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

  1.  @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
  2. @Pat Doyle  " comm and econ omy (still capitali st) " Incorrect. Com ma nd / plan ned econ omy is the pol ar oppo site of mar ket econo mies which ca pitali sm is based of.
    1
  3. @XS-03_Apollo : No, since it advocates for collectivism and socialism.
    1
  4. @Roy J Patterson : Nope, cope harder.
    1
  5. So called "extr eme rig ht w ing" i.e. Ana rcho-Capit alism hasn't even been a thing yet ... nor has commu nism for that matter. However the latter is certainly worse, since it's based on collectivism and soci alism, just like Naz ism was.
    1
  6.  @avigindratt7608  : I'm telling you. I don't need to tell myself anything, since I know.
    1
  7.  @avigindratt7608  : It's not about what I say, it's about what the history teaches us.
    1
  8.  @stephenkizlik8465  "How is Na zis m not a f ar righ t ideology?" You cannot have 2 tot alitar ian soci al ist ideologies at the opposite sides of the spe ctru m (na zism - marx ism) since then it's not a spect rum anymore. Liber tariani sm is a f ar-rig ht ideology which advocates for the ex act opposite of what the na zis want ... and soc ialis m does not belong to the rig ht sid e of the political spectrum.
    1
  9.  @m.r4841  : Incor rect. Natio nal s oci alis m w as a t o ta litari an f ar-le ft, so ciali st ideol ogy.
    1
  10.  @Crispr_CAS9  "The Na zis were not soci alists." Wrong. They were a textbook example of soci alists.
    1
  11.  @Crispr_CAS9  "Before they took power they attacked sociali sts in the str eets. After they took power socia lists were the first group they sent to ca mps." Ma rxists, comm unists and bolshe viks in general, not soci alists per se. However Le nin and Sta lin did the same thing so your point being?
    1
  12.  @Crispr_CAS9  "They attac ked labor. They attac ked tra de uni ons." So did Len in. Hit ler however nation alized the unions and mer ged them into one single nation wide uni on, DAF.
    1
  13.  @Crispr_CAS9  "They privat ized indus tries." Wrong. Never happened. They mass nation alized most of the German industry. "To put it quite clearly: we have an economic programme. Point No. 13 in that programme demands the nationa lisation of all public companies, in other words socia lisation, or what is known here as social ism. … the basic principle of my Party’s economic programme should be made perfectly clear and that is the principle of authority… the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the Sta te should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State; it is his duty not to misuse his possessions to the detriment of the State or the interests of his fellow countrymen. That is the overriding point. The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners.“ — Ad olf Hit ler, Hit ler's interview with R ichard Breiting, 1931
    1
  14.  @Crispr_CAS9  "They were not socia lists." Wrong. You cannot be an advocate for centr alized planning and strong government controls without being a soc ialist.
    1
  15.  @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
  16.  @m.r4841  : You ne ed to co pe har der tha n that, hun.
    1
  17. @Cass: "Ca pitali sm in cri sis." No such thing.
    1
  18.  @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
  19.  @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
  20.  @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
  21.  @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
  22.  @m.r4841  : Incorrect. Na zis m was a bran ch of so ciali sm.
    1
  23.  @m.r4841  : "Na zis m is an ex trem e rig ht wi ng ide olog y" Incor rect. Na tio nal s oci alis m w a s a to ta litari an f ar-le ft, so ciali st ideol ogy.
    1
  24.  @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
  25.  @wapple4240 : Wrong. It is a branch of socialism.
    1
  26. "Right extremist" party would advocate for Anarcho-Capitalism. You have no clue what you are talking about.
    1
  27.  @Crispr_CAS9  "They privat ized things. " Wrong. N ever happene d. Na zis nationali zed most of the Ger man industry.
    1
  28.  @Crispr_CAS9  "They HA TED soci alists." Wrong. They ha ted marxi sts, commun ists and bolsh eviks in general. They had no pro blems with so cialism.
    1
  29.  @Crispr_CAS9  "The first pe ople they pers ecuted were the socia lists. Fi rst atta cking them on the streets before taki ng pow er, then send ing them to cam ps after ta king power." They persec uted mar xists, not socia lists in general. Howe ver what you said here were also done by Len in and St alin so your point be ing?
    1
  30.  @Crispr_CAS9  "Fasci sm is a non-social ist totalitarian political philosophy." Wrong. Fas cism was a totali tarian socia list ideology based on natio nal syndic alism. It was an outgrowth of Sor ellian Syndica lism, which itself was an outgro wth from M arxist socialis m. The idea was that society would be consolid ated (i.e., incorporated) into syndi cates (in the Italian context, fascio/fasci) which would be regulated by and serve as organs for the state, or "embody" the state (corpus = body). The purpose wasn't the promotion of private interest, but the centraliz ation and synchronization of society under the state, as an end unto itself. To quote Mus solini's infamous aphorism: "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."
    1
  31.  @Crispr_CAS9  "There are plenty of socialist countries: Nor way, Germ any, Fra nce, Ir eland, and Au stralia to name a few." None of them have soci alism.
    1
  32.  @m.r4841  : Certainly not the same thing. The ter m "sw asti ka" comes from hin duis m (sa nsk rit).
    1
  33.  @m.r4841  "Where did you get that nonsense from?" It's called history.
    1
  34.  @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
  35.  @m.r4841  : Go read so me actual W W2 hist ory for once and stop wa sting your time here.
    1
  36.  @m.r4841  "Bec ause they're not social ists. They hated soc ialism" Wrong. They ha ted mar xism, comm unism and bolsh evism in general. Not soci alism. They were a textb ook example of soci alists.
    1
  37.  @lucqq3792  "abo lishing trad e uni ons, extr emely so cialist. SIGH" Every single soci alist regime has done that more or less. Le nin and Sta lin included. While Hit ler abolished indepen dent unions, he did nation alize them and merged then into one singl e uni on, DAF.
    1
  38.  @m.r4841  Inc orrect. You have no cl ue wh at you are talki ng about. N atio nal so cia lis m certainly 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
  39.  @m.r4841  "It was not socia list." Wrong. They were a textbook example of soci alists.
    1
  40.  @m.r4841  "They hated socia lism." Wrong. They hated marx ism, commu nism and bolshev ism in general. Not social ism.
    1
  41.  @m.r4841  "The Nati onal Sociali sts killed anyone who had social ist ideas. " So did Le nin and Sta lin. Your point being?
    1
  42.  @m.r4841  "They were indeed extr eme righ t wi ng." Wrong. They were total itarian fa r-le ft social ists.
    1
  43.  @m.r4841  : Incorrect. They were fa r-le ft soc ialis ts.
    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.  @m.r4841  : North Korea is democratic to a degree since they allow people to vote and hold elections in the first place.
    1
  48. @Jim ofPalmSprings: Nope. Tru mp is not a so cial ist. Co pe harder.
    1
  49.  @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
  50.  @apollohermano8501  : They are democratic in the sense that they allow people to vote and hold elections.
    1