Comments by "Person AA" (@personaa422) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@phillip3495
I would suggest that you keep your fascistic conspiracies out of view. The notion that historians and academics were infiltrated and overrun with socialists is quite literally one hitler used to gain power, and burn books and research institutions that disagreed with his nonsense "race science." Even if these people lean socialist, which most don't, you need to stop projecting your own denialism onto them. See, there's a reason why historians of all political stripes maintain the simple fact of Hitler and Mussolini's anti-socialism, while the only people who oppose it are right wing think tanks, politicians, and influencers. Historians have been giving an accurate account of the anti-socialist nazis. Now, can you think of a reason why a right leaning individual might want to obscure nazi history, and try to discredit all historians that disagree with them? It's a simple historical fact, long known, checked, and double-checked, that the Fascists, and Nazis, were just more radical members of the anti-socialist collective. Asserting otherwise is absurd, and would likely offend them were they to be around still today. It certainly offends the proud right wingers who still fly their flags. Hitler was not a socialist, nor was Mussolini. Saying they practiced a "tweaked version of socialism" is like saying a nuclear reactor is a "tweaked version of an apple."
Think about what the office of historian actually means. Historians aren't just people that say things that must be taken as fact, they are researchers, that spend years backing up every one of their statements. The right, on the other hand, asserts that the nazis were socialists because a youtuber and a blog told them. We already knows what happens when the most brutal, horrific, and tragic event happens under the watch of your own ideology. You deny it. In any case, your assertions are false. Hitler and Mussolini's far right ideology and ties were well documented before even the war ended and the true extend of their crimes was noted. Only recently, after rightfully being compared to their ideological ancestors, have the right tried to fight back against the well known fact of anti-socialist fascism. There was no need for socialists to attempt to distance themselves for nazis after the nazi crimes were revealed, they were already seen as enemies of opposing political views.
And you can say that what you're saying is true all you want, it doesn't make it so. People have spent lifetimes, their entire careers, philosophically dissecting fascist political documents, speeches, and observing their actions and policies, and they all come to the same conclusion. The nazis weren't socialists, and had nothing in common with the socialist ideology. Your assertion otherwise is, again, not based off facts, but your own ideological defense. You even further prove my point, by doing the same things as nazis, trying to point out marxism in everything you don't like to justify purging it. No, philosophically, fascists and nazis were about as opposed to marxism as one can get. Marxism isn't just "when you like one group and dislike another," your definition of marxism (find a majority of their population, get them pissed, and point them at their enemies as the cause of their disenfranchisement) applies easily to modern conservatives. For example, I could say using your logic: Socialists, pit labor against capital. Nazis, pit race against the races they don't like. Conservatives, pit christianity against islam, citizens against immigrants, patriots against critics, and so on. What you're describing isn't "marxism," it's populist rhetoric. Furthermore, comparing the nazis and socialists even in this way is absurd. How is focusing on an entire different problem, with an entire different reason for considering it a problem, and entirely different methods and solutions, a "switcheroo" in the same framework? Again, you're describing populist rhetoric, not "marxism."
And yet it was the opponents of CRT that called for holocaust denialism to be taught in public schools, rightists who wave the nazi flag, and the right who mirrors fascism in all but name.
2
-
@phillip3495
Mostly because said "fact" has no basis in reality, and is not cited by you, given that it isn't true. If every academic was a socialist, we wouldn't have a right wing president in power, eve again. The problem is, you literally identify anything you don't like as "Marxist influenced ideas." MArx was one of the first to make economics into a science, does that make all economists socialists? You have the same "reasoning" as a flat-earther, "just look it up." You go a step further, by claiming that one of the biggest private companies is "leftist leaning." Stop trying to block reality.
Oh god, the irony. Your entire first paragraph here is "it is known" without a single reference or citation. That is and always has been the only foundation of your argument. In any case, to start off with, Mussolini literally based his ideology off of right wing nationalists and traditionalists at the time, employed classical liberals to manage his economic policy, oh and openly said he was right wing.
2
-
@phillip3495
I'm not, though. I'm not implying that it's impossible, since in some absurd future/alternate world that hypothetically could happen. though of course, it isn't true of today or our actual history in any sense.
I'm pointing out that modern right wingers and historical right wingers share the same rhetoric, that they spread for the same reasons, in defense of the same views and policies.
Your entire assertion is one that hitler proudly shared, and that directly led to his policies on restricting information and burning research and literature that proved him wrong, and you can't help but deflect.
Going off on a tangent about "political bias" just shows me that you can't deal with facts about nazi rhetoric.
Kid, you're a statist. The sooner you accept that, the better. Furthermore, "Socialism/Statism" is absurd for its own reasons, but I didn't come here to bear witness to your absurd, misinformed opinions, I came to debate a subject that you have evidently decided to deflect from in favor of some random moralistic ranting.
You see, then, when the genocide is carried out by a certain right wing/anti-socialist alignement/denomination/flavor
And you just happen to be all of those things
AND you agree with many of the views of the genocidalist regime
Then it is very clear that you would do all in your power to discredit academics and historians that point out this connection, perhaps even using the rhetoric of the regime you're trying to deny to do so, ironically. You would prefer to pretend your argument is objective and that the recipient is the problem, rather than once considering that they aren't convinced... because your argument isn't convincing.
You are, as we speak, taking out all stops to mentally contort your conception of these particular individuals, in order to distance yourself from the genocidal history of those that shared your ideology. As i've proven, socialists already openly pointed out their major disagreements with hitler and fascism long before they revealed the extent of their crimes, whereas denialism of the nazi's views in favor of an ahistorical assertion of their supposed "socialism" is entirely recent in conception.
Your statements apply easily to you, how can you not see that?
2
-
@phillip3495
Thank you for so openly admitting you have not read the historians, and literally saying that the only reason you think they're wrong is because a right wing youtuber told you they were.
You do actually have to read the work of those you consider to be incorrect. You do actually have to know more about them than assertions made by right wingers relating to their work. They didn't ignore any relevant facts, they pointed out objective information that you ideologically want to deny. It is a fact that the basis of nazi ideology is anti-socialism. You deny the historians that show this through painstaking research and peer review, only on the basis that you think they're wrong. The historians discussed here have not ignored the origin story of right wing fascism, or right wing nazi ideology, rather, you've openly ignored both of those things. You don't have to read very much history at all to understand that your argument has basic and fundamental logical errors that entirely void the contents of your assertions. You quite literally can't handle the reality that facts go against your beliefs, so you call said facts irrelevant rather than attempting to rebut them.
Restating a disproven argument doesn't make it any less false. The nazis were in no way, shape, or form, even similar to socialists in practical formation, economic structure, or result, much less "virtually identical." The essential components of fascism are right wing traditionalism and a rejection of the left and socialism in its entirety.
The fact that you didn't actually read any of the sources in question is absolutely essential. The fact that they supported and upheld not only private property, but the ideological and moral assumptions behind it, is essential. The fact that historians wrote books and did hundreds of hours of research exposing the history of fascists and nazis and their resistance to socialism that you carefully omit is essential. You attempt to discredit them without even understanding their statements, simply because they prove you wrong. They are extremely relevant to your discussion due to the fact that they point out concrete facts that you attempt to evade, or remain wholly ignorant of.
2
-
@phillip3495 Let me repeat in a line you can understand - the entire basis of your argument is as follows. "The nazis are socialists. This is what I believe to be true. If anyone says otherwise, they must be ignoring facts. If people like historians use facts to point out the anti-socialism of the nazis, they must be untrustworthy, because they ignore my belief that the nazis were socialists, and thus they aren't using facts at all."
Your entire argument is circular. You say the nazis were socialists, and when someone proves you wrong, you claim they aren't trustworthy because... they don't agree with your assertion on the nazis and socialism. There is no physical way to reach you through logical argumentation, because your argument isn't based in logic. The experts in question didn't ignore, evade, or conceal the history of the far right nazis and fascists - you did. You attempt to discredit them, while openly admitting you have no idea of the facts behind their statements, because they point out that you're wrong in asserting that the far right nazis were socialists. You do this all to escape the reality that you and hitler had far more in common than hitler did with socialists like MLK.
2
-
@phillip3495
You mean statements that i've already rebutted, and assertions you have already been disproven in?
Your "essential characteristics" are nonsense, and we've already been over this so many times, it's absurd. Of course, the world knows of the distinguishing characteristics that put fascism squarely on the right, but you knew that already, you simply deny it because to accurately represent the myriad of differences between far right fascism and leftist socialism would be to tear your own argument apart.
1. Great, fascism defense. First and foremost, the type of ethnonationalism both hitler and mussolini espoused belonged, and still belongs, to the right. Secondly, your assertion on mussolini is incorrect. While in his early campaign days he attempted to appeal to a broader audience by convincing people that he had no desire to implement policies based off of race, this was far from an accurate summation of his views. He was open about his anti-slavic racism, and made antisemetic statements such as asserting that jewish people owned the banks and ran the soviet country. He also said quite openly in 1921 "Fascism was born... out of a profound, perennial need of this our Aryan race," not to mention his race laws in the late 1930s. Racism is a key part of fascism, some fascists just hide it until they're in power.
Calling an argument "retarded" without further explanation is not an argument. You assert that it admits ignorance of the concept of capitalism, though do not explain how this is the case or argue for it. You assert that it throws doubt on one's understanding of political spectrums, though again, you do not attempt to argue that point or provide evidence/reasoning. Your entire argument is "this is wrong because it's stupid. Why is it stupid? because it is."
You have yet to actually refute a single one of my arguments. You have, in the past, listed out the reasons you thought nazism was socialist, and I responded to and rebutted those arguments. You have never responded. You have no argument thus far, and you've tried to make one up for me rather than rebut my actual statements.
And this is why you are wrong. You, again, assert that they are only dissimilar in ways that do not matter. You don't explain how this is, or even argue for it, you just state it and move on. I have responded to this previously, saying that in reality, if fascism and nazism are a green apple, you're trying to call it an "alternative apple flavor" when compared to a nuclear reactor, that in this case, represents socialism. In reality the differences between the ideologies are numerous, near uncountable. What happened is important... and proves you wrong.
Here is another axis of your failure to argue - you argue not based on actual history or definitions, but what you feel things should be classified as. In any case, your argument here is to list a number of ideologies, and claim that they all come from Marx. Not only is this absurdly false, it's a statement refuted by the very video you are commenting under, in any case, let's address them. First off, of your list, marxism, leninism, maoism, and trotskyism are the only ideologies that actually "finds its roots in Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto." Communism, democratic socialism, and socialism were already existing movements and ideologies before marx, even, as he made clear in his writings. In fact, several factions of the above ideologies were explicitly criticized by marx, and criticized him in turn. State capitalism is a concept that didn't come from marx and didn't require him. And, as we've been over, fascism and nazism find no roots in marxism, as i've already rebutted your definition of marxism. It's also similarly absurd that you try to list all these concepts under the root term of "statism," not only because the majority of these systems are vastly different in goal and economic policy, but some of them (Marxism) are philosophies and methods of study, and some more (Socialism, Communism) are in many cases explicitly anti-state. So no, they are not all the same, as they do not share essential characteristics, fascism and socialism of course being among the furthest apart of this list. You are disregarding differences, and rather than studying the ideologies honestly, you are attempting to cherry pick superficial similarities in order to make a point. What you're doing is like this: You have three people. One wants to eat at home, two want to eat out. One of the two wants to eat out because he recently got a paycheck, and wants to flex his wealth, and wants to eat somewhere fancy. The other is too tired to cook, and wants to order food to home from a fast food restaurant. You're saying these two are both the same, because neither wants to cook a meal at home. Do you get the picture? In any case, no, not all of the listed ideologies are statist, as we've been over. Not all of them are anti-capitalist, state capitalism obviously included, and fascism/nazism only repudiating libertarian/international capitalism. Again, capitalism isn't just libertarianism. Economic regulation isn't anti-capitalist by default, and the purpose of economic regulation matters more than it's existence. There is no "ect."
And is this how you think "actual thought" works? Name dropping Aristotle and calling arguments you don't agree with "Retarded?" Your entire argument rests on the back of unproven assertions, most of which i've previously addressed, that you have yet to rebut. You just made up an argument rather than address mine, failed to even try to refute your own strawman, and then openly admitted that your arguments come from a place of personal interpretation rather than factual information. Your primitive concepts couldn't even hold themselves together in the context of your own argument, I can see why you're so scared to respond to my arguments. I'm sorry if reality hurts your feelings, but you need to accept it one day. Facts don't care about your feelings, and i'm glad you copied a class on logic, because you should really look into it.
Let me repeat, to be crystal clear - Your entie argument hinges on three things.
1. The application of false accusations of fallacy, unsubstantiated.
2. The repetition of several core assertions with no argumentation or logical reason, unsubstantiated
3. The circular logic of denying facts that don't agree with you because they don't agree with you
I have yet to see a single argument from you that breaks these rules.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@joshualittle877
But you haven't, given that you're utterly unwilling to cite a single one of your absurd claims. The people living in germany at the time had no question that Hitler had no ideological ties to socialism, and they knew he represented the far right and the anti-socialists that had first come up with the rhetoric he, and sadly you, continued to use long after their deaths. Hitler wasn't a socialist, his party was one that represented the far right and existed with the explicit goal of opposition to socialism, liberalism, anarchism, communism, and left of center ideologies generally. "National Socialism" is merely a form of conservatism, as orwell said, and as historians and survivors of nazi germany have noted. Hitler literally chanted death to marx and claimed he was part of a jewish conspiracy. Calling the USSR a communist system makes no sense, not even they did that, they never claimed to have achieved communism. Marx didn't hate jewish people even close to as much hitler did, and comparing the two does a disservic to the pure genocidal rage hitler directed at those citizens. Stalin and Hitler differed on far more than you allege, and as usual, your point goes utterly unsupported. Hitler was not a socialist, "hitler's socialism" is an oxymoron, and there is no such thing as "socialism based on race," as that goes against the definition of socialism. Even if one were to try to create a coherent ideology from that phrase however, it would not represent the right wing private economy hitler praised. The very existence of private ownership means he wasn't a socialist, and said private ownership was far from an illusion, but a core part of his ideology. Stop lying.
2
-
@joshualittle877 Hitler and the nazis were very much not socialists. Blocks of text with historical lies doesn't change that
The nazi party was vehemently anti-socialist. You don't know what socialism is. Socialism isn't defined as the abolition of private property and centrally planned/managed economies, but hitler doesn't even fit that definition. They did not believe in those things. Hitler got into power because conservatives wanted him in power to oppose socialism.
The far right nazi party and its leader said nothing like what you asserted, he openly discussed his desire to protect private property and private property interests. He didn't want to "Nationalize people," nor is that at all a coherent economic policy nor an example of socialist thought
He allowed private business to exist because he thought it was proof of the supposed superiority of "his people" and his country, and he bribed, not forced, these private companies to support his right wing anti-socialist interests. They still owned their businesses, and they still profited, more even given that hitler's party had long since shut down any sort of opposition to their private rule in the form of unionism. Companies like those you mention most often worked with the nazis specifically because it profited them the most, not because they were forced at gunpoint to make private profit
Ownership was no illusion,it existed and was in many cases stronger than it had been under the Weimar republic, given the lack of oppositon by unionists or socialists that the nazis had made sure of. If you owned a business making boats, the nazi party would come to you and offer a contract to you and other boat makers for guaranteed profits so long as you made a certain amount of boats, a contract that would then be competed over by private individuals for the goal of profit. Other than that, they didn't tell you how do your business, what kind of boats to make and sell, how many you were to make, who you could sell them to and how you would sell them, and so on. They kept their profits and the vast majority of their autonomy. Not sure why you're trying to present the nazis as pro-gay or something, but the night of the long knives was explicitly an anti-socialist purge.
I'm sorry, they simply weren't socialist. As their ideology evolved they gave up even the pretense of being anything other than the far right anti-socialists they had been seen as for a while now. I'm sorry for the horrors your family went through but that doesn't erase the experiences of holocaust survivors and other victims of nazi germany, and the historians that studied them, all pointing out the anti-socialist nature of nazi germany.
The problem is, you are asserting that the nazis were socialists while literally repeating the very rhetoric and propaganda the nazis used against socialists. No, the education system is not overrun with socialists. And history itself shows us the difference between nazis and socialists, no conspiracy. No, nazi ideology is not socialism based on race. Not only is that oxymoronic, it doesn't reflect the reality of hitler's far right anti-socialist party. You don't know what socialism is and sadly you seem not to know the history of antisemtism either. Marx was antisemetic yes, but the others didn't come from jewish backgrounds, that's literally nazi propaganda. Lenin and Trotsky weren't antisemetic either, Lenin actually spoke out about and outlawed antisemetism. Stalin never tried to purge jewish people, and he too for all his faults relating to his individual bigots he never attempted to push policy with the goal of hurting jewish people or communities. Saying he hated jewish people as much as hitler is simply false. Nazi ideology is not at all socialism, even your imagined "socialism based on race."
The Baath party doesn't have much in common with the nazis at all, and the existence of far right religious extremists that supported other far right extremists (the nazis) is no surprise at all. There's no such thing as nazi with a marxist leaning. I'm saddened that you feel the need to spread such obviously false propaganda to serve the modern day far right.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@althist2nd950
Because your assertion at the beginning was that I was unable to provide reasoning, examples, or evidence for my claims, instead just saying "You're wrong," when in reality i've been providing all of those things to anyone that will listen for ages now, and I am still willing to provide them to anyone that can actually engage me in the topic without just resorting to baseless assertions. I put in this thread the exact same amount of evidence as all the people I replied to, and if they were willing to provide evidence to the contrary, I would provide to prove my point. I commented here to engage in rhetoric, like the other people here. This "debate" was already a useless conversation, one between people who would affirm eachother's views without a single reason and hype eachother up into a frenzy of fanaticism. Again, if people want to elevate the conversation i'm all for it, hell, I do it all the time and have several ongoing conversations and debates at that level. But as of now I am only engaging with the energy and rigor I am presented with, so why is it that you're addressing me, and not everyone else? How is what you said at the beginning remotely true?
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tombrunila2695 Aww, I get it, you're a child. I don't much care what HG Wells, had to say about anything, because he was a Eugenicist, which makes it quite ironic that you find yourself agreeing with him now. He also doesn't say anything about socialism, but ok. Big business is antithetical to communism, because it means not only bigger government, but a bigger and more powerful private market, something communists despise. Business gives wealth to the few, not the many. This should be basic politics, but people like you seem not to understand it. The nazis knew they were right wing, they said as much openly and proudly, and worked with the capitalists and conservatives of their time frequently. They are not leftists. Similarly, leftists don't much have to convince anyone that the anzis were right wing "desperately," as again, the nazis made as much known, and pretty darn clearly, which is the best part. I know you despise those that can so easily prove you wrong, but I hate to break it to you... you're wrong. The modern american right wing is absolutely a mental disorder, and thanks for proving it.
2
-
@tombrunila2695 Literally none of that is true, mate. For one, you used insults long before I did, which by your logic, means that I can utterly discount your point. I, however, am objectively correct. Nazism is a right wing ideology, as is fascism. This is an objective fact. Communism is a stateless ideology,how can it be oppressive? Collectivist societies are not socialist by any definition, nor are all collectivist societies leftist, nor were the nazis purely collectivist. I'm impressed, you've somehow managed to be wrong on all fronts! All you've done this whole time is prove that you are basing your assumptions on pure ignorance, and better yet, you yourself are expertly drawing the connection between the fascists and the modern american right wing.
2
-
@tombrunila2695 Oh, just talking to you is an insult to my sanity. At this point i've just taken on the assumption that you must be joking, after all, no one can genuinely be this misinformed. Do you think that asking to spread ideology was somehow a Soviet-exclusive thing? We were there all the while trying to spread our ideology. But no, sorry, they didn't literally give out orders to every communist party in the world. That's not only historically ridiculous, but like most of the things you say, easily proven wrong with a simple google search. Stalin executed communists primarily because they were the ones who knew that he wasn't achieving socialism or leading them towards communism. at all. You seem to be under the assumption that the soviet union being bad... is somehow a new thing? Amazing, the ignorance i'm seeing on display. The Nazis weren't collectivist, because the collective included people they don't like, other nations, disabled people, ect. The nazi party actually had a fair bit of leniency, especially when it came to the actions of private german industry or aryans. If you didn't want to be controlled, just be white. The soviet union had policies pretty much the exact opposite of this, especially in the NEP era. You might want to learn some history. The german far-right conservative nazis were not socialists, and not left wing. They openly despised the left, and said it would lead to the end of civilization... just like modern conservatives.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@justiceforsadalfred527
"Question"
(proceeds to ask several more than a single question.)
Great. Ok, one at a time, short answers since there's so much.
I spend time here because frankly I'm bored and it gives me an excuse to further research the subject and form arguments while also changing some minds. The left right dichotomy is an accurate system of political classification but is further improved with more metrics. The core differences between right wing ideologies are their applications and justifications for hierarchies. The core differences between left ideologies are their applications and justifications for the opposition of hierarchy. Hitler is far right. Some people on the right are closer to hitler, some people on the right have more in common with the left. So closer, generally. No, i'm not a socialist, not by the strict definition. I ideally support a system of decentralized self ownership. I claim no system or state as my own, but there are movements and individuals I am proud to be influenced by. The USSR was a failed experiment that had potential, but horribly and violently squandered it. Collective is defined as all people, every individual. Public property is state owned, personal is property that a person uses, and does not profit from other's labor on. I own myself just as much as nature owns me. Property means different things to different people.
2
-
2
-
@Undead38055 Why would I provide something neither you or TIK are able to? TIK admits his own sources disagree with him. The few sources that don't aren't from historians, but idealogues. As you said, children respond with insults. Which is why every time i've engaged with TIK, he insults me, and refuses to respond to a single point. I hate to break it to you but both you and TIK fail to meet Hitchen's razor. That which is presented without evidence, can be dismissed without it. So... go on. Enlighten me on why he is right. I want the whole shebang. Sources, analyze, and reasoning. I want evidence on what points he attempted to make, and why you think they're correct. I don't need negative responses, or being called an idiot because I asked for proper support on your claim. You are asserting something that is frankly absurd. Its your job to prove your assertion - not mine to disprove something you give no evidence for. And i'm sure you'll deflect from this request and try to ask me to write a special little comment just for you on points from a video you've likely not even watched. So - prove he's right, or admit he's wrong. Simple as that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@tariqnasneed3857 so. They didn't respect the desires of the community at all then. Like do you not realize that by definition, purging huge parts of the community is against representing the community as a whole? Do you not realize that they didn't only purge the unpopular?
And this is you projecting your misunderstanding of human nature onto others. Humans, for literally our entire existence, have only ever found out success in cooperation. It is that cooperation that even gave us a society to live in, languages and nations and religions and art and music and culture. Without shared interests humanity would never have done all of this. Humanity is not inherently hateful, though you might be
And again, this isn't true. Capitalists realize this, why can't you? Capitalists will actively campaign for things like lower taxes, less regulation, and greater government incentives for business in-country. Capitalists recognize that they share class interests, so they would prefer to help their competition, than hurt themselves and empower their workers/customers further. This is basic economics, how do you not understand this? Sure capitalists compete with eachother - so do their workers. Bone of this discounts the fact that they can, and do, engage in class cooperation. Historically, capitalists have been more than happy to fly under one property owning banner, fighting for rules and regulations that help both them and their opposition. Your statement that capitalists do not engage in class solidarity is utterly untrue. In any case, they wouldn't even need to do this for them to be socialist by your definition - they are still a community, and they still own the means of production. Also, there is no such thing as an, "ethnic german," but you should know that at no point undeletable hitler's rule was he the most popular, and your assertion that the "vast majority" were behind him is untrue. He didn't gain power through a majority, and he kept power by oppressing people. Most people under his rule, that is the people that weren't imprisoned, killed, or on constant fear of either of those things, were not in support of hitler but merely didn't dare to stand up against him, for fear of ending up like the others that did that. The majority of germans, those that weren't just killed, lived lives of silent fear. Please stop believing nazi propaganda.
And again - false. Even the modern royal family has power outside of simply being related to an aristocrat. Not to mention the many they employ to help run their affairs. There is no such thing as a socialism or aristocracy. Please become even slightly economically literate, it isn't that hard and instantly proves your nonsense wrong.
The problem with your definition of socialism is that everything would be socialism, according to you. Capitalism? Just socialism of the rich. Monarchism? Socialism of the monarch. Anarchism? Socialism of the individual. Can you even point out a single Jon socialist state, country, or group that ever existed? The nazis weren't socialists, by definition, and the only way to claim they were is to lie about the definition of socialism and to lie about the nazis themselves.
2
-
2