Comments by "Kameraden" (@Alte.Kameraden) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
5
-
5
-
@peterainsworth4841 Better than a Communazi who thinks the USSR was the greatest thing that happened to the world. "USSR Had the best quality of life for it's citizen, they had the most advanced technologies in the world." And other Wehraboo like Soviet Supremacy nonsense, hence why I use the term Communazi to describe such people. God, if I did this vs the Germans I'd get the same response but from someone other than you. And no, it's not Russia bashing, it's Communist Bashing. The reason they had to steal so much technology is because the system was so inflexible, innovation was almost non existent. I mean, why do you think a Soviet Soldier in the 1980s look almost identical to one from the late 1940s? Uniform/Kit wise.
To push this home. When NATO switched to the 5.56mm Cartridge the USSR was troubled, they had no idea why, so guess that they did? Monkey see Monkey do. They switched to a similar cartridges the 5.45mm which is why the AK-74 exist with almost no changes but the ammunition it fires, over the AK-47. This is what they did. They saw something we did, or had and they had to have it to to the PROVE they could make them as well, or assuming we adopted something for a GOOD reason and that they should as well. They had no real understanding why much of the time. But because we did it, they believed they had to also. That's not bashing, that is actually a fact.
They did it literally everywhere. I already mentioned many examples in aircraft, and now I just mentioned a small arms example.
And if you believe the USSR was so great, I can easily ask "Why did it fail?" "Why did it collapse?" Because I can point you to a channel hosted by a Former Soviet Citizen who can easily answer those questions in a fashion you would not like. Including that the USSR lied about figures/statics.
5
-
Honestly it makes sense militarily going from having universal tanks to specialized tanks, vice versa. For example, the British didn't have a lot of success because of combined arms warfare didn't allow the break through tank to work properly, it would just get destroyed. The Germans had great success with their Panzer III and IV tanks, but as the war went on that success faded, combined arms concept collapsed because of material shortages, no more stukas raining from the sky and artillery and armor always being available. Of course this would logically come out in the eyes of someone who isn't always on the front as "Well our old way didn't work, we gotta do something different." Being the Tiger tank was very successful at the break through role, it's kinda obvious why they kept going down that path, after blitzkrieg had already crumbled, and became ineffective on the German end. Without combined arms to back up the tank, the tank itself needs to be strong enough to do the job almost on it's own. So the Germans started getting ridiculous, to make up for the fact they couldn't have the Stuka rescue them anymore. Honestly, if you view it that way the heavy tank obsession starts to make some sense.
5
-
I don't believe there is a Left or a Right when it comes to Socialism. I think it is a fallacy to claim that Socialism is a Leftist exclusive ideology, and honestly, I'm not a supporter of the Charts that try to label an economic system as politically right, left or center. Socialism can be championed by anyone, including conservatives and liberals. Marxist Socialist are obviously Liberal Socialist, who believe in Social Class Struggle, want Social reforms that benefit the lower of society. Fascist are National Socialist who want a Socialist economic but with a strong nationalist focus, nationalism in itself is often viewed as Right Wing, but yet these people are also Socialist. Socialism in itself is not limited to just one side of the political spectrum in my opinion because of this. It would be like claiming you can not be a Capitalist if you're a Liberal which is silly. Heck there used to be liberals called Red Dogs, Liberals who were center line, but considered themselves liberal, today this term is kind of being replaced with South Park Republican in the USA in particular.
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@RussianThunderrr The Russian Divisions were depleted, that is without question. However, this didn't stop the Red Army from conducting mass forced conscription in liberated/occupied territories as the Germans fell back. This is why despite, the Red Army suffering horrific loses between 1941/42 even in 1944/45 they seemed to have limitless men. Most of these conscripts were giving little to no training, just equipment and uniforms, they were also often squandered in mass to weaken German positions so the more experienced Red Army divisions could mop up, and exploit any successes created by these conscripted liberatees. General Zhukov himself referred to these conscripts as "effectives" and "bayonets." As i said, one of TIK's videos of this particular series mentions this directly, I can not pinpoint it specifically though, I would have to go back and review each one first. This is also why it's a mistake to call the Red Army "Russian." By 1944 most of it's ranks were not Russian. But the same could also be said about the German Army. I remember reading somewhere up to 1/3rd of the soldiers who served in the Wehrmacht throughout the entire war, (which includes the SS/Navy/Luftwaffe) were not Germans. Similar to the Soviets some of these foreign divisons/regimates were also squandered. There is likely a reason you see so many foreign "Legionary" divisions in Estonia Dutch/Belgium/Nordic, and Baltic SS were all present, vs when compared to the German divisions south of Estonia, ie they were considered the most expendable, though saying they were so far north because they were "expendable" in the eyes of the Army, is my personal opinion.
About the Allies situation in the West. Well it was peachy. Allied soldiers had near limitless supplies and equipment, food, and outside of German bullets/artillery didn't even have to worry about being attacked from the air. US and British armies also had a vast superiority in support troops, and rear line units, including field hospitals of the likes not seen anywhere else. Most allied casualties would survive their injuries. Allies performed very well from 1944 and on. Comparing their situation to the Red Army is like comparing a Peasant to noblemen. It's also why I would rate any of the allied armies considerably higher than the Red Army, and still higher than the German Army. At least what existed in 1944/45. If we are talking about the Allies in 1940/41, well....
On the topic of the German Army in the west. The Germans units they faced were better equipped than their Eastern Front counter parts. Mostly because most Divisions redeployed to France prior to D-Day were there recovering, training, and being equipped, ie reequipped. They were rotated in and out of France in this fashion. It was done so specifically to provide a "defense" when an invasion would come, while serving a dual purpose of being a location divisions could train, recover, and reequip. A lot of divisions throughout the war including the infamous Totenkampf 3rd SS Panzer were first equipped for battle in this fashion in France before being deployed East. Strength wise this meant that many of the Divisions in France, were often in better condition than their Eastern Front counter parts. Even some of the newest Divisions like the 12th SS Division were being training in the region. Of course all German divisions at this time suffered short comings. Even the 12th SS did not have all the armor and vehicles required to be a 'full' division, but no Germany division had this luxury anywhere, and was short of officers as well, a short coming often not mentioned, Germany had more divisions than it had officers to lead them.
Here is a Cookie for thought. TIK made it quite clear how often Hitler was used as a scapegoat. Do you think Stalin has been used a lot as a Scapegoat for the USSR's failures in the war? I know for a Fact Rommel is used as an excuse for the British failures in North Africa in the same fashion. Rommel is propped up as the greatest general ever by British Historians, a Dragon to be slain, and an excuse for how badly they were beat in Africa early on, despite the inferiority of the Afrika Korps. I sometimes wonder if Russian historians have done the same with Stalin.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I think you missed the point entirely. The point is, Antisemitism LEAD to the Stereotype of "The Capitalist." The very concept of a Capitalist is built on the foundation of antisemitism. Socialist practice a anti capitalist faith fighting an enemy that is literally an antisemetic stereotype that had only just been rebranded under a new name. Issue with Socialist is, they don't realize it.
Socialist use this terrifying stereotype to scare people. Whether they target Jews or not is irrelevant at this point. They literally took OLD Christian Antisemetic Propaganda and rebranded it for their own use.
It's also socialist are not entirely immune to it either. There have been plenty of Marxist parties that have been Antisemetic. Taking some of the comparisons that Marx himself made between the "Jew" and the "Capitalist' seriously. The Czech Communist Party, the West German Communist Party, being good examples. Apparently the British Labour Party as well, caught with their pants down a few years back making some pretty nasty antisemetic comments. I still remember when the DNC emails were leaked, that many in the Democratic Party were calling Bernie Sanders a "Dirty J*w." So it exist, just not as in your face. So TIK's points are not irrelevant, or really misguided.
It doesn't take much going from an Anti-Capitalist to becoming an Anti-Semite because the origin of the Capitalist came from antisemetism. Which is why TIK included this part in the video 25:30.
Best example I can think of to ring home the point is how many radical Socialist keep pushing that the US Federal Reserve is "Privately Owned." Despite those running the Fed being appointed by Congress and officially being a State owned Corporation. They claim because the Fed was originally financed by selling shares to Major Banks in America so it's actually owned by a handfull of fat bankers. Ignoring the whole point of doing that was to make all Major Banks to be linked to the Fed, ie partial Nationalization of Finance. Giving the Fed roots into all major banking institutions. Issue is, Antisemites believe the exact same thing, but instead of big fat Bankers owning/ running the Fed, they just say Jew. They will use the same arguments.
Why? Because the Propaganda is identical. The Propaganda has the same roots.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Soviet Union wasn't better. Working Conditions were horrific throughout the 1920 to 1960s. Under both Lenin and Stalin. Great example, Stalin cut wages of the work force to encourage both men/women to work, to increase the number of laborers in the work force. Basically to feed themselves/buy any goods he forced the entire household to work, and they worked hard. It could often take a few months wages to save up enough money to buy a new set of clothing for example, just one outfit. I still remember the working conditions described by an American Socialist who moved to the Soviet Union hoping to live the Socialist dream, he described welders with ragged clothing working from dangerous heights in the middle of winter with steel beams covered in ice, and he did describe people falling to their deaths, and the attitudes of those at the work camp was sad, "Oh well."
TIK History's video about Operation Keel Haul actually has some witness accounts of soviet citizens who found being a slave laborer in Nazi Germany BETTER than working as a laborer in the Soviet Union. Which shouldn't be possible, so it actually makes that man's accounts of working conditions in the USSR believable.
Basically, "TRY AGAIN." lol
Btw the story I mentioned about the American Socialist was a story presented by TheUshankaShow who is a former Soviet Citizen. =3
4
-
4
-
4
-
TIK makes it quite clear what National Socialism is, and what Socialism is, what Marxist Socialism is and what Fascism is in his videos. National Socialism is Socialism, but so is Marxist Socialism. They're variations of Socialism, built off the core of Socialism itself. They're not the same ideologies. So calling Socialist Nazis, isn't correct. They have to want to make a Racial Socialist State to be Nazis. That is the distinction. So yes, the Nazis are Socialist, but just because the Nazis are Socialist, doesn't mean all Socialist are Nazis. It's a very simple principle.
You can argue that since both Fascism and to an extent the German Worker's Party which Nazism was built upon, were also built originally on Marxist Socialist principles, and most Socialist today including Democratic Socialist are as well. We can argue that nearly all Socialism in the modern age however are Marxonian at their core. Even if they hate each other. Including National Socialism, Fascism, the Communist, Syndicalist, Corporatist, Social Democrats, and the list goes on and on. So it may not be accurate calling Socialist Nazis, it is very accurate calling Socialist Marxist as it's influenced them all and in cases like Fascism directly branched off of already existing branch of Marxism. ie a mix of Anarcho-Syndicalist, National Syndicalist and Marxist Syndicalist were the signers of the first Fascist Manifesto in Italy in 1914.
4
-
4
-
@jussim.konttinen4981 To my knowledge he ran a farming equipment supply business or something along those lines post war. Any rumors or claims he conducted evil experiments post war are also fabrications. Surprisingly and likely supportive of claims about him being likely more legend than fact he lived for about 20-30 years under his own name, ie he wasn't really in hiding. Like many Nazis who went to South America, but like those who didn't think they did anything wrong he never bothered changing his name unlike others who knew people would be coming after them. Many scientist and soldiers didn't change their names, Mengele was among them. Not until I think the mid/late 1960s when he found out he had a bounty on his head anyways. His Diaries found after his death seem to never mention horrible experiments either, something you'd think he would of wrote down at least something about them in his own personal journals. Now if I recall, he son did claim he found a lot of documents of evil things his father did after his death, but also claimed he destroyed them out of shame. Though, likely he could of said that just to keep people from bugging him about it.
I do know the man was called the Angel of Death, because interviews with Camp Inmates well their attitudes toward Mengele vary quite a lot. Some people have relatively positive opinions of the man, while others described him as a monster. Some people could not even get the description of the man right, so you know up front many people were likely not honest. It's also plausible these people saw someone else and assigned that act to Mengele because Mengele becoming a big name by then so without knowing who they saw doing a deed they pinned it on a name they already heard horror stories about. I'm under the impression he was more of a doctor than a Mad scientist, though it is known and proven he did inject inmates with unknown compounds. Because no documentation of what seemed to have been found it's kind of in the air to 'what' those compounds exactly where. From what I've read it's also plausible he did decide if inmates were to be killed or not from time to time, but a lot of doctors did throughout all the camps, including many who were lethally injected in camps like Dachau. But he seems obsessive toward children, if you were a child at Birkenau under this protection as an experiment you actually had a high chance of surviving the camp. Which makes me wonder if he had different motives than "Bwuahaha" evil madman according to one girl who claimed to be one of his experiments... well women, she said he expected all the kids to be well fed, and well dressed, he seemed to take special interest in their health/well being, and that he would give them regular injections. I wish I could find the article written by her as well, it was quite interesting as she did interview a few people who worked at Birkenau. Openly forgave Mengele as well, wishing the man was still alive so she could ask him questions that have bugged her her whole life since then.
PS. Don't get me wrong, the man was a loyal Nazi, right up to the day he died. From letters and correspondence found from the post war years. His attitude toward Jews in general was still, "Jews are bad." One personal letter found he even mocked Holocaust survivors. But then again the mocking could of been personal, being from what I said earlier, ie if he wasn't a literal Doctor Frankenstein and the stores are mostly made up, you'd be pretty mocking yourself likely. But honestly, I think it's deeper rooted then that. Definitely I know his Journals did talk about Eugenics from time to time. His medical degree did revolve around Eugenics so it makes sense.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
You're getting Leftism mixed up with Liberalism, they're not the same thing. TIK points out in an another video that even Stalin considered Fascism to the LEFT to Communism. Which means at one point Leftism meant something different than what a lot of people today think Left means. Left was never liberal, will never be liberal, was never meant to be Liberal. The Left is has always been about equality, but not equality in a liberal sense, but equality in a fairness sense. Leftism is Collectivism, Leftism is Socialism, Leftism is Democracy, and Federal State Governments. Leftism in turn is also Marxism and Fascism. All of these are anti Liberal because they ALL Advocate the group over the Individual and Liberalism has always been about Individual Rights over the GROUP. This is why the Left are almost exclusively pushes for fairness, even at the expense of people's individual rights.
Were as the Right has always been around Individual Rights, and Responsibility separate from the group. Which ironically means, Rightism is actual Liberalism. Yes Conservatives Support the Right, and are often the stereotype of Right Wing Politics, but that is only because the RIGHT IS LIBERAL. The Right Supports Religious Freedom, and the Rights necessary for specific groups to survive in Society. Racist often Support the Right because the Right allows Freedom of Speech, and the Right to Assembly which they require to have any voice whatsoever. Religious groups support the Right because the Right allows Religious Freedom mean while the left is obsessed with Religious suppression, like changing Christmas to X-Mass or Happy Holidays vs Merry Christmas just as an example, even publicly berating someone if they dare say merry Christmas in Public. That isn't liberal behavior. Left wants, and needs conformity.
It's why Capitalism is literally Liberalism at an economic level. Your own personal economy is in your hands, and no one elses. You choose were to work, or whether you want to work for yourself in a Capitalist economy, it's about responsibility, and freedom of choice. It's against the idea of the Greater good, or the GROUP. Leftism has always been about the Group, Collective Will of the people. Which is why the original Leftist in the USA were called Federalist, and why they call themselves Democrats today. They want that Collective Will, that Majority Rule, which goes against everything America stood for, the entire reason all those protections exist in the constitution, why checks/balances exist within the political structure was always meant to prevent Majority Rule. If you have Majority Rule you did not have a Free Society which Individuals separate from the group can survive, at least without serious risk to their individual rights.
It's often a question I ask Socialist who say Socialism can not be Socialism without everyone being included, if often ask "And when you try to create this society and people refuse to join it, what do you do to them?" They have no answer to that question. Because when I point to regimes like the USSR, or Nazi Germany who crushed people into dust who refused to conform to the GREATER good, or the Majority, they claim that isn't socialism, in spite that they function under the majority principle. They actually believe that minorities in a majority ruled system will have a voice. It's laughable.
4
-
@giovannimuciacia2428 "that is an internationally recognized political entity which borders coincide for the most part with a single nation. a nation is a group of individuals (...), a state is a political entity (...), a nation state is just a type of state"
At least you're able to finally get it right. If you read the wording clearly anyways. It's there.
"borders coincide for the most part with a single nation" "With" not, on, in or for the most part referring to something that can not be defined as territory. The Nation is the People, as it states later "a nation is a group of individuals." The "State" is what is the territory. Nation State is a State built around a "Nation."
Also about Dictionary. I post two definitions, you posted one. Mine contradicted themselves, both of them had contradictions within them. ie if you read them closely they say Nation = a People, and later = Territory/Land, but in two different contexts. ie Nationality = People but Nation = Territory. But in actuality Nation = People and Nationality is used to describe different peoples often within Nations. Ukraine having multiple Nationalities. Saying Nation = Territory is well not true.
Meanwhile the one you posted felt like a joke as it basically left nationality out of it entirely to avoid being a contradiction, as someone with a close eye would see it as one if it did.
Dictionaries are not perfect mind you. Definitely now days which they seem to be changed on a whim. You forget that often multiple people are involved when changing a definition or adding to one, those people have to come to a consensus, often they can not agree, so compromises are made. Like how Corporations have been getting added to the definition of Capitalism. Some places don't include it while others do include it.
So even among multiple different Dictionaries or colleges, they do not always have consensus, and god for bid if someone uses Google Definitions, which do change on a whim.
4