Comments by "Kameraden" (@Alte.Kameraden) on "Forgotten Weapons"
channel.
-
45
-
9
-
8
-
 @mortarriding3913 Wasn't the point of the comment entirely. The point of the argument was "The fact that violence can save lives is often ignored or forgotten." in which the original comment quoted. I made an argument against it. It utterly has nothing to do with who shot first, or who was the most dastardly. In fact how the Allies handled the occupation of Germany and Japan are prime examples on how a lack of 'violence' saved lives, not the other way around, while the German occupation of Poland, Ukraine and Belarus in which were very violent only caused violence in response, that violence didn't save lives, but only encouraged further bloodshed. It was a vicious cycle on the Eastern Front.
I guess i can put it bluntly. How many towns, villages were raised to the ground in response to Partisan warfare on the Eastern Front? How many thousands were rounded up and shot in attempts to deny Partisans' access to intelligence, food, and shelter? How many died as a result of these "Violent" agitators? They had reason to fight, but in the end it's easily argued they did nothing but add considerably more fuel to the fire, and more often than not, it wasn't the Partisans or the Germans they fought that paid the price and were burned.
That being said. It's also often not told that there were Communist Partisans, Pro German Partisans, Pro Democratic Partisans as well, and they often didn't work together, nor care for eachother. In Ukraine, Belarus, Russia and much of the Balkans these groups warred with each other about as much they did with the Germans. That same Israeli General I mentioned, whom i wish I could remember his name ended up leaving the Partisan group he was in a Communist one primarily because they didn't care a lick about Poland's Independence. Also I do recall one of the concentration camps was also attacked by Partisans, not to save the inmates but they didn't want the Jews released late in the war, ie an antisemitic band of partisans. Similar to the Frei Korps of Germany post WWI, partisans were little better than armed thugs, who cared about their own personal political beliefs and agendas often more than the nations they claimed to be fighting for.
7
-
5
-
4
-
Vintage automatic pistols. They just don't make them like they used to. So interesting to look at. Modern hand guns are often in my opinion just boring. In fact, honestly, I don't like most fire arms "Post" WWII. Seems WWII people started standardize more to reliable, known designs/concepts, sure some experimentation is going on still but, not much. Early on everyone was designing from different concepts almost, now it's more standardized, less unique/interest. Mauser C96, Early Colt Automatics, The Luger P08, Nambu, and among others seemed to have their own unique flavors for their day.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
5:04 seems a historical fault that many fail to realize how powerful the unifying force of Nationalism actually is. It's actually why so many former socialist abandoned the Internationalism of Marxism, and adopted Nationalism. They saw what happened during the Great War, and how the Worker's Revolution didn't come to end the war, not until years later with millions dead and millions more starving to death did any kind of revolutions start, primarily Russia/Germany.
The Italian Fascist were pretty much just National Syndicalist, Mussolini himself was kicked out of the Communist Party because he wanted the party to follow a more Nationalist route, Lenin was actually very angry that they kicked him out as well. He believed Mussolini was the only man in Italy who could lead a revolution, so Lenin was not surprisingly willing to accept that perhaps a pro Nationalist Communist Party in Italy would of been fine as long as it was under the Communist Banner. USSR and China both have gone into pro Nationalist phases on and off so Nationalism isn't completely incompatible with Communism. But that one difference was enough to get Mussolini thrown out of the party in Italy.
Where as the National Socialist took Preussen Socialism and merged it with a race instead of class focused version of Marxism, ie no longer fighting for the international workers, but fighting for the ethnic race which was the Nazi's Nationalism, their idea of the Nation was the race. Interesting enough like Mussolini, Hitler was also once a member of the Communist Party in Bavaria, even elected to represent his regiment in the Bavarian People's State and Bavarian Soviet Republic in 1918 and 1919. Basically he was elected by his peers in a Communist government.. something he completely leaves out of Mein Kamphy chair, for obvious reasons. As in the 1920s he was trying to distance the National Socialist Party from almost everything Marxist, in spite of his past history. Interesting know, Julius Schreck and Sepp Dietrich were also members of the Bavarian Soviet Republic, both key members of the SS later on in history, of course this is completely absent from say Wikipedia. I love how WWI ends, 2 years pass between 1918 and 1920 which they mention nothing about what Schreck did on Wikipedia for obvious reasons.
It's actually a fundamental difference between Nazism and Fascism, and it was their ideas of Nationalism. Were as an Italian Fascist would view the race nonsense of Nazi Germany as Nonsense because a nation isn't a specific ethnicity but a collection of different groups with similar national goals, and that nationalism is the glue that brings those groups together. A Nazi's idea of the Nation and Nationalism is literally the ethnic group, or race. A lot of people don't realize that Fascism and Nazism are fundamentally opposed in this respect.
s
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1