Comments by "Kameraden" (@Alte.Kameraden) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
@standupaddict94 They had access to outside markets though. Any failure or short coming could easily be made up with trade. Central Europe did not have this option during the Great War. TIK in one of his earlier videos brought up a good example of this when the UK put crop production under national control during WWII, and crop yields and over all production went down instead of up. UK didn't starve during WWII did it? No, she had imports to fill the gaps. Also yes they "DID" Socialism. I brought it up before on other videos in the comment sections, but no nation on this planet is purely Socialist, nor are they Capitalist, they all fall somewhere between the two. Even the USA a nation often pointed at for it's Capitalism is filled with examples of Socialism, even today. Point being though, when the state messes with fields it shouldn't touch, agriculture being a good example, mismanagement, or incompetence can lead to utter disaster, definitely during situations when you're nation is a closed economy, whether forced by outside powers (embargos) or within. Good example recently was Wuhan China. People were starving, and the state refused to allow local farmers to sell produce in the city, and even directly confiscated it by force when they tried. Because despite what some say China isn't Capitalist. Food situations in China are so bad that when the state brought the price of Pork down to 50% in the City of Wuhan the local stores that actually sold Pork didn't have the stock to last even a single morning with such cheap prices as the only people in the city who normally could afford Pork are the middle class/wealth of the city. There is a reason China has Blackmarkets, and ally way food markets that sell rat, dog, bats and just about any meat Poachers just outside the city can get their hands on. Once you get away from the wealthier areas of China's cities, it starts looking like North Korea.
9
-
9
-
9
-
To be honest, anyone who says Hitler didn't Start WWII is nuts. Most of the arguments I've come across are generally loony. For example: "Well if Poland just gave Germany Danzig none of this would of happened." My reply would be, "Well that still means Hitler waged a war of aggression against Poland, at the VERY LEAST for the Danzig Corridor." Though I honestly believe giving Poland the Danzig Corridor was a huge political mistake by the Western Powers after WWI, as it did give someone like Hitler a major political excuse for war which helped greatly at convincing the masses to fight said war, but even the Danzig Corridor wasn't enough, but it did give him fuel to burn. However that does not mask the fact that Hitler shot first, and I don't care what some of the pro Nazi Wehraboos say when they say "No the Poles shot first." All the examples they often bring up are idiotic, even if the Polish Nationalist wanted a war with Germany, they were still not the ones to start that war. But in my Opinion, even if the Polish Government caved to German demands for Danzig, Hitler would of likely just found another excuse later on for a conflict, it was not beneath the Nazis to conduct False flag operations, we know they did prior to September 1st and they would of likely done so anyways.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@orclover2353 That would make sense if Stateless Nations didn't exist, but Stateless Nations do exist.
Friesians for example have no State, yet are a Nation. Native Americans have Reservations, with some political autonomy, but they're US Government Reserves. Yet Native Americans refer to themselves as Nations, even those that do not live on Reserves.
Prior to Israel, Jews also didn't have land, a border on a map. Yet they viewed themselves as a Nation. The whole Zionist movement was so they could establish a Nation State for their Nation as they were a Nation without territory in a world of rising Nation States, in their eyes, if everyone else is allowed to create a Nation State, they wanted one as well.
Sorry but you're blatantly wrong is the concept of Nations and Nationalism. Tribalism is literally just a synonym. You can find this contradiction literally by just looking up Definitions for "Nation."
Examples below:
"a territorial division containing a body of people of one or more nationalities and usually characterized by relatively large size and independent status"
" a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government"
See how they refer to a Nation can have one or more Nationality and be a Nation. Basically both definitions us Nation, National or Nationality as meaning two different things. Land/Territory when they say Nation and a "People" when they say Nationality. But why do you call a "People" a Nationality? Because they're a Nation. Around the bad logic goes.
This is why people fail to understand what Nation means, because they can not even make a Definition of Nation without even contradicting themselves.
Basically to sum it up Nation and State or two different words. Nation State = a Nation with a State. A Nation without a state, wouldn't have territory, so Nation = Land/territory is stupid. So a Nation must equal "A People."
9
-
@elijahrivera2858 To be honest, I don't like using left or right. The concept oversimplifies things.
If Liberalism is the Freedom to Life (Choice), Liberty (Freedom from the State) and Property (Owning Stuff). Wouldn't that make Capitalism Liberal?
Only reason it's Conservative in the USA in particular is because those core Liberal principles are part of the core of American Law. Which makes old world liberalism today's American Conservatism.
This isn't interchangeable either. What is conservative in one part of the world isn't the same in the other either.
A far right Conservative in say Europe might be pro Monarchist, and yes they still exist. Some still want to bring back specific monarchies. But in the USA a far right Conservative are normally Anarcho Capitalist, pro Constitutionist, and anti State. Very very far from being the same thing. These Conservatives have a lot in common with Libertarians even, yet they're call Conservatives and Right wing.
And core American values have also been adopted by some Socialist, like the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence modeling itself off the US Declaration of Independence. BTW Property isn't in the US Declaration of Independence it was replaced with Pursuit of Happiness, where in Classic Liberalism by John Locke, it was actually Property.
This in particular is why I dislike using Left or Right wing in particular. Most political charts are broken because you can not just place something to the left or right of something, definitely when the center may be very hard to define.
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
I often try to convey to people. "Were the Germans really that good or were their opponents really that bad?" You often see a common trend with a horribly unorganized command structure, infighting or flat out inexperienced officers leading to a lot of military disasters in WWII. Having good soldiers and good equipment can only take you so far. Not to defend the Soviets really on this one, not aiming to. But people often point to poor officers and Stalin's purges on why the USSR performed so terribly in the early years of the war. Issue is, so did the French, and British... they also performed poorly early on in the war so what was 'their' excuse? The British however rather than admitting their own failures often, will uplift "German Superiority" as a crutch, an excuse. "We were fighting the very best! So of course we took some licks."
I would argue, that the German Military at this time were not super saiyans. But... were just actually competent. The only real competent military at the time, in spite of all it's shortcomings it was the competency that kept it alive.
When looking back on it from a modern perspective it's honestly hard to see how so many militaries could be so incompetent.
You actually see this in the Pacific theatre as well, British in Indo-China pretty much gave up with barely any resistance the moment their battle plan was compromised ie the moment the Japanese went around their positions through the jungle, instead of trying to reform new lines elsewhere they surrendered the entire garrison! Meanwhile you have the Phillipines and Wake Island where local US Marines, Filipinos, and armed Civilians actually held up really well against the Japanese, in spite of fighting pretty much hopeless battles, losing in the end but giving the Japanese a black eye similar to the Russo-Finnish War. Making the British collapse in Indo-China look that much more embarrassing for well British pride.
That being said the US Military wasn't perfect, but I think that kind of digs that knife a bit deeper when you think about it.
I'm honestly curious how bad the British Officer Corp really was at this time in history. It's obvious they had some good officers who understood their shortcomings and tried to make something good out of the British military early war. But my god... man. It's a mess.
8
-
@gargravarr2 I'd say YES and NO.
1. A lot of prisons have been corporatized outside the direct control of the Federal Government.
2. These "Business" like Prisons wouldn't get away with Enslavement like the Federal Government could back in the day.
3. Some Federal Prisons still exist, and still use prisoners for labor.
Generally though Labor anymore in the prison system is frowned upon. If it exist it's often voluntary definitely in the Corporate style Correctional Facilities as they nicely call themselves. Which prisoners even get paid for it, though not much. Basically a prisoner can voluntary to work and get paid, being they have no living expenses it's not a bad deal for someone waiting out a prison sentence. Prisons also offer educational routes as well, if you didn't have a GED you can earn a GED while in Prison, and some college courses are also available to prisoners.
It's not like Shawshank Redemption stereotypical days in short. But there was a period in American history starting some time in the late 19th Century which Forcing Prisoners to Work was considered necessary for Rehabilitation. As it was deemed someone who is stealing instead of working to earn their bread must be broken, so they must be fixed, sending them prison, learning how to "WORK" was the cure for their decease.
It's no different than the Gulags in this context which Capitalist and those deemed enemies of the Working Class were enslaved and forced to "WORK" or die in the process, if they learned to work, they could be set free. Though sadly for many that didn't happen. They would often get set free in LABOR colonies so they could be continually exploited by the Soviet Government even after Stalin's death.
So the idea/principle is sadly far more universal than just the Nazis or Communist. But I'd say the Nazis and Communist were the absolute worst as they'd work people to death. American prisons wouldn't get away with that has they would have to contend with the Court of Public Opinion, and worse.... being elected out of office. OH the HORROR.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@jrton1366 The concept of Left vs Right today dates back to the French Revolution. ie even the concept of Liberalism pre-dates the concept of the Political Left or Political Right.
Since then the Revolutionary Left hijacked the word Liberal even though they've rarely ever supported real Liberalism. Even Napoleon's Code of Law which is the foundation for all modern Left wing Dominated countries today in Europe, and one of the champions of the 19th Century Social Revolutionaries himself, was also very antisemitic. Despite created the Napoleon Code of Law, he did exclude J**s from the rights provided by that Code. So... ya. Marx himself who came onto the field many years later also had a nasty tendency to use antisemitism quite a lot. In many respects the very concept of a Capitalist is built on the foundation of Christian stereotypes of J**ish people.
This is FAR removed from Jean Rousseau, and John Locke who are the corner stones to Liberalism in Europe and the Americas. Yet the left who themselves are the ones who defined what Left and Right even is, declare themselves Liberal. In spite of the very fact that Economic Liberalism (Capitalism) can not exist without a Liberal Society, a Liberal Society is required for Capitalism to exist, and is actually ideal for a Liberal Society as private Property is one of the fundamental cornerstones to John Locke in particular as it's required for Individual freedom as that private property protects you from the collective group, which includes the state, at least theoretically.
Leftism is also against Individualism at least has been since the 19th Century. Yet another reason why the Left shouldn't be considered Liberal. The Left is Progressive, not Liberal. Because of this however, Progressivism is a forever changing movement, and as a result everything under the sun has been accused at one time or another as being "FAR RIGHT" why? Because Progressivism has been all over the place so much so that they've been in opposition to just about every political issue throughout history. Even today, modern Libertarianism which is just about the purest form of Liberalism in society today is often called by some on the left a FAR RIGHT ideology... despite that the first generation of Libertarian from the 19th Century were Marxist.
Similar to how Socialist don't know what Socialism is because after 200 years they've still not come to a consensus on what it even is still. Leftist don't even know what Leftism is, nor what Rightism are, as they're social constructs that they've torn, ripped apart and defiled so much that people don't even know what either of them are anymore. So in this respect the concept of Left and Right should in my opinion be thrown out. It's no longer relevant.
So in this respect, Leftism and Rightism should honestly be defined as Collectivism vs Individualism, or Progressivism vs Liberalism, as even Conservatives today are more often than not more Liberal than Progressives.
8
-
8
-
Reminds me of some good old 90s style historic games like Red Baron II/3D in which nearly the entire in game interface was entirely done with chock boards, time tables, journals, books, paper works up the wazoo. Though I think Valkyria Chronicles 1 and 4 hit it out of the ball park. First game is based in a book written by one of the secondary characters a journalist, while the second is the personal journal of the protagonist. Everything including in game menus, music players, glossary, history, cutscenes, missions, everything is access through the fictional book by turning pages, skipping to chapters, it's done so beautifully.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8