Comments by "Kameraden" (@Alte.Kameraden) on "USHANKA SHOW" channel.

  1. I think people are interested in it because in the US the VA gets a lot of flak, and I know a lot of Tankies would gloat the 'superiority' of the soviet welfare system.
    28
  2. He was like "Hmm.. they have more than just canned meat, potatoes and bread. No Vodka? Inferior store."
    24
  3. You're whoever you want to be sir. Nationality, Ethnicity, it's all superficial in the end. Definitely in this day and age when almost everyone, everywhere can experience foreign culture at a mouse click, we might as well all be family. In fact the international community's response to the invasion of Ukraine is exactly how the world should always treat such an act. Wish it would happen more often.
    22
  4. Honestly dumbfounded by Tucker. Putin made a fool of him on air, treated him like dirt. He then goes to a grocery store and technically takes a lot of stuff out of context. 1. I don't know where he shops that would he bought would of cost $440 USD. The most expensive store in my town wouldn't get half that. Unless he was taking like luxury brands or something into account from specific stores like Whole Foods. I wouldn't be surprised if he used an online APP where you purchase the food over the internet which is always more expensive to boot. 2. He ignores a lot of common goods are produced in Russia itself with dirt cheap labor cost. So of course prices can be quite cheaper, but people also get paid crap on top of that. I think a few years ago a study showed the average salary in Russia was even lower than it was in China. Which shouldn't be something any country should be proud of. Main reason is a vast majority of citizens do not live in the three largest cities were most of the better salaries are at. 3. Even then I get paid more working at a rural factory than your average Moscow citizen gets paid. I think 3x as much. So you also have buying power. If Russians don't have buying power, doesn't matter if goods are cheap. 4. Russia also has State price fixing for a lot of consumer goods, definitely imported luxury goods to ensure they're also cheap. This comes at a cost to the "State" which basically subsidizes those prices. This is why there is a large black market for say Digital media out of Russia. For example "Steam" Russian users can buy games considerably cheaper than say American Users because of State Regulations on Prices. As a result a lot of Russians buy lots of CD/Game Keys and sell them to users abroad for a hefty profit. Again State Price Fixing. GOODs are not sold in Russia at market prices because Russia is kind of a semi closed economy now days.
    21
  5. Because it was already collapsing under Socialism, just it was masked by the Socialist system. It's like the Hyperinflation that hit in the post Soviet era ie 90s. The currency was already hyperinflated before the collapse of the USSR but the Socialist regime had price fixing keeping the value of goods artificially low. Which is why you had plenty of money but nothing to spend it on. So when both Ukraine and Russia entered the world market they both suffered hyperinflation throughout the 90s. This is actually why I'm horrified when politicians or economist in the USA even consider the idea of State price fixing.
    19
  6. Highly recommend the book Destined to Withness: Growing Up Black in Nazi Germany. Get to see a unique perspective.
    17
  7. My biggest Criticism of Socialism is, that the level of cooperation required between individuals for it to work is difficult to ensure, if not impossible. It would require individuals to place the community above themselves, their family and their friends. Humans are just not programmed to do that as our personal and social connections to other individuals proceeds that of the majority within the greater community whom we've never met and in most respects might as well be fictional characters on a stage vs the people who are directly in our lives. Which is why all Socialist regimes become Totalitarian States, as Authority is needed to force conformity to the Socialist system, as it doesn't require a majority for a revolution to crush a regime. A farmer will choose to ensure he has grain for his family/friends before even caring about someone half way across the country in a city they've never been to. There is a reason Lenin sent armed thugs to steal grain. Basically, a lot of Socialist don't like Authority, want Stateless Societies. They fail to realize without that Authority their idealistic system just isn't possible. It is "VERY" hard to be a good socialist.
    16
  8. Interesting thing many surprisingly do not know. But the USSR conducted the largest and most successful ethnic cleansing in European history. To a degree it would likely of made even Hitler proud if he was the one that achieved it. I know a few million Baltic peoples, somewhere between 8-14 million ethnic Germans. I have no idea the number of Cossacks, Tatars and other minorities, but I know many Cossacks preferred to commit suicide than fall into the hands of the Soviets. But even before WWII many of them were also targeted, but the biggest happened after the war with massive border shifts, new occupied lands, and new enemies to cleanse their soil from. Basically most ethnic Germans from as far east as Stalingrad were forcefully migrated back to Germany or to labor colonies back east, even if they didn't speak a word of German just because of the war I think they estimated about 10% of which died, so that would be like 800,000 to 1.4million. Baltic States suffered the Great Terror, not once but twice, in 1939-41, and post war as well, hundreds of thousands from each country were forcefully migrated east to labor colonies as they were deemed to be too troublesome and against the ideals of the Worker Class. Honestly don't know about Poland but honestly the Poles had it bad enough under the Germans, that there wasn't much worse the Soviets could do to Poland, but I have heard some people say the Soviet occupation was worse than the Germans, which coming from a Pole, sounds almost unbelievable as lets be frank the Nazis hated the poles and treated them like dirt, so I'm not that keen to agree with that opinion but I'm not an expert on what happened to Poland under Soviet Occupation. But just from what I've read, it's very likely the USSR ethnically cleansed Eastern Europe of 20-30 million people since the 1920s up to the 1950s, and I'm not talking about murder, though that definitely took place I mean just flat out forced migrations, imprisonment, and Russification.
    15
  9. I remember a Socialist once told me Socialism includes everyone in society. That movements who excluded people from their Socialist vision are not real Socialist. My response was. "Then what do you do with people who do not want to be part of your Socialist vision?" They replied that they could be educated to agree with it. "And if they refuse?" They can be made to learn. "So re-education camps? Gulags? Concentration Camps? Prison?"
    13
  10. Fun thought. One of my favorite History Tubers TiKhistory brought up the point that Globalism, or Internationalism is relatively the same thing as Nationalism. There is little difference between a Global Community than a National Community, just the size of that Community. So when someone is pushing for Internationalism, they're just pushing for a bigger Community rather than their smaller National Community, but in the end, if say the Internationalist win and make their grand Global Community, they're now stuck with just another but larger Nationalist Community.
    12
  11. Why I use the phrase "Corruption is the Economy." If you need something you often resort to the black market to get it as the state fails to provide it, illegal markets in short, it's the only free market in a Socialist system. A Black Market is Corruption, and the State is itself Corrupt. So everything revolves around corruption, so Corruption is the Economy. A few other good examples are China, North Korea and surprisingly South Korea. South Korea was run by a military dictatorship for generations, not until around the 1980s did it step away from said dictatorship. But that Dictatorship had a strong grip on the economy, and to get anything done in that economy required corruption and bribery. South Korea still hasn't completely shook away that corrupted element even after 40 years.
    12
  12. 1:29 actually goes beyond that. Russia and China even after WWII had a number of border conflicts, of course almost wiped from history by both sides because "We are friends!" Sino-Soviet border conflict is a good example. Issue is the Soviet Union and Communist China didn't exactly have a rosie happy, and positive history toward each other. It's actually one of the reasons the USA pushed to improve relations with China knowing of the hostility that actually existed between it and the Soviet Union. Hoping to split the two biggest Communist countries away from each other, can leave it to historians to find out if that effort was successful or not. This hostility dates back to WWII as well. USSR wanted to make China a puppet, backed a number of pro Communist factions during it's civil war era. When the Soviet Union invaded Manchuria she also stripped the region of just about everything of use, railroad ties, trains, plumping, etc similar to what the USSR did in Eastern Europe, pretty much looted/pillaged not the soldiers but the state itself, it ironically isn't too different to how the Nazis stole everything that wasn't nailed down, anything to boost their failing economy, in the USSR it was because well the USSR was absolutely devastated by the War and Stalin's policies before the war were not exactly well good for the economy either which the USSR was literally on the verge of utter collapse, so stealing even if it has to be a bath tub was pretty much necessary to give some semblance of growth on the civilian level otherwise civil unrest was a possibility. Issue is when the USSR eventually gave Manchuria to the Communist Chinese and handed over the occupation of the region to them, they left the Chinese pretty much nothing of value. Mao at the time wasn't very happy about this and it wasn't a secret that the USSR pillaged and stole everything in Manchuria as the locals saw them doing it so Mao found out quick, and it was a start a long history of "Yes we shake hands!" But behind the scenes the Chinese had little trust toward the USSR. Then again just about every former communist country or still didn't have much trust in eachother, it's actually one of those interesting aspects of cold war history. Today for example, Vietnam you'd think would be a good friend of China, but is actually one of China's biggest rivals in Asia, and is more closely allied with the anti Chinese Pacific Faction, the USA, Japan, India and the Philippines. North Korea is pretty much a Chinese Puppet State, and most of the rest of the Communist regimes have collapsed, or been replaced. Laos for example the Vietnamese technically liberated from a regime that was pretty much as brutal as the one that existed in Cambodia, a regime the Vietnamese and Chinese originally helped into power in Laos, Vietnam moved it to remove that regime because of the horrific crimes it was committing on it's people, and China who viewed Laos as a puppet attacked Vietnam for trying to conduct a Communist regime change against another Communist country. So ya, nothing is exactly Peachy under the glorious red Sun of Socialist World Unity? Is it? Seems they hate eachother, and fear eachother about as much as the west.
    12
  13. "Officially" they had no Inflation. Inflation was supposedly a serious issue for the Soviet Union. However, as a result of Price Fixing, ie Prices of Consumer Goods were set by the State, not the Market. It mostly masked it. However, as a result the USSR suffered shortages, as when products were available almost anyone could afford them so they ran out quickly. As a result you have money but nothing to spend it on. This is actually a sign that Inflation is effecting the Economy. Which is where the critical phrase "Starving Millionaires" comes from, as it doesn't matter how much money you have if there isn't bread in the shops. It's actually the reason that once the Soviet Union Collapsed and Russia entered the world market, that Russia suffered a serious hyper inflationary period throughout the 1990s. It wasn't because the Russian Federation hyper inflated the Ruble, the Ruble was already hyper inflated under the Soviet Union. But unlike the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation couldn't control prices as it did during Soviet times to mask the problem.
    12
  14. To be as cruelly honest as possible. Nothing is ever Free. Even if a Dollar sign is never attached. It's subsidized, meaning the cost comes from somewhere else, and even indirectly from the very people who are claiming they're getting it for free. So it isn't ever actually Free. That being said. I do agree with people who say education is grossly over priced, and I don't see why it should cost as much as it does. Question I've often had though never dug very deep into are "Where does the money go?" Back into the Schools? Lining some middle man's pockets? Are college professors paid too much? Do many schools have unnecessary programs and or Studies that do not benefit students but increase staff/cost? I did read somewhere students have also become more selfish in the past half century few give back to the schools they were educated at if they themselves become successful. Has private donation to colleges dried up entirely I wonder? I remember in the early 20th Century a lot of US Schools were given handsome donations which were often enough to keep said schools functioning for generations, Andrew Carnegie being one of those benefactors for example. Gave most of his fortune away before his death and much of it went into the college system. Which helped made higher education in America very affordable for many many years. There were no tax breaks back then for making such donations so you know it was sincere. From what I've seen anymore the only time super wealthy people donate to education anymore is for a Tax Break, and if the Tax Break is worth donating that money then they're likely making more off the tax breaks than the amount they've actually donated. Definitely makes me want to remove those tax breaks so they can not "Pretend" to be doing good while in actuality making a profit. So they would actually have to give money to make themselves look good in the news papers.
    11
  15. I find it kind of ironic when I read once that Lenin banned "Striking" in the Soviet Union, and lets say, it never really became "Unbanned" throughout the USSR's history. Even when the Party said it's okay, in actuality it wasn't okay. It is funny because banning worker's right to "Strike" was something people point at Hitler doing as proof he wasn't a Socialist, yet they flat out ignore within the Soviet Union even the Prophet Lenin himself, also banned protest and striking. This reason for this, if your movement is meant to represent the working man, and yes the Nazis believed they did. If people were protesting/striking against the Party, then it would be proof the Party didn't have the Worker's Interest at heart. Which would undermined the entire movement. So you were banned from even doing so. Since the party had your best interest at heart, striking was no longer necessary. winks It's a similar issue with why Stalin was obsessed with getting all Soviet citizens returned to the USSR after WWII, regardless whether they wanted to return of not. The US and British governments aided in forceful repatriation of millions of eastern Europeans many of which didn't want to return. Those who didn't want to return were forced, and sometimes violently. Good example are Soviet POWs who were captured in German uniform and were forced by the Nazis to man the Atlantic Wall. A lot were captured, a lot of them preferring to commit self deletion rather than returning, the US Military resorting to drugging them just to get them on a Soviet merchant ship. Mind you all that happened before Stalin played his hand and made the Cold War happen, and proved to the west he couldn't be trusted as an Ally. At the time the US/UK were trying to appease him. I would state the specific operation as Operation K%%l Haul < and sadly yes that gets comments deleted because the US/UK governments still denied it happened despite being proven to have happened. If you recall 006 from Goldeneye the story is actually brought up in that film with the main villain being a victim of the repatriations. TIKhistory actually has a 3 part video series on this Operation and it's kind of a sad story for a lot of people. However, the reason for all this, was that all these people knew what it really was like inside the USSR, and many of them didn't want to come back after being Prisoners in central or western europe. According to some even being in a concentration camp was better than living under Stalin, which is a terrifying thought because we know those camps were not good places. Basically to sum it up, allowing these people not to return would of created a permanent voice outside the USSR on how terrible the USSR actually was and the USSR was always obsessed with it's image internationally, and how the outside world viewed it. It's also why going on Vacation abroad as a Soviet citizen was lets say heavily monitored and scripted. You had to be part of a tour group operated by the Soviet Union or a Cruise ship. Basically attempting to safeguard your pure mind. They didn't want their citizens to see the world as it really was outside the USSR. Otherwise they'd see the USSR for what it really was.
    10
  16. Btw he was wrong about US Involvement in WWII. We placed economic embargoes on both Japan and Germany all the way back in 1940. We were supplying weapons/arms to both to China, Britain and the Soviet Union before Pearl Harbor. We had American Mercenaries fighting in the RAF, and in China, often paid for by the US Government, ie Pseudo American Military Personnel fighting for our friends ie Americans but fighting in a gray way so the US Government can hold some deniability. You had the Flying Tigers for example. FDR even planned to send an expansion of the Volunteer force in China which would include bombers to bomb Japan itself, but then Pearl Harbor happened. Then you have the US Navy which was actively sinking German Submarines in Neutral waters. All of these before Pearl Harbor.
    9
  17. Soviet Union was already in WWII. They invaded Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Issue was, they were technically on the opposite side prior to June of 1941. 2:33 Also WWII makes a lot of sense when you look at it as the first Resource/Oil War. Every stupid decision in the war were often made because of resource shortages that one of the major parties were suffering under. But there is a secret. They could of traded for those resources yes? But.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQGMjDQ-TJ8 < This video explains it perfectly. TIK is just wonderful. < BTW he also did a follow up video for this video called "Why they don't tell you about Hitler's "Shrinking Markets" problem"
    8
  18. 6:36 to be frank, I wouldn't be surprised someone who understood Lenin so well, would become a turncoat. For a number of plausible reasons. Two best and most likely. 1. He understood Lenin not just at his best, but at his worst and what his ideas did to the Soviet Union and Ukraine. Stalin was basically the worst of Lenin cranked to 11 for example, but it started with Lenin. 2. He was an Opportunist, similar to Lenin. This will take a bit of explaining but... Lenin had a dark side, few seem to care to see definitely his religious followers. Lenin turned on most of the less extreme Socialist in Russia and at times even had many of them killed. Despite all the preaching Lenin did, books he wrote, it's hard to believe he was actually sincere about any of it once he was in a position of power. Best example is when he pretty much officially split the idea of Socialism and Communism. Prior to Lenin they were pretty much synonyms of each other in the Marxist camp. Lenin split the terms, as an excuse on why the USSR was not the Anarchist anti "State" society that Marx promised, but a State heavy Bureaucracy. So he claimed "This is Socialism, not Communism, we haven't reached Communism yet." Very well knowing they'd never not be a State Bureaucracy, ie he lied. Willingly.
    7
  19. External Capitalist forces kept the internal Socialist forces of the Soviet Union 'alive' which is often a great pun I like to throw at Commiboos and tankies. At least until the Cold War, but even then the USSR actively traded/worked with even many NATO countries. Importing/exporting materials/production goods, etc etc. I know a lot of Commiboos say the west starved the Soviet Union into submission. But when you hear that McDonalds and Pepsi were things in the USSR by the late 1980s I just don't see that being a reality. Biggest contrast I can think of between life in the USA vs life in the USSR though is my Grandparent's old 100+ year old farm home had running water, and eventually air conditioning. It had running water since the 1930s, and air conditioning since the 1980s. Meanwhile I saw a documentary which showed entire labor colonies in the USSR in which the homes didn't have running water. I mean if a Rural farmer in the USA could afford to install running water in their own home, sourced from a Local Well, I don't see why so many Rural people still have out houses in the Former Soviet States. It makes TIKhistory's video in which he argued whether the USSR ever recovered from WWII, and came to the conclusion that it's possible the USSR never recovered even from the Revolution itself, when it came to the average quality of life per capta throughout western/central Europe and the USA. Hearing horror stories of how many hospitals in the USSR didn't even have running water, and those that did didn't even all have hot water because they had no access to gas or wood furnaces to heat the water. TIKhistory came to the conclusion mostly based on nutrition, what the average food that was available pre-1914 Russian Empire vs what Russia had available to him for 70/80s USSR.
    7
  20. 5:19 I think this was actually a serious problem. TIKhistory did a video called "Did the Soviet Union ever Recover from WW2?" At one point in the video he was talking about Soviet Hospitals. How even by the 1980s some still never had running water, and a large percent didn't have hot water. Blood was put into Communal Pools based on Blood type, which caused outbreaks of Aids and Hepatitis, though screening existed, it took only 1 person getting through the screening to contaminate an entire batch. Syringes were reused until the needles were too dull to work, getting cleaned, but you had to rely on the staff actually cleaning them proper. When you take account some medical facilities still didn't have running water, well. It's possible they may of not of boiled the water properly. Basically the USSR your chances of catching Aids or some variant of Hepatitis was about 30x that of living say in the USA.
    5
  21.  @UshankaShow  Well I would argue the issue is, Russia was the right place. Issue for a country like France/Germany is they lack raw material/resources and rely entirely on foreign trade for Iron, Coal, Gas, and Grain. Meaning without those resources such a socialist system was next to impossible without trade with outside Markets. Which if you want a system that operates without capital accumulation, it would be very difficult to get the capital to pay for those foreign materials. Russia had it all, just Russia didn't have the industrial capacity at the time to capitalize on it. Which is why Stalin was so brutal trying to force that industrialization upon Russia. It's also the main reason Hitler invaded the USSR, Grain, and Oil for example, he had Iron, and access to Coal. He wanted to cut Germany off from the J**ish Capitalist/Marxist world order as he viewed it. To do that would require material he didn't have, Russia what he needed, with the added bonus in his eyes of getting rid of the Bolsheviks. If you tried to make a Socialist or Communist country in Germany or France, you'd run into the same problem Hitler had.. no resources, and absolute reliance on foreign material, meaning your socialist state would end up being reliant entirely on foreign markets to survive.
    4
  22. Welcome to Utopia. All those stolen goods made the Mafia happy as they dominated the Soviet Black Market. It's no surprise that when the USSR collapsed, who had real wealth in the Soviet Union? The Mafia and why they had so much power in the 90s and 2000s.
    4
  23. The History Tuber TIK literally referred to the USSR as a 70 year long Humanitarian Disaster. His video on "Did the Soviet Union ever Recover From WWII?" Is a very good one honestly on this subject because it digs into the economics, and how good living conditions were in the USSR from the 1920s into the 1970s. The reason he made that video he said was because he ran into multiple books over the years that seemed to say the USSR was still recovering from WWII in the 1960s, yet the USSR was going into economic decline in the 1970s? This would heavily imply the USSR's economy was a mess from Lenin to the collapse, and was never even remotely as strong as people thought.
    4
  24.  @Pridetoons  Yet millions starved. Between 1919-1950, and the USSR completely collapsed by the 1990s. USSR was a Luxury Car that looks pretty on the outside but once you start taking the panels off you see the thing is rusted almost all the way through.
    4
  25.  @robbiecotner3666  "Head Start" is nonsense. As it's irrelevant. This isn't some stupid game like Rise of Nations which every nation has to research technology separately. You're also implying that Russia even after a full century never caught up even with 1930's America? Soviet Union was powerful indeed. laughs As even today in the 2020s there are plenty of areas in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus which do not have indoor plumbing. USSR did such a great job building infrastructure. Then you have say Japan, which went from chainmail and spears to Bullet Trains in a century, being a leading industrial and economic power for generations in Asia, and even gave the USA a run for it's money in the 1980s. With NO NATURAL RESOURCES of her own. Which means during her most prosperous times she had to buy/trade for all the resources which helped make her wealthy.
    4
  26. I'd say the symbols in general have nordic roots. Being they migraded throughout much of central europe and the plains of eastern europe. I think Nordics made it as far as the black sea without boats of course. We are talking about a culture that lived in a land that just couldn't support a growing population so many just left over centuries, they went as fast west as the Americas, and as far east as the Euro Mountains, ie immigrated a lot. Heck Himmler was surprised how many blonde eastern Europeans there were how many they captured during Operation Barbarossa, and sent special SS units to investigate because it kind of went against their views on Eastern Europe.
    3
  27.  @Notrusbot  USA has not fought wars for resources, outside of preventing monopolization of resources by way of closed economies or cartels. Only non-capitalist economies like Mercantile or Socialist economies care about creating autarky on resources for example. Because Trading with non-Socialist countries is evil and Mercantilism was an old obsolete way of looking at economics a remnant of the old European way of trade. Which is why the old Empires literally just fell apart, after the realized free trade was superior to occupation/colonization. This was the primary reason the USA got involved in WWII because actions like Japan/Germany actually broke down international trade, as both Japan and Germany tried to create Autarky. USSR did the same as well, spreading it's influence mostly to create it's own sphere of influence closed off from the rest of the world at the time. USA's involvement in South America in the 19th/early 20th Century was the same way, the USA sought to kick out European Empires from the Americas, and open up trade within the Americas which ironically benefited everyone and most definitely South America. 30-80s Latin America was a paradise until Cartel Lords, Dictators, Communist rebellions, and Socialist politicians ruined it one country at a time. Ironically even the "Oil" War of 1991 (Desert Storm) vs Iraq was in response to Iraq invading Kuwait which Kuwait because they destroyed their domestic economy. Kuwait was also one of the only Arab nations that didn't join OPEC which was is a oil Cartel. Ironically most Arab countries also joined the USA in this campaign. Arab forces were actually tasked with liberating the Capital for political reasons, being it was considered most fitting that Arab troops should liberate Kuwait City. Basically USA didn't get involved to monopolize resources of any kind but got involved to keep trade open preventing monopolization of resources. Every other war the USA was involved in were not Oil Wars in the Middle East. Despite the memes/stereotypes. Now European Empires, ya that's a different story, but as I already mentioned the USA stood up against Empires. Whether run by Monarchs, Fascist or Marxist. And yes the USSR was an Empire. You can argue the USA is an empire, but the USA isn't a colonial Empire, but more of a soft power, financial empire. USA only really has military access to nations that ironically just want USA military protection, and in some cases the USA even pays the governments for access to say a port, and some facilities. Which isn't Colonialism, and honestly isn't exactly an Empire per se. Currently today Russia is perhaps the best example of a Modern Empire in the traditional sense because it occupies entire countries that are considered parts of the "Federation" that are not Russian. They're not allowed to leave either, those that have tried were met with brutal military force. PS before you mention nations like Iran and how the USA supported a coup there. It's because National Bolshevism, Marxism, Socialism and Nazism were the most popular ideologies within Arabia, so you can see the USA's worry when Iran decided to make exclusive trade deals with the USSR early in it's fledgling Democracy.
    3
  28.  @Notrusbot  Now you're venting and just threw your cards on the table, Contradulations. Your examples don't even work. Example: Russo Ukraine War. Well if Mexico hasn't been acting in the interest of the USA for decades now mind you, why has the USA not invaded Mexico? I mean you brought this example up right? USA has a long lasting friendship Canada and Mexico and both operate on their own interest, not the USA's interest. But by your logic since they don't operate on the USA's interest why has the USA not invaded them? You kind of have a serious plot hole in your argument, a plot hole because you don't actually understand history or geo politics outside of an obvious anti American bias position which you literally just threw on the table. Name a country that the USA invaded that wasn't already at war, or started the fight to begin with since WWII? I can think of only one and almost no Americans look back at that president or war fondly. Because we know it was wrong. And if you know what you're talking about you can name that War in a heartbeat. I'm not going to tell you which one it is. Because I know you will likely guess wrong. Your China example isn't a good example either because China has not been beating the USA at it's own game because it's been ironically cheating behind the scenes, like the person that takes a photo of a Lamborghini after test driving it and posting it on social media that they own it. You should join China Watchdog Channels/Activist Groups who are often run by people who lived in China and since left the country. They will point out that China's GDP figures are fabricated, and that China is currently almost caught up with the USA when it comes to debt after only twenty years of 'false' growth funded by the State using money the State never had. Unlike the USA that Debt is bought with fake wealth that also doesn't exist and isn't even really debt just poof gone, which is why the China bubble has been coming apart in the last 5 years. Almost everyone is pulling out of China even the company i work for has pulled out of China. It's going to collapse within the next decade many economist predict and mind you China isn't under economic sanctions or a blockade it's entirely their own doing. I mean it's why India, New Zealand, Mexico, Singapore among other countries are becoming the new Chinas.
    3
  29.  @gagamba9198  Interesting, I'm pretty much ignorant to what the USSR did in it's eastern territories. So much for a Society that is accepting of all peoples.
    3
  30. I expected Katyusha from Girls und Panzer.
    3
  31. TIKhistory did a review of this film as well, and he only found a few things wrong with it. Being he is primarily studying history and war crimes from that period of history, the fact he only found a few things about the film inaccurate is actually an endorsement. His only criticism really of the film is that the film didn't represent the actual units that committed the crimes, like the Dirlewanger Brigade. The troops seen on film behaved like them, committed similar crimes including the signature act they would do locking up civilians in a building and setting it on fire. But the troops seen on screen were not from the Dirlewanger Brigade. So in the grand scheme of things when it comes to film making, having that one thing being wrong about the film pales in comparison to the inaccuracies seen in other films. So over all the production staff for the film did a pretty good job. As horrible as the film is to watch.
    3
  32.  @GuilhermePereira-vi6vc  He was mocking Centralized Planned economies, he wasn't advocating the Military should run on a For Profit system. I think you failed to understand the nuance of what he was trying to say. Basically pointing out how inefficient militaries are at the use of resources. Being the State and Military do not run off profits. It's why the joke that everything the military spends money on its grossly over priced, and unnecessarily expensive, you know the joke of a $15,000 Dollar Toilet Seat. TIK used his Allied Economic video to literally rip that inefficiency a new one. I remember one person's response to that video actually saying how in the US Marines they were throwing tens of thousands of dollars of spent brass casings into the trash. As the Military has no need to be efficient. Basically one of the fastest ways to impoverish a nation is for the State to Leach wealth of the Citizens and Dump it into the Military.
    3
  33. My response to the Azov Battalion claims are even if they're true is that Putin is literally considered the next Jesus in the eyes of Most Nazis and Fascist around the world. There are many units fighting for Russia in Donbas which use similar symbolism as well. So the accusation if true, is irrelevant when you take all that into consideration.
    3
  34.  @rjames3981  Counts whether they can tell the difference between Socialism and Marxism. Problem I've had with a lot of historians for example, like Richard Evans or Ishay Landa is their very concept of Socialism is literally Marxism. Marxism is a version of socialism built around the Working Class, a very Classist centric version of Socialism. So when they see say Prussian Socialism and claim it isn't Socialism because it's doesn't elevate the working class like Landa points out, they're making that claim entirely from a Marxonian perspective, whether they realize it or not. As even Social Democracy branched off the Marxist movement in the 19th Century, so many of it's core beliefs are still Marxist, but.... Marxism, isn't Socialism, Marxism is a version of Socialism but it's not the definition of Socialism. There is a reason when you look up the definition it will say Common Ownership, that Common can literally mean almost anything said specific group of Socialist want it to mean, which can include Workers. It's why the definition is idiotically vague. So say you're a Feminist, and you want women to control the means of production, you're still a socialist. Curious what they would be called honestly Fem-Socialism? Say you're a Nazi and you want the "Race" to control the means of Production, you're still a socialist. They didn't mind if a private owner still owned/operated the business as long as they did what the State told them, and that they were "German." Say you're a Social Democrat and you want the State to Control the means of Production (Being a democratic state the people should be fairly represented as they believe.). Well that is also Socialism. Marxism itself is literally Worker's Control the means of Production. Socialism exist within a HUGE plethora of different iterations, ideas and concepts of what a Socialist society can be. It's actually why it's quite honest to say "Socialist don't know what socialism is." Because Socialist have yet to really figure out what it is... they're still experimenting. Spengler the father of Prussian Socialism believed Society could organize itself along Nationality, ie putting the good of the nation and it's people above your own self interest, making capitalism obsolete. So all business operated with the goal of prosperity of the community, not themselves. Making a revolution unnecessary. You can call Spengler's idea Proto Fascism but. Fascism was also born from Socialism, being most Italian Fascist were originally Syndicalist or Anarchist, in fact James Gregor refers to Fascism as National Syndicalism which is an accurate description of it. PS Spengler is supposedly the roots of National Socialism in Germany, yet Spengler himself became an out spoken anti Nazi in the mid 1930s. His final book before he died was even banned by the party because he called them Bolsheviks in disguise, basically, despite what some historians have said, the National Socialist broke most of their promises to big business, not the working man, they even nationalized property by outlawing private property by law, something most socialist pretend they never did, there are reasons Spengler went from being a Pro NS to an Anti NS is ONE YEAR.
    3
  35.  @natashka1982  I remember seeing Putin's motorcade being filmed once. Not another vehicle on the streets, no pedestrians on the side walks.. Moscow looked devoid of life. All to ensure his safety when traveling through the city. The fact the man has that much control in that city is terrifying. Meanwhile last time the Queen of England (RIP) visited Germany she drove on the Autobahn, sure she had a police escort but they still drove casually past normal motorist. Same story when the US President travels, he has escort, and a bull proof vehicle, but they still drive down the street as if it's normal day. Even Trump would randomly drop by like a Mcdonalds without warning. He liked Mcdonalds. But for Putin to take a road trip, they cleared the street of vehicles and pedestrians before he left? Just scary.
    3
  36. 10:38 he is literally President Snow from the Hungar Games, right down to the white roses.
    3
  37.  @Notrusbot  You don't understand those conflicts very well then. Taiwan specially, hope you're not reading China's version of events on this one, because I find it ironic that both South Korea and Taiwan, ie US backed regimes eventually became democratic yet the opposition the USA protected them from are still not Democratic. So ya.. strange isn't it? To be blunt there is a lot of anti american propaganda spread about a lot of these conflicts sadly even within the USA which don't paint a great picture of the USA's involvement. I will concede on the post Spanish American War occupations of Philippines, Cuba and the Dominican Republic. But ironically those occupations actually gave Americans back home a nasty opinion of even the very concept of the USA becoming a Colonial Empire. Definitely the brutality of the Filipino War which actually saw some consequences for US officers involved and testimony by soldiers of atrocities committed before the US congress. It's actually the reason why by the 1920s the USA had already helped the Philippines establish it's own government as a protectorate and later full independence. Of course the USA would still get military access to the Islands. Fun fact the only Peashooter Ace in history was a Filipino in 1941/42 Jesus A. Villamor. Mind you he also trained Eisenhower how to fly. Panama Canal was a massive investment on the part of the USA, and finished what the French failed to do. Of course the USA would protect it's interest in Panama as a result. So I don't even know why this is brought up. This wasn't a "resource" war either, but the canal was a huge boost to trade/commerce not just for the USA but internationally as well, and also for Panama. Mind you since 1977 Panama has ownership of the Canal. Banana Wars, were as I mentioned, preventing interest from outside of the Americas from influencing American politics, this including South American politics btw. For example, the Germans were arming and assisting Mexican rebels and insurrectionist in Mexico. USA was dealing with a massive refugee crisis as a result of Mexico's political, social and military instability and dealing with rebels. As well as a number of armed incursions by those rebels onto US Soil. So the USA got very proportional. Ironic as this is currently repeating right now, and the US unwillingness to get proportional has caused the USA a lot of issues as well as Mexico, but the Mexican Government claims it can handle it.. but... Haiti being a good example, with the US intervention actually providing Haiti with the longest surviving government in it's nation's history up to that time. Prior to the US Involvement Haiti was in constant economic and political strife, collapsing/revolving governments every other year. The only time the US got involved militarily in Haiti it actually installed the Constitution of 1918, and the longest stable government Haiti had seen in generations, and tragically has seen since.
    2
  38.  @debs-101  Oh I know that, but just about everyone knows what Stalin did to Ukraine, but few seem to know what Lenin and Stalin did elsewhere. Tragically.
    2
  39.  @debs-101  Dystopian regimes at their finest. Hitler's idea of a People's State built on Racial Purity of blood, and ruled by those who prove their usefulness to society by merit. ie he used the idea of "Race" as a glue to bring people in society together. Marxist ideologies are not much different. Switch out a Race focused People's State, and replace it with a Worker's State, and the Class is used as the glue that holds their "New" Society together, and you fundamentally have something that is different in name/fundamentals but in actual practice/implementation, too similar to ignore. To sum it up. To create that Racial State, requires removing those from Society who get in the way of creating that Blood Pure Society. To create a dictatorship of the Proletariat, requires removing all those in society who are enemies of the Proletariat, or are a threat to it's continued existence. Look up quotes from Lenin about the Kulaks. Basically under Lenin he renamed a specific percent of the Rural Peasant Farming community Kulaks and dubbed them as evil as the bourgeoise, and this persecution of the rural Russian/Belarusian and Ukrainian farmers didn't end with Lenin, as you obviously know. Reason for these persecution primarily stems from agricultural reforms that happened under the Tsarist Russia which a large percent of farmland was actually sold back to the peasants that worked the fields/farms. Because of this, a lot of Rural farmers in Eastern Europe were Landowner. Owning Private Property made you "Evil" in the eyes of all Marxist. Of course when farmers resisted the appropriation of their land/property, Lenin had them ruthlessly crushed. Lenin in 1918 "Comrades! The revolt by the five kulak volosts [regions] must be suppressed without mercy. The interest of the entire revolution demands this because we have now before us our final decisive battle with the kulaks. We need to set an example. You need to hang – hang without fail, and do it so that the public sees – at least 100 notorious kulaks, the rich, and the bloodsuckers. Publish their names. Take away all of their grain. Execute the hostages – in accordance with yesterday’s telegram. This needs to be accomplished in such a way that people for hundreds of miles around will see, tremble, know and scream out: let’s choke and strangle those blood-sucking kulaks. Telegraph us acknowledging receipt and execution of this.”" Makes my skin crawl that Lenin considered people who had two too many cows, and refused to give grain over to the red army "Rich Men, and Blood Suckers." When technically his regime stealing from Peasants made his "Red Army" a parasite. Wasn't just Lenin either. Josip Broz Tito Communist Leader of Yugoslavia post WWII. "We will liquidate the kulaks, but not because he is a kulak but because he is a fifth columnist... The present struggle is national liberation in form, but class war in essence." It's why to be honest, Classism and Racism are two sides of the same coin. Both label specific groups of people in society as evil, and use it to justify persecution, and at times mass murder.
    2
  40. TIKhistory has a great 3 part series on Operation Keel Haul (No space) for some reason if I combine both words comment gets removed, which lets you know it's still a touchy subject for the US and UK governments. But basically it's about "Forced Repatriation." USSR wanted all Soviet citizens returned, even though Stalin called anyone who surrendered a traitor. He goes over some of the 'logical' reasonings why Stalin wanted Soviet POWs back and sadly it had a lot to do with politics. Stalin was very likely terrified that just having Soviet citizens and soldiers refusing to return to the USSR would be a huge PR scandal for the USSR over the coming decades. So Stalin actually used allied POWs as bargaining chips to twist the arms of the UK/US governments to return such persons. Interestingly the UK/US did refuse some groups like those from the Baltic states who refused to return home, despite Stalin wanted them to be returned as well.
    2
  41. 3:00 Actually the primary definition of Socialism is Common Control. Not worker Control. Worker Control came about because of Marxism but the socialist movement pre-dates Marxism. When you look up Common Control it can literally mean almost anything under the sun that said "group" of socialist want it to mean at that particular time. Which is why Austrian Economist "Ludwig von Mises" who gave rise to the Austrian School of Economics and was himself a former socialist in his youth before abandoning it entirely stated in one of his books that the Definition of Socialism has periodically changed throughout the century. And I paraphrased that as I don't know the exact quote. However, even today, there isn't a Consensus on what Socialism even is even among Socialist, and I'm not talking about the grunts on the ground but intellectuals. During the 19th Century Socialist activist had already split the movement into multiple different camps, and by the 19th Century even the Marxist camp had broken into rival groups. All having their own ideas on what Socialism is. Communism at one time and history even used to be a synonym for Socialism but has since been distanced from it primarily because of Lenin and the USSR, as an example how it's ever changing. However, Common Control can include State Control, even in the Communist sense if you're in a Worker's State and the State consist of the Workers ie Soviets ie Trade Unions, hence the name Soviet Union originally, then well the Worker's are technically the State. Issue is those at the top of those worker's consuls live like kings. It's actually the same logic that the Italian Fascist used to claim they're the ultimate form of Democracy as a State that is the people, which means that even if the State controls everything the State is the people and in turn no one is a slave, and everyone is free because everyone is the state. Hence why Giovanni Gentile literally said "Everything inside the state, nothing outside the state." Fascism itself was built off of Marxist Syndicalism. They abandoned Classism and replaced it with Nationality. Which is why it isn't built around Labor, or Workers anymore. But they still push for State Centralized Control. Look up National Syndicalism, Fascist Syndicalism and Fascist Corporatism. It's quite interesting how many Italian and Austrian Fascist were former Marxist Socialist. Even German Fascist like Hitler and Sepp Dietrich were members of the Bavarian Soviet Republic.
    2
  42.  @mattysav4627  I would argue the Communism and Socialism were Synonyms of each other so their goals used to be the same thing. Being they used to be part of the same general movement. As I already said between Intellectuals Socialism was a heavily split movement but for the common man supporting Socialism it was "one thing" to them Communism and Socialism were the same thing. Being Intellectuals still haven't decided what Socialism even is, as I mentioned Mises's claim that definition has changed constantly over time, heavily implies that socialist are still trying to figure out what Socialism is, which is an admission they actually don't' know. This is why you can often have multiple Socialist intellectuals today on a debate all having varied definitions of socialism, because it isn't a consensus yet even among those who champion it. As I mentioned this has been a problem for Socialist for 200+ years now. Dates back nearly to the very beginning of the movement. I mean Proto Nazis existed already in the 19th Century with their own ideas of Socialism. Libertarian Socialism had already been founded by the 19th Century. State Socialism which is the most common Socialism which is included in Social Democracy, Preussen Socialism (Proto Nazis), Syndicalism ie Trade Unionism which includes Corporatism in my opinion being it branched from Syndicalism, ie making a country ruled by Trade Unions which the Soviet Union was pretty much being it was a Federation of Trade Consuls, so a Nation run by Trade Unions. Which is why I compare the USSR to Fascist Italy being Italy adopted Corporatism which was a less extreme form of Syndicalism. I know Syndicalist claim their movement is anti state but they still advocate creating a collective community which lets face it would be a state. Which is why I didn't mention Anarcho Syndicalist because honestly they're just Syndicalist but ones that adopted a contradiction. I mean there are so many different forms of Socialism that it would be hard to make a definition of it, and it's understandable why Intellectuals have that problem. I would recommend watching TIK History's videos on this subject. He does a great job quoting intellectuals from these movements in many of these videos, even if you do not agree with his conclusions. TIK would claim that in the 1920s Socialist went through a large Socialist civil war in the heart of Europe. Which would give rise to Fascism, and eventually Nazism as some former socialist ended up rejecting the old ideas and decided to create their own socialism. Because that socialism civil war shattered their entire world view on socialism and they utterly lost faith in the socialist they used to follow. The split in the German Socialist Democratic Party the SPD being a great example, or how Hitler and Deitrich were members of the Communist Party of Bavaria while many other eventual nazis served with the Freikorp under the Social Democratic (Also a Socialist Party) against the Communist, which is literal Socialist fighting Socialist. Even if the Freikorp was doing it on the SPD's behalf. But he is glad to point out that they were all Socialist in 1919/1920 yet were enemies. Similar to how Lenin absolutely destroyed the Social Democrats in the Russia which even formed a democratic government in Saint Petersburg which he destroyed btw which is why the Social Democrats in Germany take a hard line against the pro Leninist Communist say the Spartacus and Bavarian People's Republic. Because Lenin had eliminated their Russian peers with violence/death and if the Leninist in Germany achieved power they'd do the same to all other socialist. This was literally a Socialist vs Socialist war. Yet some how despite this the SPD are often referred to as right wing counter revolutionaries by pro Marxist writers/historians which is just mind blowing. I mean they're Far Right despite being Socialist, and they're Counter Revolutionaries Despite being the first Revolutionary Government after the fall of the Kaiser. Makes you never want to trust a word from a Marxist ever again.
    2
  43.  @mattysav4627  😆 All forms of pay, wages and salary = reward for your work. Golly man, do you even understand incentives? If people were not rewarded they wouldn't work at all and civilization as we know it would crumble into non-existence. So by default people have to be rewarded or nonthing at all would get done. So saying "Socialism rewards people for their labor" is redundant because they better reward people other the whole system would collapse. Talk about a way to yank on Socialism's horn stating something that is the core of ALL civilization today.
    2
  44.  @jameshodgson3656  You don't know the chaos of the Inter-War period. Between 1918-1920. Most armies really not much better than armed mobs with uniforms fighting for Ukraine, Poland, Belarus, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, the Red Army, etc. Poles were fighting Germans, Ukrainians and Lithuanians. Ukrainians were fighting the white and red Russians, and Poles. List goes on and on. Lets say civilians were not protected, towns were assaulted, everyone wanted to claim as much land for their "New" Nations as they could, a lot of crimes were committed by almost all parties. Heck fun fact Heins Guderian fought in Lithuania as a Freikorp Volunteer and served with a unit responsible for the murders of many local civilians in the region, despite fighting against the Red Russians, they were also fighting against the Lithuanians. In short, he stained his hands if blood long before Hitler ever came around despite being considered the Father of Mobile Warfare.
    2
  45. I still find people who deny that the Holodomor happened. They will source many intellectuals, you know the same kind that will release spreadsheets saying how much better the USSR was, but because they're intellectuals and professors, they're CREDIBLE. They will say. They will even cite Albert Einstein who had no way of knowing at the time whether it was true or not. 5:30 I think that is a bit of a stretch, even prior to Hitler being in power there was a lot of foreign investment within Germany itself. Germany was a recovering economy during the 1920s and many investors found it a great opportunity. On top of that the German Government borrowed a lot of money as well for state works projects. Even John Keynes lost his fortune investing in the German Mark which lost him almost everything, yes the great Keynes the founder of Spreadsheet Warrior Economics, didn't know how to read the stockmarket, what a shock. BTW he lost his fortune before hyper inflation happened in Germany invested in German currency, pretty ironic he failed that badly. That being said, Germany saw a huge economic boom in the 20s, and a bust of massive scale by the end of the 20s.
    2
  46. As the film series Chernobyl "The Soviets Union's Strength is the Illusion of Strength." It was all a huge lie and scam. The History Tuber TIK referred to the USSR as a 50 year long humanitarian disaster
    2
  47. Lee (a High E like the name Lee)-Bens (Like it's is "Ben's Chair)-rom (Rom, like CD-Rom) Lebensraum. Being I think both of you didn't pronounce it right. Don't worry a lot of people don't get it right. Some people even say L-A (High A) instead of Lee, which isn't even in the word. I can read little German but those German classes did help in pronunciation a lot. For example ie = high E, ei = High I, oe = a low O but strong oo like sound unique to German. So if you see Goering Spelt with OE instead of an O with Umlauts it's pronounced the same as an O with Umlauts which are those two dots above a letter. I can not remember how to type with Umlauts so I stick to typing Goering so people who know that it's pretty much the same thing will be able to pronounce it right, better than Typing Goring without umlauts.
    2
  48.  @TheLocalLt  Wrong, Fascism is a Social and Economic system. It replaced the Class Warfare of Marxism, with the unifying force of Nationalism. Unlike the Nazis Fascist believed Nationalism should be used to unite all the Social groups in society with Nationalism, were as Nazism's concept of Nationalism was Racial, so unification was not possible. Ironically, making the Nazis more like Marxist just switching out Classism with Racism. Fascism was an alternative to Marxist Socialism, but in the end it was just a variation of Syndicalism, ie Trade Unionism, ie Fasci (Union/Bundle) Fascism literally means Trade Unionism. It's why the Fascist tried to put all business into state own trade unions (Corporations). It's no different than the Soviet Union's Soviets (Trade Unions owned by the State). Fascist at the time tried to claim they were something absolutely unique and different. While the Nazis perverted the concept of Fascism with their Racism. Both knew common people were terrified of Marxism at the time, so claimed they were something different. But they were just another variation. Since then all Marxist have been in denial trying to find any excuse to claim they were something different as well. But they're more similar than they're all different. I'd highly suggest looking up the youtuber TIK. I will list the titles of some of his most important videos on this subject. I used to be a Fascist in my Highschool and Collage years, and TIK is just about the only person on youtube which seemed to care to do his homework on the subject. Even George Orwell know Fascism was a Socialist movement if you read his closing pharagraphs in his article "What is Fascism" Quote Below. "But Fascism is also a political and economic system. Why, then, cannot we have a clear and generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get one — not yet, anyway. To say why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make. " < Key part "because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make." This is why he wrote Animal Farm and 1984. Orwell also know if he flat out openly admitted what Fascist were, his Socialist readers would abandon him, so instead he pretty much put it in plain sight in a lot of his post mid 40s works. Tragically Orwell claimed the only definition we have come to for Fascism was "Bully State" < Paraphrased. If you read most definitions of Fascism today, it's still pretty much a Bully State. Which Orwell found unsatisfactory because it was a Social and Economic system, so a Bully State is wrong, and should be rejected, even a democratic state like the USA can be a bully, and both the CCP and USSR have proven Marxist states can be Bully States. Also Totalitarianism Requires Socialism. State ownership of the Means of Production. Totalitarianism is literally State Controls everything, if you're Totalitarian you're automatically Socialist because the State already controls everything, including the means of Production. Totalitarianism can not exist without State ownership of the Means of Production. So by Defacto, calling Fascist, Totalitarian is admitting they're Socialist. That being said. Titles of some of TIK's best videos on this subject. These are his most important if you want to understand the concepts of Capitalism, Fascism, Marxism and Nazism. FASCISM DEFINED by TIK Public vs Private by TIK Hitler's Socialism | Destroying the Denialist Counter Arguments by TIK
    2
  49.  @gagamba9198  So in short, it only works when you're part of a Cult?
    2
  50.  @natashka1982  Moscow is like the Capital from the Hunger's Game it doesn't reflect at all what it's like anywhere in Russia but what it's like in Moscow. There is a reason Putin doesn't conscript from Moscow to fight in this war as well. Issue is I doubt Putin would of allowed Tucker to go anywhere else. So like when China Chills gloat about how amazing China is while never leaving 'specific' parts of Beijing's wealthiest districts while under escort by the CCP because they know they're a social media influencer.
    2