (which were caused by plenty of other issues and came with its own share of problems) however for those who aren't of such mindsets, that being the majority, this message will at best drive those who see it insane. Some individuals thus cannot be saved from themselves.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
Thank you, TIK, for all the detailed analysis you do.
For a number of years, I've worked to put faces of individuals to the cold, impersonal statistical numbers of dead soldiers and civilians during WW2. I do this using German sterbebilder (Catholic funeral cards). One of the hardest things I've encountered is identifying potential units to events and places of death. Unless you are family, you cannot get this information from German Archives.
So, dear friend, through your incredible work, I am better able to link events for some of these individual's final day, and occasionally the regiment / battalion / army they served with. Again, thank you very much!
“Only the dead have seen the end of war.” ― Plato
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
I am always confused by naval warfare. I have seen a few documentations about the pacific war, mostly American and Japanese action, with similar issues, so clearly this isn't unique. Is it really that hard to give non-misunderstandable reports at sea? How do people just decide not to report other ships? You'd think that is special on the seas to see someone else. I am more familiar with airial combat, where every fucking button press is reported, at least in comparably modern time. In most situations each rocket, engangement, radar contact is cleared with AWACS, etc. I know there is a fog of war, especially earlier in technological development, but all the more important to actually inform each other about everything so that sensible plans can be made.
Like if you think friendly ships are comming, you'd still want to report that, since they should not be fired upon or driven into after all. If you don't know whether the convoy (you are supposed to drive north of) is south of you, aside from tracing the direction of the call for help, why not ask? They clearly reached you about it. If you see shots south of you, and south of you is German occupied Norway, how do you just assume, that's "Russians"? If navigation is this crap, how do you ever manage to actually find a port? If you do not know who is friend or enemy, why would you just plain disengage. Why not fire warning shots, scare away the enemy, if your goal is mostly to get your convoy through, it's not like you absolutely need to kill every enemy ship. But just driving along seeing what you know is a superior enemy force destroying your escort and possibly merchant fleet. I don't get the logic.
10
-
10
-
So there was never a moment where Sixth Army had a realistic opportunity to break out. For that matter, there was never even a slim chance.
Not that I'm shedding any tears for Paulus, but the blame that was laid at his feet for the remainder of his life was apparently unfair. The implication, created by Manstein, that Paulus was overly cautious, seems to have had no basis in reality.
It reflects badly on Manstein that in his own memoirs, he created this narrative to make himself look better, when the truth was simply that Manstein had failed to reach Sixth Army. Yet that failure was not due to incompetence, the task before Manstein was basically impossible when one looks at the forces available to Manstein, the Soviet forces in his way, the terrain, weather, supplies, and distance he had to cover. Manstein should have made that clear in his memoirs, but that would have required admitting that the Soviets had soundly defeated the Wermacht in the Stalingrad campaign, and that there was nothing the Wermacht could do about it. I suppose it is much harder for a retired military leader, writing his memoirs about the most consequential campaign of his career, to admit one was defeated by a bitter enemy than it is to imagine that one was let down by a fellow Field Marshal, but that certainly doesn't absolve Manstein for lying in his memoir.
10
-
The Allies (USA) were also, as they had (before the war) to Japan, supplying ALL of the Soviet Union's "hi-test" gasoline additives (i.e.: lead based); thus, high octane aviation fuel for Soviet high performance prop propelled aircraft was only available through deliveries from the west. Remember how Japan reacted when we cut off those supplies in '41? Greg* discusses the differences between low octane and high octane performance-and what nations had access to the necessary components- in detail.
In short, it's all about the maximum power delivered through raising the manifold pressure. Too hot, and you get knock/backfires/predetonation, all of which severely and negatively affect engine efficacy and longevity. Lead additives (the reason why we have/had leaded and unleaded gasoline/petrol-remember?), Water, MW, injection is all about keeping the manifold HEAT down so it can be operated at higher pressures, delivering more power per stroke. Only the USA had lead additives. Germany used MW: 50, et al, to the same purpose. Japan was headed toward avgas disaster the whole time. It's a major reason why she made war with the west.
Here's Greg's channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCynGrIaI5vsJQgHJAIp9oSg/videos Greg "sticks to planes and cars". Hehe.
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@TheImperatorKnight If, for example, you work in a hotel, there is a staff hierarchy. At the bottom KP's in the kitchen, cleaners, chambermaids, cooks, chefs, etc., with receptionists at the top, all on different wages, and with incentives to work hard and progress up the ranks. With the introduction of the minimum wage those at the bottom got a pay rise, but those at the top found that when the minimum wage rose to match their current wage, they didn't get a pay rise. Basically wage differentiation went out of the window with the introduction of the minimum wage in the UK.
So when an employer offered "minimum wage" it effectively was a maximum wage and back door communism.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
These make me wish TIK had done World at War, when I was growing up. I mean, Lawrence Olivier was knighted, but, he's not Louis, and BBC, can't touch this. Anyway, what I meant was, thanks, man, whoever you are... this is great WW2 obsessed youtube. Exceeds in detail any of the dozens of S-grad docus I have ever seen, and helps make it unnecessary for me to learn to read history, or play war games. Love this stuff!!
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Finished and I've got a few things in my head:
1: Chuikov's repeated requests for withdraw from Stalingrad and his ego in his memoirs: If he had kept thoughs in his memoirs I'd have more respect for him as a person. He was only human, and trying to cover up his (not the right word to use) "errors" at the time does little for him in my opinion.
2: The shooting of his officers was a needed action if he was going to hold on: He took the right approach that if he couldn't go, then no one could. - Speaking as a 40K person, but this is a somewhat normal behaviour and approach in the Imperial Guard. Not all Regiments require it, but it is a recorded necessity when fighting & holding off the grimdark stuff that take place there. And it being necessary in this situation, highlights I think just how much of a make or break situation it was for the Soviet Union. And again. Officers being shot, not rank & file troops. Although some of them did get it.
3: I found the 650th Regiment crossing a little interesting in that, the Germans were trying to bomb and bombard the Soviet crossings at Night. Think I'm missing something on this, but I think its a somewhat wasteful use of much needed ammunition for the Germans. If they were using flares, that would help and explain them trying. But I believe I am missing a relative detail here.
And 4: The German manpower crisis. Good god Luftwaffe! You can't win a ground war without the Army! Air planes can't hold or take ground! And initially, when Paulus was planning to strike into Chuikov's remnants in the south with the Panzer Divisions, I was initially. "No! And with What!?" As the German units really needed reinforcing, rest & support before even thinking of going in. But with the ammo supply situation going on behind the lines.
This is make or break with everything we have. Final turn on some board or video game where you just have to through everything you got left, even the kitchen sink and try to win. If Chuikov can somehow hold on and break this assault, the battle is winnable. If Paulus'es drunk, depleted and exhausted troops can win this.
Well enough said and had to get this all out of my head before I forgot some bits & bobs I was thinking.
Some key things here I know I'm missing, but heck, this is a bloody day.
"Make or Break" really needs to be the next episode title of this offensive. If "most critical day" is the first, then the next one should be 'Make or Break', or whenever this is more appropriate. Heck of a day in Stalingrad for sure.
9
-
9
-
9
-
Hi TIK, this Ike vs Devers was a great posting. It really goes well with the approach espoused by you in your previous video “But how do you know you’re right?”
Why? Because one of the most interesting questions is not just the dates, troop strengths and timing, etc. but rather if the attack across the Rhine in Dever’s area would 1) have been successful in Dec 1944, and 2) if it would have shortened the war in Europe (and thus saved lives, etc.)
And your answer to these two questions based on your approach to History were: 1) Maybe but with strong risks including a successful German counterattack. And 2) Almost surely not because no real strategic objective (Ruhr or Berlin) would be reached to knock Germany out of the war.
(In addition, your statement on Ike and his lack of clarity in orders was a particularly useful way to see this inter-US military discussion.)
An addition to your approach could be to compare the situation under study with other similar situations. For Devers potential attack and the German reaction, I think an example would be the Soviet first Jassy–Kishinev offensive which was counter attacked successfully by the Germans and Romanians. Four Months later the Soviets were successful with their offensive in same zone and Romania switched sides to the allies.
For the use of the broad front approach that Eisenhower generally favored ,including clearing out all German pockets west of Rhine, and building up overwhelming logistical support before proceeding, case in point the Colmar Pocket on the west of the Rhine which Devers forces had to clear. The comparable situation on the Soviet side may be the 5 months pause between Operation Bagration and the subsequent Vistula – Oder offensive. The pause allowed the Soviets to cleaning up their flanks of effective German resistance, replenish their troops, repair their armor and artillery, and get their logistical situation to peak preparedness. This again was a broad front approach to get ready to push to a strategic target, in this case Berlin. A similar pause also happened over the 6-month period in W. Europe (that Ike commanded) between about October 1944 and February 1945. So, this strategy by the Soviets was successful in Poland, and would also be successful for the massive crossing of the Rhine in March 1945.
This approach of comparison with similar other situations in WW2 is an effective way to also strengthen an argument about history such as this one you covered in your Ike vs Devers. You may consider this in future videos since you have such a broad knowledge of WW2 so you can find good parallel situations to compare and contrast.
Keep up the splendid work for us, your viewers!
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
16:30
How I imagine this went down
Yeremenko: "Well okay, first off- great work, you've obviously put a lot of work into this.
General: "Okay?"
Yeremenko: "And it, you know, it shows. It really shows. But I've been thinking, and maybe we should just blow it up."
General: "Is there more?"
Yeremenko: "Nope, nope. I guess... er... that's it. Just blow up the bridge"
General : "Just would have been nice to have heard this sooner, before we spent all day on it-"
Yeremenko: "Well, I just heard about it too."
General: "But you ordered it!"
Yeremenko: "Right, I did and I, uh-"
General: "I'm just saying, next time put more thought into it, before our whole day-"
Yeremenko: "Oh well I'm sorry I made you do your JOB for a FUCKING DAY! You all looked REAL busy before I came!"
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
Definitely an appt video at present.
6 months ago the Finnish Government were asked would they conduct an official investigation into the Finnish Battalion of the Waffen-SS. Last week the investigation was started and it is expected to take until October.
When the news released the article, so many people jumped up and down, screaming revisionism, liberals, twisting history, witch hunting etc.etc. (along with the typical and expected anti-Semitism and deflection upon Soviet war crimes). I made the 'mistake' of explaining why this investigation is a good thing and had to happen and why anyone who supports Finland and its history needs to support it.
Finnish historiography has gone with the claim that the Finnish Waffen-SS troops were innocent of war crimes, this has been the line since the end of the Second World War, and so far no evidence has been shown to dispute this. However,there hasn't been a deep look at that, indeed, some diaries have appeared showing that some Finnish Waffen-SS men witnessed atrocities (something that was part of the original narrative as not occuring). There is only one major study on the Finnish Waffen-SS Battalion but its focus was on its formation, training and combat record, not upon the conduct of the individual.
In 2008 the Finnish Government supported an investigation into PoWs and Internees of the Finnish during WWII, something that Finnish Historiography rarely looked at and the standard line was Finland was innocent of any wrongdoing. The investigation revealed that Finland did fail in its responsibility to care of PoWs and Internees, that it managed the situation poorly and even wrongly at some points. The information changed(revised) Finnish Historiography but it didn't change the other facts, it didn't bring down Finland or any other doomsaying stuff, no, all it did was give new evidence and allowed historians to talk about subjects in a more correct and proper manner.
The original talking point was the 5th and 6th Waffen-SS Divisions committed no war crimes, this was seen as true and used by some as an example of Waffen-SS innocence (a different subject entirely). But recent investigations has shown that this isn't the case.
If Finnish Waffen-SS troops are innocent, then this official investigation will support that and the current narrative doesn't change but is strengthened. If Finnish Waffen-SS troops (either as individuals or as a unit) committed war crimes, then we can talk about it in a mature and proper manner, we can deal with the material as a historical subject. It opens up new paths in the subject.
Revision isn't bad. It can be hijacked (but there is technically another word for that type of revisionism) but the majority is just helping to flesh out and make right the historical narrative.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Especially after 38 minutes this video became extra interesting for me. About the bombardment of Nijmegen. I agree with authors' view points and findings.
My parents, who both underwent the bombardment of Nijmegen on February 22nd 1944.
My grandparents, living outside Nijmegen, had to wait who came out alive (siblings of my father and mother and one of my grandmothers were also in the city). After years, me being a child, you could still sense the tension in their voices when they talked about it.
At my mother's school, 22 children were killed. She once said nuns were clinging on to the gutter of the schoolbuilding, their clothes burning, before falling to their death. My mother, with other girls, was at the start of the bombardment on the attick of the schoolbuilding making home work. When they ran down the stairs, the stairs were literally crumbling behind them.
My father saw villa from a practitionar (huisarts) explode after a bomb hit, debris and bodies were flying all over the place.
My mother seldomly talked about the bombardment, even at heigh age it was too emotional for her.
My father indeed said the bombardment was a mistake and forgave the Americans.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Merry x-mas holidays and a happy new year TIK!
Born in Switzerland, I am a 1/2 French 1/2 German speaker and have passed a good part of my life living amongst the French (might even have a passport somewhere in a box).
I just wanted to give you some "insider advice" when it comes to talk about France, the Free French and their Relation to Vichy:
It is very important to know that there is a very strong "filter" applied when you look at this through the lens of history written for and by English speaking nations. Unfortunately, this filter is "visible" in this very interesting video.
I got aware of this phenomena the first time I saw a French made documentary about the liberation of Paris. At school in Switzerland, we have very much the US/British version of WWII when it comes to history. So, watching this French documentary, I was astonished to the point that I went checking if it was really about the same event! I don't say that the French have it all right and the Brits all wrong - as usual the truth is somewhere in between. Hearing a British Historian talking about the Free French makes me often think of this Churchill quote " History will be kind to me for I intend to write it."
So, I think, the hole context of Charles de Gaulle, the Free French is a very interesting one and I would love to see more of it coming from you since you are not running after the usual suspects but want to get it the way it happened. However, if you want to cover it with the quality we are used to see from TIKhistory, I strongly suggest that you have a good look at French sources (there is a lot, but not so much translated) or ideally look for a cooperation with a French youtuber.
Keep the good work going!
8
-
8
-
8
-
George Orwell wrote in 1944:
...the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else ... Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathisers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
An aside on the topic of minimum wage: It's also mainly a punitive lobbying tool. You mentioned it off-hand, but a lot of people don't realize that, like with any other government intervention, there are effects far and beyond the raw externalities that economists tend to focus on.
Minimum wage was consistently advocated by industry, in particular, from fields of industry with high yield per employee. Contrary to public perception, the largest lobby for minimum wage was also "big business." Businesses that hire huge quantities of people (service sector) have marginal profit margins per employee. They make "millions/billions of dollars," but only make $100k-200k per employee - prior to expenses, prior to variation in wages and role within the company, etc, that leaves a very narrow raw profit. Hiking up minimum wage would force a reduction in # of employees (complicated by COVID but happening), radical business model restructuring (already happening), raises in fees and prices (happening), and business collapse (happening in areas with the highest local taxes or most expensive transport networks).
Since 2010, most tech firms can afford to pay every employee 10x-15x the minimum wage and still turn a profit, while retail has a safety margin between 1.0x-1.4x before deficit or price hikes. This is why tech executives and investors accrue so much money, so fast. By crushing down on narrow margin "goods and services" companies, they can poach services that would normally be procured locally. By leveraging unregulated automation (via the internet) they can bypass the regulation of human capital that everyone else on the planet has to deal with, creating an absurd leverage over local business.
Amazon is a major current driver, essentially trying to use minimum wage as a wedge to collapse "big chain" supermarkets by forcing price hikes or into outright closing locations, to drive more market-share to digital shopping. To make things worse, tech's incredibly profit margin per employee also means more money to lobby - Amazon makes only 110bn but spent 10 million on lobbying, Walmart makes 560bn but spent only 6.9 million on lobbying. Both revenue figures are prior to expenses, so it's plain to see that Amazon has much more free money per dollar earned.
Other tech companies are invested for the same, more cynical motivation that industry had, which is simply public opinion manipulation. If they are seen promoting "the public good," that takes the heat off the incredible profits on the backs of ignorant consumers, the willfully overpriced/obscelescing goods, the manipulative marketing tactics, the political meddling, the use of foreign labor often in sweatshop conditions, etc., things that normally rile the public up. By making "minimum wage" the definition of pro-worker government intervention, it serves as a simple red herring to keep their business models safe from meddling, while punishing businesses they directly or indirectly compete with.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
See lots of programmed fools in the comments. "You're pro-this" "No, you're pro-that" going around alot with plenty of excuses and attempts at justification. But here's the truth, nobody was the good guy on the level you think of. No dictator was good, no government was good, no military was good. There are good individuals, not good groups. When a Soviet soldier pushing into Germany simply patted a German girl on the head and gave her some food, does that make his side good? When the Soviet soldiers that followed after him gang-raped the girl and her family later, does that make their side bad? Neither. Individuals are good or bad, not groups and organizations. That plays into Communist hands.
Fuck Nazis, fuck Commies, and fuck taking either's side. Stop looking for good guys in politics and war, you'll be disappointed.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
an interesting thought just struck me at about 11 minutes in. imagine being a person in the future, looking back on a society that is known so well. their language has been translated centuries ago, even, their language shares a root with the language of the person looking back (like german and english, or romance languages, etc). you're looking back at their history looking back at a time before a major historical event, to help you understand the event, but then, you start seeing brand new words, invented or popularized by the individuals you're studying, that you SHOULD be able to translate, and you SHOULD be able to understand, but somehow it eludes you. now, instead of national socialist germany, consider the united states and the West today. where did "trans man / trans woman" come from? doctor money, maybe? words that should be understood, and known, are being used in a strange new way that creates practically a new language from the perspective of someone not involved: equity, systemic, patriarchy, gender, etc, etc, etc. in my lifetime, gender has gone from being a synonym of sex (as in, your sex organs, not the verb) to a word more closely resembling something like "personality traits". equity, while it sounds like equality, actually means something incompatible with equality as we know it. it doesn't mean "equal treatment", it means, frankly, "good result by the standard of the new orthodoxy". a patriarchy is a group led by a father figure, loosely, right? like a family unit, historically. well then why are societies led by women, and fields dominated by women, and markets dominated by women, called patriarchies?
it all makes me think of orwell. 1984. his personal experience in the ideology of socialism really gave him the insight to stick his finger right on the pulse of some possibly fundamental behaviors of any socialist ideology. language itself, captured and manipulated to the point where words that may be a threat, are expanded until they encompass even the opposite meaning, making the word useless. everyone has heard "a woman is someone who identifies as a woman is someone who identifies as a woman is someone who identifies as a woman" by now, and ten years ago we all knew what's up. imagine a hundred years from now when historians look back in confusion by our language the way we look in confusion at silly german socialist words today. "gleichunfuchtungshissenarbeitenfrei", "trans woman", "our democracy", "diversity is our strength" (100 years later) "uhh, these words and phrases popped up, and some of it looks familiar. they've definitely used this word or words like this before... a historian 50 years ago thought he knew, but now native speakers of the language say that's wrong but even they can't conclude to what it means..." all that aside, keep up the great work TIK, your videos are getting even better, i watched the original long version of H man's socialism, and the compressed version was very convenient :D
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
I am rather surprised to see "new history books" at the top, because I've read some stinkers. I happen to be researching the Jack the Ripper murders, and I came across a particular book that insisted that all of the "canonical five" were definitely not "ladies of the night". The fact is that they all were to some extent, either casually or professionally. The obvious cherry picking of primary evidence is unbelievable. Oh, and the writer is a feminist, quelle surprise; not wanting facts to be true is a ludicrous premise for writing a history. So my best advice for any written evidence is this: find out who the writer is. If they're any kind of "ist" then read with caution. And it's better to find authors who have written several books about the subject matter, not some newcomer with a wacky angle on the subject. They're likely cranks with an agenda.
btw, regarding newspapers, they form a large part of the body of evidence in this case, because apparently the police records were blown to smithereens by the Luftwaffe. A conspiracy theory there? Well, there are at least seven different versions of the Goulston Street Graffito, so perhaps it's better not to trust "plod" either.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@mikemcmike6427 “Hitler NEVER systematically targeted the right as a group. They were his main allies and continued to be so ”
While it is true that the NSDAP came to power in collusion with the right-wing parties (the right-wingers wanted to "tame" Hitler), once in power, Hitler would begin to run them off the boat.
Sebastian Haffner in "Notes on Hitler" says:
“The conservative opposition never managed to become a real danger to Hitler, and the series of easy successes that have been scored for it is endless. Even so, it was the only opposition that gave him work until the end; the only one who had the opportunity, albeit minuscule, to overthrow him and who at least tried to do so on one occasion. And it must be stressed that this opposition came from the right. From his perspective, Hitler was on the left. That makes you think."
Ulrich von Hassell feared that "socialism in the form of Hitler" would inevitably aim to divide the upper classes on the road to "internal Bolshevization". (national socialism, rainer zitelmann page 519/664)
Hitler in 1945 said
“We liquidated the fighters on the left, but unfortunately we forgot in the meantime to also attack the right. That is our great sin of omission.” (The Memoirs of Hitler's Luftwaffe Adjutant, 259/302)
Hitler regretted not having systematically targeted the right, as he did the left when he came to power.
But to say that the right was allied with Hitler until the end is incorrect.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
The main problem with signalling with radio, at sea, in the World Wars at least, is that it reveals your location to literally everyone. And to code, send, decode, and read takes some time, so ships chatting to each other would be visible to everyone for a long time, and as ships don't move so fast that's incredibly dangerous.
There is more too it ofc, and each situation's context matters, but it is an important thing to bear in mind that many do not know.
EDIT: To elaborate a little; manoeuvre is arguably more important at sea than any other theatre, if one side knows the enemy's location it can concentrate and crush that part long before any assistance can arrive.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Another interesting video.
It reminds me of a saying: divisions and other units in (previous) socialist countries used to be much smaller than their counterpart in capitalist or fascist countries, for quick mobilization and reinforcement. Although it might not be true in Soviet for some time, but during the difficult days of WW2, as you explained here, it was true. Similar to the Chinese forces led by the communist party: before the "long march" in the mid 30s, 3 front armies (some may insist to translate into "armies", but from the original Chinese word, they were literally "front armies") had around 300 thousand men in total, after that march, only about 30 thousand remained. Even in the late 40s, during the 2nd Chinese civil war (between the communist and the nationalist), PLA had smaller sized divisions than its opponent.
I have to say, by watching your videos, that I tend to appreciate more on the Soviet Red Army for doing well against Nazi in such a difficult situation than the styreotype image of extreme incompetence and pure relentlessness.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
I really hope you finish Stalingrad, but some shorter Battlestorm in between would be fun as variation of course . I am about to become a Patreon today, mainly because of your excellent Battlestorm series. The politic parts you are doing are often "boring" if I may be frank, so..."STICK TO TANKS" MAN! ;)
You are a great historian - awesome even, "waste of space" when you make predictable political lectures with a historical context, when there could have been a great and pure historical episode. Boring because I know you are a hardcore libertarian so before hitting play I already know how it will sound and the same phrases and messages are repetead over and over again, but there is always a glimmer of hope that some interesting historical events are popping up in between your rants, which happens and there for I some times look at them any way. I might add that I am not "angry" with your libertarian views, I have friends that are of all different ideological views and have interesting discussions with them even though they might not have the sam views as me. But when I see a TIK update, I am in the mode for excellent historical content not boring lectures.
No problem taking a break, I can see why and your Q&A:s are good as well and if you cant do them that often because of Stalingrad, well then it might be better to take a break. If you are doing larger Battlestorms like Stalingrad, as I really hope you do in the future as well, maybe do them as seasons? Season 1 - six parts and then a break, for example. Then everybody knows that from the beginning and it will be more excitment with in the "wider" audience when waiting for it to continue? Maybe hire more assistans? I am becoming a Patreon to hopefully contribute to that so your channel can be even greater. I think the core of your viewers really has appriciated the Stalingrad Battlestorm so far. I sure have.
You, History Vizualised and others are doing a great job doing better and more interesting stuff then the "old" documentary companies ever did. More in depth and more interesting. Keep up the good works with the "tanks"! ;)
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@alg7115 There is orders of magnitude more genetic difference between two randomly selected white Englishmen than the genetic differences that define one "race" against another, even White vs. Aboriginal. Also, those "racial" attributes are pretty much entirely superficial. Thus, TIK is correct scientifically; human "races" do not truly exist, and the correct level of differentiation is the individual. It is also the Biblical viewpoint, despite many attempts throughout history to twist the text to justify racism.
Just because people choose to view themselves in terms of collective groups rather than individuals does not mean they are justified in doing so. The real basis for group identity is culture, not genetics. Most cultures worldwide throughout history defined their boundaries based on values, not merely bloodline. This is true by Biblical standards and is also seen in the Arabic idea of an "ummah" (people), which are similar. Bloodline is the primary mechanism by which people are initiated into a culture but they can depart from that culture and be "cut off," and foreigners can join that culture and be "grafted in." When those cultural values protect healthy individuality rather than imposing uniformity, they are helpful for facilitating voluntary, cooperative interactions rather than tyrannical obligations. This is accomplished by providing a common set of healthy expectations that the individuals within the culture can generally trust its other members to adhere to, while promoting tolerance/understanding of the legitimate variation in individual expression.
Until the last few centuries, "racial" characteristics WERE a pretty reliable means of predicting someone's cultural values, due to geographic limitations. That limitation has broken down with time and technology, and along with it it's ability to predict a person's cultural/individual values. It is only race hustlers like "funny mustache man" and Jesse Jackson who sell a narrative to empower themselves at the expense of others that have kept the dying old man of racial theory on life support.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Hey TIK, here's a Translation of Russian source from Wikipedia about the 60000 men:
"Unfortunately, to this day there is no clear and sufficiently
A detailed description of the fighting at this stage of Vyborg
Sko-Svir operation. So, from the subsection “Offensive
21st Army north-east of Vyborg ”[1, p. 485–487]
you can only find out that on the 30-kilometer front -
from the Vuoksa River to the Vyborg Bay - operated
four corps of the 21st army, namely: 109, 110, 97th and
108th, a total of 12 rifle divisions, having a strength of 4 to 5 thousand people each. In reserve was the 30th
Guards Corps of General Simonyak."
So 5000×12=60000
It just seems to give another source, so hold on, I'm gonna try to get to that...
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Thing is TIK, I got redpilled a few years before you did, and for a while I thought you could get through to the left. For the vast majority you will never get through to them because they are ideologically fubared or scared to change. The rest CAN be, but it takes years and they will only do so in their own time. So the best thing to do is ignore most of the NPCs and encourage the genuinely curious.
BTW, to answer your point about the Garden of Eden myth, the version we have from the Old Testament is an inverted version of the Sumerian creation myth where humanity eating the fruit and gaining knoedge is a good thing.
We aren't damned if we do, damned if we don't. There is no reason to lie, because gaining knowledge is good. And if these people don't like it, that's their problem. Stop wasting your energy on them, it's not worth it. Just keep doing what you're doing, because in the future it'll become harder and harder to ignore your work and what others are doing.
7
-
7
-
As a social democrat I agree that hard work and following a passion has a lot of influence in your success and happiness, and as an inhabitant of a rich western democracy I still have a fairly individualistic view. That being said, I think you can check all boxes of living a successful capitalist, individualist life and still advocate for social programs, reforms, policies etc. that help the disadvantaged, immigrants, environment etc. My socialist tendencies are built on a base of kindness and care for others, and not on coercion and malevolent assimilation. And I just happen to think that in order to achieve more opportunities for the downtrodden and systemically disadvantaged, to minimize market failures and externalities, as well as corporate corruption, we do need socialistic policies and regulations in a stable democratic state.
Hope you get me on some level.
Cheers from Switzerland!
7
-
TIK, your pain in your struggles is obvious. You are a teacher. You teach. You do not get to “win “ with everyone. If you did, the communism vs capitalism debate would have been won years ago. It is in ignorance where we all reside at least in part. Teachers show us another option, another perspective, a Truth but we each get to decide for ourselves on big issues and tiny ones.
Many years ago I began to understand how 2 things cause people to check their brains st the door. Politics and Religion. So when you default to Eve and Adam in the Harden, you do so expecting this to be Truth. As yourself, why did God need to send his Son Jesus to rescue his creation? They were following His Book. Right? Now, who wrote the book? We’re those religious leaders somehow pure and without any need to exploit people so they would gain wealth and power? Put the same research scrutiny into your sources like the Bible or the Koran etc as you do about Tank Doctrine. If you do, you will be dealing with one entire mass of variables.
Now go back to your Teaching. Stop trying to decide for everyone to accept your research and conclusions. Remember, as you have research more and more, you have realized errors in past conclusions. Sometimes little bits of that are what your detractors see. Other times, you have simply found a Truth that requires them to dismantle one of their own truths and that is difficult and painful and they, like you, know there are those out there who are only there to deceive.
I for one rely on your perspective to challenge my own truths. To test them. Please give your head a shake. Recognize that louder and stronger voices against your wisdom and discoveries is a real measure that you are nearing a Truth which forces them to rethink their sacred cows. You are doing Good! Teach!!
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
01:24 🌐 Devers clashed with Eisenhower in 1943 over resources, setting the stage for their strained relationship.
03:44 🤝 Devers' transfer to the Mediterranean was seen by Marshall as a ploy by Eisenhower to eliminate a rival, leading to tensions.
06:33 ⚔ Operation Dragoon's success in capturing Marseilles in August 1944 became a logistical challenge for the Allies.
08:17 🚚 Eisenhower's Broad Front strategy strained Allied logistics, causing fuel shortages and logistical issues.
11:56 🛣 Eisenhower's focus on maintaining the Broad Front strategy led to logistical challenges instead of solving them.
13:17 🌊 Eisenhower ordered Devers to cross the Rhine, indicating a lack of long-term planning and favoritism against Devers.
15:58 📉 Miscalculations about Marseilles' capacity and logistical issues further complicated the Allied advance.
17:18 🤷♂ Eisenhower's communication breakdown with Devers and prioritizing Bradley over other commanders impacted the campaign.
18:42 🤔 Eisenhower's favoritism towards Bradley and lack of attention to flanks (Monty and Devers) may have contributed to strategic issues.
19:33 🗺 Eisenhower's Broad Front strategy led to stretched Allied divisions across a 500-600 mile front, hindering their ability to breach the Siegfried Line.
20:54 🤷 Eisenhower's failure to plan operations beyond Normandy and prioritize logistics led to attritional battles and inadequate supply networks during the winter of 1944-45.
23:41 🤝 Miscommunication between Eisenhower and Devers regarding the Rhine crossing led to a misunderstanding and conflicting interpretations of orders.
25:06 🛑 Eisenhower halted Devers' plan to cross the Rhine in December 1944, redirecting efforts to support Patton's forces in the north.
27:18 🤬 Dispute between Eisenhower and Devers over Rhine crossing plans led to a deteriorated relationship and public criticism from Devers.
28:44 🌐 Devers argued for crossing the Rhine, emphasizing the tactical advantages, while Eisenhower prioritized the northern front and the Ruhr.
31:38 ⚔ Crossing the Rhine in Devers' area was deemed strategically unsound due to logistical challenges, potential German counterattacks, and lack of clear objectives.
33:22 🤔 Poor relations between Eisenhower and Devers played a role in the dispute, but logistical problems and strategic impracticality were also key factors.
35:14 ❓ The implications of not allowing Devers to cross the Rhine remain uncertain, with suggestions that it may or may not have influenced the Ardennes Offensive or the Battle of the Bulge.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
I think TIK is wrong, I don’t think the encirclement was inevitably permanent, although I agree that the National Socialist system made the situation nearly impossible. Here’s what I mean: if the German command structure had been less rigid, and allowed for more latitude and independent thought, things could have been done differently. For example, all those division commanders (in conjunction with their staffs) inside what would become the pocket could surely have come up with adequate plans to extricate their own forces from the front lines in a timely fashion and get their men moving south or west or southwest or all of the above (considering there were 20 divisions, they would have needed to take different routes). However, the German division commanders needed permission practically to wipe their own butts. Contrast this with the way defensive lines and even effective counter attacks were cobbled together at Kasserine pass or in the battle of the Bulge and you see the striking difference between the level of independence exercised by mid-level American commanders and their German counterparts. I believe firmly that there was adequate force available inside the Stalingrad pocket to have forced open the thinly held Red Army circumvalation lines during the early days of the encirclement. I understand about the logistical issues, and the question of whether you have an army left at the end of such a campaign or just a couple of hundred thousand half starved half frozen refugees, but still. The survival rate would surely have been higher that way than by doing what they eventually settled on. Moreover, it’s not as though such a breakout would have left the Soviet units through which they would have passed unaffected. In all likelihood, a properly supported (from the air) breakout would have shattered many Soviet divisions as well as German and left both sides practically incapable of large scale offensive operations for several weeks. Thus, Manstein and/or Weichs would have had time to reorganize the survivors of 6th Army prior to the resumption of the Russian offensive that winter.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
And it probably ended up extending the depression. There was a downturn in the
economy in 1921 that was initially more severe than the downturn in the twelve months immediately following the stock market crash of October 1929. Unemployment in the first year of President Warren G. Harding’s administration was 11.7 percent. Yet Harding did nothing, except reduce government spending as tax revenues declined. The following year unemployment fell to 6.7 percent, and the year after that to 2.4 percent.
Meanwhile after the stock market crash, the unemployment rate peaked at 9 percent two months after the crash, and then began a trend generally downward, falling to 6.3 percent in June 1930. Unemployment never reached 10 percent for any of the 12 months following the stock market crash of 1929. But, after a series of major and unprecedented government interventions, the unemployment rate soared over 20 percent for 35 consecutive months. These interventions began under President Herbert Hoover, featuring the Smoot-Hawley tariffs of 1930—the highest tariffs in well over a century—designed to reduce imports, so that more Americanmade products would be sold, thereby providing more employment for American workers. It was a plausible belief, as so many things done by politicians seem plausible. But a public statement, signed by a thousand economists at leading universities around the country, warned against these tariffs, saying that the Smoot-Hawley bill would not only fail to reduce unemployment but would be counterproductive.
None of this, however, dissuaded Congress from passing this legislation or dissuaded President Hoover from signing it into law in June 1930. Within five months, the unemployment rate reversed its decline and rose to double digits for the first time in the 1930s and it never fell below that level for any month during the entire
remainder of that decade, as one massive government intervention after another proved to be either futile or counterproductive.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
You’re completely wrong. TIK talks all the time about the evils of Stalin and communism. Literally every single video he makes is flooded with actual communists who harass him for that reason. Even if that were not the case, omitting information about something is not endorsing it. TIK never talks about the crimes of Imperial Japan, which were far worse than either the Nazis or Soviets, so therefore he clearly must want the restoration of the Chrysanthemum Throne and revival of the Empire! Tenno heika banzai! Or you know, it could be because that’s not his interest. Watch his hours-long video of the Battle of Courland. It’s important because it demonstrates quite clearly that the Soviets and Nazis were essentially one in the same. The Soviets invaded, put thousands of civilians into concentration camps to be exterminated, then the Nazis invaded and did the same. Then the Soviets came back and did it again.
Also, rational people don’t view others in terms of their skin color, and rational people do not believe in such a thing as “racial ideology”. People have individual autonomy and free will. (And fun fact, the Russians have paler skin than the Germans) The idea of a racial ideology is just as absurd as the Marxist idea of a class ideology, and they are both types of socialistic-thinking, which was one of the main points of the Hitler’s Socialism video.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@TheImperatorKnight You know, TIK, you are kind of handing the Marxists and Socialists a golden opportunity on a platter if you think about it. If they could choke down the 'National Socialism is socialism', they could also use your arguments to suggest that THEIR form of socialism isn't National Socialism. They could argue that Capitalism has multiple forms, (advanced capitalism, corporate capitalism, finance capitalism, free-market capitalism, mercantilism, social capitalism, state capitalism and welfare capitalism etc) and that this doesn't mean they are all the same capitalism.
You're HANDING them an argument to distance themselves from National Socialism on a PLATE. And yet... they won't.
And they're refusal to do so will, inevitably, turn more and more people against them. The more they fight this, the more people are going to start comparing them...
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Self-proclaimed Marxists always seem to be among the most negative and sensitive of people. The way they disagree with you is through verbal attacks and spite, because their emotion-driven worldview sees disagreement as an attack on themselves. Its a similar form of offense that a Christian may take if you say the Lord's name in vain. The only defense they have on this topic seems to be twisting definitions as they see fit, and ascribing each idea as good or evil. You must remember that the socialist philosophy sees words as pliable, and secondary to their presumed infallible worldview. The ideas they agree with are a part of a vaguely clustered esoteric doctrine prescribed by the likes of Marx, while the ideas they despise are clustered together with generalized labels and banished from acceptable practice. Capitalists, fascists, Nazis; they are all the same in the mind of the Marxist because their existence conflicts with the utopia promised by their prophet; they are heathens that got it wrong. Similarities in the objective structure between variants of socialism are inconsequential to the Marxist, and therefore ignored. To them, two socialists cannot fight each other despite being economically similar, because if they were true socialists, they would be working together. It is a political crusade. It does not allow an objective analytical perspective.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
TIK, I found you a few years ago just searing World war 2 on youtube. I have not missed a video since. I have always been fascinated by WWII battles, however, I have learned so much from you about the other aspects of WWII, such as this video & topic, or Nazi Germany, the economy, socialism, communism, etc, etc. I have shown some of my friends & family your videos because I am passionate about history, especially the eastern front, which in america I did not learn so much about in school. I just find them so interesting that I feel the need to spread your research/worj. I appreciate every video. Thank you for your hard work & dedication to history.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@TheImperatorKnight I know exactly what you mean, it's the creative person's curse. I experience the same thing in my line of work. You view your own product from a completely different pov than your customers. It's very endearing to know that you really care about what you're doing and what you're putting out there. But at the same time, don't drive yourself crazy with perfectionism. Self doubt can be really stressful, and I'd bet it's contributing to a lot of the burnout you've been experiencing recently.
I mean, I can't speak for everybody, but some of my favorite videos of yours are those that you probably call "low effort". Videos where there's less research and more of your thoughts on a subject. I like just about all your stuff (I'm one of the Stalingrad fans, watched that whole series), and while I appreciate all the effort and research you put it, I primarily tune in to hear your takes on things. I ESPECIALLY appreciate your thorough explanation of Nazi socialism and Gnosticism. It's literally stuff that makes so much sense, but NOBODY else talks about. It's really helped me reach breakthroughs with things I've been thinking about that are seemingly unrelated... but the way you connect and present things is just really comprehensive, and thought provoking.
Anyway, before I start kissing your ass too much, I appreciate you and your work man, and it sucks to see you stressed out and worried. You shouldn't be. You should be proud of the work you do because it's god damn good work!
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
Hey TIK, excellent work as usual! But I want to point out what I believe to be a mistake, which does not impact your conclusions, but it's nonetheless an issue which affects the general understanding of Socialism by lots of historians from every "side" of the fence.
Some premises, openly trying to get your attention; not because I want to cause any stir, but in the sincere hope you will engage with what I'm about to write.
1. I define myself as Socialist
2. I do agree with 90% of what you generally say
3. I do believe you should stick to banks
I'll probably get eaten by everyone for this, but who cares.
Let's get down to business, my proposition is: your statement on how Socialism and Communism are basically the same thing right until 1917 is wrong... and right at the same time.
We have a flaw in History with the debate on "Socialism vs. Communism" (or any other "Socialism vs. Whatever" flavors) which generates not only lots of confusion, but a paradoxical comparison which will never have any proper answer, simply because the question itself is wrong.
Basically every historian agree on the fact that Socialism as a broad idea has its roots within the French Revolution of 1789 (let's leave Ancient Greek aside this time), or at least that's the moment where the concept of Socialism started making grounds within the European political mindset. And then we all know what follows: Saint-Simon, Owen, Fourier, and many others helped sparking a debate on what Socialism "really" should be, how "really" should be implemented, what "really" should be its agenda and purpose. This path right here, along with all the evolutions occurred also in the late '900, should not bog us down in a flimsical research for a true definition of Socialism, because there's actually none. Not in a political sense anyway.
Socialism is a concept, an idea. That's what it is and that's what should be, nothing more, period. Yes it has influenced many theories along the way such as Marxism, Democratic Socialism, Libertarian Socialism, Eco-Socialism, Islamic Socialism and whatnot; theories that sometimes even go in contradiction and open conflict between themselves (good ol' "the Left is always divided!"). Why is that? Because every major so-called Socialist organization/movement tries to establish a universal definition on Socialism, and utterly fails. And why is that a problem? Because every time someone uses Socialism as a term within a political or economical discussion, most of the time we are NOT talking about the same concept: there are huge differences produced by geography, culture, history, language, between continents and sometimes even within the same country, which simply makes it an impossible task.
There could be a point made for the general academic consensus, as in: we define Socialism by the most widely accepted definition given by the majority of authors. And well, good luck with that, since a huge portion of academics simply avoid this problem by skipping the political definition entirely, or worse they cherrypick a specific Something-Socialism theory as the "real one" and then they go off with that. Most of the time inadvertently, sometimes with an agenda to push for a specific idea. And that's awful, I don't care which idea they are pushing for.
It's a mess. A total mess. It's not a theory and shouldn't be treated as such. By comparison, it's like saying that I do identify with the idea of Bottletism: I believe in the usefulness of bottles within society and think that everyone should start using bottles. That's great. But what kind of bottle? And what liquid does it contain? What purpose do they serve? How should the bottles be used?
Because I can fill my bottle with water to soothe the thirst, but I can also fill my bottle with gasoline to make a bomb. Same bottle. Different concepts. Different outcomes.
We should stop use the term Socialism when discussing politics and economics. It may sound absurd, but it's not: we should start using precise terms and precise definitions to avoid any confusion and set a straight base for everyone to start building up their arguments.
For anyone reading this, thanks for coming this far.
Cheers
7
-
7
-
History never made sense in school. I loved history school destroyed that with utter blandless and lacking detail and, let's face it, logic. It was just random bits and pieces when it got to the 19th and 20th century.
I went to school in post-wall East Germany, all the Socialist teachers were still there, and are to this day, who got their positions for purity, not competence. We went over Nazi-times 3 times in my school years, but in the most superficial way possible that it all boiled down to this: Nazis bad, Hitler stole the power, some war happened (no details), 6 mio Jews holocausted (no mention of an additional 6 mio Slavs). No details. I learned more about the holocaust and Auschwitz from 20 year old BBC-documentary I recently found than in several years of school repeatedly going about the topic, including a schooltrip to Weimar, the holocaust museum as well as Buchenwald itself. How is that possible!? All we were told and shown was "Nazis bad and evil, be shocked of the death they brought". That is literally (in the literal sense) all. Then history ended in 1945. We did not even cover the Nuremberg Trials. Of course no history of East Germany, for noone wanted to admit to those atrocities, and nobody had any clue of what had gone on in West Germany, nor did our teachers care. Imagine being forced into an IQ-test later on, answering all the hard science knowledge questions (that should not even be in an IQ-test) but then missing one of the simple ones: "Who was the first German Chancellor (post war of course)?" I knew the name, but the associations weren't coupled in my head. Because we never even had that in school. In the 90ies and 00ies, we did not even learn the Chancellors of Germany post war. Can you even comprehend this? This is what Socialists do to you. There will be a day when they refuse to teach US-children the Presidents, for they despise them. They despise everything not Socialist, and everything not their brand of Socialist.
Long story short: Public School does nothing but "misinform and disinform" as the Socialists like to complain about their adversaries these days. Socialists always seek control over the education system first, for they know they need to manipulate and brainwash the children of other people or they will not have new members in the future.
Brainwashing is the simple act of filtering and warping information, and letting you only know anything from one, usually lying, angle - often coupled with the sentiment to never question said information/narrative and never even dare to consider talking with someone outside the belief, much less a critic, and not make your own investigations.
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
I suppose "Totalitarian" encompasses Fascist & Communist states and everything in between. Certainly the result for the common person seems to be the same. Freedoms denied, jail, death, lack of food, health education. For the common man what is the difference. Also I think Orwell was on to something when he mentioned the Conservatives in the same breath as Fascism! (I kid, I kid I'm sure your Boris is underneath it all a caring person? Just like the conservatives in the U.S. and Australia. I'm sure they have someone's best interests at heart). However, Trump's use of unmarked police (how do they know if they are police) hints at some sort of fascism. Not that I'm an expert on political ideologies. My parents, grandparents, uncles, Aunts and cousins know more about than me as they were born in the old Yugoslavia and the younger ones in Slovenia. Lots of communist, socialist, fascist & capitalist stuff has gone down in that area since even before the war. Australia, on the other hand, is just a boring lackey of Britain and now the U.S. If you don't count Britain & the U.S. we have never even been invaded. (yet).
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
I've been anticipating this for a while now, thanks for the video TIK.
I believe it worth noting that the Third Positionists share an unseen beef with Monarchists(the original and ultimate "far right") on an ideological level.
While Fascists, National Socialists, and TPs have claimed throughout their time to have been a departure from post-enlightenment "liberal" or J frameworks, their status as socialists inherently wraps them into the enlightenment era they claim to not be apart of. Monarchists on the other hand, can claim lineage from several centuries pre-enlightenment, which is why you see it proposed as a "solution" in the "NrX" and other such factions.
I found it worth pointing that out because my own ideological development has included some chapters of flirtation with what you would call "third positionism". Part of my reason for rejecting it just so happened to include various socio-political aims that were only addressed by the ACTUAL right wing, i.e. Monarchists and more Paleocon types, and as a result highlighted the "Socialism" with which I took issue with. Politics infinitely becomes more easier and interesting to digest when you abandon the "left/right" dichotomy that somehow places Mussolini, a former member of the Italian Socialist party, next to Catherine the Great, or even Cicero.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
TIK, I know exactly what you're talking about in the beginning of the video. I myself had a similar experience. I grew up conservative and Republican in the United States and when I went to university that wasn't really challenged, mainly because of the classes I took were stem classes. There wasn't much room for Marxist ideologies to be impressed upon me.
However, I went to work at a university in a wet lab for about 7 years. While there, everyone I worked with, everyone around me, everyone who is a student there, everyone on staff, everyone in the administration were socialists. The news I would read every day became far more leftist ideology as well (New York times, Washington Post, etc). Before I hadn't really read the news. So it was an inundation with these leftist ideals and ways of thinking every day, constantly. After a while, that starts to become how you think as well. You start to think " yeah, that is right. That is how the world works. "
It wasn't until I lost my job because a covid and I had to move out of the city that I wasn't constantly pressed with that way of thinking and I was allowed to think for myself. It's still took a few months, but I started to look at the videos that previously publications in the United States said one thing but actually watching the video showed the full context and showed that those publications were lying. That's when my eyes began to be opened again. Not to become conservative and Republican but to start to think for myself as a libertarian. That doesn't mean that I vote for the libertarian party but it does mean that I'm looking out for my freedoms and other freedoms for everyone else and I understand the truth of what socialism means for everyone. I start to see the federal government for what it is. Even when I was conservative and Republican, I saw the government as something holier than thou. But now I see it for what it really is, a government like any other. And like any government it serves itself and only itself. The only thing protecting the citizens are the rights ingrained within the constitution itself, which the government is trying to chip away at every day. This channel has helped to reaffirm and better define my thoughts. To better articulate what I mean to others so there's no ambiguity.
I think that socialists come from a place of wanting to help others, to uplift others, to look out for other people's plights as their own. I don't necessarily think they are evil people, or at least they don't think they are. However, I do believe socialism as an ideology is evil. Most of the people that follow it though just don't realize the end goal. It takes quite a bit to change their minds even when confronted with facts. Usually, the thing that changes most people's minds about socialism is seeing the full video context side by side with what was first presented to them.
6
-
6
-
6
-
Tik, just wanted to say this because you have me thinking, and I've saved your economics links for me to watch later in the week... I think I'm on roughly the same page here... and fully understand where your frustration and confusion comes from as I grapple myself with these kind of thoughts (daily nowadays) especially with all of the socio-political morphing from the right (incl. far right) and left (incl. far left) in the UK and elsewhere.
People such as yourself want to solve problems in a better way but don't know exactly the best system or way of thinking that can best achieve this without changing your own reality. I think some of this has come from confused messaging we have received from different quarters including our education and fast changing social, political environment - this has brought layers of misinformation and cognitive bias and we have all been fed different information from different ideologies that have been presented and [projected] onto us as 'the' solution.
You're not a conspiracy theorist, you are trying to find a useful, functional and meaningful way forward and trying to translate this for yourself and others using your understanding of history... basically into a workable philosophy and a productive logic that fits as many people as you can guide. Because you are personally armed with a great deal of insight through this information on the past, you are finding yourself at a juxta position where you can now see the pits and falls of each system, but know that some of each viewpoints are actually useful at different times and points in our lives but can end up changing our own perception and reality of the world at the same time :O plus the danger of believing in an ideology that may bring a bad initial effect/reaction can strangely produce a positive end result? Sounds a lot like life to me! How can I learn to be a better person without suffering or losing something myself or putting others indirectly through suffering? Its a bit of a circular argument. How can we build the better system without making one (a supposedly bad one?) in the first place.
Personally, as a young and often frustrated and morally confronted engineer who's learnt to survive and prosper in several large and politicised companies; I have several times in recent years grappled with feelings that lead me down different paths and sometimes to confronting directly those I was seeing in power with determination, underlying anger and then self realisation that I myself may have been part of my own greater problem. I only realised this myself months after leaving (basically) a socialist run aerospace engineering company and then a very capitalist one... and realised the cognitive dissonance that I was suffering from in both - I was believing too much in either viewpoint/ideology to solve my own problems and expecting to see a more satisfying or better long term result. I think you're trying to get your own head around what probably feels like a philosophical quagmire, one which you will still get punished in regardless of which direction and ideology you are biased towards... and that you cannot solve this for every person [at every point in time]... because they are themselves each suffering from their own dissonance (their reality?).
I don't think I can answer all of my or your own self doubt and questions, but I suspect we all feel punished or taken advantage of right now no matter the system or ideology... all of these systems (including in the west) have not been self-regulating themselves sufficiently... and this has led to great inequality in our era. I think its the inequality, the corruption and the lack of a system which self governs and self regulates effectively that is more important overall than perhaps whether we are biased towards socialism or capitalism etc, or mildly to the left or the right [provided we don't engage in violence, or discrimination etc]. In other words... our ability to manage ourselves and overcome our system's weaknesses (i.e. to self regulate effectively) is the ultimate answer. Therefore if you try to explain or push in one direction you must therefore pay in another, rather than it be one thing works well all the time and another doesn't add up in a simple mathematical sense. Sorry for the long message, I think I'm either overthinking or a total moron lol. Anyway take care.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Love this series.
At the beginning of each assignment for my freshman college course "Intro to History for Majors/Minors", we were to "check our baggage"--that is, write out, to the best of our ability, all of the things about our personal attributes, likes, or dislikes that might bias our view of the historical evidence on display. I didn't end up being a History major or minor, but still find this an extremely useful concept to have practised.
Our professor also encouraged us to view the past as though it was a foreign country: you might, on first glance, see items or customs, etc. which look familiar, but you cannot assume that they are the same in any regard to those things which are in familiar with in your home country. They are likely motivated by a completely different set of values.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Cheddar is the most popular type of cheese in the UK, accounting for 51% of the country's £1.9 billion annual cheese market. It is the second-most popular cheese in the US (behind mozzarella), with an average annual consumption of 10 lb (4.5 kg) per capita.The US produced approximately 3,000,000,000 lb (1,300,000 long tons; 1,400,000 tonnes) in 2014, and the UK 258,000 long tons (262,000 tonnes) in 2008.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@TIK
Finally managed to get through the entire video.
I would like to thank you, for the tremendous work that you have done. This has definitely opened my eyes regarding certain things, and - as you say - even if the Third Reich wasn't a complete socialism, it sure as hell wasn't capitalism nor free market, and if everything you've said here is true (which I have no reason to assume is not), then definitely not because they weren't trying. I come from Poland, so those who know history definitely have no love for neither Nazis nor the Marxists - too bad that thanks to 45 years of Soviet occupation, the economy, education and political system are completely in shambles (when compared to the pre-war situation), so it's sometimes hard to convince people that the govt giving you "free" grants is not good for you, but quite the opposite. I am going to allow myself to share this video with whomever will be willing to listen :)
For me, the simplest argument against the "free market" theory is this:
If a private business owner in the Third Reich wanted to trade with weJs or establish foreign trade, selling weapons and ammunition to the allies, would the Nazi state just idly stand by and allow him to do so?
If you want to assume that Nazi Germany was indeed a free market society, then you would also have to assume that there were no limits regarding foreign trade or trading with "the undesirables". Assuming, on the other hand, you admit that Nazis were controlling to whom you can or cannot sell - that in itself is a major indicator of the "freedom" of the market.
Personally however I do think that a 100% free market is as much of a utopia as socialism, since gathering capital will eventually lead to expansion of business, therefore changing it from private to a public state, and the only way to counter it is by imposing regulations, which in themselves are against the free market principle. There is also an issue of bribery, since technically, pushing a law in exchange for material goods is, in fact, trade. The way I understand it, stopping such acts is an infringement on personal freedom, therefore it's a sad reality that the question is not "should we allow socialism", but "to what extent should socialism be allowed". Since the only way to create 100% free market would be to implement complete anarchy (therefore AnCap), but without laws protecting private property, that in turn would undoubtedly turn itself again into an everything to the strongest" kind of system, from which it would then evolve again into a hierarchy as we currently know it. It's a "have cake or eat cake" kind of dilemma, and you have to give up one in order to gain the other. Out of pure curiosity, do you have any thoughts regarding that?
Again, thank you for the tremendous work you have done - while we do talk about Nazi crimes against Jewish and Polish people, we are barely being taught anything regarding the actual political system within the Third Reich, as well as economy during the PRL/PRoP period, so your insight into the economy was most enlightening and has definitely sparked some interest within me regarding economic systems.
Cheers.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Looking deeper into the dialectic method, and realizing that this nonsense is far older than Hegel (Moses Meimonides complained about it already in the 12th century: "All these things which are just said, they are present only in what's spoken by the lips and not in the head, even more so they have no existence outside the head. However, as you know,and anyone who doesn't fool himself knows, these statements are protected by the quantification and agrandization of words and warping fables, and are reassured by screeching and derogatory statements and many types of dialecticism and sophistication. When the one who says them and claims them in these ways reflects upon himself and his beliefs - he won't find anything but confusion and shortness of hand, because he wants to invent what doesn't exist, and create a middle between opposites which have no middle between them." - roughly translated from "The Guide for the Perplexed") I see more and more... not parallels but corruptions of Eastern religious thought (for example in Buddhism):
In Zen-Buddhism there is the practice of "Koan", especially in Rinzai-Zen. A "Koan" is a riddle, more an unsolveable dilemma or a paradox or even something that doesn't seem to be connected in the first place. It supposed to help the practitioner, in Rinzai-Zen actively during meditation, to clear his mind, and thus make it easier to reach enlightenment. "Koan" are considered impossible to understand and solve before enlightenment, and once minor enlightenment is achieved, they can become comprehensible; however their "solutions" are not articulated. It is more a sort of epiphany reached, a deeper comprehension of being, which allows to see the connections and interplays between things. It turns out that Jewish mysticism had a similar practice to this and the Mondo (the individual conversation between master and student for clarifying questions, answers, and often getting a Koan on the way, as well as testing the student's progress; for a proper master can tell whether a student has understood a koan, or is giving an answer that shows lack of comprehension).
What does this have to do with the dialectic? Like many things that sound familiar when you begin reading into Eastern philosophies and religions, they begin to sound familiar in relation to what we know today as Socialism — but always in a twisted, ego-focused and ego-serving manner.
Imagine an emotionally immature, narcissistic mind, one without empathy, and maybe without much intellect to boot, being put before a dilemma or paradox, and supposed to find a higher meaning, a higher answer about the world and the self and being itself in it. The pseudointellectual pretense of wit of a child or juvenile may come up with an answer that is obviously stupid for anyone taking the task seriously, but the immature will think himself absolutely outclassing the teacher/master, having completely missed the point.
The "synthesis" of the dialectic method, that tries to marry things that have no middle between them, is just that.
In fact, most things in Gnosticism, Hermeticism, Socialism, make sense in how they originate and manifest and continue in their follow-up-errors, by understanding them as the product of a mind with Narcissistic Personality Disorder looking at the world and Eastern Philosophy and Religion. It is like its dark imitation mirror image.
For more into this direction, check out the Zoroastrian heretics Manichae (came up with the claim that the material world is a dark byproduct of a fight between good and evil, which he came up with by dialecting his religion with Buddhism, and of course claiming that he was the final prophet) and Mazdak (who dialected that again with Zoroastrianism and preached about wealth redistribution because he believed that the rich were rich because they stole from the poor — which is the typical logic of narcissistic (immature) envy that we see again exactly the same way in Marx, to scam people into enriching him).
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Marxism, Nazism, fascism, communism are all different names for essentially the same thing; slavery.
Mr Spock, in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, summarized socialist slavery in the most despicable assertion ever made in cinema history:
"Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... or the one" (yes, I know Kirk stuck in that last bit). This is slavery.
But, the founding philosophy of the United States, born of its British cultural heritage (like it or not, America is a British country), is the opposite of that; the culmination of western cultural thought:
"The rights of the one outweigh the needs of the many"
This is the opposite of slavery.
All of these forms of socialism enslave the individual to the collective to one degree or another, in one way or another.
"The real issues are whether the power of Western Civilization, as God has permitted it to flower in our own beloved lands, shall defy and defeat Communism; whether the rule of men who shoot their prisoners, enslave their citizens, and deride the dignity of man, shall displace the rule of those to whom the individual and his individual rights are sacred; whether we are to survive with God's hand to guide and lead us, or to perish in the dead existence of a Godless world." - General Matt Ridgway
6
-
6
-
6
-
Which wealthy industrialists supported Hitler in the late 1920s? (I understand that there was only one, which was thyssen)
Yes, hitler sided with the conservatives, the conservatives wanted to "tame" him, in the end, while hitler was in power, they began to take them off the ship and ban their parties.
Yes, Hitler locked up members of the KPD and the SPD (especially the KPD)
Just as the Bolsheviks persecuted the Mensheviks and the SRs or Nasser locked up the communists in Egypt, it is worth noting that far too many communists joined the NSDAP.
As for the unions, they were absorbed by the DAF.
There is evidence that hitler did not want to assassinate gregor strasser and otto strasser was considered a traitor even by his own brother, him (otto), along with walter stenes, the latter was financed by businessmen like otto wolf and bankers like paul silverberg, all they wanted to destroy the NSDAP.
(see The Divide: Hitler and Strasser (otto)
by Zoltanus)
But suppose Gregor died for being the "socialist" of the NSDAP, he asked me, why didn't they kill Goebbels, Robert Lay, Karl Kaufmann, Josef Terboven, Eric Koch, Adolf Wagner, Fritz Sauckel, etc.?
That they were as radical as Gregor.?
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@rndompersn3426 mate... you don't even understand what you're saying.
First, did you read the German version?
Second, it is quite clearly the case, that what is being described was the use of "socialism" for the acquisition of the means of production by the state, but the same person (Rosa Luxemburg) also called socialism the state in which the state owns all means of production.
To be more precise, it is, very clearly, stated, that socialism is the dictat of the proletariat, which includes both process and ownership.
socialism doesn't just vanish, just because all factories and farms are owned by the state.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
I think the problem with the two operations may be that they evolved over time as circumstances changed. Originally thunderstorm was to roll over the weak outer line like, well, a thunderstorm, and then a lightning strike to pierce the inner line and re-establish contact.
As Manstein bogs down, he changes plans, asking Paulus to do the piercing strike and meet him halfway. Paulus says he can't go that far, and needs almost a week to prepare, at best.
Then as Saturn becomes clear, Manstein recognzes he can't reach Paulus in this operation, and he can't wait a week while the Soviets 'get to Rostov'. So another change of plans, probably alike this:
1) Make a line at the Myshkova, where the immobile units can rest for the next attack.
2) Deal with Saturn
3) Return and do another major offensive towards Stalingrad (Wintergewitter 2.0)
4) Once close enough, pierce the encirclement as planned (Donnerschlag 2.0)
Of course, that would never happen. The rest is hindsight memory, where Manstein got to write the histories, Hitler did everything wrong, and OKH, logistics and the intelligence services don't tend to get focused on.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
You have omitted Churchills insistence on attacking Europe via Italy, the supposed "soft underbelly". To suppose that a long narrow strip of land with a spine composed of huge mountains and intersected by numerous rivers is a "soft underbelly"is the act of a cretin. Churchill never seemed to notice that Italy has very rarely been invaded, nor did he ask why not. another of his great ideas was to oppose the invasion of Normandy right up to the very last minute, only calming down AFTER Eisenhower threatened to RESIGN and make his reason public! Hitler could have destroyed Churchill, and won the war in Europe if after Pearl Harbor he had declared war on JAPAN! This would have made him not only the Ally of the US, but also the Ally of the UK, at least in the Pacific! It would have split the Empire as India, Australia and New Zealand were keen to withdraw troops from North Africa so as to defend themselves from Japan. Churchill would have gone potty trying to hold on to being at war with Germany when faced with peace and help from Germany to fight the Japanese. Hitler missed the golden opportunity to win in Europe by offering help to his enemies in the Pacific, thus splitting them into a thousand pieces. Even two of his occupied lands, France and Holland, would have been supportive of Germany in such a plan as they lost land to the Japanese, respectively French Indo-China and the Dutch East Indies. Churchill was very lucky that his main opponent was even more stupid than he was.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@aleksazunjic9672 "@TIK went off rails again :) First of all, he declares his own morality as a law, to judge who is criminal or not."
Apparently we're supposed to ignore the cited laws involved?
"Then he declares USSR as a criminal organization. How about US, UK , France ? Or for that matter any other empire in the history ?"
Simple. The US, UK, and France are and were Nation-States. Ones that would go on to form Empires and often conduct themselves criminally, but whose existence as National Communities well predated their imperial pretensions and who ultimately owed their existence as nations to something other than violent imperialism.
The USSR was not a Nation-State like that, and BY ITS OWN ADMISSION was formed in a very different way, for very different reasons. Officially it was the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics", a "Voluntary" Union of Bolshevik states governed by "Soviet" Councils. In reality it was the product of a totalitarian, armed coup by the Bolsheviks against the previous Russian government, and a mixture of coups and violent invasion by said regime against its neighbors.
But one thing that both the official and unofficial stories agree was its purpose: To serve as the vanguard for a Bolshevik "World Revolution" or "World Conflagration", the violent destruction of all other polities on Earth by either direct invasion or subversion.
In short, you could have a non-imperialist, non-aggressive US, UK, France, Germany, China, Russia, Italy, or what have you. And indeed I can point to several periods of their history where this was the case.
The USSR, however, was built from start to stop to essentially be a totalitarian trojan horse meant to spread a messianic, all-encompassing ideology to the world. Which is why its governments' renunciation of invasion as a means of imposing that ideology (first in private, in response to Jaruzelski's demands for Soviet intervention to crush Solidarność, and then officially during and after the withdrawal from Afghanistan) led to an attempted coup against said government by party hardliners followed by the self-destruction of the Union within a matter of years.
In addition, the USSR was quite literally a one party state ruled by a criminal organization, the CPSU, which is correctly denounced as such and banned along with successor and auxiliary organizations in several former countries of the Soviet Empire.
So let's stop with the false equivocation or pretending that even Edward Longshanks's England, Jacksonian America, Napoleonic France, or Victorian Britain were EVER founded, sustained, and geared towards world conquest by a criminal organization.
" After that, even Soviet communists (which were mostly Jewish in higher ranks at the beginning ) are now anti-Semitic :)"
Ah, you're one of THOSE idiots, aren't you?
No, Soviet communists were not "mostly Jewish in higher ranks at the beginning." Just look at the composition of the First Central Committee following the "October Coup." While "Jews" were disproportionately represented (clocking in at 3 members out of 7) they were not the majority. And when you get further down the chain of command that proportion drops VASTLY.
"And Marxism (invented by Jew) is anti-Semitic too."
He literally dedicated an entire video to this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZh01xRO_Qg
"Then he applies convention from 1949 to events happening in 1944-47."
An unfortunate but fairly common technique.
" Finally, he fails to recognize that Germans were not given status of POW, instead they were Disarmed Enemy Forces precisely to avoid Geneva convention."
Nice strawman, shitheel. Now you're failing to recognize the reasons WHY.
Because- and this is key- the difference was intent.
The Allies routinely imposed the status of DEF or its equivalents on the Germans and Japanese because logistically, they simply did not have enough resources on the far side of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans to feed all of them according to the Geneva Convention(s). Furthermore, brutalized civilian populations were ACTIVELY competing with said Axis POWs for what limited food resources did cross.
So the Allies- in a dishonest and craven move- arbitrarily declared their POWs were not really POWs and thus not subject to Geneva, and then calculated how much food they required to keep them from outright starving and no more before giving priority to the civilians and themselves until supply improved.
Now, was this morally or legally right? No. But the intent was not to abuse and endanger them.
" And in the end he fails to recognize that by Yalta agreements all combatants fighting against USSR were to be handed to Soviets after the war. This includes all nationalities, Germans before anyone else."
Except Keelhaul et. al. was imposed on those who did not fit that bill under any definition, as TIK described. Moreover, I'll note that the ink was barely dry on Yalta before Stalin began to violate it, as the Polish Home Army in Vilnius could attest.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Okay, wow! There's a great deal to go through here, but. Well one I came to the conclusion on your Hitler's Socialism video, and your works on Fascism. That they along with Communism. Are all Socialists but by different means and interpretations of Socialism, in order to create a Utopian state. #Dictatorship, Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism, and other such buzzwords.
It also reminds me so much of the kinda of stuff going on now. Not sure what words I can use safely as I don't want to flag your channel or video anymore than I already have. But what happened in Germany in 1918-19, reminds me a fair bit of the Woke mobs now. Although we can say they are even more radical and occult if I can use that word, than the Commies and other radicals were, in 18 & 19.
And your section on Hitler at the end. Yes he was wrong. More alcohol doesn't cure a hangover or prevent further liver failure. But his idea's on Unification along Race & Nationality, do really work. As you pointed out in your first Mussolini video in the First World War section. People rallied behind their Nations, their countries, not their class.
I do think the idea of Race is ridicules in of itself. Ethnicity I can say yes to. But Race. No.
Anyways. This has been amazing and look forward to more of your work. I'll share this around, and do my part in all this.
Liked & Commented.
Service Guarantees Citizenship.
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Are you sure about that, the communist society Marx claimed was a society without oppresstion everyone can do whatever activity they wish, doesn't need to work, and no politic. This seems way further than just an improved world for the working class, and closer than a utopia.
“communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.”(‘The German Ideology’)
"When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.” ('The Manifesto of Communist Party')
"Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.” ('Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith')
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@TheImperatorKnight
Apologies, this is a little off topic but have you thought about critiquing the 'World at War' series?
My introduction to WW2 was via aircraft (I'm an RAF brat) and then it broadened, in part, due to watching a re-run of this series. The obvious flaw is that it had to achieve the hugely ambitious aim of condensing WW2 down to 24 hours. Anyway, in addition to this 'weakness', it also had the flaws of:
i) Sept 1939 - Aug 1945; what WW2 was is subjective. For the US it 'started' with Pearl Harbor. And yet Roosevelt put an oil embargo in place.
ii) Filmed in 1973, so contemporary accounts were possible, such as Mountbatten. However, this meant that 'classified' material was unavailable, despite (because, arguably) the actions of traitors. The obvious point is Bletchley Park/code-breaking. Also the specific nature of radar technologies.
As an aside, when the Dambusters film was released in 1953 (?) there were reports that audiences spontaneously burst into applause when the dams were bombed. This wasn't due to the successful attack, it was that the film revealed what actually happened; the specific nature of the attack. Until that point the public had been told 'attacked with mines'. This had left the public with entirely the wrong idea.
iii) The Cold War.
iv) Anglo-centric. But TBF it was for Western audiences.
Anyway I thought it might be useful to say to a 'youngster' watch the WaW, then watch this to 'catch up' on what we've learnt post declassification/Berlin Wall/work of historians etc before you start going down particular rabbit holes.
And sorry if you've already done this, I've obviously missed it.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@TheImperatorKnight Thanks for the reply, keep working hard at what you love but don't burn yourself out. Personally, several of your videos on economics, and the Nazi ideology have changed my way of thinking, and have sparked a passion, that I lost when I graduated a few years ago. I read Mein Kampf, America’s Great Depression, Socialism An Economic and Sociological Analysis, Nazi War Finance and Banking, The Rise of Fascism, The Vampire Economy, and Basic Economics A Citizens Guide to the Economy, just in the last 4 months after discovering your channel.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
25:33 - This Aidan B is insane, yesterday he was talking to me, he said bitcoin is a state tool, that Adam Smith founded capitalism, that a lion wouldn't take care of his territory and way more pearls...
Keeping redundant answer with not semantic value at all, like:
"CEOs are rulers, powerful and dominators"
"CEOs steal the value of the employee"
"You can't live without work in capitalism"
"Private means state"
Even when i pointed out everything that was wrong, and even referenced him places to research about it, he said:
"No"
"False"
"No historian would agree with you"
When i asked him to watch a video about capitalism misconception by a respected harvard economist, he said he don't need because he knows he is biased and "false"...
This guy is NUT, really NUT, nut as @mike mcmike which began to flame, dislike and troll users on my channel, to a point i had to report him and he ended up banned.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Here is a long comment, not necessarily a criticism. Eisenhower understood as no other allied general did, including Patton and Montgomery, that the Germans were still dangerous. That is why he insisted on the Broad Front. The criticism of it, that it spread the allied troops too thin, actually applies to a greater extent on Mongomery's, and Patton's don't forget, single trusts. It is important to remember that the allied generals in the fall of '44 were suffering a severe case of what the Japanese called 'victory disease.' And yes, this applies to your Market Garden video too. Their primary concern was beating each other. Only Eisenhower seemed to grasp that the war wasn't over yet.
It also needs to be said that the alarm over the allied high command regarding the German breakthrough has been greatly exaggerated. Many historians love to give Patton all the credit for seeing it as an opportunity. In reality, they all did. Contra to claims, none freaked out or panicked. At least I have never read any accounts of such.
Third, Monty could be justly criticized for not sending enough troops south. You say it was because he was forbidden from sending any tank divisions. But he had plenty of infantry. In truth, Monty was just as unwilling to abandon any ground taken by British troops as American generals were ground taken by American troops. His men had fought hard in the Netherlands, and he wasn't about to surrender any of it. The British contribution, though valuable, was still way less than it could have been. Eventually almost half Patton's entire army would be committed to the Bulge battle even while he insisted on the rest of them maintaining his offensive east. Monty's entire commitment was XXX Corps, and half of that didn't even fight.
Finally, I don't think Monty made any egregious mistakes in how he handled the battle. Unlike Market Garden. Yes, I think he deserves the lion's share of blame for that fiasco. I also think it flatly disproves the claim that he cared more for his men. He certainly sacrificed enough. But his handling of the Bulge battle was professional, if not inspired. What blame he deserves is for what he said afterward, and yes, I do think he was trying to claim credit for winning it for the Americans.
The reason Bradley and Ridgeway were so paranoid about Monty being in command was because they were convinced he was trying to sideline them. And they weren't wrong. Monty tolerated no rivals, unlike Patton.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@nickhambly8610 Since apparently you like taking snipes at people with vague innuendo while trying to redirect to this own comment of yours, I figure I might as well look at it. Part 1
Skipping past some of the opening pleasantries...
"Fully respect that you find fault with Sutton."
Fair enough.
" Can I spend some time detailing a few things (so I can leave this issue alone?)- as I also value your work, highly to warrant such a 'rant'."
Ok.
"Sutton isn't a complete source- yet his work is essential to understanding ww2."
I agree on half of that. Sutton isn't a complete source- indeed in many ways he acts more as a repository or redirect for sources (some very good, others very bad, many somewhere in between, much without the critical vetting). I still made use of his work and believed him much more uncritically than I do now early on, but if you know where to look you start seeing absolutely massive problems.
However, his work is not in fact essential to understanding WWII, not the least of which because he doesn't cover large swaths of it (such as the rampages of the Japanese Empire in the Pacific or the rise of Fascism in Italy) and in part because many of the things he does cover or assert...are things he gets wrong. And I mean provably, objectively wrong.
In particular, he doesn't really seem to understand things like how the early Bolshevik government got its funding and support- touching on how it interacted with the rest of the world, how the Wilson government functioned (shifting the center of Wilson's financial minds from Treasure Secretary McAdoo to Colonel House), and the antagonistic relationship the Bolsheviks and Wilson had with most of Wall Street- or early NSDAP funding (being overly reliant as it is on long-discredited nonsense like Thyssen' and Reeves's "I Paid Hitler" while ignoring far more reliable sources such as Reimann's The Vampire Economy).He also tends to greatly mischaracterize many of the "monopoly capitalists" like the Eldest Rockefeller.
Which is why so many central points of his thesis get utterly trashed from many divergent sources. Whether it's Henry Ashby Turner's forensic accounting of the early NSDAP (showing it was mostly a grassroots socialist mass movement), to David M. Kennedy's analysis of the WIlson administration, Richard Pipes's analysis of Lenin and his government (and how they interacted- and didn't- with the wider world in "The Unknown Lenin"), Folsom's analysis of the early "Robber Barons" and their personalities in "Myth of the Robber Barons", and so forth.
This means that he tends to go off on long tangents (often using totalitarian propaganda by a hostile regime meant to paint its Siamese Twin rival as a puppet of American capitalists) talking about things like this alleged connection between "Colonel House" and the likes of Jakob Schiff to support the Bolsheviks, all of it based on hot air that starts falling apart if you start looking for the actual funds.
There WERE intersections between Wall Street on one hand and the likes of the Bolshevik and National Socialist regimes on the other, and in some eras such as the mid and late 1930s, but they tended to be vastly less important than Sutton paints them as and far less important for the rise to power of these regimes.
And this is before we talk about other regimes, such as the WWI "War Socialism" of the Late German Empire (which both the Bolsheviks and NSDAP took conscious emulation from and which played a role as backer and then rival of Lenin), Kemal Mustafa's Turkish Nationalists, Mussolini's Italian Fascisti, and the assorted Japanese cliques and juntas. To be sure a daunting material to cover in addition to the likes of American, Nazi German, and Soviet politics, but well worth doing so, especially given how these regimes had both direct and indirect roles on how Hitler and Stalin developed their regimes.
" Mainly due to his research or access to archive records are without peer."
Hahaha No.
At my my most generous I MIGHT be willing to argue that this WAS true decades ago- and even then I really doubt it, especially when you realize that while this largely holds true for things like technical exchanges from the US and other Western firms to the Soviets it starts falling apart in the cases of Nazi Germany and on other matters- it hasn't been true in decades, with things like the opening of the Eastern German archives and some material on the Soviet ones. In addition to taking new looks at old findings in the West.
In particular it becomes really damn obvious really, really damn quickly that a lot of his non-technical information (especially about funding) came not from examination of archival records (which itself has to be done with care due to the risk of well-poisoning or leaving intentional propaganda in order to distort research, as we know the Nazis and Soviets did) but from outright propaganda. Citing nonsense from the Nye Committee is bad enough, but trying to trust the Soviets about the sources of Nazi funding and Nazis about the source of Soviet funding is.... dubious at best.
And underlined- again- by the many things we now know he gets flat out wrong, such as not understanding how Wilson organized his administration's major financial efforts (including when they touched on the Bolshevik government in Russia), where Hitler got his financing, and so forth. He also tends to really underestimate the explanation that foreign "employees" or "contractors" of a Wall Street company might not be acting as agents of said Wall Street actor but as agents of the regime they were ruled by, owed a positive form of allegiance to, and more often than not were born to.
This is somewhat understandable, since on many times we can confirm cases where the likes of Ford or Standard Oil claimed to have no influence over their subsidiaries in wartime Germany or the Soviet Union only to see that yes they did, they were lying. But we also can find many cases where this was true, contact was severed between the "Mother Company" and its foreign investments, and defacto control fell to entities like the Office of the Four Year Plan in the Third Reich or satellites of Gosplan in the USSR.
Which brings us back to one of the central problems with Sutton's thesis: viewing financial influence as much stronger than it was and SERIOUSLY underestimating the power of the state or other ideological or political actors to exert control. With the result being that we're supposed to uncritically accept that Hitler went to war with France in order to serve the agendas of Wall Street* rather than his own articulated and far more cogent reasons of seeking German continental domination, the return of Alsace-Lorraine to the German fold, and so forth spelled out in documents like Mein Kampf and the unpublished Second Book.
The logical assertion would be that if both Hitler and "Wall Street"* wished Hitler to crush France and they acted in concert at all (which is itself much harder to prove and more dubious than Sutton claims), they did so because their differing motives aligned in a given case. And this is particularly jarring since a remilitarizing France was if anything most likely to be a valuable source for investment for most of the Wall Street powers that be, as providing loans and military equipment to France was for many major Wall Street brokers for the duration of WWI and even before and after.
* oh yeah, and Which aspects of Wall Street? This ignores the fact that Wall Street is not a monolithic financial Borg but in fact a very diverse and often fraught place riven by internal rivalries and personal agendas- which Sutton recognizes could spill out into financial politics like Jakob Schiff's attempts to cold cock the Tsarist Russian government of funds, but which he pointedly ignores when said personalities Does Not serve his thesis.
" He details what happened."
Sometimes. But he also details things that quite blatantly did not happen, such as Colonel House going around getting money to sponsor the Bolsheviks. Which is again a problem with uncritically using him.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
All of you damned collectivists with your "we're not just individuals" claptrap: yes you are. As an individual, you are part of many groups, sometimes overlapping. What makes one group more defining to what/who I am? Size? The degree of fervour I hold for that group, the general degree of conviction in the group, the length of the groups history? Or, of some combination, which one, and why that one and not another?
When you've answered that with anything but "huh, you're right", notice how all of your arguments could be turned on you to support any other group. This shows us your arguments suck.
There is no consistent, coherent, exclusive principle to select which collective is so important that it can override your right to self determination and neither os there such a principle for the selection of the voice of the volk, voice of god, or whatever else. Thus, we are all individuals, and forming groups os something we do as individuals
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Hey TIK, I've followed you for a really long time now and this is a problem that I've had myself.
First of all, apologies for the long comment,
I recently had a conversation with a left leaning friend of mine about local politics and the talk went around to me mentioning that the National Socialists were exactly that. Socialists.
He said "oh that's just a new Alt-Right thing where they're trying to whitewash their ideology and he linked me a video in which the most milquetoast and boring reasons were described (They were "privatized" or "they're racist and only the Right can be racist" etc).
So I said "OK, I've watched your ~60 minute podcast on it, please just watch the first half of this" and I linked in your "Public vs Private" video. As soon as he opened the video he just said "I'm not going to watch some neo-n*zi talk for 20 minutes, I already know what he has to say". I replied with "yeah but I just sat through an hour of your guys talking about points that I had already predicted and said to you, the least you could do is show me the same respect". Obviously he didn't.
Very long story to sum up here, the reason why Leftists (and centrists/politically unmotivated people) don't watch your videos is because the long run times are intimidating. I'm definitely not saying they should be shorter or that I want less content or sourcing. But for newcomers, it's a very hard sell of "watch this 5 hour documentary and you'll rethink National Socialism" when they've already dismissed the ideology as "far-right evil run by a druggy madman".
My suggestion to you would be to run something like "TIKshorts" where you cover very small aspects of each item and force yourself to a 2-3 minute run time (YouTube monetization be damned). You pretty much did it in this very video where you can rapid fire go through "well they were heading East because they needed resources, why? Because of Shrinking Markets. What are Shrinking Markets? Well its when..." You can then throw out a bunch of terms and concepts with links to your full videos as a way to try and pull more viewers that can be directed to the in depth videos.
If not this, then I really hope you do find a solution that is workable for you, your content is great and I wouldn't change a thing if it was an option, but short attention spans are just a sign of the times!
Best of Luck
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Omg TIK Stick to tanks!
What I mean by that is don't ever post anything that I disagree with (even slightly), even though I'm not a patron of your channel.
Also, if you could do a video on why the Wehrmacht did nothing wrong that would be good. Maybe you could talk about that time they helped the US fight the SS? I like that one because I already agree with it!
In fact, don't even do history anymore. What I want to see is for you to scroll through Reddit until you find something about WW2, and just copy and paste that. No need to fact check, Reddit probably fact checks!
In short, if you could please produce the following videos:
- Why America saved Europe
- Why the UK was a tiny little island, who Hitler respected, but won the war without help
- Why were the Germans (not nazis, that's a bad word) SO damn good at fighting?
- Why the Russians were only able to defeat Hitler by overrunning his defences like a swarm of evil commie rats
- Why the Japanese were the REAL bad guy of ww2
- Hitler is alive, he lives on the moon
----
Obviously I'm joking - keep up the good, interesting, political, economic work!
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
I think I've never commented on one of yours videos. I don't have nothing to add on what you say historically nor economically. But I appreciate your job and the way you explain everything, you made me question myself way more than any other historian did, but you didn't only made me question myself but in fact you convinced me I thought that after more than 6 hours seeing you arguing you would have used all the arguments and facts possible, but I was mistaken, I already rewatched most of your videos especially the ones about bank and I always notice something new, but you didn't used everything, you still video by video show us new facts and interpretations. So no, I don't think you wasted your time but infact you made it cristal clear to anyone, with at least 10 hours of content published for anyone interested.
TIK, if you are reading this, if there's something you made me understand, is that history lies in the heart of the debate, but what is the point when people aren't debating but instead attacking with fallacies?
I mean sure their attacks made you create more content directed to question raised and even if it didn't convince them, you must surely convinced many other including me. I think that the morons must be treated as they are but there's people genuinely interested in discussing, and this will evolve the discussion something that I'm much aware you are capable of doing.
But still, I love your videos and it is me who doesn't understand how people can't grasp your ideias, you aren't in the wrong, if you may be proved wrong then you wouldn't be alone. Keep up the splendid work, my best regards, Alexandre.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
I'll still disagree with you about Gavin, but in Eisenhower vs. Devers, I agree.
Market Garden was a bit too ambitious while lacking in many things, including reliable information. I still think Gavin made the right choice to prioritize defending against a possible counterattack rather than immediately going for the bridge, but even if Gavin succeeded, I still think any success was far too reliant on luck, with Frost's Bn. being the only Bn. In a division and a brigade worth of airborne infantry meant to attack.
But with Devers, this is completely different. Here you have a commander who is middle of the road, no George Patton, but no Quinctilius Varus by any means, being denied even a shift in orders based on what seems to be clear signs of dislike
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Hi! New to the channel. Am enjoying it. I'm a big fan of Adam Tooze, and am glad to see you citing his excellent work. His research of economic data in both Nazi Germany and Weimar Republic is 2nd to none. A couple of comments about this particular video: The content seems more about labeling things and defining terms that it does about actual economic policy. You point to this, and say "this is socialism" and then point to something else and say "this too is socialism". Why does it matter so much to put the socialist label onto everything? IMHO, it might be better to point out that the economic policies of Nazi Germany were, for the most part. abject failures. They failed to bring prosperity, and failed to be sufficient to win the War. Early in the video, you discuss the labor theory of value, explaining that you got more hits an interest in a 15 minute throwaway than from your exhaustive telling of Operation Crusade (which I'm looking forward to watching). If you were purely an economic creature this would make no sense. However, human beings are not 100% economic, or 100% percent rationale. I'm American, and the author of our Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, puts it very well....governments are instituted to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Economic gain is not mentioned. Making nine hour videos about somewhat obscure WW2 battles makes you happy. Isn't it altogether possible that this is the reason you make these, rather than expecting a reasonable return on the time you've invested? It seems clear to me, as you state, that Hitler's primary purpose was to create an autarky for his Aryan Master Race. Hitler wasn't an economist. Far from it. The welfare of the German economy seemed merely to serve as a means to an end for his evil goals. His interest was power, not economics.
A final thought: EVERYTHING is to some degree socialism, the way you're using the term. Thomas Jefferson used the word "our" repeatedly in the Declaration. As conservative a leader as Margaret Thatcher didn't disable the NHS. You have a Friederich Hayak quote on the site, he was extremely moderate, in fact Ayn Rand and that whole school hated Hayek. If we go to that extreme then a public library is socialist, and airport is socialist, a National Park is socialist....if absolutely everything is socialist, then the word loses all semblance of meaning. Hayek and Keynes disagreed on a whole lot of theories and ideas but both were pragmatic enough to believe that the best economic policy would be that which benefits the most people. Thanks!
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
What, only 15 minuts, 30 seks video... I feel vaguely cheated :P
Great video! You have covered some of the often overlooked, but devastating problems, in a really good and effective manner!
I wonder how many people actually looked at the connection between the number of dead POW of the German sixth army, and the food shortage(?)... Still I would suspect that those soldiers in particular, would have had a really harsh time by the soviets, still it is obvious that the lack of food is the main killer.
I hope that you will get more subscribers, this channel is not nearly as watched, as it ought to be!
Also, perhaps you should get in touch with "the great war" channel, since they will cover World War II as the next project, and they are going to have multiple youtube channels to support that... They would benefit hugely from your work, as far as I can see!
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Lenin also eliminated the Mensheviks, the anarchists, the syndicalists and the Kronstadt rebellion. Millions more leftists Stalin and Mao disagreed with were also eliminated in the respective political movement. If eliminating different leftist groups and other atrocities you mentioned would disqualify anyone as a socialist and their ideologies from Socialisms. Lenin, Stalin and Mao and their respective Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism, should also not be socialistic.
Regarding Nationalised Trade Union:
Historically Nazi, Fascists and Communist Regime had the same approach toward trade Union——Nationalisation. Nazi nationalised all Labor Union into DAF, like Cuba nationalised all Union into CTC, USSR to ACCTU, and Italy to Fascist Trade Unions.
“Today we can no longer confine ourselves to proclaiming the dictatorship of the proletariat. The trade unions have to be governmentalised; they have to be fused with state bodies. The work of building up large-scale industry has to be entrusted entirely to them. But all that is not enough. “(V. I. Lenin Report at the Second All-Russia Trade Union Congress January 20, 1919)
Use the CTC of Cuba as an example.
Non of them have right to strike and collective bargaining. (Por Pedro Pablo Morejon, There Aren’t Any Real Unions in Cuba)
“There was no change in Cuba where the single trade union system persists, there is no genuine collective bargaining and the right to strike is not recognised in law. “ (2007 Annual Survey of violations of trade union rights - Cuba)
Regarding arresting leftist opposition:
More leftists were killed in the great Purge of USSR and PRC than that Nazi Germany in peace time (1933 to 1939).
According to the official record, at least 41,000 Red Army personal were sentenced to death by Military Courts and 10000 more Political prisoners (not ex-kulaks) were executions in the Gulag during the great purge.
In PRC: In Sufan movement of 1955-1957 which targeted the counter revolutionary within the party and the government, 53,000 abnormal death.
While in Nazi German:
“Historians estimate the total of all those kept in the concentration camps in 1933 at around 100,000, and that does not count those picked up by the SA, beaten, kept for a time, and released without being formally charged. The estimates for these “wild” camps run to another 100,000.” (Gellately, R. “Hitler’s True Believers: How Ordinary People Became Nazis.” p158. )
Out of those 200,000 prisoners, from various sources can be found online, the highest number of German Communist (the left elements) executed/died in Concentration Camp was ranged from 20000 to 30000.
In the low end of the estimation, only 600 communists were killed in 1933. (Gellately, R. “Hitler’s True Believers: How Ordinary People Became Nazis.” p158. )
“[Hitler] rejected from the outset the idea that the millions who voted for the KPD or the SPD could simply be “forbidden” [from the people’s community], and he was fully aware that the process of getting them integrated in the community could take years.” (Gellately, R. “Hitler’s True Believers: How Ordinary People Became Nazis.” p163. )
“By July 1934 only around 4,700 prisoners remained, and a Hitler amnesty on August 7, 1934, cut the number to 2,394, 67 percent of whom were in Bavaria.” (Gellately, R. “Hitler’s True Believers: How Ordinary People Became Nazis.” p162. )
The rest of those 200,000 were released from the concentration camps.
Regarding Anti Semite: Stalin had his own Doctors plot.
5
-
Nope it is Karl Marx definition.
As Karl Marx did put any state run by a Bourgeois, building roads and having social healthcare, and Proudhon’s Anarchism as Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism, as Karl Marx said in the manifesto that:
“
…
We may cite Proudhon's Philosophie de la Misère as an example of this form.
The Socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society, minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat.
…
A second, and more practical, but less systematic, form of this Socialism sought to depreciate every revolutionary movement in the eyes of the working class by showing that no mere political reform, but only a change in the material conditions of existence, in economical relations, could be of any advantage to them. By changes in the material conditions of existence, this form of Socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be affected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations”(2. Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism, III. Socialist and Communist Literature, Manifesto of the Communist Party)
And according to Karl Marx, democracy is not even an essential component of Socialism.
"Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat." ("Communist Confession of Faith")
“Freedom in this field can only consist in socialized man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favorable to, and worthy of, their human nature.” (“Das Kapital v3,” p593.)
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Dear TIK,
I have to admit, I sometimes dont see eye to eye with you, especially when you are doing videos about politics. But I have followed your channel for a while now and I find your battlestorm videos absolutely excellent. The maps, timeline, the explanations, the background information what is going on elsewhere is really captivating. Your series about the african campaign is by far the most informative I have ever seen. I am german and grew up with a ton of bad documentaries and books about the desert-fox, so I found your portrait of Rommel absolutely fantastic. Not the white knight, not the absolute idiotic gambler, somewhere just in between. IMHO you did a hell of a job to paint a very differentiated picture of the man, with all his human flaws while still being one of the more competent leaders of the german army.
Anyway.... I digress, IIRC you had to take a break before because you where exhausted a while back. You looked like a ghost at the time. I was watching your videos and secretly thought to myself, one day, we might find a notice on your channel, that you just simply dropped dead.
As I said, I might not agree with you on a lot of political stuff, but for sure I dont want you to literally work yourself to death. You work hard to make a valid case and point, but I personally think, these ideologic/political topics are maybe too complex really to be addressed in the form of a YT channel. You really manage to bring a new (to me) point of view more often than not when explaining your opinion. BUT...and I think you might agree, that those videos are the most exhausting to make. Maybe not the videos themselves but all the backlash that you have to deal with afterwards, I cannot even imaging the reactions, comments etc. you have to deal with. God, the comment section here is bad enough. So, for the love of god and the sake of this channel, just stay away from the ideology, concentrate on the battlestorm series, and put in some other topics if you still find the time.
Take a long vacation, preferably somewhere where there is no internet. As you are from Britain, try one of the channel Islands, maybe? I heard one of them has no streetlights, so you can just go out at night and watch the stars, almost like in ancient times. Anyway, rest up, get better and please keep yourself and this channel alive a little time longer.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
TIK - please keep doing these long form videos. I’ve been watching you for years and have yet to tackle most of the Battlestorm series specifically because I usually listen to your content while making dinner or driving and feel the Battlestorm videos deserve the full attention to both the audio and the visuals. These kinds of longer Q&A videos let me explore various topics - some which you’ve covered previously and some that are totally new - while getting the same quality and quantity of information from you even if you feel that they aren’t as researched as you’d like (I appreciate that you have such an exacting standard and hold yourself even more accountable than you do other historians).
Also, for what it’s worth, I truly enjoy your “Bank” releases. I got very into Austrian economics and voluntaryism about 7 or 8 years ago and, while definitely jaded and discouraged about the feasibility markets opening up rather than doubling down on state control in the near future, I really love hearing your perspective as you’ve started to include economic and social history into your work. I was also originally a rugged “left” socialist who turned to individualism after reading Mises and Hayek, though I had an embarrassing National Socialist period for many years in between the two. Please don’t stop doing what you’ve been doing, your videos are truly some of the most valuable history content on Youtube, and easily some of the best-researched content on the site just in general. Very, very, very few people put the amount of time and effort into each video that you do, and I don’t know a single one which comes close that isn’t also doing so with a much larger staff and budget on top of capitalizing on merch and other avenues that aren’t desirable or realistic for you. Put my mom onto your stuff since she’s big into history and she loves it to. All the best from Broakland, Commiefornia, USA!
5
-
5
-
Really good video - these details are very interesting and important and, as you said yourself, seldom talked about. Keep u the great work. As for the Soviet sources, I don't think that even ex-Soviet states have a lot of them due to the nature of the regime that was there. Currently, as with any post-communist states, the history is a bit wonky. More often than not, it is biased. We have the very same problem in my country (also ex-communist) where you have communist point of view on the war and its leaders, but then you have royalist point of view. Both have their own historians and both are actually biased, some more than others.
And in Russia, although not as bad, you have the same problem. You can take Suvorov for example and his Icebreaker, and some other writers that talk about the superiority and perfection of Soviet Union at the same time.
So it is OK to stick with what little you can find. It might not be much, but better small and accurate than a lot and biased or straight up false. That is at least my opinion.
Cheers!
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
I feel as if I do have to make a statement about what you said in regards to the entry which talked about corpses being everywhere.
From a safe space, reading documents, it's easy to read different sources and say "Oh, there weren't that many bodies there, this one is false" . How can one tell how one would react to walking past dead bodies day and night? You don't need numbers in the thousands or even hundreads to mess someone up. Can one really claim that they would write in a completely objective and lucid manner and say "There are only hundreads of corpses here instead of thousands, so it's not that bad" ?
Also I had a problem with your statement about the smell in the air. I can personally walk on the other side of the street where a cat was ran over by a car and the smell will still be overwealming.
While I'm mentioning this, I would also like to add about you view on morale. While a unit's morale may be high, I doubt there was any significant period of time in which any division in Stalingrad had no suicides, or any which fought there who didn't have to shut one or more of his men down for talking in a defeatist manner. As such, a soldier's diary may mention low morale even when official records (or even the diaries of other soldiers) do not.
While you may be right in the rest of the video, I am fairly confident that this particular arguments you are presenting are wrong. I do not know if you added them for filler or you failed to realise the holes in the logic you used, but it gives a delegitimizing tone to what otherwise is a very well made video.
You said about I believe Zaitsev's diary, that one untruthful aspect of it will make people doubt the entire thing, valid as the rest of it may have been, and I believe it to be the case both with narration using memory and analysis using sources and personal logic.
All the best wishes!
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
In short, what matters is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
I think the reason people fear revisionist history is because of '1984,' where an entire department of the state is established to falsify the historical record based on the Party's present agenda and political expediency. In contrast, not too many know about the volumes of scholarly work performed in the 1910s and 1920s to correct many previously-held assumptions from the Enlightenment (such as the true nature of the Dark Ages). These were thoroughly based on primary sources, and have plenty of surprises for Modern audiences (see Hilaire Belloc & Hans Delbruek in particular).
Revisionist historians who correct mistakes in the record are not bad. Distorians who increase or protect these mistakes don't do much good to anybody, and the damage of lying/errors is real. The Catholic Church, too, uses the term 'Error' to describe false doctrines, be they through ignorance or malice. :)
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
It's a religion, because the Hegelian Dialectic is supposed to give you two separate views, wherein you will eventually arrive at a synthesis of viewpoints. Sounds great right?
Well, try engaging in the Dialectic with a person that takes the most extreme position (in Marx, he went with pure Materialism, among many other stances), and then proceed to engage, with the express purpose of NOT synthesizing a position, but to force the other person to synthesize and moderate his position to yours. Thus, you remain in place, in firm extremism, while you force your beliefs onto others. There is no good-faith from one-side, in being changed or convinced that they are wrong. This is why they believe in the ideal, and the purity of struggling (Yay, yet another Marxist belief) towards the ideal, even if TRUE COMMUNISM never is achieved. Thus, this is NOT a good form to engage with the Marxists.
Also, the idea that this is the end of history, and the end of everything, helps give rise to the a sense of urgency among its adherents. We saw this with ISIS, where people were motivated with a sense of urgency to engage in their beliefs, because there would be no more chances after.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@EdAtoZ All right, this question got me interested, and I actually searched for information.
Mind that we're talking river boats here, not ocean liners, and the Volga near Stalingrad has numerous branches and backwaters in which the boats could be hidden. For example, the staff ship of the Volga flotilla was berthed in a river branch near Krasnaya Sloboda "well camouflaged", and though it's not stated whether it was ever discovered and attacked by the Luftwaffe, the fact that this lucrative and stationary target was not destroyed speaks for itself. The abundance of the branches and backwaters also helped covertly concentrate forces and gather supplies to be hauled to the city. However, the boats were also fitted with AA guns, and there were two floating AA batteries, so probably yes, it was a combination of the two approaches, which is the most sensible thing to do.
Of course, the Germans still bombed them and mined the river from air, and the Volga flotilla lost 126 vessels in 1942 (but that includes losses outside Stalingrad, and those hit from the river bank).
Source: The Volga Flotilla in the Great Patriotic War by I. Loktionov
http://militera.lib.ru/h/loktionov/index.html
(in Russian)
And here is a photo of a steamer used during the battle, frozen in ice in the Akhtuba river, a tributary of the Volga near Stalingrad:
https://wowsp-wows-ru.wgcdn.co/dcont/fb/image/a216cdd8-cb9b-11e7-ba73-8cdcd4b149ac.jpg
The photo was made in 1943 after the battle was over, so there was no need to camouflage it any longer, but judging by the low profile of the ship I can easily imagine how it was done earlier.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
FASCISM HAS ITS ROOTS IN LEFTIST SOCIALISM AND IS NOT RIGHT WING
....there are those ...who are on the left who would argue that the Nazi party were a right wing fascist organization and had nothing to do with socialism. The fact is .... fascist movements were and ARE left-wing. The claim that fascism belongs solely to the right is a lie constructed by the left to hide their true origins, This is the same lie the left constructed that Republicans were for slavery when the Congregational records reveal it was the Democrats that supported slavery in the South and the army of the Confederacy. The left argues that a socialist and a fascist hate each other and this proves there are no similarities. But this is not true. Look at Muslim Shiites and Muslim Sunnis. Both hate each other yet both believe in Islam. It is that 1% of difference in ideology that causes them to hate each other but they are in total agreement with the other 99%.
The left has, for decades, attempted to HIDE the true socialist origins of fascism, pinning the blame on the right. For example, …The left often calls President Trump and Republicans “fascist” without even knowing the definition of the word. They say Trump said he was a nationalist just like Hitler and Mussolini said they were nationalists… therefore Trump is a fascist. But then, Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Winston Churchill, Charles de Gaulle, Abraham Lincoln…..all said they were nationalists too. So clearly, nationalism is a belief held on BOTH sides of the political spectrum and calling yourself a “nationalist” doesn’t make you a fascist. No ! What makes Fascism is the peculiar marriage between NATIONALISM and SOCIALISM. You need both ingredients like you need hydrogen and oxygen to make water.
THE ORIGINS OF FASCISM The founder of fascism was an Italian called Giovanni Gentile. Giovanni Gentile (1875-1944) described himself as "the philosopher of Fascism." He ghostwrote "A Doctrine of Fascism" (1930) for his country's prime minister, Benito Mussolini. The self-styled "philosopher of Fascism", was influential in providing an intellectual foundation for Italian Fascism. He followed the Communist schools of thought of Karl Marx, Hegel, and Fichte. Gentile also perceived socialism emerging out of a socialist revolutionary struggle, what the media today terms “protest” or “activism.”
In the 1920's the paramilitary arm of the fascists in Italy were called "black shirts." In Germany they were called "brown shirts." It was the job of these paramilitary thugs to stop all political speech that contradicted their established fascist ideology. They would attend these political gatherings where upon the speaker would begin speaking they would stand up and shout down the speaker, threaten violence and consider it a good day if they had managed to stop the speaker from giving his talk. Does that remind you of anyone today in our universities...yes...the left and ONLY the left does this.
The only difference between the National Socialists (NAZIS) and the Communists was the fact that the Communists saw the struggle as a fight between the classes....a CLASS WAR and there was a rejection of national pride...pride was to be invested in the "global communist movement." The National Socialists (NAZIS) saw the struggle as a fight between the races....a *RACE WAR and there was an acceptance in national pride. Other than that, they were both SOCIALISTS.
Socialists believe in the SAME principles as did the Nazi's- the seizure of personal capital, tight state control of the economic market, and totalitarian rule through authoritarianism. SOCIALISM is the model used to govern the “economy.”
FASCISM is the hammer or "weapon" used to force the will of the collective on the masses.
Prior to WW2 fascism was widely viewed as a progressive social movement with many liberal and left-wing adherents in Europe and the United States heaping praised on Hitlers fascist Germany. Time Magazine ( a liberal rag), for example portrayed Adolf Hitler on its front cover as "Man of the Year "1938.
Most academics have willfully ignored modern liberalism's progressive-fascist roots. President Roosevelt – a Democrat openly wrote about how he admired the National Socialists in Germany in the 1930’s. In return, Hitler wrote how he admired Roosevelt's "New Deal." And THE LEFT have willfully ignored the fact that that during the 1930’s there were National Bolsheviks within the NAZI party. The NAZI party OPENLY affiliated itself to Socialism … and declared this fact in the adoption of their name…..“National Socialist German Workers' Party”…. “National sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.” "We are socialists and enemies of the capitalist state." Adolf Hitler, 1933 (does that sound like someone from the right or the left to you?)
The HIDDEN TRUTH is that the liberal media and academia have fought for decades to hide the fact that that the founders of EVERY fascist organization in Europe and America were men of the left....sometimes former communists , Marxists or Bolsheviks, but more often than not...socialist.
ITALY Mussolini was a socialist before becoming a fascist. He saw fascism as the natural evolutionary step from socalism. While living in Switzerland from 1902 to 1904, Mussolini cultivated an wrote for socialist periodicals such as L’Avvenire del Lavoratore (The Worker’s Future). Mussolini preached violent revolution, praised famed communist thinker Karl Marx and other communists. In 1912 he became editor of Avanti! (Forward!), the official daily newspaper of Italy’s Socialist Party. Mussolini, in a 1933 interview stated, “It was inevitable that I should become a Socialist ultra, a Blanquist, indeed a communist. I carried about a medallion with Marx’s head on it in my pocket.”
When Benito Mussolini gained control of the Italian fascist party he received a letter of congratulations from Lenin. WHY? Because Lenin saw Mussolini as a fellow socialist revolutionary of the left.
AMERICA Being a fascist means that there are different brands of fascism....variations of a theme. Just as you have different brands of communism such as Bolsheviks, , Marxists and Maoists , so there are different brands of Fascists with varying degrees of ideology....but ALL are leftist. Some are anti- White...some are pro white. Jason Eric Kessler is an American neo-Nazi and organizer of the Charlottesville rally.
What was not revealed in the news clips at that time was the fact that he was an Obama supporter and activist for leftist progressive ideals. He was an occupy wall street participant. This fact was known to the media at the time but suppressed .
It is a fact that the owner of the neo-nazi web site, Andrew Anglin is a leftist, a rabid environmentalist, has stated numerous times how he hates white people and is open about it. David Duke is the grand wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. In 1970, he formed a white student group called the White Youth Alliance that was affiliated with the National SOCIALIST White People's Party. It turns out this particular fascist shares a lot in common with modern day socialists. He turns out to be, like many on the left to be a radical environmentalist. He has complemented President Obama and in an NPR interview stated he even preferred Obama to John McCain because Obama (a socialist in all but name), encapsulated many of his own beliefs.
In a radio interview in 2015 David Duke revealed how he actually admired the self confessed socialist leader of the British Labor party, Jeremy Corbyn for "bringing sunshine to his cause." David Duke also wants the world to know that he supports Minnesota Rep. Democrat Keith Ellison’s attempt to become the next chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Keith Ellison is BLACK !
So you see...you can be a fascist and be anti -white as well as pro white.
FRANCE When Hitler succeeded in defeating the French army in 1940 he installed the Vichy government to run France. The leaders of the Vichy government were all French communists and socialists. Marcel Déat was a French socialist politician until 1933, when he initiated a spin-off from the French Section of the Workers' International SOCIALISTS... 'Neosocialists'. During the occupation of France by Nazi Germany, he founded the pro NAZI -collaborationist National Popular Rally.
BRITAIN Oswald Mosley was a British politician who rose to fame in the 1920s as the lefts, Labor Party Member of Parliament and later in the 1930s became leader of the British Union of Fascists. He stated that the reason he left the labor party was that it had stopped moving to the extreme left. (It wasn't extremist enough.) In 1951 in his biography he called himself a European Socialist and heaped praise on European Socialism.
CONCLUSION Sure…you can find photos of a white supremacist holding a board saying they support Trump. But one red-neck idiot who knows nothing about his own political ideology only proves how illiterate he is. Obama once said he was proud of the history of the democrat party…..the party of slavery…the party of Jim Crow and segregation…the party of the KKK. So that shows...even a President can be a fool who ignores his own ideological past.. Rather…one should look at the HISTORY of that ideology...its HISTORICAL RECORD to deduce its roots. And for fascism….its socialism. So lets not have any more nonsense about the claim that FASCISM has nothing to do with Socialism....because the HISTORICAL RECORD and the the dead souls of 100 MILLION people beg to differ !
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
On the commie question:
What most people don't realize is that Marxism is one form of communism, we just use them as synonyms because nearly all socialist countries were, or are, built on these principles. Plato's Republic had communist principles in them and Victor d'Hupay had a very strong influence on modern communism, yet those ideas were established way before Marx and Engels even thought about writing down their retarded ideas. There are even examples of communalism in the early days of colonial America, which combined two opposing ideas, yet still can be considered a part of Marxism. So if national socialism is pretty much the same as regular bolshevism, but with a race instead of workers, then I see no reason to not call it socialism. They seized jewish, not private, property.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@jamesmackenzie1536 1)the Catholics were also oppressed as were people who did not wat to join the nazi protestant church. furthermore prominent Nazis such as Himmler and Ludendorf openly called for more oppression of Christians (Ludendorf was eventually sidelined due to wanting to exterminate christians and atheists, which the other nazis saw as bad press but didn't explicitly condemn)
2) NDVP wasn't the only german conservative party (such as DVP and KVP, and to an extent zentrum as they were right-leaning centrists at the time)
3)further look up the coalition, the nazis walked out on any coalition with DNVP in 1930 due to poltical diffrences. and NDVP were openly attacked by the nazis during the 1930 election. (i wouldn't call them allies), and while they worked to together in 1931 refereundum the nazis also worked with KPD in said 1931 referendum. the later Harzburger front (a coalition of all national [as aposed to international] parties) was also intended to drown out the nazis influence rather than work with them. and asa result the nazis then lashed out against the other memebers.
in the 1932 elections NDVP and the NSDAP failed to coordinate and infact tried to destroy eachother. Hugenberg (head of NDVP even called the nazis the main enemy of germany in 1932, calling them no different from Bolshiviks). the NDVP were bombed by the nazis in 1932, while the nazis worked alongside KPD in the trnasport unions berlin strike that year.
during 1933, when it was clear NDVP had lost. they conceded to the nazis on conditions of limiting the nazis power. something the nazis promnelty got around, something NDVP discovered early (resulting in a shouting match just before hitler was sworn in as chancellor). the enabling act effectively destroyed NDVP and was followed by nazi press campgns denounceing NDVP. by june 1933 the NDVP (now DNF) had all its members forced to join the nazis or resign, while their youth wing was raided and shut down, and the party itself was shortly forced to dissolve.
4) the nazis outlawed monarchist parties, and even put their members in concentration camps
I would thus hardly call them nazi allies (infact the nazis worked alongside KPD more often than it did NDVP and other 'right-wing' parties)
i would hesitate to call someone else a brainlet when you yourself are poorly informed
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
00:03 🌍 Socialists across the world shifted away from violent revolution post-Russian Revolution, favoring democratic reforms instead.
04:30 💡 Hitler's political trajectory included affiliations with socialist and communist movements before his shift towards anti-communist sentiments.
06:42 🛑 Hitler framed Soviet-style totalitarianism as inherently Jewish, distancing his version of socialism as 'Aryan.'
09:44 ⚡ Hitler's failed Munich Putsch prompted a strategic shift towards a 'peaceful revolution' approach.
11:12 🛣 Hitler's political stance blended elements of socialist ideology with nationalist and racist rhetoric, positioning himself between traditional socialist and communist factions.
14:32 💡 Hitler's anti-Semitic beliefs developed as he distanced himself from socialist and communist movements, attributing their failures to Jewish influence.
17:43 🔄 Hitler's adoption of a 'peaceful revolution' strategy didn't signify abandonment of revolutionary goals but rather a tactical approach to achieve them.
19:04 🤝 Hitler's divergence from Ernst Röhm stemmed from differing views on socialism and tactics, despite initial shared affiliations.
20:52 💥 Ernst Röhm, leader of the SA, was characterized by his violent nature and disdain for civilians, reveling in the lawlessness of wartime life.
21:48 🔄 Many SA and SS recruits were former communists, highlighting the fluidity between Nazi and communist ideologies during the early days of the movement.
23:13 🛑 Hitler realized the limitations of paramilitary violence after the failed Beer Hall Putsch and shifted towards winning mass public support for his ascent to power.
25:27 ⚔ Hitler formed the SS as a personal bodyguard unit loyal to him, distinct from the SA, in response to the SA's lack of unconditional loyalty.
27:46 🔄 Hitler implemented "Gleichschaltung" to synchronize all social institutions into the state, consolidating power and eliminating opposition.
31:59 🔍 Post-seizure of power, SA's continued violence became a liability for Hitler, destabilizing the state and discouraging economic activity.
34:40 🔄 Hitler opposed Ernst Röhm's call for a "second revolution" and prioritized stabilizing the economy over further radicalization.
36:29 📜 Röhm's proposal to turn the SA into the Reich's militia army and replace the traditional army sparked tension with Hitler and the military.
39:17 ⚔ Hitler hesitated to directly confront Röhm, but tensions between the SA and the Party led to preparations for a conflict, culminating in the Night of the Long Knives.
41:02 🚫 Hitler perceived opposition from conservatives as a threat and moved to suppress dissent within the Reich, leading to internal power struggles and crackdowns on critics.
42:01 🎙 Hitler's speech emphasized the need for social stability and an impartial judiciary to avoid perpetual upheaval.
43:19 🔥 Göring and Himmler turned against Ernst Röhm to eliminate the SA and solidify their own power within the National Socialist regime.
45:08 ⚔ Hitler's attempts to resolve the crisis with Röhm failed, leading to the decision to purge the SA.
48:58 🌃 The Night of the Long Knives saw the arrest and execution of SA leaders, including Ernst Röhm, to prevent perceived threats to Hitler's regime.
51:16 💀 The purge extended beyond the SA to eliminate potential future opposition and send a warning to dissenters.
55:50 ⚒ The aftermath of the purge led to the SS's separation from the SA and the consolidation of power under Hitler's leadership.
56:42 🇩🇪 Hindenburg's death further consolidated Hitler's power, merging the offices of President and Chancellor.
57:06 📚 Marxist narratives oversimplify the conflict between Hitler and Röhm, ignoring the nuances of their differing approaches to revolution.
01:00:42 💥 The conflict between Hitler and Röhm was not about capitalism versus socialism but rather differing models of revolution.
01:02:34 🔍 Hitler's revolutionary rhetoric varied over time, but he reverted to it after dealing with Röhm, challenging the portrayal of him as purely reactionary.
01:03:58 🔄 Arguments that Hitler killing Röhm proves he's not a socialist are logically flawed and oversimplify the situation.
01:04:49 💡 Hitler's purge targeted Röhm and some SA members, but not the entire socialist faction within the Party, nor did it extend to the SS, questioning the narrative of a purely capitalist agenda.
01:06:18 📚 The socialist split and variations in socialist ideology, including violent and peaceful revolutions, are often overlooked in Marxist narratives.
01:07:42 🏳🌈 Röhm's homosexuality may have been used in propaganda, but it wasn't the motivation for his purge, dispelling myths propagated in some quarters.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@chrissheldon8971 Hello again Chris. It’s Ironic how you call out TIK’s alleged bias when you very clearly have a bias towards Labour yourself.
Correct, the tories were in power for much longer, however, as you mentioned, the PM’s don’t deal with every issue on the local level - the councils have that sort of control.
This is why he covered the grooming gangs, which your very own Labour Party either ignored or protected in their own constituencies, such as: Rochdale, Oldham, Rotherham, Huddersfield, Telford, Bradford and Halifax.
The logic you used against TIK’s arguments actually support them.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Well said TIK. Stick to your guns. It's your channel and you have the right to publish whatever videos you want.
With that said, I'd like to comment on one of the things you mentioned.
Too many people try to mislabel Hitler as a Fascist. No. Mussolini was the the Fascist. In his book Mein Kampf, Hitler admitted that he was a socialist.
Further, when we look at the economy that Hitler created in Germany, we find that it was a socialist economy. All of the elements of socialism were present.
* Nationalized industry, government controlled the means of production
* Universal healthcare, for what little it was worth
* Government rationing of goods and services
* Government control of news media
The list goes on and on.
Admittedly, many of the industries were still, on paper, privately owned by people like Wilhelm Emil "Willy" Messerschmitt. The degree of control that the governement exercised over the industries was socialistic in its nature though. As with so many things, Willy Messerschmitt's ownership of 'his' company was a more a matter of words on paper than a reality.
I've heard it said it said that, "If we put the government in charge of the desert, within five years we'd have a shortage of sand." (author unknown)
To what degree do you think this factor influenced the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of German industry in WW2?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Bank Act of 1934 allowed the government to exercise tight control over private banks(Bel, “Against the Mainstream,” P20.),
That Nazi’s Bank Act allowed the Government to "intervene actively in banking business as and when they think fit and even to select the personnel of bank management".(Dessauer, Marie. 1935. "The German Bank Act of 1934.", p.224)
For the others two, their Executive members were either joining the Nazi Party, or replaced by Nazi members.
Those who disloyal or refused to joined the Party were getting their company redistributed to other Nazi members.
Notable examples as follow:
Thyssen AG was expropriated in 1939 after Thyssen, a Nazi member, sent Hermann Göring a telegram saying he was opposed to the war, shortly after arriving in Switzerland with his family. (I paid Hitler, p.38)
The properties of Heinrich Lübbe (Arado Flugzeugwerke), Professor Junker (Junkers Flugzeug- und Motorenwerke AG) (Bel, “Against the Mainstream,” P17.) were seized by the State just because they refused to joined the Nazi Party
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Well, TIK, I remember I did unsubscribe to your channel, a few months ago, when you begin to criticize socialism, and as I already mention, after I revised my view, and become somehow economic literate(that's doesn't make me an economist, but still it's better than having no clue at all).
Now, I re-subscribed to your channel, and I like your honesty.
The problem nowadays, if you criticize socialism, you could be mistaken for a fascist, and yeah this view of the world is naive and childish at best, and dangerous at worst.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I sincerely believe that the majority of people denying this are honest, good people, that want the best for everyone, thus are attracted by socialism cause that's the system that supposedly cares for us against "the funds". Of course there is the ( fortunately minor ) group of marxists who can't understand anything so I have lost hope for them. What the majority of socialists, which again, are genuinely good people, can't understand is that socialism is bad EVEN IN THEORY. I am tired of hearing that Socialism is the best if implemented right. No, it isn't. It is bad, it is unfair for the hard working people and it promotes laziness, cause why work hard when even if you don't you will be rewarded equally to everyone else?
Closing, it astounds me that some people misunderstand you on this. When you claim that Nazis were socialists, you don't claim that all socialists are Nazis. It's not even that hard come on...
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
When I look at this it is Feb. 25, and there are 3,723 +1 comments. This documentary is about 5 hours long. I have watched it for 24 minutes and my head is going to explode. This is a topic I have studied for 40+ years, and I knew there were nuances, but this presents an opportunity to reboot all of my definitions and make a journey to something new. I am going to watch this presentation, fully, and suspend my definitions, completely. Like food from a non-terrestrial source, I want to really taste this material independent of my Human/Earth prejudice, And Then try to relate it to my knowledge and experience. Maybe it will be a paradigm shift. Maybe I will be able to integrate it. The journey creates the destination, and I am excited by this work to find out where I wind up!
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
41:25 is a great example of how the Labor theory is trash. Cars are so complex and require so much labor from the metal being mined, sorted, processed, smelted, melted again to be cast or milled or stamped, then the making of bolts, the design of the car, the parts shipping hours, assembly hours, transport to sales lot hours, etc. Cars would cost centries of labor hours were it not for market demand aka prices.
Cars being $20,000 rather than "in exchange for 1 million hours" is a crazy good deal.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Gvjrapiro Did you watch his argument? The first of your counter arguments is already debunked, „Hitler wasn't a socialist, because he killed socialists.“ So the Inquisition were not Christian, because they killed other Christian sects? Makes no sense.
The main argument that Hitler socialized Germany and put state control over the whole economy means socialization. He was a socialist and an authoritarian. But if you want to be a socialist, because you are an Utopist, your ideas can only brought to work with force against the laws of nature, against the nature of men, against logic and laws of economy.
There was a black market in Nazi-Germany and black markets only exist, if the free market is destroyed. By the way, living in the EU is already 70 or more percent socialism. The state is controlling almost everything, taxes are high and sometimes mankind will never learn.
It is obvious that Hitler was a socialist and every fact, every data shows this. The thing you are arguing here is „but I am a socialist, I'm not like Hitler, MY utopia is wonderful, it will not kill millions of people! Just give me power and I'll show you.“ I bloody won't. And you say, „but meh flag is different!“ And I can't care less.
If something squawks like a duck, walks like a duck and starves and kills like a duck, I call it a duck.
Sure you are fighting a bloody civil war on your bloody edge of political spectrum who is the true believer and the only one worse than an infidel like me is a heretic like THEM. It doesn't change the fact that you all are, for me, the same and you only differ in the kind of flag you are waving, the music you are playing, but hell, even the songs you are singing are almost the same. You have the same death cult and you adore your dead, you love your Führers, your single strong men, you have after hundred years of bloody murdering and starving and killing over 150 millions of innocent lives at least to admit, that „you are the baddies.“
And I long for the moment in time when history and Historians wipe with your sorry asses the floor and give you the credit that you all deserve for this, for this suffering, this violence and this utter evil that you brought over mankind.
See, there is nothing to say against a social politics, the idea of being social comes from the idea of Christianity, that all men are equal (before God) and also the Humanism itself is an atheistic spin-off of that idea, that goes down the same path of compassion and love and forgiveness, but don't tell me the ugly cruel states Socialism builds and all the suffering and killings and murders and knocking on doors at five o'clock in the morning in all those Utopias has anything to do with love.
It is a power-game, and this godless abomination of an ideology always brings up the worst in mankind, feeds the lowest instincts and a man who is trusting a socialist has not learned anything. They are the baddies of history, the only as hateful, as destructive and even more murderous idea is Islam with now 250 million death toll, still rising.
And most historians do come to the same conclusion as TIK here, but I am with him when he says that our educational system is deeply corrupted by Socialism, censorship, wishful thinking and that we, indeed, are living in a time of darkness.
I appreciate your will to fight for a better world, Aidan, and I will always support you in doing so. But the better world is, where the light of scrutiny, science and enlightenment is shining not under the shadows hills of dead bodies and bones of millions, the darkness of an atheistic, godless religion or cult.
Yes, we can dispute about the fact if Socialism is a religion or a cult, I would prefer cult, because every „movement“ has their prophets and their strong leaders, while some other aspects of the same idea, like intersectionality, which comes from Culture Marxism is more or less leaderless and carries all signs of being a godless religion, something that came with the idea, that religion was bad and has to be replaced.
Well it has been replaced, yes, but by Humanism, by Gametheory and with that with laws of economic and so on.
We are living in an especially dark times, the killings of the future are just a doorstep away, if we go any further. We learn that now, learn from History or we will repeat.
Our world is full with Junkscience and the Marxists have long understood that science is the way to gain power in our modern society, control the scientific narrative and you control politics, because modern democracies are bound to scientific evaluation, they are bound to be rational. So: destroy rationality and you gain power and it is all about power for Socialists. It never was different.
And if you wave that flag, you are without any doubt one of the baddies. And you have to learn that. Or you will be responsible for the next holocaust, and don't come to me with „but we all didn't know“!
Back to your arguments.
Nationality is society. Society is state. The Stalinistic fifth column was a supernation, the „nation of all workers of the world united“, it was control from Moscow. And Hitler was a socialist, but he didn't want to be controlled from Moscow, so naturally the Bolsheviks were his enemies on the path of his own socialism. But he wasn't a Fashist in the way of Musolini, because he didn't define the we against them at the nation border, but by race. And for this he Heim ins Reich all German populations on his neighboring states, uniting all Germans, we against them.
The thing about socialism is, that it is a religion of hate, that implements the Ursünde idea of christianity in a different way. Your Ursünde may be your class with Marxism, may be your race with Nazism or you refuting to be collectivized by the ever growing state of Fascism. Socialism has taken some important themes from Christianity and has distorted and perverted its values to a mockery. Something of evil, something without forgiveness, without love and without the own soul that will stand just for the deeds on judgement day.
Socialism does bring all the themes, all the myths that Christianity has with different faces. Their leader cult is always like a cult of the new Heiland, there are more similarities than I could count and you are intelligent enough to find them yourself anyways, if you dare to look. You don't need me for that.
I fully understand that most people need something to believe in, and I totally respect that. But please, don't follow this evil cult of socialism, that brought nothing but suffering and death over mankind and that has been stripped of all loving power of something like Christianity and where you are not responsible for your deeds, because you are just a cog in the greater deed, in Socialism you will not stand in the end before God and have to justify your terrible ways, you were just „following orders“, you were just serving the collective.
But you are. You are responsible. You do that. You are a part of that.
And this is the lesson to learn.
Hell, if you want to believe in something, at least believe in something where you have to justify your deeds, where you are responsible, where you are an individual instead of a mindless collective. And that's the problem with disputing things like this with a Marxist: you are believers. You are not rational. I often and for long disputed with Jehova's Witnesses in my life and I never got them to understand their illogical ways and how they are inside of something very irrational. They don't care, because they are believers.
And that's why Marxist, true Marxist are lost for dispute. They are deep into the cognitive dissonance and as the old Nazis even at the age of 90 still were talking in the old ways, in face of their crimes never admitted their own wrongdoing, their guilt, true Marxists won't ever listen. Because everyone that is not inside their own cult, their own religious group is literally the devil and corrupted and wrong by definition.
For me there is no difference. But at least Jehovah's Witnesses have to stand trial for their deeds. And of course they suffered, always suffer from Socialism, because they will reject it vehemently and will see it as it is: heresy and godless. I talked with one of them about their history with National Socialism for a very long time and I asked a many questions about it. Why not just to pretend to let go their believe and instead go into the KZ instead; because they have to stand trial at the end of days for that. They are also, like Marxist and other radical socialists, true believers. They go into their death instead of repelling. They are of course „harmless“ if you compare them to the bloody cult of socialism and all the murders and sufferings they brought upon mankind.
By the way, I'm not religious. I am a man of science not of believe. But I can read the themes. I see similarities. I don't think I can convince you. The only one who can is yourself. But you only can do that if you are not a true believer. If there is some skepticism left. And I think there is. Or you would not be talking with me. And that, by the way, was why that Jehovah's Witness, after long talks with me slowly distances himself from that sect. I did nothing. I only was the mirror of his own questions and I tried to help him to find an answer.
I decided not to argue against what you are talking, because you know the answers either way. It would now be interesting if I play devils advocat and you try to convince me that Hitler was a socialist. How'd you do that?
4
-
Absolutely great article, you did here, @Tik. Don't mind the Marxist will never even listen to it, my experience is, that everything that is longer than a single sentence slogan will not stick to their brains. But your argument is well put, your sources are valid, you did a fine job. And the incredible crap we are going through in society will not stop until socialism has gotten the full scrutiny of history and science and the idea that the one socialist is good and the other socialist is bad, simply from the color or sign of his flag, as long as we believe this and let them get through with that as long the heaps of ever new bodies will stack up until mankind finally learns.
Especially the dissection of the flawed counter arguments I liked, I heard that now so often that I can't stand it anymore. And while I am protesting against this "good" vs "bad socialist" or "nazism is no socialism" crap which is blatantly against the facts all my life, it is a good thing to see, that some people have the courage to stand up and say that the king has no clothes.
So, you're telling the truth, hope you got fast running shoes. Our society is not there yet. But of course you are perfectly right. Your collection of books will help me as a foundation for my own arguments I have to do, thank you very much for your service.
This article of yours should be getting a Noble Price. And it needs a lot of courage to stand up and say this easy to see truth, because you are standing against the narrative of some of the most violent, hateful and murderous people we ever have seen in history. It is a atheistic cult, a religion, a dogma and it is one of the most terrible, violent and harmful memes that ever were brought to life.
The dark shadow of Socialism, Communism and the other playforms of socialism like the national or the fascist have to be put down and purged from our educational systems, and if not purged so put under the light of full and merciless scrutiny of enlightenment and argument and censorship is in the way.
You did a great job. Thank you.
You can't convince people that don't listen. But I listened. Thank you. Noble Price worthy (well the Noble Price isn't what it used to be, maybe you deserve something better than that for this.)
To purge this madness from society is the big task for the next generation, because we failed to do so — up to now. Still, there is hope the CCP/Chinese system will fall and with that one of the last old massive powerblocks of this deadly and anti-humanistic ideology of hate, murder and theft.
When I stood as a boy at the German-German border, viewing over the iron curtain, where soldiers were pointing machine guns on us ten year olds, I asked this question: „Why didn't they stop the Nazis with the war?“ „That are not Nazis“, I was told. „I can't see a difference“, I said. Of course I was just a child. What I meant to say was, „they are the same breed, they are socialists, they share everything and what little they differ is for me not visible or just a detail.“
I said that the king has no clothes and I never stopped saying that. Still, I never had the ammunition, the hard facts to support the obvious and without the stack of books you provided, it will be hard to convince people. You didn't change my mind, sadly. I already knew it, I felt it, I knew that there was going on some leftist civil war for a hundred years now. They always were fighting each other the hardest, because it is a cult, a kind of religion and what is worse than the infidel is the heretic.
I downloaded this, for I don't think they will let this be uncensored.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
What I just find amazing is we are told we live in this capitalistic world, (largely true), however growing up, and when I would experience my most pivotal years and at that age time seems to be going much slower I had no idea what capitalism was.
Most of once life is in sleep and in in some other space, in that case school. Which is socialistic, government run with many problems and really corrupt, and the time you truly learn is when you leave the camps like einstein and others said.
The other major problem is if you want the best product, you would create an incentive environment i.e the best teachers. That does not exist. The regime knows how to harp on "education.. education ... education" yet all that they would need to do is make competitive salaries for teachers, so the best end up teaching. Instead you get people who'd rather work in other fields, since the incentives aern't there. This is also by design because they don't want every kid to be at the top, they need people to fill many of the blue collar roles. I remember in my school, it was so bad and corrupt and the only reason there were top students is because they all had personal tutors, it was ironic how the school would venerate them as if the school had something to do with it when it was all personal tutors, aka home schoolers.
4
-
4
-
Hi TIK, great video. I’ve seen your public vs private video and I’m a bit confused how corporations, such as Apple or McDonald’s, can be considered statist. Weren’t these businesses started by entrepreneurs? People willingly chose to partake in these corporations as developers, engineers, and laborers, influenced by free market forces. People also willingly chose to invest in these corporations stock prices. I believe you said that because the corporation is a collective, especially from stock holders, it can no longer be private. And society is the state. But people chose to do those things based on free market forces, didn’t they? In a free market society, would people be banned from co-owning a business? Would people be banned from making investments in companies? Don’t those rules contradict the free market? If I’m missing something please anyone tell me because this id very interesting
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Very well sorted out. I absolutely agree with you Tik.
Funny enough, I’ve had, being myself of half German ancestry, very similar thoughts questioning whether the Germans are actually western. One could argue back and fourth if you trace it back to the Roman/Germanic issues. I tend to point out that most of the socialist ideas are rooted in Germany (Marx, Weishaupt, Warburg, Rockefeller…) and that they had a fair share in the October Revolution. Even today you could look into the European Union and Walter Hallstein, you will find very interesting connections which might explain the current state of the world.
Anyway. The question of a healthy national identity answered George Friedman pretty well. I dare to compare it to personal psychology: if you want a healthy relationship with your spouse, you need to dance. Not too close and not to far. You need to maintain your stable individual persona as well as a common sense.
Similar like light is wave and particle, we are individuals and we team up as family.
I’m very much an admirer of Ayn Rand and Mises. In the U.S., this requirement of a healthy individual - pursuit of happiness - luckily is much better understood than Europe. I can see how collectivism always was part of the (German) indoctrination. And it’s not a consequence of the Third Reich, it’s just the other way around. Friedrich Hoelderlin described this condition already in the 19th century: Hyperion.
You can’t have a healthy society without having happy independent and free individuals. Just as the organism can only maintain homeostasis and health if every single cell has a proper metabolism and individually functions well.
Again, keep your good work going. Nowadays it’s more important than ever.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
So true TIK - Real live example: Single mother, x2 kids, council property newly built (value<£500K), 5 year old car, part time work earning close to nothing, this is my neighbor. Myself and wife working full time jobs, 10year old car, property on mortgage, one child as we concluded we can't afford more without a massive hit to work-home, home-work rosy standard. How is this fair? We are slaving to be robbed at the end of the month via income tax and other contributions in order to fund the living of my dear neighbor family. Nothing personally against the people but this is just insane! System is set to keep us tax gnomes just above the sewer level and fed just enough to make trips work-home, home-work. Oh, and if I slip I'll lose my house and so on, what happens to neighbor in this scenario? Yes, more money handed out as the standard of living has decreased. Bananas! Thanks :)
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I questioned the ability of the single line railway which the Germans had converted to European gauge, to carry enough freight to supply the Stalingrad air lift, in the comments of episode 38. The fact that He 111s were re-assigned to support Manstein's relief attack, may imply that there were not enough supplies for the He111s to deliver to Stalingrad. If the German general staff had over reached their ability to supply their troops in southern Russia they may have wished to cover this up. Original comment edited - In his book 'Blood Red Snow', Günter K.Koschorrek says that on 24/25 October 1942 he was traveling to Stalingrad by train. Koschorrek says that the train was forced to reverse for 12 hours after partisans blew the tracks up. Later Koschorrek's train was attacked by a lone Il2, which does not seem to have pressed it's attack home due to 2 dual 20mm AA on the train. Koschorrek says that the engine hauling their train was struggling on inclines, after the IL2 attack the 320 replacements on the train had to push it up hill. More than 150km to the west of Stalingrad Koschorrek's unit had to abandon the train and march to the Kalach bridge on foot. Koschorrek implies that the locomotive hauling his unit's train was clapped out, the German railways were struggling to get enough locomotives and rolling stock to use in Russia. The Soviets seem to have been able to interdict the main supply railway more than 150km to the west of Stalingrad, using partisans and aircraft. Even if the Luftwaffe was able to muster enough aircraft to supply the troops in Stalingrad, would the railway(s) be able to deliver enough fuel and spares to the Luftwaffe to keep it airborne, and enough supplies for the 6th army in Stalingrad. If the Soviets had attempted to use aircraft to interdict the railway(s) to Stalingrad there must have been a large unreported air battle over these railway(s).
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Thank you for a great video, that is the most information I've seen presented on the Greek suffering, and explains many things. Thank you for always sourcing your videos so well and quoting the sources at length. Please continue to make videos that focus on these sort of issues. I will be ordering up three books today thanks to this video. I really wish you would make a short response to a certain WWII channel that I also love, that has taken, shall we say, a different approach to describing the German economy under the Third Reich. It seems a strange way some historians really want to never, ever, say the Nazi's were socialists (one might speculate). The fact that they had a mixed system, were in bed with big corporations, and practiced a from of kleptocracy doesn't in any way negate their socialist goals, actions, or proclivities, as the economic destruction of Greece shows - the Germans were more into pillage, the Italians into enforced Socialism. There is the further political issues in post WWI - German that lead to many conservatives supporting Hitler, but one must remember that the 2nd Reich was the first true welfare state in Europe. At any rate. Great video, love to watch your work and recommend it to my friends and students. I am curious as to the thinking behind the fishing restrictions. I can speculate, but would like to know more. Thanks again!
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Tik - Have you read Ordinary Men, about Police battalion 101 and the final solution.
Very interesting read about the ethics of the killers during the holocaust, but it’s also excellently written from an academic history perspective. Furthermore it includes some very interesting information about police battalion formation, heirachy and operational effectiveness as policeman, anti partisan troops, executioners and fully fledged military units as part of army group north, centre and south, losses, casualties and numbers of killed jews etc.
Something I imagine you may have read, however if not I would sure give it a read, even if you are not necessarily interested in the ethics and psychology aspects of the book, just the history.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Hey TIK, thank you for making this video. It explains leftism in an absolutely clear way. I brought up this video in response to TimeGhost History's Rise of Evil - From Populism to Fascism, where they say Fascism is right-wing. It's amazing how many rhetorical techniques like "repeating something over and over makes it true" and "appeal to authority" are used instead of simply replying with facts and dialectic. Here is their response:
"while we respect TIK military history work, his political science is not quite upon to academic standards. To put it more bluntly: it has a bunch of things desperately wrong so that the conclusions become nonsense. While Naziism did in its early days have prominent figures that advocated vaguely 'leftist; ideas, it is, as we said in this video, over in 1925 and definitely over by 6 December 1932. Hitlerism, which won the day does not in any way embrace an abolishment of private property, plan economy, or statist intervention into private enterprise (well except for expropriating Jews and plundering occupied or annexed countries). It's just plain factually wrong, so it's not a matter of interpreting things this way or that - it simply didn't happen. You can scream, holler, flail around and scream some more shouting to the forums; 'but, but, but, but... it was so! TIK said it was so! and so did a bunch of other guys in my Internet Social Club, they even have sources!" but it won't change a diddly.It just wasn't. And since it's almost impossible to prove a negative all we can do is show you how it really was. Wait for the next video for another piece of the actual events. Naziism was not a left wing ideology, not even fiscally."
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
There's already 2,000+ comments, so I can't imagine you'll read this one, but I'd offer the advice that you give yourself a more lighthearted series to work on temporarily. I don't mean do a "fluff piece" but there are more fun aspects to history, lots of quirky stories, or just a subject of history you really love but doesn't fit your normal content (you tend to focus on WW2, I'm guessing as a history buff you probably don't stop there and have lots to say about...I don't know...Ancient Rome or the Mongolian Hordes or something, maybe it might be fun to do, I don't know)
The other thing is possibly doing some guest spots on other history channels where the pressure to put quite so much effort into each video is replaced with the chance to just shoot the breeze with a fellow history fan about a fun subject. I know The Lotus Eaters fan base has consistently voted you as their #1 dream guest for an episode of their Epochs series (their history series with Beau Dade) and that seems much more enjoyable and less burnout inducing, as Beau is just a fountain of knowledge and it always makes for a fun conversation about different historical subjects. I know personally I'd be thrilled to watch a 90min chat between you and Beau about a subject you don't normally get to cover, and the more laidback approach might help you figure out the direction you want to take with your own channel a bit better.
Either way, the content you have made won't go anywhere and you've personally done more to benefit the discussion of serious history, and provide one of the most cohesive defences against revisionism that we've all benefited from the work you've already done. All the best, mate
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I just read this document from the link provided. It reads as if written by a staff officer far in the rear - but even that’s a long stretch. Real veterans, in any military organization do not write in this manner. All overview as if from a news report. Too many mentions of the Fuhrer and the Strategic situation. No mentions of killed comrades, meals, individual experiences, fighting details, deprivations…. Real veterans speak in details and struggle to place those details in broader context. This writing always starts with broader context and rarely if ever drills down. Why would anyone think that a German enlisted soldier would know the broader context in almost every entry? It’s not as if they were briefed in this manner every day. German infantrymen received mission orders. Then the talk of medals! By the time Of the fighting in August and September - no enlisted German would have been thinking about medals, much less writing about it! They would simply have been content to be among the living and wondering when this bullshit would be over! Again, he never speaks of his comrades - his squad - his Feldwebel. Always from the perspective of operational overview. Wish I’d read this document before.
EDIT after finishing the entire video. As I'm sure you know, Russia has a poor record of manipulating it's history which continues today - It seems it never had enough "History Commissions" to defend it's history and when that doesn't work - shutting down organizations which take too critical of a look at internal Russian history. Now this is recent - we aren't even talking about the USSR.
Just a few days ago, the Russian Memorial International organization was determined to be illegal - I remember seeing it in BBC reporting - here's a link. https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/28/europe/memorial-international-russia-intl/index.html
Don't want an accurate tally of purges obviously.
Past that - there seems a constant need to create "story writers" produce a more "Russian Excellence" version of history - two commissions have been created in the last 12 years.
August 2021 - https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-history-commission-putin/31403236.html - New Russian History Commision created "in order to ensure a planned and aggressive approach to the matter of defending the national interests of the Russian Federation." and in 2012 "By Andrew Osborn
Another from Medvedev's short stand in: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124277297306236553
May 21, 2009 12:01 am ET
"MOSCOW—President Dmitry Medvedev has created a special commission to counter what he says are increasingly aggressive attempts to rewrite history to Russia's disadvantage. Supporters said the commission is needed to tackle anti-Russian propaganda in the former Soviet Union, an area Moscow regards as its backyard, but liberal historians called the initiative a return to Soviet-era controls."
It's not that Russia is alone in history manipulation - it's rather widespread. Politicians and nationalists love to have control of the narrative. Too many people in my country (USA) that desire their grade school history from the 60's and 70's preserved also.
You provided an excellent analysis of this story and it does stand to reason from the manner in which is was written, it's a fake - as I mentioned before - the writing style is absolutely inconsistent with diaries written by real soldiers in any conflict. Brilliant conclusion on who the author was. Soviet deception and a rather poor one at that.
So Love and Appreciate your work, TIK!!!
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@TheImperatorKnight I'm seeing cracks in the facade forming. There's a friend I've been discussing your banks & historical politics videos with for some time now who I recently had sort of a knock-down drag-out with about whether protecting "the devil you know" status quo is better than allowing disruption & upheaval of the current state. Eventually I got him to realize that everything he's concerned about is exactly what the state is already actively doing, and that the ugliness of the aftermath of "revolutions" is dependent on how much they're trying to impose their own centralized control. People fighting back the state on the premise of wanting to be left alone to live their lives aren't people who are going to disrupt the everyday workings of an economy, and everyone else will continue to go about business as usual to the extent they're allowed to do so. So just because a state implodes doesn't mean the table gets flipped on the rest of society... unless the state itself and/or a despotic attempt at a new state does the flipping.
Both your approach over the years and Michael Malice's (who he also enjoys) helped me articulate my argument a lot. Reminding people that they already know just how inefficient, corrupt, destructive, etc. the state is and connecting that to their hypothetical complaints about a stateless situation seems to be quite effective. While it's important to address the lack of imagination for the market's desire & ability to meet demands currently in the hands of the state, even more important seems to be pointing out how the state is already engaged in all the harmful things they can muster up to be wary about and the special, monopolistic power and influence of the state only guarantees such problems rather than protecting against them.
If you haven't watched any of Malice's appearances (primarily as a guest rather than a host in this regard), I think you'd enjoy it whether or not you fully take on his position. He's a self-described anarchist, not an objectivist, but does know and speak quite a lot about Rand and align far more than not. Personally, I align closer to his perspective than objectivism, but depart somewhat from both. He is very well-spoken and pleasant to listen to (also hilarious), a master of likeability to anyone which opens their mind to ideas they would never have given a second thought otherwise.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Hey Tik just two things I'd like to say about this video. Hopefully you don't mind to take the time to answer.
1) The whole "wrong but still useful" thing, I think there is still some merit. Now I'm not arguing on the side of those equations, but rather the idea of an equation that could do such a thing. Obviously its not possible to predict the outcome of the battle, but it is possible to get an idea of how it might go. If you put in both sides' forces, equipment, and conditions, and then see that you have a 30% chance to win the battle, then sure you might not actually lose but at least you are prepared for it. You could also see that (for instance) by increasing your artillery pieces you end up with a way higher chance of winning the battle, so you've identified your limiting point and can proceed based on that. So the point doesn't have to be to accurately predict the outcome, but just to prepare yourself from the outcome, hence "wrong but still useful". Now again I'm not defending those specific equations, I'm not familiar with them, and from the introduction you gave it seems they are outdated. I'm just arguing that "wrong but still useful" is valid.
2) I see this in a lot of videos, where you take the soviet style socialism and treat that as socialism. Its not a big deal but I think it would be better to distinguish it by calling it state socialism, or just a centrally planned and owned economy. Some prefer to call it state capitalism (as the difference is that now the state owns the businesses), but I think that term is just confusing. Socialism on its own does not call from the state ownership of the economy. That is just a branch of socialism, and I think it is quite misguided. The idea is that if the government control the means of production, and the government is democratic, then the people control the means of production. However giving power to the government leads to people like Stalin ending up with full control, certain people will argue with how much control he had, but its pretty clear he still had immense control, and certainly not democratic. However that is just a branch of socialism. I think it is important to make that distinction, rather than saying socialism in general.
I guess its important to point out an example of how socialism could work besides that. For socialism to work it requires the means of production being controlled by the workers or the people, not the few people that have the capital. This does not have to be done by government ownership and control over the economy, and if anything that just gets in the way of those that call for communism (as that requires the abolition of the state). It can be done in other ways, for instance just splitting the majority of the shares in the company among its workers. Now I'm not advocating for any specific form of socialism or anything. It just appears that you base your idea of socialism just on one branch, when many (and from what I've seen most) socialists don't even agree with that. Maybe that's not the case, but regardless I think you could take the time to clarify at least "state socialist".
Hopefully this doesn't come across as a negative opinion on you, I think very highly of you, and your channel is one of the few I have ever recommended to other people.
4
-
4
-
@TheImperatorKnight I couldn't agree more. A backlash is part of being a content creator, and it does drive up engagement anyway.
My feedback: When I started watching your videos about two years ago I went back and watched them all, including Stalingrad. The level of detail in the Stalingrad series was more than I wanted to watch, but I did so because I so love your work. My favourite videos of yours are the ones like the supply chain in Nazi Germany, economics, political philosophy etc. I love topics like North Africa, because the ANZACs come into it (I'm a Kiwi.)
On a personal note, I have experienced burnout, and I recommend you seek professional help, whether that's in the form of seeing a psychologist or a life coach or whatever qualified health care professional you would resonate with. You certainly don't need to disclose anything about this in public and I would advise against it. The formal education system doesn't offer training in the kinds of skills we need to manage and get the most out of our adult lives. Individualised "talk therapy" is well worth the investment of time, in my humble opinion.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Bravo, TIK. You are leveling up your game at an astounding pace. I am guessing the circular hand motion at the end of the video is related to the Ouroboros and the Hermetic belief of "As above, so below." If not intentional, you're definitely on the correct path philosophically speaking.
Voegelin is a good source on this subject, and if you came to these conclusions without reading Peikoff's "The Cause of Hitler's Germany", then that'd be another bravo required. As you say, it's a cult and most of the cultists are unaware of it. They've been tricked, thus the myriad of historical references to Hitler having "had them in his spell" or "hypnotizing" the people. A good way to understand the trick or the "spell" is to understand the polysemy going on. Polysemy is when a word has multiple meanings, i.e: "I'm going to play outside." and "I'm going to see a play tonight." Same word, different meaning, based on context. What Hitler is doing is conceptual polysemy. The word "volk" was understood to mean "people" in a general context, "German folk". This is how most understood it. Hitler meant it in a particular context however, a National Socialist ideological context. This context can be referred to as Hermetic, gnostic, Marxist, progressive, etc. It essentially means a certain subset of people who have a particular gnostic view of the world. They have "nous" or "mind", essentially that they are awake to the way reality truly is, or as it's referred to in the West today: they're woke.
The Hitler speech quotes you chose were well selected. Try replacing the word "folk" with the word "folx" and the language and meaning are near identical. Replace "Volksgemeinschaft" with "Folxgemeinschaft" and you get something very similar (though situated in a different context). In the name of "equity" in America for example, you get segregation based on skin color to protect the "folx". "Communities of color" in modern Western parlance is an equivalent to Volksgemeinschaft. "Safe spaces for trans folx" in modern Western parlance is an equivalent to Volksgemeinschaft. They are the Volk/folx, they have the "nous" or "mind" or are "awakened" (i.e: woke).
That's the trick (well, one of them). That's the slight of hand, the conceptual polysemy. The average person doesn't think like a crazy person. When you're trying to point out how crazy people think, the reaction of the average person is to say "No, that's crazy, you're crazy, no one thinks like that." When you're discussing "unconditional surrender", it's the Volk that view it as the end of the Volk, that they will be extinguished. Not that they will be sent to Siberia or sterilized but that the Volk will be defeated which they consider to be the death of their "Volk", a specific subset of human beings who have true knowledge of how the world works. Today, you hear the same claim from "trans folx", claiming there will be a "trans genocide" - they mean the "way of life" of their "volk" will be extinguished, they will cease to "be". Conceptual polysemy, again. Makes it very easy to trick people.
I'd also like to point out that the quote you use referring to "world history" has gnostic roots as well in Hegelianism. The Hegelians claim to know how "History" (capital H) unfolds, how you get from point A to point B, in a scientific manner. "Otherwise world history will have lost it's meaning." is Jodl saying what amounts to "Our theory of reality and how History unfolds and how we reach Heaven on Earth will have lost it's meaning". It would be the undoing of the Volk, their cult-religion being decimated.
Keep up the great work :)
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
The obsession of racists with the idea of degeneration resulting from white people mixing with coloured people is an interesting look in the fallacy of their worldviews. It's certainly true that under the wrong circumstances, 'negative' traits can become widespread within a species. Resulting in a backwards step, in the eyes of us, as a sapient species that can think about the wider implications. I've read reports on how elephant populations in Africa are on average becoming less endowed in regard to their tusks. Even though tusks are an effective tool for digging or shoving, and a lethal weapon against hippos, lions and rhinos. And therefore their reduction in size is an overal negative for the species. A fact explained by the 'selection' is carried out by human poachers, who shoot the more prominent bulls for their ivory, ensuring the smaller tusked specimens survive to procreate instead.
Of course the issue with this proof of negative evolution is that it wasn't 'moral degeneracy' and 'woke' that resulted in these outcomes. The female elephant does not think "I know the herd wants me to get it on with a big-tusked chad alpha-bull who can make me feel like a real cow. But what I really want is to dominate a small-tusk beta cuck who simps for me". We already know the cause behind this negative pressure, so evolutionary decay isn't inextricably connected with immorality or rejecting tradition.
For race mixing to result in the proliferation in negative attributes, you have to first believe that other races are by default purveyors of these bad genetics. That black people are dumb, hispanics are lazy, asiatics are sneaky and underhanded. They're already putting the cart before the horse, and working backwards from there to gather evidence through a confirmation bias to support their racial worldview. Even if they can prove that modern society is somehow more degenerate and sinful, it won't matter as the methodology for proving race mixing is bad was flawed to begin with.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Of course it was important,it basically exposed the Royal Navy weaknesses as a fighting unit,helped to built sympathy for Great Britain as the "sympathic underdog",undermined the nazi legitimacy as nothing more than pirates. And got the US,ad the whole american continent into an undeclared war with Germany,which on long term was a death sentence.The german could have done more even with such finite resources if they had a proper naval air force,a competent leadership who were more fighters like Wilhelm Marshall and less organizers Raeder,a better cordination between the mon-existent naval air force ,U-boats,and limited surface fleet,and if the admirals actually learned about modern technology instead of having an argument how should a sailor behave :The Royal Navy was far from the dominant force,they even had a mutiny in 1931 because of reduced numbers,wages.On the other hand the Royal Navy got rid self from its weaknesses quite early,admirably
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
My stock reply to this one.
It is a spectrum in a sense, but they have existed as almost every possible ratio of mixture so far. The politico-economic system, known as Capitalism, was discovered only by philosophical, specifically ethical advancement. It can only exist in conditions of political freedom, and the most pure form of Capitalism that has existed, was the United States in the 19th Century, the discoverers. The result of this discovery was the industrial revolution, and the largest standard of living increase in recorded, and even theoretical, human history. Even if you combined the world income per year for the last 3k years, it would not surpass the instant wealth and living standard boom. So, we know what happens as the spectrum tilts further toward Capitalism(economic freedom, rights, property), flourishing.
Marxism, I use as a term for any ideology that spawned from Marx's Hegelian influenced ideas. Most world -isms as a result fall under this classification. This was what happened when you take F.G.W. Hegel seriously, and wanted to see "epic action". Marx made a framework for revolution, almost as if he included the key variables as (blanks) for convenient filling in as appropriate for the context of intended use.
"Convince (the pawns) that they are the most powerful, or entitled, group in society. Point to the (easy scapegoat) and claim that they are oppressors, or malicious, and are the only obstacle in the way of (juicy goal) and your future. Incite, and inspire (Epic Action). Bloodbaths ensue.
Economies are destroyed or bled and rendered impotent to the extent that the scale tilts to the Marxist side. Marxism is(Force, Sacrificial Killings, Theft, Brutality)
Example of a Nazi Marxist Framing.
"Convince "the Aryan Nation" that they are the most powerful, or entitled, group in society. Point to the "Jews" and claim that they are the oppressors, or malicious, and are the only obstacle in the way of the victory of "the master race" and your future. Incite, and inspire (Epic Action). Bloodbaths ensue. Economies are destroyed or bled and rendered impotent.
You can use this with China's Cultural Revolution, Bolshevik uprising in Russia, and any other smaller example of Marxist uprisings, all used that framework.
Government =/= Socialism
Socialism requires political power centralization, due to the collective sacrifice of the individuals. Someone must step up to manage the gangs or pressure groups that arise when the "individual" is ignored.
Capitalism is at its best under a neutered state, limited to only protecting individual rights to life. If the state can initiate force for any reason, the poison has begun its course.
Conclusion. Marxist derived ideologies are all the same. Poison. There is no fence to sit on. Good and Evil exist. Good is life, and Evil is Death. Please pick a side, and don't buy the "Cult of Moral Greyness" thing. Mixed economies are caustic mixtures of opposing ingredients, and will ultimately disintegrate if the poison is not extracted.
I hope you have a wonderful evening.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Question: is it possible that Zhukov's information uses the old calendar? The soviets switched Russia from the Julian to the Gregorian calendar, which was 13 days ahead. Apparently though, some parts of society, notably, the Church, continued to use the Julian calendar.
If so, then we might find that his numbers make more sense if you add 13 days. This may or may not be consistent. I doubt Zhukov was highly religious, but it may well be that keeping track of the days gets hard. Religious holidays can be easy markers... and these would be wrong for the modern calendar.
If the dates keep being wrong, it might be worth checking for that. I assume historians have long checked that and it doesn't work out, and that it's just "politically correct", but worth asking.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I really love your channel mate. You’ve inspired me to read books and I thank you for that.
I was wondering if you can make a video regarding the similarities between Marxian Socialism and Darwinism. Highly recommend you read James Gregors, “Marxism, Fascism and Totalitarianism”
He goes into great details between the Proletarian’s will not to be extinct and the supremacy of the proletariat.
“The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.”
*Chapter 2
"The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative.”
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I think your theory about The Vinnitsa Conference is correct, but incomplete. If Halder convinced Hitler that the Don flank was not an immediate issue, because the city would fall in 10 days (which, if true, would make sense), but later Paulus and Weichs say they can't guarantee that and that they need reinforcements, the logical next step in the conference should be "so now that we know it's likely the city won't fall in 10 days, what DO we do with the Don flank?". At the very least they should make some contingency plans, like "we try to take the city in 10 days, but if we fail, we do x". But you do not mention any such plans being made, so I think we are missing some element of the puzzle.
The simplest conclusion would be that Hitler chose to believe Halder over the commanders in the field, which would make him just as guilty of the mistake and looks somewhat strange in the face of him loosing faith in Halder a few days back. Second option that comes to my mind is that Paulus and Weichs eventually gave in to the pressure and said "ok, if you give us those reinforcements, we can take Stalingrad in 10 days". Third option would be that everyone realized that, until the allied armies arrive, they don't have enough reserves to both attack the city, attack the Caucasus and secure the Don flank, so they chose the least bad option, but I think such discussion would leave a trace, at least in memoirs of some of the participants.
One thing I also find strange is the subject of Caucasus completely disappearing from the discussion. I mean Hitler just a few days prior to the conference feared the war was lost because of a failure there, raged at his generals and took personal command of the forces, yet during the conference he agreed to focus the effort on the city and to send Paulus reinforcements, which he probably could use in the Caucasus? Sus.
3
-
3
-
Regarding the 76th Infantry Division's non-participating in the Stalingrad city fighting, it is most remarkable that seemingly no one by the authors of many books bothered to go to a veteran, especially a division, regiment or battalion-level officer or NCO, of the 76th ID and simply ask 'was your division engaged in battle for Stalingrad proper?' . Even failing that hard work, a researcher could have consulted the Bundeswehr, NARA, UK military archives as there were many records from the period, e.g. division, army, corps operational diaries. Sloppy or lazy authorship. There is a saying about history, viz. that the further away from the event in time the more apt the truth is to be found. This is most true in the case of Stalingrad.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Hi TIK, love your work, been watching your videos since the market garden fiasco and compass videos, also love the Chieftain and Military History Visualized and the 5 minute guide to warships guy.
I think a lot of the reason why your getting a lot of left-right topic comments on this video is because everyone has there own perceptions on what is left or what is right on this ambiguous and unhelpful diagram.
Even though you state in thr video your basing your left right diagram on Degree of Freedom, people (mainly us americans) still hear what you say with a mindset of "Democrat=left, Republican=right" with everything.
Many crazy far left and far right communicators like to either: move communism to the right to make it seem like there is nothing wrong with moving "more left" and thus "this time socialism will work" (we all know how that will go), or they put fascism on the left and say there is nothing wrong with moving more right, but moving left will lead to socialism and fascism, so we must move right at all costs!
These are being couched in a Democrat or Republican "us vs them" mentality so that's why you are probably seeing a shitstorm in the comments which dont really relate to the video. Even though you couched it in a degrees of freedom, Americans are probably more polarized so the right sees it as a cheap win against the left and the left sees it as reactionary propaganda and you will no doubt see rebuffs with people trying to convince you that fascism is on the right in the comments, forgetting or even ignoring that your using a different viewpoint on the scale than they are so your views are incomparable!
That's why I like the quadrant system, where you have an up-down axis and a left-right axis. It also forces the viewer to think about what your saying and learn something, and not base what your saying up against there preconceived notions. They go "hold on a minute, he's talking about something and labeling it in a system that I've not completely been indoctrinated in, I better pay attention and use my brain", at least until that system gets absorbed and polarized by the general population as a whole.
This might be a better system to use, have you thought about it before? If you have and haven't decided to use it, I would love to hear your perspective on it and why you think its not suitable! Maybe a video? I like your perspective on things and value it highly.
(Disclaimer, I myself view the climate as a serious issue and that puts me solidly in this binary choice of the left camp, I support restrictions/regulations on businesses for environmental reasons, or to prevent an oligarchy from taking hold and choking out free markets. I personally have been taught that too much of one side or the other is bad, and a blended system works best.)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Listening to this kid, Keith Woods, was like listening to Hitler's exact talking points. Decadence is the product of a rejection of collectivism. We hate capitalism but we're not going to destroy the small businesses like the Communists, equating the Left's attack on decency to anti-Statism instead of recognizing it correctly as Gramsci's social hegemony in action, believing that collective identity and Statism are somehow a magic pill for all social ills. It's downright eerie how this kid echoes Hitler.
Edit: As an aside, I find it disturbing that these people's content gets scrubbed. Firstly, I'm an advocate from free speech - so principle, and secondly, because these people are gold mines of material that we can use to refute both them and the putrid Leftists, which no doubt, is why the Left is desperately trying to silence them.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I started out my adult life as a left of center authoritarian. Life experiences dragged me right of center. Then in what can be best described as a political conversion experience drove me into the libertarian camp. When one first “converts”, to whatever they may change to, they are driven to want convert others and they assume their conversion process is typical. Conversion events are personal. What series of events converted one person may never be replicated in another person. This is because life experiences made you receptive to the conditions of your conversion. I’ve dissected my own experience. The book that started me in this direction only did so due to a single paragraph. The book itself was mediocre at its writing and at this point a completely irrelevant read. I doubt the author considered the paragraph in question particularly poignant. It hit me just the right way and caused me to ask questions that went in a new direction. I’d be stunned and shocked to discover anybody considering this paragraph or even the book itself a turning point in their life. The book itself really has no libertarian principles. Yet, here I am because of it. Do not expect to convert someone disagreeing with you in the comments section. The nature of discourse and argument almost guarantees that the participants will not be moved from their positions. However, those lurking in the background and reading the arguments might be moved or have a seed planted. Use the comments section to strategically go after well crafted arguments of the opposition and pick them apart politely as you do. Set rules. Rule One, don’t respond to people who call you names. Use comments like most other providers do, as fodder for easy videos when you need to kick out content but need a break from the hard slogging of research. Your video “Hitler’s Socialism” is closing in on ¾ of a million views. What did that video do for me? . I am a well read historian grounded in the much of the same economic literature you are. Up until that point I had accepted the idea that Germany of that era was at some level rightist, authoritarian and maybe somewhat capitalistic. Although I held those views, it always seemed like they were somehow wrong, but I couldn’t explain why. Now I can. Previous to this video I would have let someone walk all over me in a conversation characterizing the National Socialist system. Now I don’t. Guess what I do as I side gig? I teach home school students history. I guarantee you the views of your video are now front and center in any discussion that crosses economics, history and governance. My son has the typical attention span of most young adults. My excitement over your take on events, caused him to slog through the entire video. That’s an amazing feat. Among his friends he’s the political and history guy . His circle of friends takes his views with a fair amount of weight. The key points are it has nothing to do with who you are arguing with, you don’t know who is being impacted down the line by these videos and you’ll never be sure what bit or tidal wave of information is going to have impact. Be you. Be honest and authentic. You are changing the world in ways you can’t imagine.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"Based on corporate syndicalism, revisionist socialism and organicism, fascism reached power in 1922 after the great war with the March on Rome and implemented a dictatorship."
"Mussolini too was called and willingly called himself an 'idealist'" because " he was open as a young man to contemporary trends, he tried to infuse socialism with a new soul, using Sorel's theory of violence, Bergson's intuition, pragmatism, the mysticism of action, all the thoughts that had been in the intellectual climate for many years and which seemed to many to be idealism ". This is the well-known judgement of Benedetto Croce ( History of Italy from 1871 to 1915, Laterza, Bari, 1942 7 , p. 279)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I was surprised when you said you hadn't read Rand because the altruism vs. self-interest argument is very Rand/Objectivist.
Personally, my view on her defined philosophy is that it tries so hard to counter what she perceives to be the cardinal sins of the Judeo-Christian worldview that she ends up coming essentially full circle... and on fundamentally Judeo-Christian terms, really. Not the most precise way to make the point in my opinion, but a particularly useful one for forcing people to reconsider their a priori preconceptions and the definitions behind them.
For example, one of her basic assertions is that self-interest (when not hampered by short-sightedness) is what benefits others most, while altruism paradoxically does the opposite. Okay perhaps, at least as a general rule, but the very assertion is begging the question on whether the good of others even bears any value. Part of the argument is that what's good for others benefits the self through goodwill and cooperation, fair enough, but it's still arguing for self interest for the good of others rather than purely for its own sake. It's certainly true that there are instances where true self interest DOESN'T align with the good of others, so... get away with it when you can?
I think a lot of the confusion stems from defining altruism as necessarily being at the expense of self. Hence, the common assertion that true altruism doesn't even exist. I see no need to define self-interest and altruism as mutually exclusive, but rather in need of proper prioritization. As Rand helps point out, self-interest is not half as evil as it's made out to be, and altruism is far too easily a façade for narcissism. Where the self-interest and altruism align, fantastic. Related topic: Jordan Peterson's "clean your room" argument, which is essentially the oxygen mask argument.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I'm from Oz, this policing behaviour was exactly the same during C19 in Melbourne, they would target the peaceful protestors and label them anti (fill in the blank), but when BLM or any leftist protest came to town, they went unhindered... this is happening across the globe, by design. They want us to engage in violence with the infiltrators and paid actors, so they can then excuse themselves arresting normal people, who are legally and peacefully protesting, by smearing them with their slogans (Brown Shirts tactics much?). Their playbook is known, it's now up to us, the peoples of all countries targeted, to stand up and be counted. Not with violence but by pushing back on their nonsense.. From Oz with love
3
-
@ 25:00 "Churchill didn't mention the holocaust at all in his Second World War book, neither did Eisenhower or DeGaulle."
I have the 1950 hardcover edition of Eisenhower's "Crusade in Europe". There's no entry in the index for "Holocaust" but there are three pages listed under "horror camps".
I'll quote from Chapter 21, "Overrunning Germany":
'April 12 [1945] I spent with Patton. Before the day ended, the scenes I saw and news I heard etched the date in my memory.'
'The same day I saw my first horror camp. It was near the town of Gotha. I have never felt able to describe my emotional reactions when I first came face to face with indisputable evidence of Nazi brutality and ruthless disregard of every shred of decency. Up to that time I had known about it only generally or through secondary sources. I am certain, however, that I have never at any other time experienced an equal sense of shock.
I visited every nook and cranny of the camp because I felt it my duty to be in a position from then on to testify at first hand about these things in case there ever grew up at home the belief or assumption that "the stories of Nazi brutality were just propaganda". Some members of the visiting party were unable to go through the ordeal. I not only did so but as soon as I returned to Patton's headquarters that evening I sent communications to both Washington and London, urging the two governments to send instantly to Germany a random group of newspaper editors and representative groups from the national legislatures. I felt that the evidence should be immediately placed before the American and British publics in a fashion that would leave no room for cynical doubt.'
FDR died that day, and this may have distracted the media from paying attention to that particular camp at that particular time.
Later, from Chapter 22, Victory's Aftermath:
'Of all these DPs [Displaced Persons] the Jews were in the most deplorable condition. For all these years they had been beaten, starved, and tortured. Even food, clothes, and decent treatment could not immediately enable them to shake off their hopelessness and apathy.'
Ike may not have mentioned the Holocaust by name because that term wasn't used until after the war, and his memoir is a tale of his personal experiences, not a history of the entire war. He definitely did not try to deny or minimize the horrors he saw.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Well, as a citizen of the USA, I am certainly glad we do not have a crushing debt imploding our economy, or a fascist government, nor sending our military abroad for economic gain, or likely to start a large war with a pseudo-communist nation over a smaller nation positioned between us...oh, fark. Thankfully we are smarter than the Nutzi's since we print money, give it to the Federal Reserve, who then purchases our Treasury debt, which I am assured means we are not a 'banana republic' but a modern Keynesian state. I assume these MEFO bills, er, I mean Treasury bills will not be a problem one day.
I think you have it right. The current national socialists do not want the truth to come out, nor the Marxists, since they also believe in stupid things like 'shrinking markets' and 'labor value theory'. In the comments on another channel a 'socialist' called the Soviet Union 'State Capitalism' while another free marketer called crony capitalism 'Fascism'. From this I conclude that we are going to repeat history again...because no one is owning up to the consequences of their actions or the reality of the ideal theories they espouse.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
As stated by Engels, joint-stock companies are a product of the socialisation of private means of production,[1] however, socialisation for someone’s private interest did not constitute Socialism.[2] As long as he didn't deliberately say that "Amazon is Socialist", TIK is right under Marxism theory, even using the theoretical standard which no Socialist regime IRL would able to pass.
Amazon being public or worker-owned (in share) doesn’t necessarily means it is socialist. Fredda is either confused with the concept, or he was putting words into TIK’s mouth to defame him.
[1] “This rebellion of the productive forces, as they grow more and more powerful, against their quality as capital, this stronger and stronger command that their social character shall be recognised, forces the capitalist class itself to treat them more and more as social productive forces, so far as this is possible under capitalist conditions. The period of industrial high pressure, with its unbounded inflation of credit, not less than the crash itself, by the collapse of great capitalist establishments, tends to bring about that form of the SOCIALISATION of great masses of means of production which we meet with in the different kinds of joint-stock companies. Many of these means of production and of communication are, from the outset, so colossal that, like the railways, they exclude all other forms of capitalistic exploitation.” (Friedrich Engels , Part III: Socialism Anti-Dühring)
[2] “But of late, since Bismarck went in for state-ownership of industrial establishments, a kind of spurious socialism has arisen, degenerating, now and again, into something of flunkeyism, that without more ado declares all state ownership, even of the Bismarckian sort, to be socialistic. Certainly, if the taking over by the state of the tobacco industry is socialistic, then Napoleon and Metternich must be numbered among the founders of socialism. If the Belgian state, for quite ordinary political and financial reasons, itself constructed its chief railway lines; if Bismarck, not under any economic compulsion, took over for the state the chief Prussian lines, to be the better able to have them in hand in case of war, to bring up the railway employees as voting cattle for the government, and especially to create for himself a new source of income independent of parliamentary votes – this was, in no sense, a socialistic measure, directly or indirectly, consciously or unconsciously. Otherwise, the Royal Maritime Company [founded as a commercial and banking company in 1772 and granted a number of important privileges by the state. It advanced big loans to the government and, in fact, became its banker and broker], the Royal porcelain manufacture, and even the regimental tailor of the army would also be socialistic institutions.” (Friedrich Engels , Part III: Socialism Anti-Dühring)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
oh no... a semantics argument without sources... well, I'm bored, let's see...
1) "Socialism = Public Sector control => State control of MoP (Where's second option:People?? State=People now? Where's '/' ?)"
As you said and the video *emphasizes*, public= people, or the majority of "people". The Nazis claimed to represent the majority's will (in a way they did) and even while they took power from a smaller German government, they gave that power to themselves, forming a new German government.
2) "Marx": State of people = Hierarchy of society of people => Death of state of people=Withering of society (wtf)"
The people make the society... did... did you not pay attention? He literally explains that it is impossible to have a stateless society because people always make up the state.
3) "*Collective = Group => Public => Collective=State
Not really:
Stateless society = Collective=State (So for you a stateless society is only one without collective, only with unsocialized
independent individuals. Then any human interaction which involves collectively doing something (exercising control over stuff) is by your
vision, an exercise of State. Also, all pre-agricultural tribes are thus either all already States or not Collectives at all)
But:
Anarchism = Freedom for private individual => Not collective
Anarchism = Individual control of own Economy => Anarchism=Capitalism"
Okay, clearly you didn't watch the video. No, the argument isn't that a stateless society is one without a collective, the argument is that you factually cannot have a stateless society because society is always the state! Yes, that includes ancient pre-agricultural tribes because even those have some form of hierarchy (men go hunting, women stay caring for the children, etc.). Anarchism is also impossible as it requires some form of enforcement because people inevitably form, you guessed it, societies (states), so in order to maintain some kind of stateless state, you need a state!
Yeah, I'm convinced you didn't watch the video, you just jumped on some scenes, vaguely got some definitions, ignored his sources, and decided to go on a semantics rant that you made longer by spacing it out that way.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I LOVE YOU! FINALLY someone else who UNDERSTANDS! someone else who THINKS! you even put the true political spectrum in here!
I would like to add a bit of terminology here though: I personally call the "socialist" type of command economy "sociofascism" to encompass the idea of both being the same thing, and to better show the separation. under this I put socialism, communism, and fascism as different types of command economies, each gaining control over the economy in different ways, as I have seen each follow a pattern. communists usually directly take control over the economy, everything is directly the states, socialists usually do it indirectly through government industries like how America does its healthcare and education systems, and fascism does it usually through absorbing companies into the government rather than taking control over what they own.
I do not disagree with you at all about the structure and ideology behind these economies, they are all socialist ideologies, I merely think it to be a good idea to separate the economy part into its own sections to better understand it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"No, Hitler was not a total socialist since he acknowledged elements of private economy." - You mean like Lenin did as well? Not being able to go 100% on a system does not mean you aren't a socialist.
"I think almost each country or each society includes socialistic elements and capitalistic elements. There are only few purepred socialistic or capitalistic societies. Hence, it is a question of the ratio. USA may have a soialist percentage of 5%," - You clearly don't know much of government control of the economy in the USA nowadays.
"Germany today 20%, Third Reich 40%," - Nope.
"DDR 80%, UdSSR in 1940 98%, UdSSR in 1990 90%, North Korea today 98% etc." - Thats not how you define an ideology as socialist or not. As TIK highlights in his video. Even if we were to agree that the Third Reich wasn't socialist, which it was, that doesn't mean National Socialism is not socialism from an ideological standpoint.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@TIK The Best Video. PhD Thesis. Masterpiece. I've shared it on FB, twice. As I lived in Yugoslavia, I know some practical things about Communism, western people don't. While I was listening to your video, I knew what you are going to say. I knew why something happened. I knew what false privatization is, I knew what fixed prices were, I knew what dog-pig-creature is. I knew all of it.
How? It's simple. It was the same thing as Yugoslav Communism, with one difference:
Germans uber Alles vs All Yugoslav Nations live in peace in harmony but kill the rich
However, the bloody civil war in the 90's was not the worse part.
Eating pidgeons, not having the chocolate and not having electricity for several hours - were not the worse part.
The worse part is the mindset. The whole nation learned how to live under Communism.
Once the Communism has gone, people were left down with no skills. The majority don't understand the real world.
And here is the consequence, The Highest emigration of youth, besides the fact it's not easy at all due to visas and regulations.
We are still poor, and we will stay poor for at least 50 more years.
Once established, Communism destroys generations. Even when it falls, it's still destructive.
Learn from history, learn from Yugoslavia, learn from Romania, Bulgaria, East Germany...
Don't be fools.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
wannabchomsky and ofc you ignore the ideology part of my arguement and also ofc you did not watch the video itself, the soviet union wasnt socialist, you had peasent who weren't forced into collectives because you needed someone to steal from, i do not care what economy the 3rd reich or the soviet union or whatever nation had, the economic compass has left as state controll and right as individual controll, no country has full capitalism and no country has full socialism because in practice no "full on" economy works, we need parts of both.BUT the whole fcking arguement is based on their ideology, which clearly spells out that both nazism and marxism want to control the means of production, one just has the state made up of workers and one of aryans, it doesn't matter, both wants to socialize the means of production.And no i had no "formal" education, i don't want some commie historian tell me that fascist are literal devils and marxists are some great revolutionaries who want to free people and make their lives better.NO, they are the same stupid ass ideologies that want control over our freedoms.TIK was right, the internet is full of commies, who won't watch the videos debunking their nosensencical arguements.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
mike mcmike 1. Repeated assertions that the author is a ‘libertarian extremist’ is not a destruction of the argument of the socialist underpinnings of National Socialism. By design and by the necessities of total war the Nazi regime was permeated with such policies. True, the government did not outright seize the means of production as in Soviet Russia, nonetheless state intervention was rampant and these policies were often not required to be legally enforced due to the prevailing threat from the party through coercion and violence – unless of course you were Jewish whereby state seizure and ‘redistribution’ of equity was rather more brazen.
By the early 40s however the Nazi state was firmly entrenched into the latter part of the name whereby independent personal enterprise was merely a visage; the majority of decisions for private enterprise were made through the Reichswirtschaftsministerium which determined what a businessman could produce, what to buy, at what prices and to whom to sell, with severe penalties for disobedience – sounds like socialism to me. An individuals work was subservient to the needs of the Reich, and to Arian volk.
More generally Hitler favoured several anti-capitalist economists (Schmitt and Feder) to this end, in part due to anti-capitalist links to anti-Semitism, but also as the means to establish greater control of private property and of individual work (the Reich Federation of German Industry eventually fell under full state control and the implementation of the Reichswerke Hermann Göring for example).
More specifically however to quote early Hitler in 1941: ‘Economically, it meant building a National German economy which appreciated the importance of private initiative, but subordinated the entire economic life to the common interest.’
You seem to have greater issue with the ‘libertarian extremist’ author than with the content. Again, he did not say that Pinochet was a socialist, nor did I.
Quote: also if fascist hitler was a socialist, so was Pinochet, because it was "pubic power" what are you talking about??
A: I’ve no idea what the hell you're on about here as I did not say anything close to this. If you wish to establish a separate dialogue about Pinochet or reference another video crack on, that is not the thesis of this video.
2. Firstly I can not find a point in this video that he says "corporations are the state" but I'm happy to be proven wrong if you can provide a timecode. Secondly, your 'here' link does not work however I will endeavour to find it as it appears like either circular logic a mis-interpretation of an argument – perhaps something along the lines of ‘Demos + kratos by its broadest thinnest definition = democracy’, nobody would generally suggest that as an absolute definition of modern democracy, nor is it the topic of discussion here.
3. Again, that’s not an rebuttal against the content of this video. And 'crazy' is an insult, not an argument – see Monty Python for help on this. Scanning the comments sections as you recommend I generally see more of your ‘gems’ with many stereotypical banalities whereby you assert 'git gud at history (no reference needed)' and tiresome insults of 'simp', 'beta', 'idiot' and 'boomer'. I am not sure quite how you find that any of these qualify as useful beyond inflating your ego but to me they appear to be only a telling sign of a man with no intelligent arguments to make and an axe to grind.
3
-
3
-
3
-
Hello [ TIK ] one challenge that may present itself is the assumption that this topic scares most people because these folks don't have a good foundation of understanding of information, on many levels. Thus this sharing, post of your's scares these folks because they don't have a sound identity of good sound Socrates, Plato, and Aristotelean philosophic education, understanding this information is non-dimesional data. Hitler was insane, paranoid and he didn't understand nor believe in anything spiritual, which we all are in our very essence. Thank you for this upload, I found it very interesting, and challenges me to think deeper about capitalism, democracy, republic oriented execution.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Why does your description of privatization (as referred to by us westerners) sound so much like modern democratic run crony capitalism. If you really want to think about it, its a logical next step to cut down on man power. Instead of sending government agents to go through every ledger, it's done with tax and property insensitive. Walmart, Disney, Lows, Microsoft, Apple all companies that since the death/step away of their founders seem extremely privatized as discribed here.
People to day say Hitler was a foolish madman, the man knew his stuff and was an evil genius. If you don't believe it, then why have his idealistic successors been able to sneak the same policies right buy you? Grow up, wise up, and smell the roses. We are living in a time far worse than Nazi Germany (excluding the Jewish extermination). Why? Because you don't see these same policies being pushed until someone breaks it down like in this video. Hitler, Stalin, Marx, and Satin himself have been wining right under our noses. So, now that we know, what are we going to do about it?
Btw, this video was buried underneath 20-40 "Hitler wasn't a socialist" video's. So there is your media control as well.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I have read (in Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World by Patrick J. Buchanan) that it was a mistake for Britain to guarantee Poland's independence because that removed a reason for the Polish Govt. to negotiate with Germany. Ignoring the moral implications (given what we know) of allowing Germany to do as it wanted in the East, I believe that the main reason Chamberlain guaranteed the independence of Poland, Hungary, and Romania (despite the fact that Britain had no way of sending actual help to these countries) was because he felt humiliated and betrayed by Hitler after Germany took over the remainder of Czechoslovakia in March 1939. I find it interesting that no one seems to mention the German pattern of aggression happening every six months starting with the annexation of Austria. March 1938 Germany annexes Austria, Sept. 1938 Munich Crisis, March 1939 Germany takes Czechoslovakia as a 'protectorate' (Britain guarantees the independence of Poland, Hungary, and Romania), Sept. 1939 Germany invades Poland WW2 in Europe begins.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Tbh the main takeaway from this video is that, in contemporary popular discussions of politics, the term "democracy" is widely misused because of how fetishized it has become, and how vague its deffinition has thus become in the public's minds. Whenever any politician wants to advertise his program as good, in some generic, non-specific sense, he says it's oh so democratic. We've even adopted the term "democratisation" to mean "generalisaton of access, which is assumed to be a moral good, by default".
.
Regardless of what democracy actually is and of whether it is good or not, methinks it rather undeniable that the modern citizen believes in the moral superiority of the system he lives under, over all others, at least in the abstract, as the pre-modern European peasant was convinced of the divine mandate of his monarch to rule over his realm. Certainly one seems to have more or less as unsophisticated an understanding of the workings of said systems, as the other. They just know to believe it's a good system.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
It seems you are the one who wants to character assassinate TIK with lies here.
[He claims in other videos that one must look at all the sources to come to an objective conclusion, but instead relies on only a small amount of libertarian sources such as Leonard Peikoff and conspiracy theorists such as James Lindsay whilst ignoring modern academic scholarship]
Here is the books sources of this video:
[Goldstein, P. “A Convenient Hatred: The History of Antisemitism.” Facing History and Ourselves National Foundation, 2012.
Hobsbawm, E. "How to Change the World: Tales of Marx and Marxism." Abacus, Kindle 2011.
Jones, G. "Karl Marx: Greatness and Illusion." Penguin Books, Kindle 2017.
Kengor, P. “The Devil and Karl Marx.” Tan Books, 2020.
Marx, K. “Capital: A Critique of Political Economy: Volume I Book One: The Process of Production of Capital.” PDF of 1887 English edition, 2015.
Marx, K. "On the Jewish Question." Edited by Tucker, R. PDF. (Originally written 1843)
Marx, K. & Engels, F. "Manifesto of the Communist Party." PDF 1969, original 1848.
McLellan, D. "Karl Marx: Interviews & Recollections." MacMillan Pres LTD, PDF 1981.
Mises, L. “Human Action: A Treatise on Economics.” Martino Publishing, 2012. (Originally 1949)
Mises, L. "Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis." Liberty Fund, 1981. 1969 edition (roots back to 1922).
Morris, M. “Edward I: A Great and Terrible King.” Windmill Books, 2009.
Muravchik, J. “Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism.” Encounter Books, Kindle.
Peikoff, L. "The Cause of Hitler's Germany." Plume, 2014 (originally 1982). ISBN 978-0-14-218147-8
Samuels, L. "Killing History: The False Left-Right Political Spectrum." Freeland Press, 2019.
Wheen, F. "Karl Marx." Harper Press, Kindle 1999.]
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Mate. Your sarcasm, that nod to Count Dankula, and poking at that other Socialist in charge of that Economic Forum when reading that list was brilliant. I also agree with you about de-radicalization. It is something I try hard at when I get Nazis who blame Jews for all the issues of the day replying to my comments on history and libertarian/Classical Liberal/Conservative political channels, and I have achieved getting some listening to this channel and questioning their ideology. However I still struggle with teaching ideologues of the Racial/woke Socialist counterpart.
You do a service to humanity mate.
An important thing in understanding both the light and darkness of the past, to aid and understand the present and create a better future, requires the understanding, of evil, and people have forgotten that understanding evil, is the greatest way to learn how to fight it with full understanding, and why all ideas should be allow freedom of speech. I really dislike this logic that "oh you can't say that because there is anti-semite in the comment section that listens to you!"
My response to that is "good! Maybe they'll question the ideology that teaches all these terrible ideas." So we can counter them before someone becomes another Hitler.
I've seen this very same logic used with Putin as well, and get yelled at or treated with emotions when I tell people why Putin is not a madman. I can see patterns and that he has a strategy that is failing, but he's not a cartoonish bad guy waiting to press a red Nuclear Launch button. Ah, but I suppose i'm a Russian agent secretly calling everyone Tovarisch.
The duality of humanity is we all are on the line between light and darkness, and ideology can subvert what is light and dark. It is our ideals, culture, choices, morality, free thoughts and actions that decide where on that line we stand, and why. In my case. I can simply understand the logic of authoritarians, because I wish to keep the values of Truth and Liberty alive. Unfortunately, Socialism in various forms are the dominant ideology in cultural power now, be it Globalism of the WEF, to what gets called 'woke' now at the activist level and I oppose all variations of it because I definitely don't want to live in a Communist China, or a National Socialist state.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@TheImperatorKnight I completely understand you sentiment towards Marxists. Personally I'm still at the "rolling my eyes and thinking they'll eventually grow up if you tell them often enough that their economic theory belongs with the tooth fairy and Santa Claus".
I would very much enjoy you covering the Battle of France and the interwar period. I might be a bit biased towards the French not so much because of my ethnicity but because I've seen so many claims that just don't make sense on the other side, that I might be overly dubious. It would be nice to have someone fresh to the subject review the evidence and talk about this understudied part of the war.
Still I would mostly blame the French for doing an absolutely terrible job despite good intentions.
- They tried to enforce the treaty, but with the US and the UK refusing to get involved and even siding with Germany (thanks Keynes) it made it look like France was out for German Blood.
- They tried to prepare for a new war, but they overly relied on their allies (mostly because of the terrible situation that France found itself in in 1919). They hoped the Belgians would let them take position before the war started, something that didn't happen because the British decided to be thick-headed at the worst possible moment.
- They wanted to attack Germany earlier but they were told in no uncertain terms that the British wouldn't stand by them if they were to do so. (Munich Conference)
- They were completely disorganized, still using telephone lines which added to the Chaos of the battlefield.
- ...
Germanophobia was a thing, but French politicians seemed to have had a pretty good grasp of what could be expected of Germany without trying to destroy them either. Wilson's ridiculous naivety and the British worries about France getting back it's world power status after the war made them both try to enforce a post-war status quo, based on a wrong assessment of the situation (Thanks Keynes).
The Status Quo was "60 millions Germans convinced that they hadn't lost, in an almost intact country (they did fuck up their money, but money isn't wealth) indebted to 40 millions Frenchmen in a impoverished, destroyed and politically isolated country" ... how could it end well ?
As for the book, I was thinking of Etienne Mantoux's "The Carthaginian Peace or The Economic Consequences of M. Keynes" I'm sure the tone is right up your alley :D. Where Mantoux (a french economist who died fighting in the Free French Forces a few days before Germany's surrender) goes through all the assumptions and predictions made by Keynes in "The Economic consequences of the peace" and just slaps him on every point showing that the data simply doesn't match Keynes assumptions (why Keynes's book is still referenced when talking about the Versailles treaty after being so thoroughly debunked is beyond me, but hey inertia + left wing bias + poor economic understanding in the academy, who would have guessed right XD). It's been translated but it has only started to be cited in research in the late 90's, despite the fact that Mantoux was Keynes contemporary.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@TheImperatorKnight Going through their sources, I can see where they get their history.
Joachim Scholtyseck is a German historian, very hard to track down in English and the referenced papers are paywalled. This is what google turned up:
"Aug 1, 2008 - While Scholtyseck condemns left-wing fascism theories as 'polemic verbiage' (p. 251) and criticises the 'moral righteousness' (p. 252) and ..."
Robert J. Soucy is an Oberlin professor. That in itself speaks volumes. Here is what Wikipedia says: "Too many historians, Soucy argues, have taken the "socialist" rhetoric—or Orwellian "double-talk"—of some of these movements at face value, ignoring how it was repeatedly contradicted by their specific positions on social, economic and political issues. For Soucy, these organizations were far more nationalist than socialist, as was also one of their precursors, the Cercle Proudhon, which honored not the early "property is theft" Pierre-Joseph Proudhon but the later much more socially conservative Proudhon."
3
-
@TheImperatorKnight I think that Leftist social policy would increase state expenses, leading to more taxes being required to bring in revenue. Also, the pro-labor laws are regulations and would impact the market (interventionism). However, TimeGhost History doesn't see it that way. This is the other, longer reply they alluded to earlier.
"
@CtrlAlt Debug fiscal policy doesn't divide in a clean way from a historical perspective. Most political movement don't have a radical fiscal policy, and these change over time and opportunistically. Within a certain timeframe you can make distinctions, but they don't apply universally over time, not even relative to the times.
In general there is a division between plan economy and market economy. Almost all mainstream parties have espoused market economy, both on the left and the right. The extreme left, as in Communist derivatives of Marxism, and radical Socialism espouses plan economy, and the abolition of private enterprise and ownership. Equating that with interventionism in the economy or taxation is not correct. Interventionism and high taxation has been a factor of both the right and the left mainstream as seen for instance with Hoover and FDR during the Great Depression. Moreover it never goes anywhere as far as the Marxian economic ideas. The radical Socialist, or Communist method to achieve the goal of a collective, non-private economy is fairly simple; collectivization by seizure and expropriation, elimination of all private trade and profit, centralized planing of production and trade.
The other often misaligned idea is that one or the other side of the political divide is protectionist and the other is pro-free trade. The US GOP is a case in point. While the GOP has been fairly securely lodged on the Conservative right for 100 years, the party has gone from protectionism in the 1920s and 30s to free trade post WW2 and is now moving back towards protectionism under Trump (although most Conservatives seem to disagree with him on this). Obviously here too the Radical Left is different as plan economy by force is protectionist, however this is dependent on the rest of the world and since Communism has never seized the majority of the world market, the Comecon and China was forced to take a pragmatic approach and accept the international market economy, albeit grudgingly and with resistance. Within the Comecon a strictly planned, and Russo-centric trade system was enforced.
As pertinent to our topic, early Fascism under Mussolini espoused some radical left economic ideas that had components of Marxian economics, as did the Strasserists in the Nazi Party. Mussolini abandoned these ideas as the party gradually came in control of Italy. While they did impose some collectivization, this was eventually abandoned and they finally ended up with an interventionist market economy. The Starsserists were as we have outlined defeated and never had any impact on the Nazi Party during its reign. Instead Hitler stuck to a racist, interventionist market economy. Both economies were impacted by international sanctions which made their foreign economic policy by force protectionist, but that was not ideological; it was the inevitable effect of foreign restrictions aimed to curtail these regimes.
"
3
-
@TheImperatorKnight However, I did get more replies after I asked for what exactly did they think you get wrong.
"
@CtrlAlt Debug the sources are in the description. TIK's mistake is that he both gets his facts wrong and then he applies his political opinions to his analysis. He claims that the authoritarian involvement of the Fascist parties in all aspects of society is equal to collectivization, which it is not - it is what it is; authoritarianism. He also takes a number of aspects of the economy like interventionism and labels it leftist, which is simply not historically correct as we have outlined in the other longer reply to you.
"
According to TimeGhost, this is what Left and Right political alignments mean (I clipped a couple pieces together for this part):
"
Yes... since you don't know the meaning of these words you should perhaps refrain from regurgitating propaganda from your online social club, as you obviously would be incapable of discerning if what your political masters and minders tell you is even remotely correct. Lucky for you we're in an educational mood over here, so here it goes.
Social Reactionary is someone who wants to undo social reforms and return to a previous state of social values.
Social Conservative is someone who wants to maintain the social status quo and keep the social structure of society as it is.
Social Liberal is someone who beeves in a moderate change of social structures, but does not look to make fundamental changes to societal order.
Social Progressive is someone who looks to change the social structures of society to a new form of social order.
Thus Reactionaries and Progressives end up on opposite end as one tries to return to an old thing and the other tries to achieve a new thing.
The tendency is that Reactionary is viewed as a tendency towards a more hierarchical social order and progressives to a more egalitarian order, but that's a bit theoretical as many progressive movements have ended up with very hierarchical orders, despite pressing egalitarianism.
The words 'improve,' 'make better,' 'worsen,' or 'break' should be avoided in respect to these classifications as that is a matter of opinion. It should be fairly obvious that a reactionary believes that a return to older values is an improvement and that the progressive thinks so about their changes. On the other hand the reactionary will obviously think that the progressive is making things worse and the progressive will think that the reactionary is worsening society.
In any case your masters and minders have taught you wrong - authoritarianism pops up on both sides of the political left/right spectrum and even then they are not the same, much like a rotten apple is different from a rotten orange, despite both of them being rotten. You should perhaps get off the Interweb and read some books instead - you can even get them online for immediate download these days.
"
"
Left vs. Right classification in historiography is a social policy issue. Radical Social Progressives on the extreme left and Social Reactionaries on the extreme right. Conservatives on the centre right and Liberals on the centre left.
"
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@timobrienwells "No, TIK is not on the ball. His claims are wrong and unsubstantiated.." - Elaborate
"Germany did not lose the war because of oil." - Not by itself
"The Germans had tight but sufficient supplies of oil through the war until late 1944." - Not necessarily. U have to understand, that while Germany has enough oil to continue to wage the war, it was not enough to sustain any major operation. Hence why Kursk was the last major German offensive on the eastern front.
"Operation Barbarossa did not fail because the Wehrmacht ran out of fuel. It failed because of poor decisions at critical times. It also suffered from logistical problems due to distance and weather, as was expected." - I will give u that. But Tik is only saying the oil problem was adding to their logistical issues which were true. Even Potential History covers this.
"TIK has claimed that the Germans had more vehicles in 1942, but no fuel to run them." - To run all of them in a consistent offensive, yes.
"He makes this claim without any supporting evidence whatsoever." - Watch some of his later videos. He provides more sources during those.
"If this ludicrous claim were true then why did the Germans then produce even more vehicles in 1943 and 1944?" - U mean mainly tanks? Because they actually did not produce as many U boats or aircraft. But to answer ur question in the most basic sense, It was because u want good reserve of vehicles when the country sake depends on it. Plus since by 1943 they were fighting a war on the defensive, they could afford more vehicles since oil was not getting consumed as much.
"If they had no fuel for them, what would be the use? The whole claim is just ridiculous and uninformed." - Not really. Ur trying to treat it like Tik is saying Germany had zero oil after 1941. What he is trying to say is 1941 was their last chance to get oil before the deficit began affecting the Wehrmacht. This is why only AGS advances in 1942. Since they only had enough oil to supply one army group in a major offensive.
"TIK's problem is that he does not know his subject matter." - How so?
"He completely ignores, or does not know about, the doubling of synthetic fuel production from 1941 onwards." - He literally has a video link in the description covering Germany's synthetic oil production.
"He also ignores the large increase in domestic crude production in and around Germany during the same period." - True, but while that helped a great amount. It was never going to be enough.
"TIK reads and believes historical revisionists." - Such as?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
well, in terms of the Kotluban offensives/counter offensives... I suppose that really depends on how valuable you think Stalingrad as a city and logistical hub is. Given that you have artillery on the other shore able to reach any part of it, the fighting destroyed the rail lines, gas lines, stripped buildings of roofs and the fuel storage areas were utterly destroyed, it feels like losing Stalingrad for the Soviets was less of an issue than the Germans keeping it and being able to utilise it was.
Ideally one wants to utilise a city that you've captured, and that's rather difficult if it is bombed to shit.
Then again, the only reason that the city was bombed to shit and utterly ruined was that due to those same offensives the fighting in the city was all that much harder for the 6th Army.
I suppose, once Uranus is done and we see the final surrender of the 6th Army and get a final look at the casualty tallies for both sides, then we can gain more perspective on whether the Kotluban offensives were really worth it.
Also of note is how throwing utterly green troops into a complex and harsh urban combat scenario is not going well for either side. At the mention of 45 Rifle Division not having enough rifles for the troops I wondered if maybe that was where the infamous "first man shoots the rifle, second man carries ammunition"
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@TheImperatorKnight I love history, and I've learned more reading various game sourcebooks, or visiting the actual sites, than all the hours I sat in school. And as a professional musician (well, as much as anyone can say that nowadays), I would say the same about any fine arts degree. If you can play, you can play, and no degree will make you better or worse. If you can't, they aren't going to teach you how in college. You can learn music theory online for free, and go to open mics to practice playing in front of people. And honestly, if you think getting a music degree will allow you to teach music, well, I hate to break your heart, Amber. You need an education degree to teach, so the person who taught you music or art couldn't play the radio or draw flies.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I'm a casual history enjoyer, I like going in and out of different time periods, looking at different historical figures and taking a generally macro approach to history.
Occasionally, I pop in and out of the Stalingrad series because the micro-level of history is also fascinating, with bonus points to production value making it a great experience. To be really engaged with the Stalingrad series I would have to go from the start, have a general overview of the importance of the battle within a larger context, etc. Unfortunately, it's not something I'm 'THAT' interested in, hence why I don't necessarily follow the series.
To really answer your question, the crux would be the difference between the 'casual' and the 'dedicated' history person. For better or for worse, I'm the former.
That's why I quite enjoy the Q&A videos, or when you take a question from your Patrons and cover it for a video. It's a pleasant, wwell-researchedand informative video covered succinctly enough to find yourself at the end of it thinking: "well that was certainly worth watching".
But even as a casual history enjoyer, having things presented succinctly, or in small ten-minute videos isn't what captivates me. For example, your long form content is also amazing, think to the highly viewed and perhaps 'controversial' three-hour video on Hitler's socialism, that for me is fascinating. To give another channel, for example, EpicHistory, their 'Napoleon's Marshals' series, or their series on the Decembrists was long but well worth the watch.
As I'm writing this brain dump, it's becoming clear in my head that it's just to do with: hyper-specificity, level of dedication required and the level of pre-requisite knowledge needed.
Hopefully that answers your question in some way.
If you have any other questions, please send them my way and I'll be more than happy to respond.
Now time for you to take the gloves off and have fun!
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Ay TIK, I found a quote in a 90's book (I can't really give you the title sorry), but I think you'll find it...interesting:
" The concept of "political correctness" (even the connotations of the phrase) stems from marxism orthodoxy and is based on the premise that there is an ongoing struggle by a variety of suppressed groups who are at present viewed as relatively powerless (such as women, African Americans, Hispanics, the physically challenged, etc). It is their collectively aim (as well as each group's individual one) to wrest socioeconomic power from those who have it at present. This is Marx's "class struggle". Futhermore, those groups are assured by Marxist theory of fighting the good fight, the moral fight, because the historical dialetctic (or the *Marxist "God"*) is on their side. Their morality and their future victory are assured by the very fact that they are currently powerless. This is why, for exemple, blacks cannot be "racists" or women "sexists", at least according to this theory based in the Marxist historical dialectic."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Glad you are back. I know that too many (even if well-meaning) of an advice can also be tedious, but speaking as a person, who's also working mostly 7 days a week (my "normal" job + a personal project) I really can't stress enough how important is that you take regular breathers. It's individual, so you will find out by yourself on do you need at least a day of not doing anything with the channel per week or a week a month off or whatever, but the important thing is to have it systematic, so that you also have something to look forward to when you feel tired. In my line of duty work is related with ever-ongoing events (football to be precise, so there the events won't wait for you when you decide to rest), but what's working for you is that history CAN wait. The guns in and around Stalingrad did fell silent while you were at rest :))) I am sure that 90% of your viewers will be more than happy to have a bit different video release schedule, as long as they know they are still regular and you are getting enough rest, so really worth figuring a bit of a new schedule for yourself, like you anyway allude to in your comment. Keep up the great work!
2
-
I think two great revelations come to light in this video,
1) The impact of the British socialist planned economy before the war even started, which was a major factor in subsequent food shortages. The jammed ports situation and, like Germany itself, mismanagement of logistical infrastructure, most notably, rail, are major revelations.
2) Hitler's prescient acknowledgement that North America would ultimately need to be dealt with before his plans for the Reich could be fully realized.
In watching your body of work about WWII, the one thing that continues to stand out is the almost universal underestimation of Hitler's intelligence and forethought. The constant and continual "madman Hitler" propaganda has successfully hidden this fact which is a bit scary. It has been all too easy to do this by caricature of his speeches and rallies and Charlie Chaplin. But what did those caricatures accomplish? It distracted us from what he was really trying to do and how much it "made a kind of sense" from a particular philosophical perspective that was actually salable. So why would there be such an effort, wittingly or unwittingly, to hide this aspect of that period from public knowledge and historical contemplation? His was yet another in the series of Republic, Utopia, Leviathan and Marxism, etc., which dreams have not abated with the demise of Hitler and/or the Soviet experiment. The effort continues among in increasing number minds that one might objectively consider lesser minds than Hitler's.
We can ask ourselves the same question that Hitler answered for himself: Is North America the main impediment to world unification/conformity/hegemony? In the 20th century, it was "North America's" sticking its nose in that was arguably a deciding factor in thwarting the intentions of those who had made the first moves in the greatest conflicts of that century, not forgetting also its contribution to the fall of the Soviet Empire at the close of that century.
2
-
The definition of Socialism is an ideology that advocated “Social Ownership of means of production”, which appropriate the surplus product, produced by the means of production or the wealth that comes from it, to society at large or the workers themselves. ("Theory and Practice in Socialist Economics")
Even after ditching Otto Strasser, Nazi economic system did able to achieve social ownership of means of production.
By the fact that the surplus product produced by means production, and the wealth derived from it, were appropriated to society as a whole by a the State and to workers by DAF. The way how Nazi Germany appropriated the surplus product met the description of two principal variants of social ownership of the mean of production according to the following source.
"Here again there are two principal variants of such social claims to income, depending on the nature of the community holding the claim: (1) Public surplus appropriation: the surplus of the enterprise is distributed to an agency of the government (at the national, regional, or local level), representing a corresponding community of citizens. (2) Worker surplus appropriation: the surplus of the enterprise is distributed to enterprise workers." (Toward a Socialism for the Future, in the Wake of the Demise of the Socialism of the Past, by Weisskopf, Thomas E. 1992. Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol. 24, No. 3–4, p. 10)
Historical fact show that Nazi Germany gradually eliminate unemployment, the taxes were levied against the rich, the corporations, and foreigners like the Jews. They weren’t levied against the poor, who had their food, rend, clothing, and recreational activities (plus others) subsidized by the State. ( Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” see Chapter 2.)
“Family and child tax credits, marriage loans, and home-furnishing and child-education allowances were among the measures with which the state tried to relieve the financial burden on parents and encourage Germans to have more children.” (Aly, “Hitler’s Beneficiaries,” p38-39.)
In addition to this, there were price controls, wage controls, rent controls, and centralised distribution of goods - materials could only be bought with certificates which had to be obtained from one of the various central planning boards which distributed said materials.( Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p51-52, p67-70, p251-254.)
Historical fact also indicated that DAF in real live was not pro-capitalist as the Nazi in your own imagination. Capitalists were also being regulated by the DAF. Under the new National Socialist regulations (enforced by the DAF), the concepts of “employers” and “employees” were done away with, being replaced with the terms “leaders” and “followers”. And while some “followers” did complain about the new system, saying it was benefiting the “leaders” at the expense of the “followers”, their “leaders” also complained about the new system.
(Evans, “The Third Reich in Power,” p107. Lindner, "Inside IG Farben,” p70, p83. Shirer, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” p327-329.)
“Yes, I am the ‘leader’ in my factory; my workers are my ‘followers.’ But I am no longer a manager...
(Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p107.)
I cannot decide what is allowed or forbidden in my own factory...
(Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p109.)
There have been cases where managers were removed by the Party of Labor Trustees and replaced by ‘kommissars.’ ”
( Herr A. Z. quoted from Reimann, “The Vampire Economy,” p116.)
Furthermore, the “private profit” of those private companies would still be forced to redistribute among the workers ( to further the Nazi goal) by the DAF, the party subordinates, or directly by the Nazi Government.
"A year or so ago I was ordered to spend social evenings with my 'followers' and to celebrate with them by providing free beer and sausages. The free beer and sausages were welcome enough ... Last year he (The Labor Front secretary) compelled me to spend over a hundred thousand marks for a new lunchroom in our factory. This year he wants me to build a new gymnasium and athletic field which will cost about 120,000 marks." (Reimann, The Vampire Economy, p. 112)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Hat off for all the hard work and effort you're putting into making these videos, but I'm not completely satisfied. You should also go to Russia, travel through those places and make the video on the spot, and in the process you could ask local inhabitants if they know some more info about history of battles and maybe even some lesser known details. Additionally, you could hire a metal detecting search team, which could make some digging on those sites, and definitely you should hire several Russian and German historians to go with you and give you their opinions, with proper translators, of course.
I mean, we really could use a bit better production.
Oh, wait! I forgot you could hire some actors which could make reenactments of all those battles on the very spot, just like some History channel documentaries have. Now, that would be swell! And you don't need several hundred thousands men for that, but I guess 50-60 thousand would be just enough as you can add some CGI in post-production. But ok, I suppose I could live without reenactments. Tho, it would really look super great.
I hope you'll consider my glorious ideas. Carry on, soldier and take care. ;)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Some comments about corporations from a US perspective. I can not speak to all countries, just the US:
Corporations are not inherently public. There are 4 common models (and there are more, but let's be simple here) for business ownership: Sole Proprietorship (Sole Prop), Limited Liability Corporation (LLC), Subchapter S Corporation (S Corp), and C Corporation (C Corp). Public entities in the US are exclusively C corporations (at least I have not heard of a public B corporation, but again being simple) as the exchanges only allow for C Corps to be listed. But all forms of corporation allow for multiple owners whether public or private. The public versus private label comes from whether the stock is available for purchase via an exchange. There are more exchanges than most of you probably know about (raise your hand if you trade on the pink sheets). The idea is that ownership in a public corporation is more liquid and can be traded to others for established value. I run into owners who want to give ownership to their employees. There are lots of obligations when you do this and very small businesses should think carefully about this before they do it.
The reasons in the US to choose one of the forms of business organization has to do with taxation and ownership liability (again ignoring the oddball organizational structures). LLCs, S Corps, and C Corps can have 1 or multiple owners. The number of owners is completely separate than if the corporation is public or private. In fact, Private Company stakes can be sold. This is how startups mostly get funded and owners (or part owners) sell businesses in some cases. Yes, there is a difference between an asset sale and a stock sale, but it is not germane to this topic. However, most all businesses that you talk about with tight ownership are corporations in the US. The one exception is Sole Proprietorship. The primary reason that many eschew is liability. If you are a Sole Prop, your personal finances are mingled with your business finances. This means that there is no legal protection of your personal property if your business is sued. Other business organizations grant more or less protection in this case.
I think it is difficult to define the ownership of a large public company as socialist. The vast bulk of most large companies are owned by funds (mostly mutual funds). Mutual funds and Individual owners then purchase shares in companies and all the ownership defined so far is owned by private individuals. Government entities, typically pension funds, also invest but they are generally not controlling owners and often struggle to find productive places for their money. The place that the US government has directly invested (looking most recently at the solar business) has been a disaster. Governments are not good judges of good businesses. How corporations are run and governed is a completely different topic and is a disaster here in the US.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Reupload the video at 50x and send it to them if they want to watch a shorter version. Twitter especially has made people unwilling to participate in long form content despite it being fairly important to the debate.
Shorter forms of debate end up with people unable to agree on basic principles or accurately depict the opposing argument.
I had a debate (through email) with someone I know IRL about unfairness in the US prison system, and while I agreed in part with what they said, every single theory they proposed was offered as a foolproof solution despite that being far from the case.
As an example, there is a theory I cant' recall the name of which if you have the perpetrators of a crime meet and speak with their victims, then there is a decrease in recidivism (by around 20%), but depending on the victims and the perpetrator it can just cause emotional damage to the victims. They suggested all prison sentences should be replaced with these meetings despite the increased harm to the victims and that it is an imperfect solution always.
I asked for examples of massive corporations using prison labor while paying the prisoners pennies, they sent me examples of prisons with a system where small businesses can employ inmates (where the programs were put in place to assist inmates get a job after they leave) or prisons which use their inmates to mitigate the costs the State has to pay (ie, where the inmates grow food for the prison).
They then send me a book to look at, which claimed that the reason why a guy was ineligible to vote was because he was black, not because he killed someone and the state he lived in has a rule which removes the right to vote if one is convicted of murder.
I finally said to them, you make have good points and there are certainly things which could be improved, but everything you sent to me disproved went against the factual basis of your complaints and the options you are advocating for.
The really sad thing is I think that if they decided to research the topic, instead of putting down the top things from a google search result, then they could also certainly have provided evidence of their claims, but they did such a bad job, that it couldn't even convince me the problems existed.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I hear the idiotic argument all the time that "Socialists don't kill Socialists", trying to prove that the Nazis weren't Socialist (usually the idea is that National Socialism cannot be a form of socialism because they fought the USSR, as if China never fought the USSR, or Cambodia never fought Vietnam, or China never fought Vietnam, or dozens of countries in Africa never fought one another, etc.). Often polities go to war even if they fundamentally agree on lots of things... in the Hundred Years War, both England and France were monarchist and Catholic. It didn't stop them from devastating, well France mostly (though you could say England depending on whom you ask).
Left fights Left, Right fights Right, monarchists fight each other, socialists fight each other, Christians fight each other, Muslims fight each other... two groups fighting each other proves very little about who thinks what, who is correct (if anyone) or how they would describe themselves.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Your work is the epitome of due diligence and I hope that the sacrifices involved are worthwhile. My understanding on both history and modernity are being furthered by my exposure to many sources and yours is very valuable, indeed. I’ve been recommending this channel, generally, and several of its particular videos for months now.
About a year or two ago, I noticed my study on human behavior often led to economics. I’d never really been inclined towards the works of Adam Smith, Alexis de Tocqueville, F. A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell or Ludwig von Mises, but they’ve been, and continue to be, invaluable. Frankly, until watching your 4.5 hour video “Hitler was a socialist” and “Public vs private”? I thought my comprehension of the relationship between socialism vs fascism vs communism would remain forever incomplete. Hopefully, you realize how significant is your work for the better grasp the consumer may gain on numerous other subjects.
In the past year, I’ve listened three times to The Road to Serfdom audiobook, on YouTube. The version with the red thumbnail has the best narrator I’ve ever heard. Time stamps are in the first comment. Were you to be inclined, I believe a breakdown of this book could help humanity immensely, a strong statement but I’m serious.
Until later, thanks for contributing to the world in a positive way. ✌🏻
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I get your reasoning, but I still don't agree.
The fact the Hitler said stuff and wrote stuff, doesn't mean he believed in it. He might have said it to gain more followers. I think reading a book that he wrote and inferring from it about his views is not the best course of action. The best way, in my opinion, of assessing someone's views, is through their actions. That's why the fact that not all property was nationalized is important in my opinion. I don't think Socialism is all about the nationalization of stuff, what about other policies which are strictly Socialist? Did he enact any of them? Did he do anything else that would suggest that he might be or not be a socialist? I am not too fond of the subject, and would love to hear about this from you in the future.
And also, I think what you said near the end is completely true. That fact that something is similar in a certain way to something else doesn't necessarily mean it inherits all of it's other traits. Your example is correct:
If we say that Hitler, and therefore by extension the NSDAP were socialist, and we see something else that openly calls itself socialist, it doesn't mean that it's necessarily similar to the NSDAP in any other aspect exept it being socialist.
Interesting video, really made me think
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The British were supplying critical aid to Russia in 41/42.
But since the collapse of the Soviet Union, a trickle of information has emerged from archives in Moscow, shedding new light on the subject. While much of the documentary evidence remains classified “secret” in the Central Archives of the Ministry of Defense and the Russian State Archive of the Economy, Western and Russian researchers have been able to gain access to important, previously unavailable firsthand documents. I was recently able to examine Russian-language materials of the State Defense Committee—the Soviet equivalent of the British War Cabinet—held in the former Central Party Archive.
Together with other recently published sources, including the wartime diaries of N. I. Biriukov, a Red Army officer responsible from August 1941 on for the distribution of recently acquired tanks to the front lines, this newly available evidence paints a very different picture from the received wisdom. In particular, it shows that British Lend-Lease assistance to the Soviet Union in late 1941 and early 1942 played a far more significant part in the defense of Moscow and the revival of Soviet fortunes in late 1941 than has been acknowledged.Particularly important for the Soviets in late 1941 were British-supplied tanks and aircraft. American contributions of the time were far fewer.
In fact, for a brief period during December 1941, the relative importance of British aid increased well beyond levels planned by the Allies as a result of American reaction to the outbreak of war with Japan; some American equipment destined for the Soviet Union was actually unloaded from merchant vessels and provided to American forces instead.Even aid that might seem like a drop in the bucket in the larger context of Soviet production for the war played a crucial role in filling gaps at important moments during this period. At a time when Soviet industry was in disarray—many of their industrial plants were destroyed or captured by the advancing Nazi troops or in the process of evacuation east—battlefield losses of specific equipment approached or even exceeded the rate at which Soviet domestic production could replace them during this crucial period. Under these circumstances even small quantities of aid took on far greater significance.
Once again raw figures do not tell the whole story. Although British shipments amounted to only a few percent of Soviet domestic production of machine tools, the Soviet Union could request specific items which it may not have been able to produce for itself.
Additionally, many of the British tools arrived in early 1942, when Soviet tool production was still very low, resulting in a disproportionate impact. The handing over of forty imported machine tools to Aviation Factory No. 150 in July 1942, for example, was the critical factor in enabling the factory to reach projected capacity within two months.
https://www.historynet.com/did-r... (https://www.historynet.com/did-russia-really-go-it-alone-how-lend-lease-helped-the-soviets-defeat-the-germans.htm)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1st thing 1st, brilliant Epstein joke esp considering the nature of the video. Love it.
2nd, i know how much it sucks to be misrepresented on a personal level so beit on a professional one it must really boil your potatos. the critics in question are, in my opinion both the least significant and the hardest to converse with. Critics are a good thing, especially when it comes to history as we all know. However, when they disagree for the sake of it and have objectivity clouded by whatever personal gripe they have against you, reasoning is pretty much impossible.
They're more interested in their own opinions and theories and, it very much seems like they take offence to anything that doesn't adhere to it not just regardless of the reasoning but worse yet, without even entertaining the prospect of reason.
In short, they want conformation of their views, anything else is wrong and not for reasons exposed by debate but by way of some flaw in your person or my favourite, unsavory and opposing political bias.
They hear but don't listen. Say what you want, regardless of how logical and reasonable you may be, they hear what they want and don't have the capability to actually listen to what you have to say.
The ones worth your time and effort may not be anywhere near as loud but are vastly greater in number.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Hey Tik, just wanted to say that your channel is criminally underrated and your content is some of the most in-depth, complex and non-biased information on the numerous topics you cover. I somewhat recall years ago when I was seriously beginning to start, albeit on a very amateur level, studying the real 'war', that is the war of logistics, of economics, of doctrine, of unit composition etc.
After growing up with a western view of the war through the eyes of Hollywood, the ever reliant (heavy sarcasm) History Channel and "distinguished" tales from our lord and saviour, Eric Von Manstein, I am eternally grateful for you forever changing my dissection and analysis of this conflict and its surrounding topics. I believe the first video I ever watched was "The MAIN Reason Why Germany Lost WW2 - OIL" and that just blew my mind.
I won't waffle on any further as I'm sure you are busy sorting through the huge number of Patron questions I'm sure you receive, but thanks again for giving us all great content! We truly are spoiled!
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dannyhalas9408 13:39 I think this part of the video explains why profits and losses reveal efficiency.
Medicare and medicaid are funded by the government, and the increase in healthcare costs correlate exactly around the same time these programmes were instituted, according to Consumer Price Index and Medical-care price index from 1935 to 2009. You can try to sell a product as expensive as you wish, at the end of the day, if people are your primary market, you need to have a price which they can afford. You don't need to have as low as a price as you can afford when you are primarily selling your products to a state.
And as for railway... In 2016, there were 1.718 billion journeys on the National Rail network, making Britain's the 5th most used in the world. Since privatisation, the number of national rail journeys had increased by 117% by 2014 and according to a 2013 Eurobarometer poll, satisfaction with rail of UK respondents was the second-highest in the EU, behind Finland. The rate of improvement increased compared to that experienced in the last years of BR, according to research by Imperial College London. The researcher said their findings showed that 150 people had probably lived who might have been expected to die in crashes had pre-privatisation trends continued. I'll give you there has been confusion about responsibilities that has led to several safety-critical incidents and incurred high costs for companies and passengers, but overall, were getting better bang for our buck.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Greetings TIK !
Just finished this chapter, and as always you have done an outstanding job!
I've been watching your videos for quite some time now, in fact, I ended up cramming for the Stalingrad series to keep up with the channel! Currently, I'm trying to muster enough will and finish your amazing Hiter's Socialism!
I think I subscribed a few nights ago, so for me, it's official! XD
You have been a great teacher in History, Economics, and Politics in these trying times, and for that, I am immensely grateful !
Thanks again for your great work TIK but please don't burn yourself out, and I pray you get well soon !
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Interesting, indeed. :)
Hobart's beliefs are the exact same ones that led to the formation of the US Air Force in 1947. Air War Theorists had proposed that air power could annihilate armies, fleets, and economies on its own since WWI. This is why the strategic bombing campaigns of WWII were given as much priority as they received. Even today, the Air Force sneers at Close-Air Support as heresy, since it serves the ground forces. :P
Another cause for Britain's Armor doctrine being behind the curve was because of Ernest Swinton. Swinton had fought in the Boer War and WWI, and was a visionary theorist. He was a major figure in the development of the tank, and had the foresight to see its potential. After WWI, most armored forces were brought together, since the colonial garrisons didn't need them. Swinton was offered the chance to be commander of every tank unit in the British Army, and yet he declined. This was a huge mistake, and made no sense at the time. Had he accepted, British tank doctrine would have been equal to German doctrine, if not cutting-edge.
Can't wait to see the next video! :D
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I’m a Baptist Christian and can find 3 verses from the bible that indicate national socialism is not compatible with the Bible
Jesus was a Jew
John 4:9-10 KJV
Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans. [10] Jesus answered and said unto her…
Christians are Jews inwardly (spiritually) through faith
Romans 2:29 KJV
But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
Race is a social construct
Acts 17:26 KJV
And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I am and was raised as a capitalist, but I am not blind to others in need. I believe that it is in, not just mine, but everyone's interest lo look out for each other. I joined the RMC in 1981 and was retired in 2018, and when you're a member of the Military you tend to have a lot of time on your hands, so I studied History and received two degree's from Oxford in the subject. You're doing a good job lad.
Before Christmas there was a power blackout, luckily only for about 6 hours. Now my wife and I own our house and have solar panels with 48 hour backup battery power for night time. Across from us is an elderly lady who lives in a Council bungalow, who we kind of adopted, especially during this pandemic. Our youngest son ran two extension cables over to her house (it was nice to finally say "see" to my wife to why I bought such long cables), a electric oil radiator, a lamp and a couple of surge breakers. I would hope that somebody would do the same if it was one of our parents in the same situation. So I suppose you could say I'm a capitalist pig dreamer.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Even as a former leftist I get the compulsion to call the left all greedy, evil, egomaniacs who are just doing what they are doing because they want to feel like saviors of the world or justify their own shitty behavior. Yet I know that's not it, I was there, I was one of them, yet when you argue with these people and see how hard it is to get them to understand, and have to deal with all the insults, and watch helplessly as their actions negatively effect everyone around them. It makes you bitter and angry and leaves you wanting to lash out... to call them names, and "own" them in a debate, you want that slam dunk moment, and it's never going to come.
I wish I was a more patient and understanding person, but I fear I am too high strung to sway others away from the left.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
He didn't say conservatives are fascist/nazis. He was expressing the Leftist point of view of the Right and Conservatives.
I mean I literally recently not even 40 minutes ago just got bombarded by someone on one of TIK's videos posted repeatedly copy/pasted quotes from Richard Evans, and Kellner trying to prove the Christian Church was in league with the Nazis, in spite of the fact you can literally go to the Holo** Museum's website, and it literally tells you why, and how much the Church resisted and eventually resorted to collaborating and keeping their heads down because doing otherwise was well dangerous, and the Church decided to protect it's people, ie members of the clergy vs resisting. Which means the Church didn't willingly side with the NS, unwillingly collaborated. Despite being an atheist I'm willing trying to defend the Church's actions and why being conservative didn't have anything to do with it.
Yet trying to convince people of such things, when they're already imbedded deep in their minds that the NS Persecuted just about everyone regardless whether left/right conservative or liberal is hard for some to grasp because they've been conditioned one way or the other.
He even posted a list of Political Parties he called Right Wing, even though one of them wasn't, that supported Hitler's Enabling Act. I literally had to show him how every single one of those parties was forcefully dissolved within months after the Enabling Act. Literally being bullied/harassed/pressured into closing their doors by the NS who promised they'd be a Collations. Of course he dismissed it and spammed more copy/paste comments. One of the parties leadership even became parts of the anti Nazi resistance, but of course..... that doesn't matter to someone that nuts.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You're not wrong, TIK.
I think there is a perception that history is boring because it is irrelevant: it's the past, it's gone... who cares, right.. ?
I believe that we as a culture - and politicians in particular - are arrogant enough to think that they are "special" and "unique" enough such that "this time is different". In other words, "unprecedented"...
Yet history is full of the same mistakes being made AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN by business leaders and politicians who are so full of their own ego and hubris that they have no concept of the extent of their own ignorance and stupidity. (*cough* George W ). Because each time they thought "this time it's different"
Personally, I'm particularly interested in political and economic history... although at the end of the day it's all history, and military history is of course no more or less important than any other area of history.
I was moved by your piece about bread and the German 6th Army: it was a brilliant demonstration of how this hubris and ego ended up directly affecting the lives of everyday folk. It's the everyday folk who ALWAYS pay the price of this ego, hubris, and general psycopathy of leaders. From Domitian to George W: it's the regular guys who die by the hundreds of thousand as a direct result of this psycopathy.
So people need to understand that history is ABOUT THEM; not just maps and kings and big battles and stuff.
Also, I think that history is taught in a very myopic, one-dimensional way at schools. For instance, I remember having several lessons devoted solely to the minutiae of the English Armada of 1588 (and how us brave plucky English valiantly repelled the Spanish ships blablabla ) yet NOTHING about the at-least-as-unsuccessful English Armada against the Spanish in 1589 (Google it - it was a complete catastrophe...)
For instance I was taught precisely nothing about the apocalyptic An-Lushan Rebellion* (estimated death toll up to 1/6th of the global population) or Genghis Khan's murderous antics (killed a mere 5 - 10% of global population)
This is before we even begin to get on subjects such as the history of slavery, or the history of fiat currencies, or the history of uncontrolled government spending, or...
So, yeah, people need to realise that history is about them. It explains who we are. It explains why we are in the situation we are in.
More importantly, It warns us about bad political leaders and unwise political decisions.
And finally: don't confuse History with INDOCTRINATION. There's a lot of that about these days. Learn up on history - genuine history - and you'll be able to spot the indoctrination a mile off. On everything from Feminism to Global Warming to invading Iraq.
History is the best Bullshit-Detection-System there is.
Keep up the good work, TIK.
(*Chinese history... MIND BLOWING )
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
This is the most frustrating thing I see -- and, please, tell me if you see it yourself. I have found, consistently, that people who are guilty of "sin" are very likely to project that sin onto others. Case in point: My aunt had an affair. My father (her brother) then told her, straight up, that what she did was commit adultery, and that's technically correct. She accused him of saying horrible things that she would never say about her own family members. It's like her own hypocrisy was literally staring her in the face and she somehow had the psychological capacity to block it all out.
I see the same things in these socialists:
Marx was a fat, lazy ass, yet he had all the answers to the very real problems laborers in that era faced.
Trotsky mooched off his industrious, bourgeoisie family in order to indulge his idle fantasy about annihilating all bourgeoisie.
And Hitler....Hitler saw the Jews and Bolsheviks as such an existential threat to the German nation that he intentionally slaughtered the German nation and allowed the USSR to just walk right into Berlin.
Dictators and hypocrisy. It's a strange combination.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The first video of yours I ever watched was Operation Compass, and wow, look back at yourself, you were so excited and full of energy and passion for what you were doing.
Looking at your recently, you look like a haggard mess haha - love ya.
I'm pretty sure that you promised us the full North Africa campaign, which I was so excited about, then Stalingrad came along and it just got ditched. I was so disappointed. Eventually, after waiting a very long time, I decided to watch Stalingrad, and hey, it's great, but it isn't what I came here for and got hooked on.
One suggestion. If you are picking up from where you left off (or if there is a gap, works both ways) on the North Africa campaign, maybe a brief summary, perhaps 10 minutes of "this is what has happened up until now" (use your old footage), and then launch into it. For those who have seen the previous videos, it's a fantastic refresher without watching the whole lot again, and for those who are new to the channel/topic, it puts the battle in a context.
I'm super excited to see more North Africa content :)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TheImperatorKnight Thank you for the really detailed and enlightening reply! I believe, in a sense, that it speaks to what I am going through currently. Being a history major in his senior year of college, I have been long exposed to the "subjective interpretation" of history, and because of this interpretation, my mind has been haunted by a deep uncertainty.
This is because, in essence, I have been taught to doubt everything, as nothing is "objective". Our understanding of the past is rooted in subjectivity and that true historical objectivity is impossible as every historian is biased and every history is an argument for said bias. (This is a bit hilarious as my professor, in spite of this strand of self-awareness, chooses to try and hammer into us Marxist-socialist historiography, implicitly implying it to be true).
As a result of this, rather than being confident in what I research and write, or even satisfied with the finished product, I am filled with deep anxiety and loathing against it. I believe that this comes down to said interpretation, and how it tries to tell me that there is no concrete truths in the historical craft. This depresses me greatly, and has served to disillusion me, because I did not want to pursue history so as to write half-truths or biased lies.
In addition to this, due to the "subjective interpretation" haunting me, I have become increasingly paranoid over any source that I read and/or research from. If history is subjective, and since every historian is attempting to craft their narrative out of preconceived biases, then how can I trust anything? How do I know I am not being misled, and being driven into an echo chamber? Am I to give up trying to understand and know history, or even try and understand what is true and what isn't, or what is good and what isn't?
This, in a sense, is why I have been afraid to read Leonard Piekoff's work. I am terrified that, since he writes with a certain bias (for Objectivism), I would leave with some sort of warped representation of history, philosophy, and reality. But, then again, if everything is subjective, even opening any other work of history would lead me down the same path (potentially). This is my current conundrum.
I hope this response wasn't too rambling :)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Well… your question is not phrased properly. If someone terminates himself, he has chosen to do so. And this choice is based upon his value and belief system — as you point out. I guess your question is, should a person’s belief system be structured to promote self-exiting. And I would say no. The proof is history. Not morally or anything like that.
NAZI Germany, Communist Russia, Cummunist China, and 1930-1945 Japan all have a more structured, less free belief system compared to the U.S. and post-war Germany and Japan. The British and much of Europe are stuck in the belief that Socialism is not the same as Fascism or Communism but, as we can see from their output, they are kidding themselves. The more government control, the less free the mind, the less the innovation and production. A slave is never going to be an Edison, Bell, Musk, or Ford.
Indeed, look at Sowell’s economic analysis of the slave south verses the free north from 1776 to 1865. The south was way behind in everything economically. Slavery is inefficient and expensive. An externally controlled mind is slavery without the chains.
The objective for a society, aside from self preservation, is to maximize contentment. Free minds do this much better than central authorities. This is beyond having been proven within the past century.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
TIK, my best guess is this, you were an honest and truth-seeking socialist. That's like a unicorn and isn't a sustainable position to be in.
Most socialists are in love with other people's stuff (covetousness). They aren't smart, they aren't honest, they don't seek truth. They want power so they can remake everything in their image. They are tribalists.
Now, not all socialists are like this, yes, so there are some who will listen. But, that is the minority position.
Remember, you can't convert true believers. Like all fools, they believe without evidence (their faith is blind). Ergo, they cannot change their minds regardless of what you do. These are also the loudest people.
Lastly, these videos are useful because most people aren't socialists, and they believe the lie because it was the first thing they were taught (I call this "the problem of first knowledge" and others "the problem of first impressions"). So, while it takes lots of effort to overcome the "first knowledge" problem, you can indeed do it. BTW, these are the quietest people.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I think you should go for the Jugular of "privatization" and tackle Germa Bel himself. There are at least three angles there :
* A video on the USSR and the NEP : Like, the socialist in the USSR themselves had to reprivatize under Lenin. Applying the same reasoning, they would have to conclude that Lenin wasn't a socialist because he did the exact same thing. This pretty much destroys the basis of the argument of "They privatised something = They aren't socialist". Plus, they only did it because their economy was literally crumbling at the time (one of the best example of how socialist doesn't work, thanks lenin)
* Address the whole "against the mainstream" paper. It is short (like, less than 30 pages), and has a fair ammount of flaws. It's basically just a list of "examples of privatization", but he cannot point toward a global policy at all. Another big thing is that he limits himself to up to 1937 (so just the first 4 years of nazi rule), which is very convenient because he talks a lot about "United steel" and its privatization, but when Goring made his giant steelmaking organization for all of Europe, it was in... 1937. Funny how that worked out, lol. That way, you can just ignore the nazi doing the exact opposite because it happened afterward.
* The paper where he initially launched the whole "Nazi privatization" myth is actually "The coining of privatization and the German's natiional socialist party". It's a 9 pages long paper, where he tried to say the German coined it. In it, he mainly quotes just some english sources who are using the term (sometimes, in a totally irrelevant fashion), and one book in particular by a marxist at the time (she was unhapy the nazi reversed some policies of the SDP). There's just one german source, which is by a journalist... It's very flimsy. **In the end of the paper, he concludes the English speakers "may very well have imported the term from German"**, but he never proved it at all. Essentially admitting he couldn't prove it !
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
thanks for reading the comments TIK. i'm a veteran of the channel, and it always warms my heart when i get a response from you.
i just want to put my 2 cents here. and my walk through lefist and communist movements. i started as a communist in my teens,
jumped to trotskyism, then to anarchism. i'm saying all that because it's really funny that there are more parties in the left than there
are people. in greece, where i live there are about 25 leftist parties. one in particular is represented as one, but contains 14(!) different parties from socialists to anarchists.
so my answer to all of that, was to leave, and try and get my mind to work, on what seemed right to me, on every different topic.
so thanks TIK,, although i had an established identity as a leftist. i was able to get out of this monolithic thinking that the left is passing through
propaganda. i have a very interesting family, that went through WWII, and the rebellion from the greek junta in the80's. if someone wants to
hear, i'd be happy to share.
Anyway Thanks!
2
-
A great historical travesty is the metaphor of the "zeitgeist," which is commonly translated (and used) as "spirit of the times." 'Zeit' itself however refers first to the ebb and flow of the tides, and "spirit of the tide" is a much better use. When authoritarians describe zeitgeist, they act as though a single man or thought is the culmination and it is worming its way into millions of brains. In reality, the zeitgeist is the ebb and flow of the millions, swaying in one direction or the other, and "great men" are merely pebbles in the sea. It takes some effort to move them, but they don't stand a chance against the tide.
Trying to reverse the tide is nearly impossible. This is what you are doing when you crash into the common conception of authoritarianism head first with the tools of facts & logic. Those are two things that have never once stopped a genocide or fomented a revolution.
Trying to channel or divert the tide in a more productive direction, now that can be done, and the tools you already use do that best.
If you can move the needle even slightly on these topics in the eyes of the disinformed, disinterested public. a significant portion of currently indoctrinated people, especially so-called ideologues, influencers and thought leaders, will shift.
"Learned thinkers" are the driftwood, not John or Jane Smith aged 17 who watches Youtube instead of paying attention to their classes. If you shift the window of the conversation even 1/10th of an centimeter for those people, you are warding off literally millions of future Hitler stans.
As far as how to shift that needle, make some videos about tanks and start jumpscaring people with economics right in the middle of them or something I don't know lmao
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TIKhistory If you consider many great figures in history, they often never get to see the fruit of their labors. It is an unfortunate fact of life, but know that if you're following your passion and believe that what you're saying is undeniably true, it will eventually permeate, as the truth always wins in the end.
As for the groups, I am sure that all not all individuals fit cleanly into each of them, but I think it is probably close to being accurate. I think that engaging with the third group is pointless if your goal is to change their mind. However, if your goal is not to change them, but to provide fact based evidence that others can use when confronted with the same arguments with more open-minded people, I wouldn't see it as pointless. I don't remember where I originally heard it, but the point of debates isn't to convince your debate partner, but rather to convince everyone who is watching or listening to your debate. Regardless, I appreciate your content and hope that you continue into the future, no matter how that content evolves.
2
-
In regards to your final statements about not getting through to people and therefore your videos addressing them being pointless, I disagree. You may very well never get through to them. However, people who watch your videos and bring your arguments to others can actually have an impact. I believe that the issue stems from the fact that those who watch your videos either already agree, are open-minded and willing to entertain your arguments, or are hate watching for that sweet sweet dopamine hit. Those who are hate watching will be the most vocal and the least likely to change. This creates a facade of your arguments falling on dead ears, but it is nothing but a facade. I don't know if I agree with everything you say, all of the time, but I have been able to make headway with some using portions of your arguments. You addressing the headstrong hate watchers allows your sympathetic viewers to have responses to any attempted rebuttal that is thrown their way. Ultimately, I don't think anything you've done is pointless, albeit it may seem unfruitful from your perspective. With that said, you should pursue topics that you will enjoy pursuing and I will personally keep partaking in your content. Thank you for your videos and may God bless you and your family.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You're not going to convince people who have nothing but spare time on their hands. Their standard for what is a compelling argument will never be met and that is something I'm sure you're well acquainted with. If you never heard of SerpentZA, I'd highly recommend his channel. He lived in China and is now getting hate brigaded for posting now negative content about the country and its leadership, but he goes on because he loves the people, the culture, and for truth's own sake.
Regardless of how you will steer your channel, I just wanted to express my sincerest appreciation for the work you did. I was a patreon ages ago but with meager retail wages I had to stop for now. Regardless, you were the only person I subbed to not because I necessarily always agreed with you (especially at the time), but because the content you put out was solid. Because you didn't argue by insulting others, and you acknowledged every source no matter how tainted it may appear to be (Eric Hunt, Irving, Hoggin, Soviet stats, etc...) and pointed out inconsistencies not because you were picking favourites but because you seen problems and distorsions. That is something you have methodically done, which I now do too, with more patience towards others.
Finally TIK, I think it may be your reputation that prevents you from breaking through to people, by that I mean the nature of the source. People expect you to say what you say, so they remain skeptical when you say what they think is predictable. Had THEIR friends suggested that Venezuela is real socialism or that they may get novichoked tomorrow for not ratting out their fellow comrade neighbour, maybe they wouldn't be so dismissive of what people are telling them.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Peikoff and Rand are questionable sources at best. Much of what they wrote is bunk. Now, before people accuse me of being a socialist or a leftist—I am not. My criticism of Objectivism comes from a theologically Protestant and politically conservative perspective. I actually agree with Objectivism's free-market economic philosophy, but their dismissal of the family, nation, and church is what irks me. Objectivism wants everyone to be a hyper-rational, unemotional, self-interested robot. But that's not what humanity is. The human condition is one of subjectivity, emotions, and faith. Trying to purge humanity of those things is a devil's deed. Moreover, humanity can't possibly exercise rationality and reason to such an extreme extent due to the spiritual, psychological, and moral effects of the Fall of Man. The mission of Objectivism is literally impossible. Additionally, I think the altruism–self-interest dichotomy is a false one; rather, it's a spectrum.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I think one of the reasons people disagree with your narrative of "Hitler's religion was Gnosticism" is the very word "religion", or how it's understood in the Western world. to us Westerners, "religion" basically means "worshipping a deity", as in "the Christians worship Christ, the Muslims worship Allah, the Jews worship Jehovah", or even "ancient Greeks worshipped Zeus, the god of thunder".
but Gnosticism is less of a worship and more of a way understanding and making sense of the world; a philosophy of life and the world, rather than religious worship of a given deity or entity. thus, Gnosticism more akin to Buddhism of Confucianism. Buddhism and Confucianism are not religions in the sense of "organised worship of a certain deity", but rather "ways of understanding life and the world through the lens of some philosophy and shaping your life accordingly"; be it a philosophy of a good life devoid of worldly tribulations, or a philosophy of becoming one with your community (family, country, etc.).
and IMHO in this light Gnosticism is somewhat like Buddhism of Confucianism: it's more of a philosophy of life and the world (sic! Weltanchauung - literaly "world-view") as opposed to an organised, worship-based religion. the True God of Gnosticism doesn't want you to worship him; he doesn't really care about worldly worship. all the religious rituals, all the worship, all the prayers and sacrifices etc., are just unnecessary worldly disturbances - what is necessary is that you adopt a certain world-view or philosophy, and that through that world-view you strive to transcend yourself to become one with the True God.
and yes, there were Gnostics that treated Gnosticism as a religion and tried to become one with the True God through religious rituals, like Madame Blavatsky etc.; but my point is that Hitler wasn't one of those people - he wasn't interested in religious worship, but rather in the philosophy of life and of the world as he saw it (i.e. the Weltanschauung).
I'm not here to argue with your point that Hitler was a Gnostic - in fact, I agree with most of your arguments. I'm just pointing out that some people may have misunderstood your point, because most of the Western people don't think of Gnosticism as a religion per se, but rather as a philosophy of life. and Hitler didn't really "worship" Gnosticism as a religion; rather, he subscribed to the Gnostic Weltanschauung.
2
-
2
-
2
-
The blood issue is one that has been around for millennia. Even in the Bible, especially the Old Testament, there is lots of concern with blood. Prohibitions against eating animals with the blood still in them. Sprinkling the altar with the blood of the sacrifice. Then, in the New Testament, we have the sacrament of the Eucharist, the body and blood of Jesus. All of this was, I expect, quite separate from the "philosophical" concepts, and predates them, so it really tends to support your thesis.
And, no, not too much information. It is stimulating. It is also YouTube. I can stop and restart any time. Keep it up.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TheImperatorKnight Not at all. If one argues against what some people badly want, or need, to believe, it's obligatory. People will never believe anything they don't want to believe unless you can make your case forcefully. It's far better to do that with facts and research, if one seeks an audience of those who actually think for themselves. In the long run perhaps those willing and able to observe, learn and decide for themselves are the opinions that matter. 'Useful idiots' are useful, but they're still idiots, and hence ultimately uncreative and unproductive. Credibility is essential, unless one simply wants to 'preach to the choir'. All credible argument depends on solid research, facts, contemporary sources and citation. @Axisjampa says your citation and research "has no match on YouTube". As you point out very effectively, your credibility is above the level of even much published literature. One need not sacrifice quality to the medium. It separates the 'wheat from the chaff'.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Thank you for this Tik. You have excellently demolished the 'far right' rhetoric and all the lies. I did not know you were from Southport, it makes it much more closer to home than say, someone from me, commenting on it. Rotherham and Leeds are close to me as well. I share many of the same opinions as you mate, i'd go as far as too say most.
I'm two days late, because this whole mess has actually demoralized me and angered me too, if I have any faith in humanity left, it's in people like you and those speaking up, and maybe I should in my way too. I've been commenting less on the internet because I was censored often, but maybe I should speak up as an individual once again, but you have spoken everything I wanted to say too. It's always historians and those who understand history who should be listened to especially at times like now.
I am also not Far right. My true beliefs are a mix of three ideologies, some normally in disagreement on some matters. They fall in Conservative and Libertarian areas of thought though, some directly inspired by what I learned on your channel Tik. All those shouting "Fascist scum, off our streets" should learn from here as well.
The "Uniting the Kingdom" March was a true unity of individuals. That's the true Britain I believe in, although I know they are ideals.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Well. TIK, i recently learned why i get into so many political discussion, suffering the same issue as you. Being told i dont know what nationalism, socialism, communism and fascism is... i found out it was because i looked at the ideologies in their historical context.. and in todays historical context they have been labeled different. So why was nazism nationalism? because some one crammed it into the nationalism tab... Same goes for fascism.. i mean, if i understand correctly, Mussolini's fascism isnt even fascism by todays standard. - So i guess thats why people today can disregard fascism as fascism and say nazism isnt even nazism... because they dont look at it with the historical context. So i am all aboard with you. Though, i think it would serve you better, to keep the tone neutral and objective. There is a risk, when it gets a more personal nature, and that is that the discussion will move from the matter at hand, and to "i feel hurt of your tone, lets discuss that now" - which is not good for the discussion.
I've become increasingly curious. You clearly dont like socialism, and is pro capitalism. I can see your arguments for this. As a Dane i was wondering, whats your opinion on our social-liberal system, and system of collective agreements between union and state workers? - as i understand, it has many elements of socialism... but with the free marked, global economy and right to possession.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
D Bruce
"someone saying"
"Another event hit us like a ton of bricks: for the first time Russian tanks" T-34 "appeared! The amazement was complete. How could it happen that there, upstairs, did not know about the existence of this excellent tank? "Otto Karius
Guderian: "For the first time, the superiority of Russian tanks T-34 was manifested in a sharp form. The division suffered significant losses. The planned rapid offensive on Tula (the last frontier in front of Moscow) had to be postponed. " The next mention of the T-34 Guderian does in two days. His lines are full of pessimism: "Especially disappointing were the reports we received about the actions of Russian tanks, and most importantly, about their new tactics. Our anti-tank weapons of that time could successfully operate against T-34 tanks only under particularly favorable conditions. For example, our T-IV tank with its short-barrel 75-mm cannon had the ability to destroy the T-34 tank from the rear side, hitting its motor through the blinds. This required great art. "
Gunter Blumentritis:
"... And suddenly a new, no less unpleasant surprise came upon us. During the battle for Vyazma, the first Russian T-34 tanks appeared. In 1941, these tanks were the most powerful of all tanks that existed then. With them, only tanks and artillery could fight. 37- and 50-mm anti-tank guns, which were then in service with our infantry, were helpless against the T-34 tanks. These guns could hit only Russian tanks of old designs. Thus, the infantry divisions were confronted with a serious problem. As a result of the appearance of the Russians of this new tank, the infantrymen were completely defenseless. "
"In the region of Vereya tanks T-34 as if nothing had passed through the fighting orders of the 7th Infantry Division, reached artillery positions and literally crushed the guns that were there. It is clear, what effect this fact had on the morale of the infantrymen. The so-called tank fear began. "
"If this tank goes into production, we will lose the war"
von Reichenau
"Extremely high fighting qualities. We had nothing of the kind "Major-General von Melentin
"The best tank in the world", Field Marshal von Kleist,
"A very disturbing report about the quality of Russian tanks ... The superiority of the material part of our tank forces, which has taken place up to now, has now been lost and now passed on to the enemy. Thus, the prospects for quick decisive victories vanished. "Guderian.
"The T-34 tank made a sensation." - This 26-ton Russian tank was armed with a 76.2 mm cannon, the shells of which pierced the armor of the German tanks from 1.5-2 thousand meters, while a distance of not more than 500 meters, and even then only in the event that the projectiles fell in the side and aft of the T-34 tank ... The Russians, creating an exceptionally successful and fundamentally new type of tank, made a big leap forward in the field of tank building. "General Erich Schneider
B. Müller-Gillebrand: "The appearance of the T-34 tank was an unpleasant surprise, because due to its speed, high throughput, enhanced armor protection, armament and, mainly, the presence of an elongated 76 mm cannon that had high accuracy of fire and penetrating capability of shells on a large, still considered an unattainable distance, was a completely new type of tank weapon. German infantry divisions, although they had each a total of 60-80 anti-tank guns and had a sufficient number of other anti-tank weapons, but with a caliber of 37mm guns, they almost did not have a damaging effect on the "thirty-quarters". The 50-mm anti-tank gun put into service by the German troops at that time was also not effective enough ... "" The appearance of the T-34 tanks radically changed the tactics of the tank forces' actions. If so far certain requirements were made for the design of the tank and its armament, in particular to suppress the infantry and infantry-supporting means, now the main task was to demand enemy tanks at maximum range in order to create the conditions for subsequent success in combat. "
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I don't have to watch any of this video in order to call any claim such as this utter and complete BS. I WILL watch it, if not to only watch and see how many of my points made it into the above video, but I haven't seen it yet, as I am writing this.
Yes, the USSR was fighting the main bulk of the Nazi war machine; however, the USSR was using ALL of its war effort against the Nazis. They weren't fighting against Japan, which The US and Britain were also fighting at the same time that they were fighting Germany. Before the US even entered the war, they sent military aid through "Lend-Lease" to the USSR, as they continued throughout the war, to the number of such items:
400,000 jeeps & trucks
14,000 airplanes
8,000 tractors
13,000 tanks
1.5 million blankets
15 million pairs of army boots
107,000 tons of cotton
2.7 million tons of petrol products
4.5 million tons of food
That is a massive amount of material that the USSR desperately needed in order to fight off the Nazis. I wonder what they would have been able to do without getting the pairs of boots alone. I'd love for someone to figure out (if possible) how much of an impact it would have been if the Soviets hadn't gotten any of this stuff. I'd figure that the Nazis would have made much better headway if "Lend-Lease" had never happened. Having looked up what it meant on Wikipedia (not exactly the most reliable source, still is right more than it's wrong), here is a quote by Nikita Kruschev about the topic of "Lend-Lease":
"I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin's views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were "discussing freely" among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany's pressure, and we would have lost the war. No one ever discussed this subject officially, and I don't think Stalin left any written evidence of his opinion, but I will state here that several times in conversations with me he noted that these were the actual circumstances. He never made a special point of holding a conversation on the subject, but when we were engaged in some kind of relaxed conversation, going over international questions of the past and present, and when we would return to the subject of the path we had traveled during the war, that is what he said. When I listened to his remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so."
And again, when you consider that the Nazis were fighting the British (and later the Americans) in North Africa, the Allies in and around Italy, and then in France and Western Europe, forcing the Nazis to expend more and more in a hopeless effort to stem the tides on Western and Southern fronts, while also fighting the Russians on the Eastern front, it is ridiculous to even think that the Russians were fighting all alone, while the Germans were fighting the rest of the world. Also, the Germans had to deal with hundreds of British and American bombing raids that progressively destroyed much of their manufacturing and war-making capabilities.
The Russian war effort was massive, along one massive front, against an enemy that was fighting along fronts on land and sea, against The British Commonwealth and The United States. The US sent Russia massive amounts of material through U-Boat-infested seas, which the Germans would inevitably find impossible to defend. I don't know how a one-on-one war would have inevitably ended between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, but if Kruschev's own opinion about it has any weight, I would have to at least conclude that it wouldn't have ended well for the Russians.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@memorydancer I have never got the feeling that TIK pushed the narrative that capitalists had nothing to do with Nazi Germany. He said that they MOSTLY had nothing to do with NSDAP's RISE TO POWER. Once Hitler seized the power, they normally had to interact with Nazis because they wanted to secure their businesses and in Party State like Nazi Germany that can be done only by indulging the Party Leaders. TIK also mentioned in this video that some industrialists had pledged financial support to Hitler in 1932 but ONLY IN CASE OF A COMMUNIST INSURRECTION which never happen so they didn't have to honor their pledge.
On the other part of your response: I grew up in a Socialist Yugoslavia. All the things that we had, German workers under Nazi state have had as well: one Party system, 'democratic' elections with only one candidate approved by the Party, Party officials doing the State work, State youth organization with mandatory membership, only one Trade Union, belonging to the State, voluntary physical works on building the country's infrastructure (mainly roads and railways), workers resorts (mainly on the Adriatic coast) where workers and their families were sent by the State Trade Union to rest, celebrating one Leader and every part of his life (some of it not entirely factually correct), mandatory study of State ideology in high schools, even the"people's" car produced in local factories. Trust me, an average Yugoslav worker from SFRJ would found a lot of familiar things were he somehow ended as an ethnic German worker in Germany from 1933-1939.
Also, regarding support by capitalists to the 'left-wing' parties: after the fall of communism, during the reign of Slobodan Milosevic here in Serbia, there was a rather fringe political party called JUL (Yugoslav United Left) which was created when several hard-line communist parties and fractions merged. As I said, this was a fringe party but it had one peculiarity - it was the party of Milosevic's wife Mira, who was a sociology University professor with strong Marxist ideology. Therefore, this party was in coalition with Milosevic's Socialist Party and JUL got waaay more high positions and CEO places in state-owned companies than what their power and popularity among the people was (to the detriment of some high-ranking officials of Socialist Party). What was interesting about this party with Marxist political program was that most of the Serbian tycoons and richest people of that time were, if not members, then, at least, financiers of JUL! I'll let you conclude why was this the case.
And oh, yes...a lot of prominent ex-communists from the SFRJ era easily 'changed' their ideology and became hard-line nationalists, or even chauvinists. Interestingly, their social and economic views remained strongly Socialist, authoritarian and totalitarian.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ASSouls-ui4lo I'm not being funny, but all those points were covered in the video. The Left/Right dichotomy is unhelpful when reading history for the most part, given that it changes so much. The distinctions between Socialist, Marxist, Fascist and National Socialist were considered very important in the early 20th century, as I'm sure they were in the 19th century when Marx was writing. We've since made many conflations in retrospect.
A Communist could speak with hatred regarding a Democratic Socialist, reviling them as "moderates" or "liberals". It strikes me as eminently reasonable that a racial Socialist such as Hitler could speak with hatred regarding class-based Socialists (i.e. Marxists). Much as a Catholic or a Protestant could speak with hatred of one another during the Reformation. The Narcissism of small differences. The key constant, was the collectivist approach, as opposed to the individualist approach. Authoritarian control vs Liberalism.
From my limited reading of Mein Kampf, I'm aware that Hitler entertained the idea of becoming a Marxist in his youth before realising that theirs was a global, universalist message ("workers of the world" etc), whereas he was more concerned with the particular Nation and Race of the Germans (which he considered Austria to be a part of, reviling the multi-ethnic Austro-Hungarian Empire).
As TIK says in the video, Socialism is a much older idea than Marxism, simply being defined as the public control of the means of production. The state definitely qualifies as public by any definition. And Hitler's Germany certainly seems to have exercised state control over industry and businesses, judging by the evidence presented in the video (just not in the the exact mould of the centrally planned USSR). It's a compelling argument. But if you have evidence to the contrary, or if you contest the definitions used, I'm open to hear them.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Around 1:29:00, you talk of social darwinism I must point out that Darwin had not much to do with it, and was misquoted. There's no such thing as "Darwinism" in evolutionnary science, and we moved past his ideas as new evidence appeared.
There's no -isms in actual science ...
So "social darwnism" is just another ideology floating around with confused ideas. It certainly isn't Darwinian... Anyway, the activists that ended propping it up socially weren't that far from Hitler in terms of nonsensical ideas, while Darwin was pretty opposed to it (he was notoriously anti-slavery for example) In general, trying to apply evolutionnary ideas, or any scientific ideas for that matter, to politics is dubious.
Anyway, I dunno if it's really possible to get rid of the term "social darwinism" at this point culturally, but personally, I don't like to use it because it misrepresents darwin and his ideas quite a bit.
2
-
I haven't seen a video from you since a long time, when you just talked about military history alone, i'm glad that you had started to talk about these topics. These is a long but detailed video that has a lot of useful information. I'm from Chile and i studied history on the university, of course i ended being very "pro state" (not full socialist, i was never so stupid), but since a cumple of years ago I started to inform miself by videos of spanish sepaking libertarians intelectuals, like Axel Káiser, Juan ramón Rallo, Gloria Alvarez, etc. and then i readed the books of people like rothbard and hayek. It was a hard intelectual transformation... but i achieve to see and conclude the same things you present here. The great example in my country is the socialist goverment of Allende and the UP (unidad popular) (between 70-73), the one who expropiated many companies and farms, and when the economy wasn't producing he used the money printing and the inflation for finance his socialist agenda, and also controled prices, creating a black market and pointing that "it was the traders foult"... that was a disaster that led to the destruction of the democracy and the "coup d'État" ended in the military dictatorship of pinochet. Of course the left says that all that disaster was the foult of the US intervention, that actually existed, but every time i asked some marxist if that economic mesures had worked on any other place or time... they just can't answer. In the hispanic world we are suffering the same cultural war than you, and is incredible how the left dominates the public opinion with their false interpretation of economics.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@slaterslater5944 so they didn’t persecute Jews then? 🤦♂️. Maybe I was a little strong in calling it “the ultimate evil” as I guess you could argue that they did not see Capitalism as being more evil than, say, Communism, but they were certainly heavily opposed to Capitalism as we see it today. My reason for saying “ultimate evil” was because whilst they may not have persecuted Capitalists specifically as such, they did see Jews as the gatekeepers of Capitalism, and they absolutely persecuted the Jews more than anyone. As I said however, their objection to Capitalism did not make them necessarily Socialist. In fact, I think debating whether Nazis were Socialist or Capitalist is a little silly as they were there own thing, taking snippets out of various ideologies to build their own National Socialism. Gregor Strasser spoke in 1925 how: “We want in place of an exploitative Capitalist economic system a ‘real’ Socialism, maintained not by a soulless Jewish-materialist outlook but by the believing, sacrificial and unselfish old German community sentiment, community purpose and economic feeling.” Yes, Strasser was taken out in the Night of the Long Knives but this notion that Capitalism and the Free Market was a Jewish concoction ran through Nazi dogma right until the end. And whilst his quote states how they seek a ‘real socialism’, those on the right ought to understand that Strasser used this term in order to redefine the Socialism of the left.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
wait, so fascists are on the left as well, because socialism under the nation, so the political and economic compasses should be based on the left meaning more power to the state and right meaning more power to the individual, so political right is anarchy because no state, political left is (choose your type of) socialism because "everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state"
I'm watching the video for the 2nd time, sorry if i missed the part where you correct this comment or something, but this and your public v private videos are very much enlightening, thank you sir!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1:58:50 The sad thing is, with JP Morgan & Friends financing all sides of WW1 and WW2, the weird Austrian as a bit of a point. Those wars would not have been possible without that outside financing. The Austrian has made out a couple patterns, but then always jumps to black&white extremist conclusions and injects certain details out of the blue. Which lead to the inconsistent garbage he in the end came up with. Either way, all Socialism leads to tyranny, fascism if you will - for nobody is allowed to be outside or against the Collective. So why bother with any versions of this horrid scam in which there is always only a small group amassing power and wealth while impoverishing the people? Animal farm depicts it right. The Socialists call Napoleon, the pig, a filthy capitalist, when that is not what he was, he was an antisocial/sociopathic/psychopathic scam artist. But then, maybe Socialists are really just that: Bad Capitalists who try to scam their ways into power and wealth with no regard what happens to those behind them, whom they close the door towards, pull up the ladder that they themselves just managed to climb.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Implying you didn't watch the video. His premise is a premise, but the details on why he made that premise is deeper in the video. So trying to counter his "Premise" without knowing why he made that premise isn't a good way of counter arguing his video. Also your example of "Oh they said they would never invade the USSR but invaded the USSR anyways." Implying you can not take their word for it is nuts. There are a lot of reasons why they made that None Aggression Pact, and never had any plans of honoring it, and that in itself has absolutely nothing to do with whether Nazi Germany was Socialist or not anyways, in turn, your example is irrelevant to the debate.
From your link. TIK address and completely debunks this in Section 6 of his video, with a sludge hammer at that, it's hard to find your source even remotely convincing, definitely when your source was published from a Academic back in the USA in 1944, who had no direct access to information and it was all 3rd hand information. v this below is from your source and it's just laughable... it's an economics who does not seem to understand how Nazi Germany's economy operates hence why he describes it in a "Puzzling" manner ie he is having a hard time trying to find a way of how to define it.
" It was not capitalism in the traditional sense: the autonomous
market mechanism so characteristic of capitalism during the last two
centuries had all but disappeared. It was not State capitalism: the
government disclaimed any desire to own the means of production,
and in fact took steps to denationalize them. It was not socialism or
communism: private property and private profit still existed. The
Nazi system was, rather, a combination of some of the characteristics
of capitalism and a highly planned economy"
PS this part from above "the government disclaimed any desire to own the means of production, and in fact took steps to denationalize them" He is literally taking the Nazis Word for "Privatization" seriously. So even you're own attempt to say you can not take the Nazi's word for it, well this man is taking their word for it. So your source is by an economist from outside Germany, taking Nazi Propaganda, seriously.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TIK; I think you are brilliant. Period.
When I began following you I was convinced there was nothing new I could learn about WWII. I had read every book I could get on the subject. You akways mention Panzarkrieg, I have it at home! Was I wrong ... Very much so! I never realised the value of logistics and economics before hearing it from you. I never realised how "national" socialism and "intenational" socialism are basically the same ideoloigy, with a few tweeks here and there. I many actually have learnt more economics with you than I actually learnt in 6 years of University. I mean, I studied Political Science in Spain. I am sopposed to have the mental tools to analyse stuff like you do, but my education was very biased in Uni. Still, I can recognise those that make sense, and all you say makes sense to me; I just never looked at it in the light you shine things. In every video you prove me "right" about as many times as you prove me "wrong". And I love it.
If there's people calling you so and so, well, they probably are too set in their own ways and are just unable to listen to a different narrative than what they are used to. I can only feel sorry for them, but as you say we do not live in a time of reason and logic. We live in a time of tribalism, "Right or wrong, my group comes first." I have stopped arguing with so many people lately because they simply don't care about the truth, but rather about what they want to believe. It is a pity. Do not focus on those that attack you, it's useless. They can chose to believe you or not.
I am loving Stalingrad, I am binge-watching them, and I am so sorry to hear you say that it is killing you. I dont want it to kill you, take your time, oplease.I don't think I would mind having to wait a couple of months for another episode if that is what it takes for you to muster the strength for it. TIK, I would love to see you to the end of those 7 months, even if it takes into next decade. You know... enough time to allow your sanity to stand fast.
You are inspiring. I envy you. :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It happened to me in Highschool in Venezuela, I was sent to read Das Kapital as pre-military indoctrination, a few years later I read Mein Kampf, that as you described, shares pretty much the same economic principles, in the end the state will control the means of production. Your videos keep getting better and better, Market Garden was awesome, but the latest ones specially the one about "That House In Stalingrad" was great, but this one shows that you are capable on translating simple battlefield actions into their true, strategic, geopolitical context. Honestly dude, thank you for this video!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Gvjrapiro Actually I'm claiming that a cow and a rat are both mammals. And yes, I expect it must be very frustrating to argue that one group of brutally violent socialists, who behaved virtually identically to other groups of similar brutal and violent socialists, was not, in fact, socialist. The problem is that you are very childishly demanding that you are correct without any supporting evidence, while ignoring all sorts of evidence that disproves your petulant assertions.
That's isn't very grown-up now. Is it.
What is socialism? "Socialism is a lie against socialism."
No. It is a scheme to defraud people through an ideology-based religion called socialism. By your argument, criticizing Scientology for being a criminal scheme to defraud people by pretending to help them is "circular reasoning," because, by definition, all Scientologists help people.
Again, very, very telling that you've apparently done research on this.
Now you're criticizing me for being diligent. I must admit, after dealing with decades of half-truths, deliberate omissions, clever fabrications and outright lies by very creative Left fascist advocates, I have made it a habit to do a lot of research on what socialists and socialism. Thanks for noticing.
By the way. I'm not a "rightie." I think of "Rightism" much as I think of the "Global Zionist Conspiracy" or "World Capital" or the like - namely, a convenient made-up group of villains that socialists like to use to justify mass killing, institutionalized thievery, enslavement, exploitation, etc. For example, there was no "kulak" conspiracy that the genocide of the Holodomor was meant to respond to. Lenin had decided to enslave farmers, but failed to do so during the Tambov Uprising and so the Bolsheviks temporarily gave up. In the early 1930s under Stalin, they resumed the attempt and finally succeeded, with the unfortunate side effect of crippling Russian agriculture for several decades. Likewise, if the Doctor's Plot wasn't cut short by Stalin's death, we would have had a second genocide of Jews by socialists in the 20th century.
Under Allende, the life expectancy was already going up, public programs were actually bringing people out of poverty. The economy suffered, but the people didn't.
What utter contrived bullshit. The Chilean economy went into a freefall under Allende. He was turning Chile into what Chavez and Maduro turned the Venezuelan economy into. Under Pinochet, living standards went up for the majority of Chileans - so much so, that the country became a leading economic powerhouse in South America. This was accomplished, not by the ham-handed efforts of a fascist dictator (Pinochet knew as much about economics as Allende), but because of the free market, free trade economic strategies of the Chicago Boys.
That is, unless you want to claim that the disappearance of Left fascist "activists" for several decades had something to do with it. Certainly getting rid of a group of arrogant, ignorant, obnoxious, lying, thieving, murderous Left fascist banditos didn't hurt Chile all that much. I'd certainly entertain that possibility - especially in present-day Venezuela.
2
-
2
-
2
-
These comments are hilarious. A swarm of people who doubtless never bothered to watch TIK's long-form style before pile on here to express how butthurt they are by this video. Well, shills, ya'll tried the "I loved your videos before but now I unsubbed" shit with MHV when he did a video on East Germany, and I know virtually all of you are larping.
First: Many of you trot out the "the workers did not own the means of production" line. Yeah? So what? Name a country that ever had the workers own the means of production. That sounds pretty anarchist, doesn't it? You all claim to hate anarchists because they are disorganized morons, and you aren't wrong on that point (anyone who doesn't believe me just needs to study the Spanish Republic's war effort in the 1936-39 civil war). But now the fact that the Nazis don't have workers owning everything means they are not socialist. So they're equal with the USSR and the PRC then, right? The workers owned jack there too. Early in the book of Acts (an explicitly Christian document in the New Testament) God literally has to strike a couple dead because they claimed to have given their property to the nascent Christian community and actually lied about it. Think about that - a piece of religious propaganda that praises a form of communism (involving a couple dozen people at most) has to have God killing people to make it work for another couple chapters. Really makes your decentralized centralism seem workable, that does.
Second: the only difference between Hitler's Germany in 1941 and Stalin's USSR the same year apart from the antisemitism is that Stalin could order people around directly, while Hitler ordered plutocrats around in return for forwarding them with labor (i.e. slaves) and contracts. The result to 95%+ percent of people is basically the same. You get no social mobility. Hitler's mode of governance (if not his 1920s platform) is literally indistinguishable from Teddy Roosevelt's platform as the candidate of the Progressive Party in 1912 or of FDR's National Recovery Agency in 1933. The government and big business partner to set production targets, wages, and pretty much everything else. Now if I'm a working class person, does it really matter to me if my working conditions were set by Gosplan or by an industrialist and the ruler talking over booze? I suppose it does if you're an anal retentive political philsopher, but the result is exactly the same for the worker. [also, look up the life of Plato to see how anal retentive philosophers fare putting their theories into practice (cough) Syracuse (cough)].
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Another round of exhaustive presentation, TIK. 👍⭐⭐⭐
I think this is where gathering more info on Paulus and the German 6th Army's predicament between September and December 1942 provides us with a much better picture. More specifically, this helps to answer the question why Paulus did not order a breakout. After a while, I started asking the following question: "If someone other than Paulus were in charge of the Stalingrad pocket, would he have made much difference?" My short answer: "Not very likely. After all, even the world's best operational mind will be subjected to the very same logistical hell Paulus had faced." I still remember Anton Joli's reenactment (featuring TIK!) radio exchanges between Paulus and Manstein (and between their staff officers) which clearly showed how much Paulus was concerned about his supply situation.
While Paulus was relegated to the post-war historical dustbin, unlike Manstein and many others, I think he was no worse than most of his peers when it comes to commanding an army. Just imagine, what a difference it would have made if Manstein were in charge of the Stalingrad pocket instead of Paulus. 😛
Also, from Captain Obvious' point of view: if Paulus lacked the means to implement a breakout, then his next best option is to cling to Stalingrad's urban landscape. Having shelter can spell the difference between life and death!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I believe there is more to this and what you described as aufheben was correct - but missing key parts and context. I'll use a James Lindsay quote to try and illustrate what I'm trying to get at:
"Arbeit Macht Frei is what the hammer and sickle mean. "Work makes you free". Productive work, but it's only truly productive work, Marx says, when it's work you don't have to do, you're not doing it for somebody else and you're not doing it for your belly being hungry." The conceptual polysemy in this context is "worker" - a laborer, someone who works in the fields, in the factories, someone who's hired by someone else. Or, "worker" in the Marxist theology: someone who puts their time, energy and effort into doing exactly what they want as long as it's not for someone else or to fulfill a mandatory need (like eating). If you're working for a factory owner, you're doing the factory owner's "productive work" and not your own, and in Marxist theological view, you are being oppressed (and even brainwashed). In a more gnostic perspective, your "work" is the shard of divinity embedded within you and you need to do your "work" to realize your "true self". But you can't do that if you're working for Gunter the factory owner, who pays you to do his work, say, making widgets 10 hours a day. That's not "truly" productive work, it's Gunter's productive work being done through someone else, which is their theological equivalent of a major sin. This also lines up with what you stated about Hitler's views on the Jews not being "fit for work" - his view was that they were *oppressors*, they used money to get other people to do the "work" that wasn't their own.
I find rather that the aufheben in this context is related to the Germans under the Nazi regime. "Arbeit Macht Frei" in this sense can applied to the concentration camp staff as a whole: their "work" in this sense, their "truly productive" work was the extermination of Jews. They changed from people with regular families, who'd tend their garden and have a beer, with traditional morals and ethics and were sublated into people who gave up their morals, ethics and even their ability to think for themselves to become "truly" productive "workers" in the Nazi ideological sense - racial mass murderers. That was what was "set free" (you might even say 'liberated'): the absolute worst humanity can produce is the "productive" work of the Nazi.
So in a sense, yes, "Arbeit Macht Frei" as you described "Work sets the German free but kills the Jews" is aufheben. The "productive work" of the German changed from what it was prior to the Nazi regime (i.e: normal "work", doing a job to earn a wage, producing widgets and art and all that) to "killing Jews". Another way of looking at it would be Thesis ("work" in the traditional meaning) + Anti-thesis ("work" in the Marxist theological sense) = Synthesis ("work" for Nazis being to kill Jews). Aufheben of "work" to the most extreme degree. "Productive work" for a Nazi is quite literally "killing Jews". I'd have to look at it deeper, but you can likely also make the case that "productive work" for Communists was killing the bourgeoise.
Good work :)
2
-
@AlexDeLarge1 China today is considered authoritarian state capitalism. It‘s interesting to see how they learned from the past (Soviet Union). Currently a prospering, striving economic system. Biggest economic power in the world and still growing without end in sight. Poverty of hundred of millions of workers is reduced, they climb up the social ladder. Instead of private companies spying on you and and your habits, using the informations to generate money through advertisements, everything is in control of the government. Social credit system to control the behaviour of people. They can shut you down any time. There are rumours that „re-education camps“ still exist, just in case you don‘t want to give up your religion (Buddhism, Islam) or need „re-education“ for some other reasons.
The Chinese way is very appealing to many communists in the west. 😏 There are still lots of them.
The system of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe was very interesting. Especially Eastern Germany, a big prison. Adults worked for 45 years without any purpose. It was a very dull life for decades. You knew your life will not become much better, but at least the basic life requirements were fulfilled. Food, roof over the head, work for everybody. But that’s it, just the minimal requirements. Not too much for the workers. A banana for everybody once a year to be happy. 😂 Leisure activity was often to drive around from town to town for getting basic goods like clothes and car parts. You can imagine how motivated the workers were in this system.
About the companies and houses owned by the state (or owned by everybody, by the whole community), nobody took care of them. Everything fell apart over decades. No renovations or anything. No thriving economy, no money.
On the other hand, the people of the working class were united. United in being poor, so there was less envy and greed.
In case you wanted more freedom or a better life, you had to flee the big prison with the risk of loosing your life and get shot. Accept and live your dull life without any purpose or goal, or get shot - you can choose. Punishment/sentence for the lost war, or just by accident, who knows… 🤷🏼♂️
People had enough, the wall was brought down and german families and tribes were united again. Eastern economy immediately collapsed, capitalism took over. In this times it was very important and good to have our social system. Without it, everything would have been much worse. Imagine having no job, no food, no housing, no basic life requirements at all. How sad. 😢😢
2
-
Of course there still is capital, but it is used more for the benefit of all instead of in an egocentric way. It‘s more like a correction of plain capitalism. A safety net for everybody. Provide work for everybody, so everybody can make a living. Nobody should be forced to live a life on the street or in a tent. Health insurance for everybody. Pension insurance for everybody. Unemployment insurance for everybody. Everybody is safe and can make a living, from the bottom to the top. You still can become a millionaire or billionaire, but you also pay your taxes for the benefit of all. When you pay taxes, you may become millionaire or billionaire a little bit slower. Everybody knows and is aware that he is also working for the benefit of all.
In plain capitalism you can do your egocentric thing, become a billionaire faster because you pay less taxes the more you got. A few go to the top while many live in the streets without any safety at all. No work, no home, no food, no insurance at all (health, pension).
Germany today is still considered Socialism by some Americans. Because we still have our safety net for the benefit of everybody.
It works (without starting wars) as long as everybody is working for the benefit of all. It’s a closed system by the people of the system and for the people of the system.
The system does not work anymore and may break down if too much money is going to the outside, leaving the system (free capital market, people who are not part of the system and never paid into it, etc.)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Rothbard is similar to Rand.
Both fundamentally misunderstood Kant.
Mises was an extension of Kant.
Both critiqued Mises's works in the same way, that he did not understand morality.
The critique was an equivocation on their part.
They equivocated an arbitrarily chosen "Hypothetical Imperative" with Morality.
Morality is neccessarily a "Categorical Imperative", that is, it must be followed regardless of reason.
For example, ask the question, "Why should one not murder?"
- Hypothetical Imperative: *It violates the Non-Aggression Principle*, ergo if one wants to violate the Non-Aggression Principle, then he ought to murder.
- Categorical Imperative: Because God Said so, and there is nothing besides God -- Regardless of whether you wish to obey or disobey God, it is still incumbent upon one to follow that dictate.
The reason I wrote this was that I was struck by 18:00 minutes in, you describe that he is misusing language. It is not the only time this occurs. Him like most atheist intellectuals do this as well claiming they can be just as moral as religious people, or more moral than religious people, and seek to simply redefine what morality actually means.
Mises on the other hand, for all that I have heard people complain about how repetetive he is, his precise & exact use of language is 100% robust and accurate to leave no illusion to what he is actually going on about.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TheImperatorKnight Your reasoning makes a lot of sense, but I can't get rid of the feeling that it's still just your interpretation of certain sources you think credible. I'm pretty sure there are countless books that could be used to make the exact opposite of your argument, but I don't have the time and resources to independently go check and verify.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you are wrong, I started reading a lot of books you recommended (Wages of Destruction, Vampire Economy), but your attitude towards historical economic systems and governments paint you as an anti-establishment person, thus cautions me to take your arguments with a grain of salt.
Also, your arguments align with my world view that almost all bad things happen because of greed and/or stupidity, but maaan, your reasoning suggests that it only got worse and most likely it will only get even worse... That's a depressing thought.
Anyways, keep up the good work, Monday is only bearable because I know at least I'll have a Tik video at the end of the day!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
A very interesting episode.. I find the beginning discussion of, what i consider semantics, a bit much. But i appreciate that the "terms of definitions" is settled at the beginning. I have had numerous discussion with students of social studies because the "terms of definitions" were not the same in History as in Social Studies... - A side note, i actually think this is the cause for people discussing weather Nazism is socialism or fascisme. As the Historian discuss the terms in their historical perspective, and i found that in social studies, it seems Nazism has been shoehorned into fascisme... but i digress. It it is good to be on the same page with what you mean.
I found this very interesting. I was taught in Danish Middle school that printing more money would decrease its value, due to supply and demand. I was also taught that it was the reason for the inflation in Germany post WW1. How ever, i was not taught that the German Government had instituted plan economy... which was nice to know, as i did not understand how the printing of money would make a shortage of commodities. You say it yourself, the price would just adjust itself. So it was very nice indeed to learn about the aspect of plan economy. To excuse the danish school system, it is a rather heavy topic for 13 year olds.
Any way. Interesting episode. I look forward to see more... The nice thing is that i actually found i have a good understanding of economy, albeit more simplified. A lot of your points in the beginning was not new to me, just more fleshed out.
Thanks again for quality content Tik
I do not ever regret supporting you on patreon, even if i find some of you political (maybe more economical) views a bit utopian/Impossible to implement as the world is.. at least not without breaking world order.
PS. Do you think, if the Germans had increased the taxes, and allowed the marked to be free, that they could have fared better in the war?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Not just bad ideas, the worst ideas and it's precisely because they're intelligent. However I've noticed over the years that the intelligence comes at a cost, where other areas of cognition whatever may be severely diminished and/or there are negative pathological personality traits present. Traits, which then become overriding when these intelligent people are put into environments where the suggestion that they're intelligent, rational and logical beings and much more so than the people who are now beneath them in whatever social hierarchy they exist in, is pounded into their heads.
I don't have the smarts to express this properly, but I think you get the jist of what I'm trying to get at when you see supposedly intelligent, rational and logical often also highly educated (though maybe a bit less with engineering fields...maybe we're not smart enough) people adopt extraordinarily bad ideas and whatnot because "I'm smart, highly educated, rational, logical and compassionate and thus immune to those bad ideas only those dumb (poor and working class) garbage people believe."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TheImperatorKnight
Have you read Theory and History yet?
It is my favourite of Mises's works, and I think explains what you do with better nuance.
Quote:
WHAT differentiates the realm of the natural sciences [ AKA The realm of the Scientific Method ] from that of the sciences of human action is the categorial system resorted to in each in interpreting phenomena and constructing theories. The natural sciences [ AKA The Scientific Method ] do not know anything about final causes; inquiry and theorizing are entirely guided by the category of causality.
An example that comes to mind are the extremely simplistic explanations of why Hitler did what he did; because he was of course, Madman Hitler!
Continued:
The field of the sciences of human action is the orbit of purpose and of conscious aiming at ends; it is teleological.
So when you say interpretation, you mean teleology. In the case of Madman Hitler, you demonstrate the underlying designs [ aka Telos ] and rational decisions of Hitler, that led him to make the choices he did, thus proving he is not a madman.
While this might sound like a quaint truism; something that surely all historians engage in. It is not.
Quote:
The present epistemological situation in the field of quantum mechanics would be correctly described by the statement: We know the various patterns according to which atoms behave and we know the proportion in which each of these patterns becomes actual. This would describe the state of our knowledge as an instance of class probability: We know all about the behavior of the whole class; about the behavior of the individual members of the class we know only that they are members.5 It is inexpedient and misleading to apply to the problems concerned terms used in dealing with human action. Bertrand Russell resorts to such figurative speech: the atom “will do” something, there is “a definite set of alternatives open to it, and it chooses sometimes one, sometimes another.” 6 The reason Lord Russell chooses such inappropriate terms becomes obvious if we take into account the tendency of his book and of all his other writings. He wants to obliterate the difference between acting man and human action on the one hand and nonhuman events on the other hand. In his eyes “the difference between us and a stone is only one of degree”; for “we react to stimuli, and so do stones, though the stimuli to which they react are fewer.”7 Lord Russell omits to mention the fundamental difference in the way stones and men “react.” Stones react according to a perennial pattern, which we call a law of nature. Men do not react in such a uniform way; they behave, as both praxeologists and historians say, in an individual way. Nobody has ever succeeded in assigning various men to classes each member of which behaves according to the same pattern.
And such is your unique appeal as a historian, and what puts you heads and shoulders above historians such as Bertrand Russell.
Cheers.
2
-
Anticipating a rather sophomoric rebuttal from TimeGhost History.
My exchange with him on his rebuttal to "Hitlers Socialism", Where I asked him to consider debating you openly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHAN-RPJTiE&lc=UgxjFLUejrJtTqt04mF4AaABAg.97PWlI_zpiA97XY7myH5ou
A notable quote from him:
Akiva Abraham with all due respect for the effort that TIK puts into his work, serious research needs to be epistemological (the principles of scientific method). That includes that it has to be based on provable facts and sourced from recorded reality. His sources are not only mainly second hand, they include endless, countless long disproven speculation and propaganda based on known falsehoods. One of his fallacies is by exclusion: he doesn’t look at the actual financial data (which is btw readily available online).
Having an academic discussion requires that both parties adhere to the principles of the philosophy of science, otherwise the discussion is between religious belief and scientific fact - two things that are not compatible in serious discourse.
Addressing his rhetoric,
serious research needs to be epistemological (the principles of scientific method).
Only some Epistemological research is based upon "The Scientific Method", namely the Natural Sciences. Most people do not understand that the "Scientific Method" is but one "Science" of many, and it is employed in an area only to the extent that it works better than the rest.
For example, you wouldn't employ the scientific method, to verify the proposition that
*All Bachelors are Unmarried*. For that, you would use the Science of Logic.
Interestingly, Marx had tried using the Scientific Method to analyze history, and ended up with Dialectical Materialism. It was an all around failure.
The Proper epistemological system for history, has to be Teleological, taking into account Human Design. See Mises: Theory and History Part II
His sources are not only mainly second hand, they include endless, countless long disproven speculation and propaganda based on known falsehoods.
Not true given that the heavily sourced Vampire Economy is a first hand source.
Also, why does he not express any self doubt, that it is actually himself under a spell of propaganda?
One of his fallacies is by exclusion: he doesn’t look at the actual financial data (which is btw readily available online).
Even if this were true, which its not; Has he ever read Das Kapital?
Its just Marx endlessly quoting "Actual Financial Data", to "prove things." Of course, Marx proved little to nothing, namely because he did not understand economics. Looking at Financial Data, means very little if you are not in a position to understand or question it.
Having an academic discussion requires that both parties adhere to the principles of the philosophy of science, otherwise the discussion is between religious belief and scientific fact - two things that are not compatible in serious discourse.
You hear that TIK?
According to TimeGhost, your discourse is merely "Religious Belief" where as Timeghost is based purely in "Scientific Fact".
I mean God, what a pompous thing to say.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Gvjrapiro Every socialist politician, in practice, defines Socialism as state control over the people. Sure, they have pretty words about "the people", but it always ends up nightmarish. So the scientific (observation-based) definition of socialism is power to the state, over the people. And not just Hitler; also Stalin, Mao, Castro and the European "edmocratic" socialists (including Wim Kok, the late leader of the Dutch labour party. Under capitalism (free market) workers are free to run their business communally, just like https://fee.org/articles/marxism-on-the-menu-why-the-communist-restaurant-failed/
Socialism cannot work (just like democratic government can not; a contradiction in terms). In the end, everyone thinks of #1first; whether that's sleeping in and keeping customers out of the restaurant in the morning; down to wanting to impose your will upon others.
It is quite tiresome to have to explain this obvious fact time and again.
2
-
2
-
2
-
I am a little bit confused about why large companies are not capitalist. I mean, they are not owned by the state, they are not paid by the state, you could call them corporations. They are often huge multinational companies. It is interesting that these very large companies, which I suppose have shareholders but seem to have a small number of people or one individual who profits the most. They are profit making companies, so why not capitalist? It is interesting these very large wealthy companies, or, the one person in control, who are very rich, seem to support and often actively work towards the idea of a global government, a Totalitarian global government it seems, ie a Communist style government. Why? This is confusing. A well known public figure in the UK, I heard say that we don't have Capitalism, we have, Corporatism.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
TIK, I just about fell out of my chair at work laughing when Hyperborean Aryan wrote, "It is proven that we carry Ancestral memories in the blood which are passed down to us through our genetic code." Obviously this guy has no knowledge of biology whatsoever. First, there is absolutely NO scientific evidence AT ALL that ancestral memories are passed down through the genetic code. NONE, ZIP, ZERO! That is pure poppycock. But it gets better, as this guy obviously doesn't know that the bulk of cells in the blood, the red blood cells, LACK A NUCLEUS! They don't contain the DNA through which we inherit characteristics anyway. They contain mitochondrial DNA, sure, but not the genetic material that determines who we are. Maybe he thinks it is carried by the platelets because he is a bit of a clot! Although they, too, lack a nucleus.
Also, calling on the name of God when you deal in numerology, kabbalah and Vedic astrology is actually anti-God and anti-Christian. Unless you are worshipping Satan, that is.
I also get the feeling this guy must have watched "Iron Sky" too many times.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I've seen many of your clips, TIK, and, IMHO, YOU'RE A REAL HISTORIAN, DIGNIFUL OF THIS NAME! At the beginning I didn't like your deep pronunciation, it reminded me a very cocky guy who brays too much on a certain news channel, but I realised I should finally decide to grow up and look at the very high quality of the information you show. Now I find your accent perfectly fine, and your attitude calm, not arrogant, sure of yourself, YOU ARE A PROFESSIONAL and, while my words shouldn't mean much to you as I'm a mere nobody, as long as there's still a place under the sun for me, I've got the right to an opinion, and it's most favourable for your classy materials! Keep up the good work, thank you for bringing useful information on this site!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dominikkonarski4681 Amazon is not a part of the central state, but it is a state. Amazon is accountable to those who participate in it through ownership of shares. Ultimately the central state has final authority/power over any corporation or business entity, even fully private ones, but doesn't mean the central state will use that power or that the people that compose the society at large will tolerate the full use of that power. This is essentially what free enterprise is; it's specifically limiting the power of the central state to interfere in private activities or the activities of those mini states that are commonly owned, aka public corporations.
Look at Amazon. It's function is basically to move goods around and get them to the people that want them as quickly and efficiently as possible. Now, the government could, in theory, do this by simply expanding the existing mail service that's run by the central state. Instead, in free enterprise systems, the central state in a way could be said to "delegate" activities to a "mini state" aka a corporation.
Or take the English colonization of North America. Many of the colonies were actually handled by joint stock companies. The British Crown would draw up a contract saying it wanted to send X number of colonists to establish X number of colonies. Instead of financing it with the money the central state itself controlled, it put the risk onto private individuals wealthy enough to pool their resources to do it themselves. These companies were publicly owned. Many different people and even guilds (which are cartels) owned shares that financed these colonization efforts and those shares could be sold off or traded before the joint stock company became defunct after having fulfilled its purpose.
The central state grants legitimacy to corporations as well as providing the foundations for contract enforcement and the protection of private property.
A company owned directly by the state is much less accountable to the public than a publicly traded corporation is. Whoever is in charge of the government at the time can do whatever they want, and even in states where elections are held for government offices, the people that will run the state owned enterprise themselves are usually appointed, not elected. They have all the authority, and the people as a whole can't do anything about it. Worse, people who do not want anything to do with that state owned company will be forced to finance it through taxes or even be forced to buy its services or goods. State owned anything is only accountable to whoever holds office and has legitimate authority at any given time, not to individuals or to the public as a whole.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It's funny, because you can almost see the 5 stages of grief model while reading comments.
Like for example, for *stage 1*, "Denial" : It would be basically all the people trying to attack you and mock you (especially prevalent with the first videos) or making the meme "North Korea says it's Democratic" arguments. Here, the word is "Just act like it's funny, guys, don't engage in any actual argument" Seems to me their number diminished as of late (since they can't exactly dismiss you that easily anymore)
*Stage 2*, anger, here, people trying to fight/debunk it as they recognize you as a threat. Here, the best example would be the "debunk" by Nigel Askey or all the thinly veiled authority arguments we could see on r/BadHistory. I guess the video by TheGreatWar counts too.
*Stage 3*, "bargaining", you have people trying to say "This part is right but that part is wrong" and mostly nitpicking about the tone/format of the video ("It's 5 hours long ! :(")
*Stage 4*, "Depression", I guess they don't comment anymore.
*Stage 5*, "Acceptance" I guess that's when you subscribe.
Either way, that James Heap fellow looks like around stage 3 to me. He's desperately trying to make a counterargument, no matter how nonsensical. Notice how he isn't even trying to attack your main points, but instead talks about how "discourse is supposed to work" ? It's a "Hey, give me something/please be nice :(" message which really fits the bargaining idea.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TheImperatorKnight Geez, I knew this was bad at 150k subs, but he's doing even better than I thought. I'm sorry if it sounded like I was defending him, I also misjudged how you felt about this.
I wasn't defending him TIK, I'm a supporter of yours on Patreon, so I'm not happy that he has stolen what I pay to support.
I brought up his age, because I remember not only how immature I was at that age, but how much of a prick I could be as well. I see myself as a baby looking back at that age.
But I completely agree with you when you said that he has built his channel on a foundation of lies. I don't believe he is someone we should feel sympathy for either.
I just feel that his age should be acknowledged, if he even is 16, because I'm not sure if he realizes how wrong what he is doing is, if he is that young. Nonetheless he should be shamed out History, and legally prosecuted for his criminal behavior.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I agree with some parts of the video and disagree with others.
I do agree that in Africa for example he made a lot of mistakes, I’ll not go over them because you’ve already pointed them out.
I disagree with the idea of not getting involved with neutral countries until after they have been invaded. Being preemptive is not a negative trait, it’s a positive. Take Iceland for example, declared neutrality but Britain invaded anyway. Death count of that invasion - 1 British sailor who killed himself. Because Britain took Iceland when they did it prevented needing to take it off Germany who would’ve loved to hold it to aid in the Battle for the Atlantic. It saved lives.
I strongly disagree with the idea that Churchill has any responsibility for the Bengal famine. To keep it short, yes, Leathers was requesting food early on but Churchill had access to stores records which shown they were full. To send food aid at that point looked stupid considering, especially when other regions had their own food insecurities. Then when famine had really took hold Churchill tried to get extra food to the region. He tried to set up shipments from Iraq and Australia, he petitioned Roosevelt for more ships but Roosevelt refused.
Looking at the region at the time something like 1 in 3 ships were being sunk by Japanese subs, there was a typhoon which wiped out thousands of square miles of crop land, brown spot disease took out even more and you had a Japanese army who were advancing by looting the places they took.
When Wavell took over India the famine was quickly broken. They had food stocks there that were being hoarded, Wavell stopped the hoarding and set up proper distribution. A good harvest later in the year also helped.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
30:30 You will laugh about this quote of Marx about his own works in that context of "deliberately confusing" from Chapter 2 "The Dialectic Approach" of T.Sowell's summary book about "Marxism Philosophy and Economics", p.6:
"Out of the massive and complex writings of the philosopher G.W.F. Hegel, and the derivative writings of the neo-Hegelians who flourished in Germany during Marx's youth, certain key concepts of Marxism developed. Then and now, these concepts have proudced an arcane language of their own[1], less an expression than an obfuscation of the underlying ideas."
The reference [1] quotes Marx himself and reads: "The semi-Hegelian language of a good many passages in my old book is not only untranslatable but has lost the greater part of its meaning even in German." Karl Marx to Friedrich Engels, 'Letters to Americans', translated by Leonard E. Mins (New York: International Publishers, 1953), p. 151.. See also J.A. Schumpeter, 'History of Economic Analysis (New York: Oxford University PRess 1959), p. 438n; Allen Wood, 'Karl Marx' (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1981), pp. 3-15; 189-206; _Herbert Marcuse_, 'Reason and Revolution: Heyel and the Rise of Social Theory', 2nd edition (New York: The Humanities PRess, 1954), 'passim'.
(I find it funny that as the video progresses I reference earlier and earlier pages from that book...)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Well, I hope you see my comments in the devil's advocate category, I just want to bring up different points to see if they have any effect on your reasons or reasoning. I do understand that you help us outline historical events in a proper perspective, and you do so with a host of sound study to build the episodes. Do I agree with all that you say? No, but I do learn a a bit and sometimes why you point out are things I did know of, but your review brings up aspects I didn't think of. I was born and raised in a military family, and thankfully both Mom and Dad were brilliant, so I learned to look into both sides of a matter to build my overall perspective on the situation. Yet I must say I downloaded this episode in that though some have come close, but you are the closest anyone I have heard to believing the same as I do on politics, or rather nations, or both.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
At the end, in re the long vid - there's a reason it took me ~5 days to get to this, because I saw it was an hour 20 long, and I don't have that amount of time to dedicate to 1 vid mid week. IMO, break this into 2-3 pieces. As for the Q&A - yes, more. Great stuff.
In re your observation that people mischaracterize what you say: Another person I read asks people who disagree with him to directly quote, exactly, what it is they're disagreeing with. Else it's hard to know what they're thinking he's saying. Perhaps make something like that a standard part of your vids - if you disagree with me, provide my quotes, time stamps, etc of what you disagree with. The knuckleheads won't bother but others may.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Just like Nazi Germany's "private companies". It's not private if the government builds your factory, hires your workers from the only labor union in the country that the government runs directly and to which every worker in the country must belong, sets your wages, determines the prices you pay for materials and services, dictates the price at which you can sell your goods, appoints your management, and is overseen by a Party official. Sounds exactly like Communism, doesn't it? Just ask Ernst Heinkel, or Fritz Thyssen, or Alfried Krupp, or any other German industrialist who became figureheads of their own companies overnight.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It is like "can You calculate the weather" ... y..o. They use super computers and mass data statistics for that since 4 decades and they still fail with forecasting often enough. And that deals only with natural constants for energy, gravity etc. Even the magic "probability" can mislead You, when reality shows You something completely different and unexpected.
The problem with humans (and animals and plants) is that their will and action is not constant but variable i.e "irrational" ... once I loved XYZ but now I no longer do - or the other way round. Cant even explain why.
You can find patterns using AI, which is an extended way of applied statistics. And there is many ways to tweak that to make it look useful. You get many nice simulations, and many marketeers look eagerly for those which are most realistic and probable. Because they want to plan their marketing on that (even non-socialist companies do that all the time).
And then comes the Reality Check. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. Some say that "No plan ever survives the first contact with the enemy". In which the enemy is: reality. Since some 2000 years, humans try to conquer and steer and calculate reality. They are making some progress for some time, but then they fail so many times. All because there is no way for science, nor for any religion, to predict reality. Nobody can escape the unpredictable. Anf this is what frightens too many people: they think they have control but they don't. How awkward ... they rather continue than stop and admit that.
Thanks for this extra video, TIK!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Honestly, I do hope you'll continue with Stalingrad, even just a few more episodes (the failure of the release-push, the beginning of the big Sovjet operation,..)
But: I fully understand getting burned out, seeing lower viewer numbers, realizing how much time is going into it etc.
And it is of course your decision.
For reference: I had never heard of Operation Keelhaul; I considered leaving Poland to the sovjets betrayal enough.
Likewise, regarding the Africa campaign, the 'common wisdom (wise-dumb)' is basically UK sucked until Montgomery.
I had never heard of Auckinleck etc.
I knew Churchill favoured the attack, but the level of pressure brought to bear I knew nothing off; and bears similarity with Hitler deciding to control the army.
(Churchill also graciously(/s) gave input on ship design during his time at the Navy, money and effort spent on his ideas was fortunately grinded down after he left; ideas such as 10" guns armed cruisers etc, for a British Empire that struggled to have enough light cruisers afloat to cover it...)
I do think myself & most of your viewers are mostly interested in WW2; I also think perhaps not every episode has to reach 40 minutes; I think it would be fine to cut such episodes into 20-25 minute segments; whether for battlestorm stalingrad or others, unless the entire operation can be covered in one go of course. And an intermezzo about what other stuff is happening in the world meanwhile, etc.
Best wishes for the new year.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TheImperatorKnight Felton made no response that I am aware of, however it is possible to trace a source for the narrative from the original documents. And Greg does his best to steelman the position and shows primary sources in doing so.
The Lancaster was 'considered' as an option according to the documents. And plans were in place to transfer British assets to the eastern theater as part of the wind down in the European theater (They never transferred).
It was discarded as an option early on for a variety of reasons, mostly technical. Including the fact that the Lancaster lacked the ability to arm bombs in flight, which was doctrine in the USAF. Imagine taking off with an armed, air burst detonating, atomic weapon. Also the fact the Lancaster couldn't fly high enough, or fast enough, to escape the blast radius...
But there is a comment within the documentation to the effect that it would be better to use an American bomber. This makes sense from all manner of doctrinal, classification, and logistical reasons - which is largely reduced to " 'Murica - F$#k Yeah!"
Greg would use this as a springboard for a mini-series on the Lancaster, because it was a good aircraft, just not fit for purpose. Thats his wheelhouse.
There are other cases, and it need not always cut in favor of knocking America down a peg, but the places where I can check its very consistent on drawing a narrative that gets attention over clarifying or improving understanding of history. It draws people in, sure, but is that really the best outcome?
2
-
I think TIK is only partly correct here. Certainly, Hitler believed in the story TIK describes and thus would fight on to the very end (and with him, many generals, like Model and Scörner). However, many (probably most) Germans lost faith in the idea and wanted the war to end (Stauffenberg even tried to kill Hitler to achieve this result). Rommel was another, who lost faith. However, at wars end, Hitler had centralised power to such a degree that he alone could make a choice on the sessation of the war - and he would never accept surrender, because of his views as described by TIK. Losing faith and given the situation, the average German had no other option but to accept that survival was relative, and try to survive for another day - or surrender to the west (TIK fails to explain why this happened, if the Germans believed in the Nazi narrative - it makes no sense). At the very end of the war, even Himmler tried to negotiate a peace (apparently, he also had lost faith) and Hitler killed himself (rather than picking up a rifle dying to defend "the Volk"). Before Hitler was dead, there was no possibility for peace, once he had died, there was absolutely no reason for Germany to fight on. But TIK is absolutely right in that so many German Generals were willing to die for Nazi Germany. However, Hitler, his inner circle and the Gauleiters pretty much all broke rank and ran (or comitted suicide) instead of fighting to the end, like they had forced so many hapless Germans to do. Of the highest 50 ranking political leadership members of Nazi Germany less than five died fighting the war, the rest by suicide, trying to escape or some similar way. Truly, Nazism was the low point of the history of the human race.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I generally agree with you, TIK, but I do think that the animal part is where I start to partially divert. Partially. I understand you are approaching it from a philosophical perspective with the horrors of national socialism (and other forms of socialism) in mind, however I think you may be throwing the baby out with the bathwater and giving ammunition to people who are looking for an excuse to laugh your otherwise fine arguments away.
Humans are animals not in the philosophical sense of being unthinking beasts driven by pure, raw instincts and nothing else. That I agree with. We are, however, animals in the biological sense, mammals specifically. We fit all the criteria of mammals, and it would be one hell of a coincidence if that wasn't for a biological reason. That being said, yes we very clearly are the most intelligent animal on earth - certainly so far as we're aware! With that intelligence comes less and less reliance upon instincts.
It isn't as if other animals are all equal in intelligence either. With all due respect, if your argument for race not existing is that individuals can vary in their traits so why draw the line there I'd say that different individual animals and species as a whole can vary in intelligence while still all being animals so why drawn the line at our intelligence? Intelligence and instincts are not completely opposing things but rather intrinsically linked in terms of how they determine an individual being's behavior - human or otherwise. As humans, we are highly independent and varied between individuals, which also means we are individually far more responsible for our actions and choices.
On the other end of the animal spectrum, we have things like insects that are very clearly nowhere near as intelligent as us and it's nigh impossible for us to differentiate one individual from another within the same species. Everything in-between are things like elephants, cats, dogs, dolphins, and all manner of other creatures infinitely more intelligent than insects yet not as intelligent as humans. Anyone who's ever been a pet owner can tell you that different cats and dogs all have their own personalities, likes, dislikes, quirks, and traits even within the same species or breed, thus denoting a measure of intelligence above many other creatures. As such, we as humans hold them accountable for their actions to varying degrees yet not as much as we do ourselves and each other.
In fact, in a curious twist, we are a lot more hesitant to kill a cat, dog, or other more intelligent animal because we inherently recognize that higher-than-average intelligence in them and their individuality as beings around us, even though we would hold a violent dog much more individually responsible for its actions than - say - a locust. Despite that we will kill that same locust and millions of its fellow locusts without a second thought because of what they can do to crops and farmland despite the fact that no one with half a brain is going to reasonably and faithfully argue that a locust is more intelligent or self-aware (and certainly not more morally culpable) than a dog.
Again, my point is NOT that we are animals and therefore unthinking beasts who can't be held accountable (I believe that, in modern parlance, the idea of a 'beast' and an 'animal' are not exactly equal in meaning - at least within this context), but rather that we are the most intelligent of animals AND THEREFORE have the highest amount of individuality AND responsibility for our thoughts and actions. I think there is a nuanced view here that can be held both logically and morally between saying we aren't animals at all and that we are animals and therefore simply act in a predetermined way (which isn't even true of many other animals we interact with on a day-to-day basis). I understand a wariness to give ground on that because of how that gets twisted by people like socialists of varying flavors, but I do believe that rejecting it outright only gives them ammunition to say we're idiots and morons who don't understand biology (and by extension 'muh science'). In this case, I think you may be speaking on a philosophical level while the commenters in the video are speaking on a biological level, both using absolute language that goes past one another.
I would further say that whether you think that race is real, fake, or just another word for ethnicity (which I suppose one could argue is the human equivalent of 'breed' - which certainly exists among other animals yet isn't a perfect indicator of behavior and reasoning itself)... Even if it were unquestionably real, the idea of us being animals does not make it anymore valid to take the concept beyond broad, generalized observations of shared traits based around similarly shared genes. So again, while I understand the caution and concern, I think throwing out the entire concept of humans being animals because national socialists will twist that idea to its absolute extreme and then use that twisted extreme to further justify a twisted extreme concept of race as justification of their yet further twisted aims and goals is just a bit... unnecessary and does more harm to the argument than good. If it isn't biology, it'll be something else that they use, because they aren't working off logic to inform ideology. They're working off ideology and twisting logic to fit it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
TIK, some people climb Mount Everest - it's difficult, dangerous, expensive, and often
fatal. Why do people do that: simply to be able to say they did it? Seems pointless to me.
Now then, you're halfway up a figurative Mount Everest, and it's undoubtedly been difficult, expensive, and so on. You're probably asking yourself what are you doing, and what is the point. What you are doing is amassing, collating, evaluating and presenting the collective knowledge of an important part of history in an accessible way: a way that aids the further study of those events.
And what is the point of that? Well, what is the over-all lesson of World War II? I'd suggest it this: if you devote the whole of your resources to destroying your neighbours, you will most likely destroy yourself. (That's open to debate, obviously. ;)
So, then, had Hitler watched your videos, and seen the ultimate futility of the course he set himself - and his nation - perhaps he might've been dissuaded from that plan. Had Hitler stopped at Poland - as tragic as that would've been - it might've saved 30-40 million lives and 3 or 4 years of war in a dozen different nations.
By telling the stories of the monstrous stupidities of the past, you're helping to prevent them from happening again - and that's worth doing!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
From the initial impression I've gotten from this video, the "democratic" socialists in Weimar Germany didn't actually give a flying fuck about the workers they claimed to hold so dearly. They sound dishearteningly similar to the petty Marx-stans on Twitter, more obsessed with the ascetics of socialism, social progress, and a powerful working class, than any actual plans for improving the standard of living for blue collar folks. They sound like the kind of folks who go into every situation thinking only of their romantic revolution, and not the reality they might find themselves in. In short, these people have their heads in the clouds, dreaming of a utopia where all their problems will magically go away. They have no realistic plans for improving society, and can effectively dodge any actual reforms for "not being radical enough" or "not honoring the vision of Marx and Engels." Fools, one and all.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Thank god someone like yourself has articulated what the silent majority think about “ government policy” on the British publics feelings on mass uncontrolled immigration, and showing that it includes many ethnic backgrounds , religions ctreeds and colours , not just the “ far right “ labelled white British folk. We need to unite as a populous , stop the nonsensical destruction of our towns ,caused by a minority just out to create chaos and keep focus on peaceful protest , the entire population needs to stand together , not fight one another and let all our voices be heard by self serving politicians, who continue to deceive all of us , suppress us , and are not in touch with reality.
Be peaceful folks , we are not the problem, our parliament is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1