Comments by "Kameraden" (@Alte.Kameraden) on "History Hustle"
channel.
-
45
-
20
-
19
-
12
-
11
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
There was some resistance but it wasn't on the same scale the Germans Faced in occupied countries. Some of it lasted for years, but you gotta remember, unlike occupied countries by the Germans, the Germans had no hope. So even if people wanted to resist who were they resisting for?
Resistance groups mostly fought to weaken the occupier so someone else could come and save them later, they had no hope/dream of forcing the Germans out. on their own So ask yourself this. "Who was coming to save the Germans from their occupiers?" No one. They had no reason to resist, so even the hardliners who did form some forms of resistance didn't last but a few months to a few years. Even today there is some shadow resistance within Germany, as the Government often does raids on pro Nazi arms stashes now and then over the years, they're rare events but they have happened. So even today, they still exist.
On top of that, a lot of Germans welcomed the peace, even if it might be a harsh one. 6 long years of war, and a country mostly devastated, let alone how nasty the Nazi regime progressively became year after year, peace was peace.
Some of the reactions by the Allies and Soviets toward resistance was also pretty harsh. Combatants caught out of uniform were liable to be shot and executed by the Western Powers, and the Soviets burned down an entire town in response. One case in the West from a German sniper, caused the local American garrison to evacuate the town, and gave orders for the town to be shelled for hours by artillery. No one was going to put up with it in short, and few Germans had reason to go along with it, whether they wanted to resist or not.
3
-
3
-
2
-
@MK-jc6us Don't know what happened but you're last comment doesn't come up when I try to click on it. However, the source I used was many, I checked the US Government's official website, Wikipedia, and even checked Quora as you often get some interesting answers with references there, none of them said the Soviet Union paid anything more than 722million in debt as a result of Lend Lease. So out of the Billions of Aid the USSR paid but a tiny fraction of it. The reason it didn't happen until the 1970s was because the USSR insisted it would only pay 120million but eventually yielded to a larger sum. Issue is for a "State" a few hundred million dollars is relatively insignifgant. Unless the USSR was literally that poor.
So out of 11 billion worth of aid the USSR paid less than 10% of that, the USSR insisted for years that it should only pay 1% of that which is why there was such a delay. USA twisted their arm and they paid around 7%. Being a majority of Lend Lease provided to the USSR was material, like food, coal, iron, fuel/oil with most of the military assets loaned being trucks which was like 14,000+. You can argue it was closer to 10% being who knows how much of the military equipment was lost in battle and would be voided as needed paid for.
If you recall 90% Discount 7% is very close to that 10% the USA insisted that Lend Lease receivers pay, when you take into consideration what 722million is compared to 11 billion and that some of that 11 billion was likely lost at sea and in battle and would be forfeit from being repaid.
However, that being said, the Math does reinforce that even the USSR was given that 90% discount. So the USSR never had to pay tens of billions back and wasn't really in debt in any significant way.
Now I know some people use sources where the USSR spent a few billion USD worth on war materials during the war, but those were for things that Lend Lease did not provide, and much of it was to the UK, not the USA, as the UK had a completely different program. USA didn't have everything, heck not even for herself, like Rubber for example. So there are war materials the USA couldn't provide the USSR and the USSR still had to purchase from elsewhere.
Even if you include that it's technically irrelevant as the Axis Powers post War paid the Soviet Union billions in reparations anyways. So if the USSR had to spend a few billion on war materials she was paid back with billions of material supplied by her former enemies. Quote for example.. "in addition to the large reparations paid to the Soviet Union by the Soviet Occupation Zone in Germany and the eventual German Democratic Republic in the form of machinery (entire factories were dismantled and shipped to the Soviet Union) as well as food, industrial products, and consumer goods...." "... amounting to approximately $12 billion in total..." cut out the bits about how much Italy, Romania, and other Axis powers paid, they collectively tie into that 12 billion but the quote would of been really long otherwise. So the USSR not only had to pay only 722million to the USA she received 12 billions in reparations, not even including the use of forced labor from Axis POWs well into the 1950s for construction projects/rebuilding.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPVo9w79D6w btw this guy uses statistics often provided by the Soviet Union to prove that the USSR even by 1960s still haven't reached Pre-WWI levels, let alone Pre-WWII levels, even though the video is titled WWII. Being Grain figures in the USSR was still lower in the 60s than it was during Pre-War 1913 Imperial Russia, and he is using Soviet Statistics. They only topped out those 1913's figures after Nikita Khrushchev started a re-privatization program similar to Lenin's New Economic Policy which was also a Privatization Policy of Agriculture in spite what Soviet propaganda tries to state. Ushanka show and TIKhistory have pointed out that 80% of potatoes and grain in the USSR by the 1980s were produced by PRIVATE farms not collective farms. Yes the USSR had a privatization program, they just skirted around it and never used the word privatization.
2
-
Interesting note, very few Fascist organizations in Europe were racist. I know the Spanish, Hungarian, and Italian Fascist were not racist. Italy you can argue post 1938, but that had more to do with appeasing Hitler for an Alliance, which is why they didn't really enforce antisemitic oppression. I would say the Puppet State of Croatia under Nazi Germany is perhaps the only example I can think of off the top of my head, but being a Puppet State influenced by the Nazis, it's understandable. So it really lets you realize that Racism, is not one of the core parts of Fascism. I know Italian Fascism in particular it was about bringing all of Societies groups together through Nationalism, you were Italian first, Christian/Jewish/Sicilian second etc etc. This is dramatically different than how the Nazis viewed Nationalism. Which is why I kinda agree with TIK that the Nazis and Fascist should be viewed separately, not as the same movement. Influencing each other but still not the same.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@d.c.8828 "Allow me to preemptively state that defensive violence in the face of territorial conquest is justified."
I do not see why anyone would think otherwise. So I don't get what the point of that statement is.
"Organizing collectives and having a known "leader", figure, or spokesperson, is not the same thing as centralizing power."
Centralized Power is a result of Organized Society. A Collective will always result in the creation of Centralized Power. Maybe not right away, but it is an inevitability. So the only way for Anarchism to work is to not have a collective, and to have no organized society. Why I said it is a contradiction is because, most Anarchist are Collectivist, which is the contradiction. If you're part of an organized society you're not an Anarchist.
However, the concept of having a Collective will result in creating a Social hierarchy, which in turn will create Centralized Power, and it only gets worse when said society gets larger, and larger. As it becomes next to impossible for individuals within said society to have any real possibility of representation in that hierarchy, and that doesn't matter whether it's a Monarchy, a Dictatorship or even a Democratic or Republic system, you will not be represented, as you're at the very bottom of that social hierarchy.
As I said though, hierarchies will always form, even within a collective. Very simple example a union gets large enough the workers have to have some form of control/management of some kind, even if it's elected among themselves who will be in charge of paper work, and maybe representation when communicating with the outside world, those people get a fancy office chair while the workers who elected them bones wither away while mining as a small example.
USA being a pretty darn good example of that actually. America was founded by people who wanted no centralization, the very first iteration of the USA was a Confederation for example as an attempt to hopefully not have centralized power. However, it didn't work out very well. We in turn created a Federal Government but one with a lot of checks/balances in some hope it would keep those in power, checked, or locked in a way so they couldn't gain absolute power. Which is how the USA operated for relatively a century afterwards. Yes there are many in the USA who want to erode those checks/balances and it's sad to see. Most of them really have no effect on curving power anymore.
Despite this... people still fled the eastern United States to the western territories to escape an unfair system. Long before the erosion began. Because, despite being a collection of States, internally all those mini states also developed social hierarchies. Land was scarce, you had to play by rules you may not agree with created by people you may of never even supported politically among many other things. People, a lot of people didn't like it, it wasn't the freedom that the American Dream promised. In many respects it shows how unfair democracy is, for those who are not represented ie those who fail to gain a voice politically in said society. I hate to quote a character played by Mel Gibson but "An elected Legislator can trample the rights of a man as easily as a king can."
I will circle back to the beginning as a reminder. If a Social Hierarchy forms, you will have centralized power. It doesn't matter what kind of system you're living under either. This is why Socialist systems turn into tyrannical systems. As to have a socialist system you to put society in control of the state, in who runs a socialist society? Those at the top of the New Revolutionary movement, or "New Society." Because? Even within a Socialist movement you have a social hierarchy. Despite that a socialist movement is supposed to be a populous movement, or a collectivist movement, in which everyone should supposedly be fairly represented, but never is. Because push comes to shove, individuals in society are selfish and greedy, if you have a choice between a office chair or a shovel you will take the chair, and you will do whatever you need to do to ensure you get that chair. This goes all the way to the top of society.
^ Actually why I laugh my ass off at Socialist who call Capitalist greedy. I would just reply "And Socialist are any different?" History has proven that socialist are literally no different.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Just An Observer On The Internet Well that is nonsense. Do you really think there is a possibility of having a Just Hierarchy? That is hopeless romanticism. We humans are too fickle for that to be a possibility, it's impractical to think it would be. The concept of a Hierarchy literally prevents that.
Good example being, a phycological analysis of most political is that they're narcissist self obsessed people, getting higher up the political ladder isn't for the people but for their own EGO, Putin is a good modern example of this, as well as Trump, both narcissist, ego driven public figures which their followers who support them view them as the highest of society, ie best of society and drool over them... yet... in most cases these narcissist political figures don't even give a crap about their own followers just use them for their own ends.
Similar analysis of CEOs is that they're psychopaths, often to rise to a ranks of a business as large as a multi national corporation pretty much requires a person that willingly crushes their rivals with no mercy, no remorse, which often leads to psychopaths getting to the top of the social ladder of major corporations as more morally excellent people are the ones they crush and exploit. But partners, including other stock holding employees don't care they just care about how successful the company is so if that means said individual can get away with absolutely destroying the lives of their rivals.
These are not good qualities but yet seem to be universally common among Public Figures, and yes CEOs are public figures. You see it in Hollywood among writers and actors as well.
So... yes people who rise up the social ladder rarely if ever do so for good reasons. There is no Justice, and having anything but an unjust hierarchy is literally a pipe dream. I mean it's why Twitter emotionalism is a joke that people often make fun of as again, ego driven narcissist constantly finding battles to fight for to make themselves feel better than they are, because they enjoy the social recognition ie narcissism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1