Comments by "Rusty Shackleford" (@POCKET-SAND) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
16
-
15
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
No, they weren't Fascists. Fascism and National Socialism are distinct from one another. Fascism revolves around the nation and was actually open to ethnic minorities being part of "the nation" as long as they were fully assimilated, both culturally and ideologically. Mussolini had Jewish ministers in his government before Italy began adopting more anti-Semitic policies due to pressure from Germany in the late 30s. National Socialism revolves around race, specifically the "Aryan" race. It doesn't matter how supportive of the ideology a minority was or how assimilated into German culture they were, they would forever be seen as an outsider by National Socialism.
The National Socialists did not ally themselves with the Catholic Church. They regularly surpressed it. Hitler and most of the party elite were atheists in their private lives, except Himmler who was a pagan. Ironically, the NSDAP used a lot of imagery of the Medieval Teutonic Knights to represent Germany in the past, while the NSDAP outlawed the actual Teutonic Order and arrested much of its leadership. Hitler even appointed Martin Bormann to be in charge of matters regarding religion, and Bormann was probably the most militant atheist of them.
Private industry simply ceased to exist after the NSDAP came to power. Pretty much all the industry was under the control of the state. The NSDAP still kept in supposedly private figureheads within the companies to not alarm the middle class, and it continues to work to this day as many modern people mistakenly believe it was Capitalist. Socialism revolves around control of the means of production, and under the NSDAP, the state effectively had control of all industries. The figureheads of these businesses had very little agency to do what they wanted, as they would simply be outed and replaced if they ever refused to do what the state told them. That's what happened to Hugo Junkers the aircraft builder.
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
I would argue it was. Socialism and slavery pretty much go hand-in-hand. Workers within Socialist countries have all this power on paper, but become little more than slaves when Socialism is actually put into practice. This is because they have much less agency with what they decide to do compared to workers in Capitalist countries and are compensated with much less, if anything at all. There's an old Soviet workers quote on this: "They pretend to pay us, so we pretend to work."
It would also be incorrect in characterizing Hitler's relationship with the industrialists as that, as he was not their first choice. the NSDAP only began paying lip service to the industrialists in the early 30s, about 10 years after the part was founded. And after the NSDAP gained power, Hitler went back on most of his promises to the industrialists, just as he did with everyone else he made promises to. And slave labor is not necessarily a good thing, as I believe the Germans themselves calculated that a slave laborer was about 20% as productive as a paid German laborer, meaning that the output was not good enough to actually turn a profit larger than what would've been made had they been using paid laborers operating at normal efficiency. This is historically why slavery fell out of favor in many places.
And Nationalism is not inherently a right-wing position. Look at Canada for example, it is the political left in Canada that is more nationalistic towards Canadian practices and policies. The political right of Canada is more pro-American. Same holds true with Communist nations as well, most of whom were arguably nationalistic in their sentiment.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5