Comments by "Kameraden" (@Alte.Kameraden) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
I would argue against the A6M Zero, even by the A6M5 variant from 1943 just wasn't as technologically advanced as even a BF109E1 from 1938.
The reason they had such great performance was because they were very light weight aircraft, but technologically there isn't much special about the A6M Zero outside of materials used in it's construction, of which was a double edged sword as early war variants of the A6M were renown for being death traps bursting into fireballs after just getting touched by gun fire. Which means the A6M would have to hit an enemy plane hard to down it, while an enemy barely had to touch it.
It didn't take until a few years into the war for the Japanese to fix these issues, at the cost of performance, as the Zero finally saw self sealing fuel tanks, and a tad of pilot protecting armor, but still used the same low powered engine but it was already mid war by the time the Zero saw those improvements. Which was too late, as vastly superior American aircraft that not only could out perform it in ways that mattered, also had superior firepower and superior protection, Zeros just didn't really stand a chance.
In most respects, the A6M is a grossly over rated aircraft. It shocked the world because of it's performance, and it's range allowed it to strike often with people's pants down, but once people learned how to get around it, they were blown out of the sky in an alarming rate.
To sum it up, a BF109E-1 in 1938 could carry 500kg of bombs. Climb to higher altitudes, could dive much faster. Compare firepower to the E-3 variant they were nearly identical. E-3 entered service a few years before the A6M. Technologically even when the A6M came out the E-3 was still better.
When it came to engine technology even the DB601 used in the BF109E which had existed in some form or another since the mid 30s was superior to most of the engines the Japanese were using in their aircraft into 1943. Which is why the Japanese licensed them from the Germans as the Ha40 which would be used on the Ki61 which was one of the better fighters the Japanese produced in WWII, yet tragically isn't as famously remembered.
In short. It didn't take until 1943 for a version of the A6M, the A6M5 to start seeing wide production that I say would be comparable to aircraft being used in Europe, over all technologically from the beginning of the war. The one major advantage that the Zero did have, that nothing the western powers could compete with was it's range. But again, that has more to do with the fact they chose long range, at the cost of being a flying death trap. A6M5 even saw it's wings reinforced and thickened just so it had a chance to keep up with enemy aircraft that chose to dive away. Basically by 1943 many of the advantages it had were thrown out for practicality, self sealing fuel tanks, reinforced wings, some armor protection for the pilot, all reduced it's performance and range. By 1943 the Zero was just any other fighter, but one that was now years behind everything else.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Well to most extent it was better. Well, counting where you were used as a laborer within the Reich. How slaves were treated were literally as varied as say in the Rural South during it's height of slavery, and I'm not making a false equivalency. The Nazis used forced labor is just about every aspect of the economy. How individuals within the reich treated those laborers varied wildly. You could be very unlucky, and get stuck working on State Projects like forgot the name of it particular but an underground Me262 factory built with slave labor which lead to the deaths of a few thousand of these laborers. OR, you could be lucky and be sent daily to help a German Farmer who interestingly often enough treated these laborers like any helpers, even fed them. Even some SS Officers treated laborers humanely. As I said though, conditions, and treatment widely varied from location to location.
BUT, yes this would easily explain why many would say that being a Nazi Slave was better than being a Soviet Slave. I know pro soviets claim the Gulags were nothing like the Nazi's programs because they paid laborers, but I could easily go to the Jewish Virtual Library and point out the Nazis did the same, for reasons TIK mentioned in one of his earlier videos. Paying laborers even if it's monopoly money was done so by both to encourage them to work harder. Even if they couldn't really do much with the paper they were issued.
As I said. Conditions varied.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
"In communism, the aim is to create a classless society where the means of production are owned and controlled by the community, and resources are distributed based on need"
Translation. Communism aims to create a Classist Society by Removing all elements of Society which are a threat to the Proletariat, by means which the Party deems necessary, including mass murder, enslavement, amongst other things. The means of Production are owned by the "Community" cuckles by Extension "THE STATE" and resources are Distributed Unfairly to Party Big Wigs, while the common man Starves.
Sorry but get over yourself. Marxism is scam and always has been, the greedy capitalist Marxist hate so much just end up being the Party Officials instead who exploit the workers for their own benefit but now have absolute authority/power over them, ie they successfully enslaved the Working Class by pretending to be the Heroes of the Working Class. If you're going to define Communism by the Fantasy Communist hopefuls believe it is then DEFINE FASCISM the way FASCIST fantasy dreamers believe Fascism to be as well. You only made yourself look like the biggest hypocrite on the planet by taking one heck of a bias position on the subject.
Btw you totally failed horrible on describing Fascism. But being you seemed to be one of those Communist hopefuls otherwise you wouldn't of painted an unrealistic view of Communism, it's not a surprise you have no idea what you're actually talking about.
I'd highly suggest ignoring the Fantasy and accepting the Fact that Marxism and Fascism are literal siblings born from the same mother. The only fundamental thing is Fascist are more honest than Marxist. Marxist pretend they're not Totalitarians, while Fascist Embrace Totalitarianisms.
The thing that bugs me the most about Marxist? They claim their movement is inclusive, but it's far from it. They will either murder, imprison and or forcefully enslave/reeducate ie condition/brainwash their enemies. That's not inclusiveness. Those enemies are not just political rivals, but entire families, religious groups, social classes, etc. Anything and anyone who doesn't fit the modal Socialist is a target. Marxist need to take a long look in a mirror next time they call Nazis and Fascist not true Socialist because they are providing socialism only to one "In Group."
4
-
@matro2 Pacific wasn't any better. China was a bloodbath easily comparable to the Eastern Front. It's often overlooked but 900,000 Chinese at least we know, served with the Japanese in Manchuria, and low China under the control of puppet states, like Manchukuo, which was technically ruled by the last Chinese Emperor who the Japanese installed into power there. You can imagine most of them were forcefully conscripted, but there were many who viewed the Japanese as the only means of rescuing China from the Decade's long period of civil conflict between the fractured warlords of China. Also China itself, the Republic of China often referred to as the Chinese Nationalist, not to be mixed up with the People's Republic of China, were not all Unicorns and Rainbows either. For example, the single most destructive act done in China that likely lead to more civilian deaths than any other act (other than the war itself) was conducted by the Chinese themselves. When they intentionally flooded the Yellow River, to flood farmland, villages and towns, directly killing something between 200,000-400,000 people, some say more, and indirectly killing millions from the famine, and refugee crisis it caused....
Ironically it did hurt the Japanese as it made it very difficult for the Japanese to feed their own forces in the area, let alone the Chinese they occupied. One of the primary reasons for Japan's invasion of China ironically, was the same as Hitler's wish to occupy Ukraine... food. But the Japanese occupied very little of it's actual agricultural centers The Republic of China denied them this with a 'water' earth policy, no pun intended, as they destroyed one of the few the Japanese did occupy. Japan occupied most of the much denser populated East Coast of China, and were unable to occupy much of their "Goal" which was the rural farmland. This also meant that Japan had to provide food for far more mouths than was available, and actually made their food shortage issue which lead to the invasion considerably worse. In turn, when it came to feeding Manchukuo, Korea, and Japan, well occupied China was pretty much last on the list, a sad similar scenario to what you see in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Gvjrapiro
"policies that brought it back to a mixed economy..."
But Fascist proclaim they're the half way point between Communism and Capitalism. Wouldn't that bring them closer to the same ideology?
"Which is not socialist, because if the state is not representative of the people, either by being democratic/populist government structures, or by giving the workers at large democratic control over their respective industries/workplaces, it is not socialism." Yet every single Socialist State has either turned into a Totalitarian Regime, or a Autocratic regime. Which do not represent the people, even when they claim to. I can even point to modern day France, and Germany as great examples, in which France has turned into a Plutocracy, and Germany an Autocracy. Despite claiming to be very Socialist nations. USSR, China, North Korea, and Cube all become Totalitarian. If Fascism and National Socialism are also Socialist as TIK Claims, well, the cycle continues. Venezuela is sadly also ruled by a Military Dictator now as well. So all these self proclaimed Socialist movements are not Socialist?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@daviddoran3673 So witness testimony from Soviet Soldiers are wrong then? I remember one Russian saying they were ordered to remove parachutes from supplies that the Red Army were dropping into Warsaw. All so they could say they did something. He said it was useless as the supplies would disintegrate upon impact upon streets.
Other accounts from Polish conscripts who were ordered into the city are just as bad. They were sent without supplies, and most were recently conscripted from the Polish countryside, with no training. The Polish resistance called them utterly worthless, claiming many of them just went into hiding.
There was no German counter attack that stopped the Russian advance, as they captured the eastern party of the city while the murders were still going on and Resistance fighters were still fighting. The Red Army halted along the river, and then did nothing... Waited until the entire city west of the banks were leveled to the ground.
That being said going to use this quotes from Wiki which does provide a source. Being it sums it up quite well.
"The role of the Red Army during the Warsaw Uprising remains controversial and is still disputed by historians.[20] The Uprising started when the Red Army appeared on the city's doorstep, and the Poles in Warsaw were counting on Soviet front capturing or forwarding beyond the city in a matter of days. This basic scenario of an uprising against the Germans, launched a few days before the arrival of Allied forces, played out successfully in a number of European capitals, such as Paris[140] and Prague. However, despite easy capture of area south-east of Warsaw barely 10 kilometres (6.2 miles) from the city centre and holding these positions for about 40 days, the Soviets did not extend any effective aid to the resistance within Warsaw. At that time city outskirts were defended by the under-manned and under-equipped German 73rd Infantry Division which was destroyed many times on the Eastern Front and was yet-again being reconstituted.[141] The weak German defence forces did not experience any significant Soviet pressure during that period, which effectively allowed them to strengthen German forces fighting against uprising in the city itself."
"Declassified documents from Soviet archives reveal that Stalin gave instructions to cut off the Warsaw resistance from any outside help. The urgent orders issued to the Red Army troops in Poland on 23 August 1944 stipulated that the Home Army units in Soviet-controlled areas should be prevented from reaching Warsaw and helping the Uprising, their members apprehended and disarmed. Only from mid-September, under pressure from the Western Allies, the Soviets began to provide some limited assistance to the resistance."
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
To be Blunt, Nationalism has little to do with anything. Socialist have historically been nationalist in so many cases prior to Nazi Germany, including the Czechs you brought up in your video about the first National Socialist. Some people mistakenly believe because someone is "Nationalist" automatically = Far Right, which is ridiculous.
That being said, I wonder if you can dig up information on "Cafe Central" in Vienna. Supposedly Hitler visited it often while he was in Vienna, and it's known as a major socialist hot spot that many Marxist and Communist visited. Basically to sum it up, it was similar to the Beer Halls in Munich, it was where people went to get a meal/drink while listening to socialist spokesmen. This is why Hitler being a Communist in early 1919 is a very believable argument as why would he visit such a Coffee House?
Ripped this from Wikipedia the names of people who visited Cafe Central being "... Peter Altenberg, Theodor Herzl, Alfred Adler,[2] Egon Friedell, Hugo von Hofmannsthal, Anton Kuh, Adolf Loos, Leo Perutz, Robert Musil, Stefan Zweig, Alfred Polgar, Adolf Hitler, and Leon Trotsky. In January 1913 alone, Josip Broz Tito, Sigmund Freud, and Stalin were patrons of the establishment."
3
-
1. You defined Marxist Socialism, not Socialism itself. Being you don't realize that, I highly doubt you know what Socialism is, and that it's a 200+ year ideology with so many fractures that defining it universally to please all socialist is impossible. Because there are so many different version so it. Class Socialism is Marxism. Utopian Socialist didn't care much about class, and Conservative Socialism both pre-date Marxism is also not Class focused either. There is no rule that socialism is about class, only people who do not understand the history of socialism think it's about class. This is why Prussian Socialism doesn't sound like Marxism, because Prussian Socialism is a Nationalist Utopian Style of Socialism, influenced by Utopian Socialism which pre-dates Marxism.
2. Totalitarian Regimes including those Admitted to be Socialist have a blatant history of mass murder, so your second point is invalid as well. Stalin conducted the largest ethnic cleansing in European history, even larger than Hitler if you include the deportations along side those sent to labor camps, or flat out murdered.
3. Socialist claim to be anti war, but they really love their revolutions which almost always resort in war. Ask Poland, Finland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Romania, Mongolia, Tibet, among so many others, how peaceful and anti war socialist regimes like the USSR, China, Cambodia have been in the past. All invaded and attacked by these "Anti War Revolutionaries" externally, not internally, and that is just in Europe and Asia and I'm sure I missed a few. South America and poor Africa have been ripped to shreds by Socialist. Heck they even attack eachother, like the USSR vs China, or China vs Vietnam and Vietnam vs Cambodia.
4. "socialists seek to promote both positive and negative freedoms while fascists want people to be a cog in the machine fighting for the state" You obviously never read the Communist Manifesto then. As many outside observers including Bakunin, in a Marxist State no man is free, and are slaves of the state. Doesn't sound too dissimilar to Fascism does it? But being Fascism was founded by former Marxist it isn't a surprise.
3
-
3
-
3