Comments by "Historia, Magistra Vitae" (@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.) on "Timeline - World History Documentaries" channel.

  1.  @m.r4841  "This has nothing to do with soci alism" Wrong. It does. You cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a socia list. That's what made Hi tler a soc ialist. He may have been right of the Bolsheviks, but he was still a sociali st leftist as he believed in strong central government control. Hitl er outright declared himself a soci alist in Mein Kampf, just not the Marx ist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his soci alism from the rest of the Marxist crowd.
    1
  2.  @m.r4841  "This has nothing to do with soci alism" Wrong. N azi Ger many was a textbook example of socia lism.
    1
  3.  @m.r4841  "They're not so cial ist. They hated so ciali sm" Incorrect. Na zis m was a totali tarian f ar-le ft, so cia list ideology. They ha ted m arxis m and capi talis m, not so ciali sm.
    1
  4.  @m.r4841  : You ne ed to co pe har der tha n that, hun.
    1
  5.  @jensen1901  : Well that didn't age well. It was proposed, but then discarded due to the backlash. "Bid en Establishes a Minis try of Tru th -- The Disinf ormation Govern ance Bo ard already looks like a pa rtisan instrument." by The Wall Street Journal
    1
  6.  @m.r4841  : Certainly not the same thing. The ter m "sw asti ka" comes from hin duis m (sa nsk rit).
    1
  7.  @Russophile30 : Yes, and so was Fascism. On the far-left actually.
    1
  8.  @m.r4841  "The Na zis were f ar rig ht conserv atives and ca pital ists. Stea ling from an exter nal group is not red istrib ution within the eco nomy." Incorrect. Na tion al socia lis m was a tota litar ian f ar-le ft, soci ali st ideolo gy. They detest ed cap italis m and Hitl er hims elf thought that it was a "Je wish ploy" to take over Germany. They had a ce ntrali zed gov ernment and cen tralized (plann ed) econ omy similar to the US SR.
    1
  9.  @m.r4841  : You ne ed to co pe har der th an th at.
    1
  10.  @m.r4841  "Says the cra zy conspir acy theor ist" Nope.
    1
  11.  @SubnormalEntertainment  : They had s oci alis m in their policies hen ce the name, hun.
    1
  12.  @m.r4841  "The Na zis were indeed ext reme rig ht win g. They also deeply hat ed so cialis m." Incorrect. They hated m arxis m and ca pitali sm, not so cialis m. Na zis m was a totali tarian f ar-le ft, so cia list ideology and had nothing to do with rig ht-wi ng pol itics of any kind wha tsoe ver. The fundamental differences between left-wing and ri ght-win g ideologies center around the the rights of individuals vs. the power of the gover nment. L eft-w ing beliefs are libe ral in that they believe society is best served with an expanded role for the gove rnment. People on the right believe that the best outcome for society is achieved when indi vidual rights and civil libert ies are paramount and the role — and especially the power — of the governm ent is minimized.
    1
  13.  @ryanm3209  " That is why it is placed on the fa r-rig ht similar to the KK K in the U S." That is not how the po litical spect rum works. You cannot have two tot alitar ian so cialis ts regimes at the oppo site ends of the spe ctrum since then it's not a spect rum anymore. Libertarianism is a fa r-rig ht ide ology, and it advocates for the exa ct opposite of what the nati onal so cialis ts wanted.
    1
  14.  @ryanm3209  : Was build for ma rxis ts, not so ci alis ts in general.
    1
  15.  @m.r4841  : Wrong. They were a textbook example of socia lism.
    1
  16.  @m.r4841  : Incorrect. Th ey are not the sa me. The ter m "sw asti ka" co mes from hin duis m (sa nsk rit).
    1
  17.  @m.r4841  : Incorrect. Certa inly not the sam e thing. The ter m "sw asti ka" co mes from hin duis m (sa nsk rit).
    1
  18.  @m.r4841  : "The Na z is wer e f ar rig ht. The fa r rig ht is ju st as tot alit aria n as th e f ar le ft." Incorrect. Na zis m was a totali tarian f ar-le ft, so cia list ideology and had nothing to do with rig ht-wi ng pol itics of any kind wha tsoe ver. The funda mental differ ences betw een le ft-wi ng and ri ght-win g ideol ogies center around the the rights of individuals vs. the power of the gover nment. L eft-w ing beliefs are libe ral in that they believe society is best served with an expan ded role for the gove rnment. People on the right be lieve that the best outco me for society is achieved when indi vidual rights and civil libert ies are para mount and the role — and especi ally the power — of the governm ent is mini mized.
    1
  19.  @m.r4841  " The Na zis we re inde ed extre me rig ht win g. They hat ed so cia lis m" Incorrect. They ha ted m arxis m and ca pitali sm, not so cialis m. Na zis m was a totali tarian f ar-le ft, so cia list ideology and had nothing to do with rig ht-wi ng pol itics of any kind wha tsoe ver. The funda mental differ ences betw een le ft-wi ng and ri ght-win g ideol ogies center around the the rights of individuals vs. the power of the gover nment. L eft-w ing beliefs are libe ral in that they believe society is best served with an expan ded role for the gove rnment. People on the right believe that the best outcome for society is achieved when indi vidual rights and civil libert ies are para mount and the role — and especi ally the power — of the governm ent is minimized.
    1
  20. ​ @wendypollock8168  "No, they weren't." Incorrect. Na tional soc ialis m was ra ci al so ciali sm i.e. soci alis m based on race instead of class.
    1
  21.  @isaac3140  "Were French monarchists le ft wi ng or rig ht wi ng?" They were on the side of so ciali sm i.e. centr alized po wer and eco nomy.
    1
  22.  @isaac3140  "So ciali sm is when the workers control the me ans of pro duction, " Incorrect. That is the definition of m arxis m, not so ciali sm. So ciali sm is nothing more than an economic system which advo cates for the colle ctive ownership of the means of production, distrib ution and exch ange of goods.
    1
  23.  @isaac3140  "Fre nch mo narchis ts were on the side of soci alis m?" Technically there is not much of a difference between mon arch ism and a tota litaria n soci ali st regi me. Both have the undis puted lead er, both have a centr alized form of government and planned econo my where the leader and his adju tants / advis ors tell what the busine sses / merc hants are allo wed to do. That is how Chi na used to work and still kinda does ... and that is how the fa sci st Italy worked.
    1
  24.  @m.r4841  They are democratic in the sense that they allow people to vote and hold elections.
    1
  25.  @Humanophage  : It was economically on the le ft, since their economy was based on so ciali sm (centr alize d gove rnme nt and planne d econo my).
    1
  26.  @m.r4841  Incorrect. Na zis were soc iali st and especially H itler himself, was proud of it. "After all, that’s exactly why we call ourselves Natio nal Soci alist s! We want to start by implementing soc iali sm in our nation among our Volk! It is not until the individual nations are so cialis t that they can address themselves to inter national so ciali sm.“ — A dolf H itler , Memoirs of a Confidant (1978)
    1
  27.  @m.r4841  Because it is incorrect.
    1
  28.  @m.r4841  "But this has nothing to do with soci alism." Wrong. This has everything to do with it, since Na zis were social ists.
    1
  29.  @m.r4841  "The Na zis were f ar rig ht conser vatives and capit alist s." Incorrect. Na zis were tot alitari an fa r-lef t soc iali st and they det ested capit alis m, Hitl er especially since he saw both cap itali sm and bo lshevi sm as a "Jewi sh pl oy".
    1
  30.  @m.r4841  "And yes, the Na zis were extre me ri ght wi ng. " Incorrect. Na zis had nothing to do with ri ght-wi ng whatsoever. Na zis m was a tota litari an f ar-le ft, so cialist ideo logy.
    1
  31. @Cass: "Ca pitali sm in cri sis." No such thing.
    1
  32.  @m.r4841  "They hated so cialis m." Incorrect. Na zis we re tot alitari an fa r-lef t soc iali st a nd they det ested capit alis m.
    1
  33.  @m.r4841  "The Na zis were fa r rig ht con servati ves and cap itali sts. " Na zis were tot alitari an fa r-lef t soc iali st and they det ested capit alis m, Hitl er espe cially since he sa w both cap itali sm and bo lshevi sm as a "Jewi sh pl oy".
    1
  34.  @m.r4841  "Natio nal Socia lism is its own ideology and has abs olutely nothing to do with so cialis m" Incorrect. Their so cial ism was na tion al, in con trast to intern ational mar xist social ism.
    1
  35.  @MrTaxiRob  : Socialist. Their economy was centralized and planned, similar to the USSR under Stalin. As I said above.
    1
  36.  @m.r4841  You have no cl ue wh at you are talki ng about. N atio nal so cia lis m certa inly was so ciali sm. It was a tot ali tari an fa r le ft, so ciali st ideo log y which opposed ca pitali sm. Go read some history, kiddo.
    1
  37.  @m.r4841  "Don't you find it interesting that every historian, every history book, every piece of evidence and even the Naz is themselves disagree with you?" Pretty much only am uric an ideo logu es are disa greeing with historical facts. Na zis themselves were proud so cial ists, especially Hit ler himself.
    1
  38.  @MrTaxiRob  " It was in the name, but not in the practice." Wrong. It was in the name specifically because they advocated for soci alism on a national level. Na zi Germany had a centrali zed and planned economy similar to the US SR under Stalin. Government controlled the means of production and also decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid.
    1
  39.  @m.r4841  "Where did you get that nonsense from?" It's called history.
    1
  40.  @m.r4841  "Don't you find it interesting that every history book, every historian, every definition and even the Na zis themselves disagree with you?" They don't. Only a mu rica n le ftist s and their sym pathiz ers are disagr eeing with the se histori cal fac ts.
    1
  41.  @m.r4841  : Go read so me actual W W2 hist ory for once and stop wa sting your time here.
    1
  42.  @m.r4841  : Incorrect. They were fa r-le ft soc ialis ts.
    1
  43.  @MrTaxiRob  "and privatization, "_ Wrong. Privatization wasn't a thing in Na zi Germany. On the contrary, they nationalized most if not all the German industry and later reorganized all industries into corporations run by members of the Na zi Party. They called this natio nalization as "Gleichschaltung".
    1
  44.  @m.r4841  : You sti ll ne ed to co p e h ard er th an th at, hun.
    1
  45.  @m.r4841  Nope.
    1
  46.  @m.r4841  : You ne ed to co pe ha rder than th at, hun.
    1
  47.  @apollohermano8501  : They are democratic in the sense that they allow people to vote and hold elections.
    1
  48.  @m.r4841  "Natio nal So cialis m is its own ideology and has noth ing to do with soc ialis m." Incorrect. Th eir so cial ism was na tion al, in con trast to intern ational mar xist social ism.
    1
  49.  @m.r4841  "In fact they hated soc ialis m. " Incorrect. They ha ted mar xis m, not soc ialis m. Hitl er was a proud so ciali st by his own adm ission.
    1
  50.  @m.r4841  "So cia list s were beside Je ws the first group that the N az is targeted. " Incorrect. They targeted ma rxis ts and ca pita list since Hit ler saw both as a "Jew ish ploy" to tak e over Germ any.
    1