Comments by "Андрей Борцов" (@Mentol_) on "Why was the German Army so Effective in World War 2?" video.

@guyvert49 1. State control in Germany and Italy was aimed at preserving the hierarchical system. According to the compass, this is the "authoritarian right wing" idea. State control in the USSR was aimed at suppressing the exploiting class and the idea of the gradual withering away of the state. This is a left wing idea. 2. Open Hitler's book and you will see that he rejects Christian morality which says that inflicting pain is evil. For the Nazis, the struggle that creates pain is part of the laws of nature that they believe make their race stronger (good). Hitler's opinion here is the primary source. The opinion of liberals is secondary. 3. Lenin's idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat is the primary source in relation to Soviet politics. He believes that society is divided into classes that have different interests. You cannot give complete freedom to all people because in this case the minority will exploit the majority. In order to change this, the rights of the minority (the exploiting class) must be restricted so that the majority are free from their economic exploitation. Most often, the restriction is just a formal one, but sometimes you can be placed in a prison. Thus, the prison system in the understanding of Lenin is part of a democratic system, and not part of slavery, as the liberals say.
2
@scorpioferrous7621 Hitler at a meeting with the generals said that he originally planned to invade France, and Poland would remain an ally. But later he received information that Poland could stab in the back and decided to destroy Poland first. It's documented.
1
@guyvert49 left wing parties orienred to social progress. Right wing oriented to restoration traditions, nationalism, racism and a hierarchical society. In a word, it is the restoration of the laws of nature. Thats why nazis is right wing. Hitler in one of his interviews said that he could use any name for his party, even liberal one. Look with which parties inside Germany Hitler was an ally - these are right-wing nationalists. Look with which countries Germany was an ally in the war - these are the nationalists, the fascists or the monarchy.
1
@guyvert49 I read both the book of Hitler and the book of Mussolini, and the works of Lenin-Stalin. 1. I use the traditional political axis that is generally accepted. You are using an alternate axis that is often used to distort history. But it is not scientific. 2. The Nazis divided capitalism into two types - progressive national and regressive international. They supported the first, and fought against the second. This system was neither socialism nor classical free market capitalism. This is the third way. 3. The classical axis says that the left supports the idea of social progress. The Bolsheviks are on the left because they believe that society is divided into classes that have different interests. Then they say that the real form of democracy is not liberalism, but the dictatorship of the proletariat which expresses the will of the progressive class. The ultimate goal of the Bolsheviks is to build a classless society where people will have equal rights. The Nazis are fighting the division of society into classes. They say that people are united by their blood and soil. The Nazis reject the idea of democracy because Hitler believes that it leads to the moral degeneration of society. The ultimate goal of the Nazis is to build a racial state where people will be unequal according to the laws of nature. This is the right-wing idea (according to the classical axis). 4. Mussolini does not say that fascism is a form of socialism. He says that fascism is a positive alternative for liberalism. He says that a person can be free only in a strong state. He also says that fascism opposes socialism, which historical development understands as class struggle. Instead of class struggle, fascism offers the idea of national unity.
1
@guyvert49 This is not the opinion of Stalinist propaganda, but the generally accepted opinion of the scientific community. The Bolsheviks did not consider Hitler and Mussolini to be socialists. Stalin has an article where he explains that the Nazis are imperialists. But in any case, the terms must be studied from the point of view of the original source. Mussolini's book "The Doctrine of Fascism" says that fascism is not a form of socialism. It is a fact. And with regard to Hitler, everything is simple - he used the term socialism to get more supporters for his party. In the term socialism, he puts not the generally accepted meaning, but his own racist (anti-socialist) interpretation. He says the Marxists stole the term, but he actually did it himself (lol).
1
@guyvert49 1. Your alternative political axis is incorrect. 2. Your arguments about "evil" show that you are fighting against other ideologies instead of studying them. For example, the regulation of the economy in the USSR and Germany have different goals. 3. Open Hitler's book and you will see that the struggle nations is part of the laws of nature (good), and not evil. What you call evil is a liberal interpretation. 4. Open the works of Lenin and you will see that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" does not negate the idea of democracy. 5. Open the Soviet constitution and you will see that it makes slavery and racism illegal.
1
@guyvert49 "3 kinds of socialism" is just an idea in your head. You are not testing this idea for validity. You think that socialism is just state control. But who told you this? According to the primary sources, socialism is social ownership of the means of production. This is correct only for the USSR. Other countries (Italy, Germany, the United States, Britain) used state intervention to regulate the economy, rather than change the form of ownership from private to public. And I don't need to read books by foreign historians because this is a liberal interpretation of other systems. After World War II, liberalism began to dominate the world. As a result, historians began to rethink the history of the war and ideologies from the point of view of liberalism. The idea of a totalitarian state appeared as denying the personal freedom of a person. Although if you open Mussolini's book you will see that totalitarianism for him is a positive alternative to democracy.
1
@guyvert49 I read the book that you recommended to me and found several mistakes that the author makes: - The author says that Stalin never cared about losses in military operations. But if you open the transcript of the meeting after the Finnish war, you can see that this is not true. - The author repeats the old myth that Stalin did not prepare the Red Army for war against Germany. Although it is known that the concentration of the Red Army on the western border began on June 10, 1941, and in the middle of 1940 wartime rules were introduced in the economy. - The author repeats the myth that Stalin was in shock after the start of the war and went to the country. Although the journal of visitors to Stalin's cabinet is now available. - The author says that Stalin forbade the evacuation of civilians from Stalingrad, but does not show this secret order. Because it's a myth. - The author repeats the old myth that Stalin destroyed experienced commanders during the purge. But documents show that the Red Army had the same problems before and after the purge. - The author calls the Siberian troops experienced, although before that he said that Stalin weakened the Red Army. - The author says that Stalin created in the country a great atmosphere of fear in the USSR, but this is only the opinion of people with liberal convictions. The rest asked the government to continue the fight against the enemies of the revolution. - The author accuses Stalin of the fact that his intervention in the offensive near Kharkov in 1942 led to the failure of the operation. Although the documents show that the General Staff allowed this operation to be placed under the leadership of local commanders, one of whom was Khrushev. After the war, Khrushchev tried to shift the blame to Stalin. The author does not analyze the authenticity of his words. - The author says that Stalin was an inexperienced person in military affairs until 1943, although documents show that already in 1940 Stalin knew the basic issues of strategy and operational art and made corrections to the reports of his commanders.
1