Comments by "Thabo Muso" (@thabomuso2575) on "TIKhistory" channel.

Antisemitism is not a "leftist" idea. It is thousands of years older than any political ideology.
162
@OctaBech @OctaBech the left ideologically does not and has not leaned into antisemitism. However, and this is the most relevant point, antisemitism was rampant throughout all forms of political movements and throughout more or less all Christian denominations. The Sion Protocol of the Elders was a part of the course litterature at German High Schools long before the Nazis emerged. There was structured antisemitism within the communist party of the Soviet Union while at the same time there was ironically a dispropirtionately high number of Jews in the communist party and particularly at the highest levels. Same thing in Germany, where many Jews were active in the various communist and social democratic parties. Antisemitism was a forbidden ideology within the Soviet Union and yet it persisted, albeit under code names and with poorly disclosed motives. Antisemitism was strong within the German royal courts, within the nobility, among conservatives and most other groups.
10
Although it is extremly interesting to learn about Hitler´s early edeological leanings, but let me tell you what he eventually became. He became a National Socialist. Nazism is a mixture of such contradictory thoughts as conservatism, socialism and capitalism, along with rabid racism and antisemitism and colonialism. If Hitler is to be taken at face value, he was also a deitist as he speaks about "God" and "The Creator" in Mein Kampf, although he was obviously not a Christian. He was also a choir boy in the local boy's choir of his town when he was a child. TIK, why do you whisper that Nazism was "very similar" to Marxism? Hitler's colonialism was very similar to many aspects of other colonial ideologies, such as for example British, French or for that matter ancient Romal colonialism. That still didn't make Nazism propagating the same kind of imperialism as the British or the French did. Trying to pin down Hitler as ideologicaly to the left or right is a wild goosechase.
6
@mariussielcken so?
5
@bustercrabbe8447 it is true that Hitler never became a fascist and I never claimed that. He was not a communist nor a capitalist nor a socialist either. He was a National Socialist. Nothing more. Nothing less. You ask me what part of national Socialism is not socialism. I would say most parts except for Hitler propagating a welfare state for the "Aryans". At the same time the propagationg of a welfare state had gained ground among of course not only socialists and communists, but also partially liberals and conservatives. I do not know how much that you have studied National Socialism from an ideological viewpoint, but if you read their party program and the Mein Kampf, you will find that National Socialist ideology on almost all aspects deviates from socialism. Again, except for the cradle to the grave welfare state for the Germans and other "Super humans", which the National Socialists supported.
4
@MaoistRebelNews2 Exactly. And if labeling Hitler as a socialist along with say the social democrats, then there is no point in trying to define socialism at all. Furthermore Karl Marx's book "On the Jewish Question" is not considered as a part of socialist litterature. Adherents of socialism don't study that book as an integral part of socialist ideology at all. It was a fringe book that is unknown to probably most socialist today and they would also resent that book and it's thoughts. The Communist Manifesto or Das Kapital are parts of socialist litterature, regardless of whether one agress or disagrees with all or parts of those books. Finally, Hitler received huge donations from the major industrialists in Germany during the elections in the 20's and early 30's. Partially since they knew that he was fighting both communists and social democrats and because they knew that he would not nationalize everything. Hitler was explicitly inspired by, advocated and instituted social reforms that in some parts were socialist in nature. He wrote in Mein Kampf that such reforms were necessary. He also banned all trade unions and required all German men to have a work permission. German women were largely banned from work during the first six years of his reign.
3
@bustercrabbe8447 A problem here is that you cannot label a variety of related ideologies into the word "socialism". Class warfare, or perhaps more accurately class struggle as Marx put it = Communism. Social democracy does not propagate class struggle or class warfare, but is a subset of socialist ideology. Race warfare is not communism nor socialism at all. It is a part of National Socialism. Centrally planned economy, well that is certainly communism and at least partially social democracy. As for National Socialism I would say that it propagates a mixture of a centrally planned economy but strongly defends the existence of major private corporations. I hope and assume that you are fully aware of all of the both small and most notably large industrial corporations that profited highly under Hitler's entire regime. So again, National Socialism certainly has a few socialists aspects to it, but I would say that it is very far from a socialist ideology. Have you read Mein Kampf or fo that matter Mussolini's first biography? Or the party programs of the Italian fascist party or the party program of NSDAP? If not, reading them will clear many things up for you. Also, if you read Mein Kampf you can see fo yourself how Hitler views socialism and criticises purely socialist parties and ideologies. He deemed them as their enemies and hated their propagation for equal income distribution, the equality of humanity in aspect to ethnicities and sexes, the democracy propagted by social democrats (in contrast to communists who sought to establish a dictatorship). Hitler's party was a mixture of several ideologies and turned into a new independent ideology, namely National Socialism.
3
@bustercrabbe8447 several gradations of socialism exists for sure. But National Socialism is not "socialism" to the core. And when you say "socialism", you are effectively describing communism. Not social democracy. 1. The core of socialism the belief, at least in theory, of the equality of human beings regardless of ethnicity, gender and so on. National Socialism has contrary beliefs. 2. Because of the belief stated in number one, socialism does not believe in "race wars" or colonization, or extermination or discrimination of ethnic groups. It advocates the equality of the sexes in the workplace and at home. National Socialism has contrary beliefs. While both communist regimes as well as social democratic governmens have typically increased ethnic, religious and gender diversity in the workplace and the public arena, National socialism banned women from most employment and instituted an ethno/racial cast system that banned "Non-Aryans" from much of the workplace and public arena. Now you may argue that several communist regimes have and are doing exactly these things and I would agree. However, such actions are not compatible with socialist ideology. 3. Socialism advocates a welfare state and this is the case for both communists and social democrats. While National Socialism embraced this, the welfare state was not for everyone, but for a selected racial elite and that thought pattern is again not compatible with socialist thinking. In the envisioned socialist state, there is no "equality for some". The vision is to create equality for all. 4. Communism advocates a dictatorship. More precisely the so-called "dictatorship of the proletariat". National Socialism advocates a dictatorship. Therefore National Socialism and communism resemble each other in their mutual rejection of democracy. However and this is what I am trying to emphasize, social democracy, which is an ideological sub-group of socialism, advocates democracy. And there are numerous countries, particularly in the Western Hemisphere, that are or have been run by social democrats on a re-ocurring base, through democratic elections. 5. While central planning and government ownership of nearly everything is indeed at the center of communism, the National Socialist and for that matter social democrat versions of central were very different. Yes Hitler, as well as Mussolini despised unfetterd capitalism, but they eqully abhorred unfettered government ownership. They instituted a remarkable centralization of their respective economies but they never came distantly to a communist command economy. Private corporations in Germany were certainly not only "private in name only". As stated, their owners grew wealthy, while the National Socialist regime and in contrast to both communist, social democratic and other Western countries, privatized great swaths of the German economy. There was of course both regulations and incentives for these corporations to act in the interest of Hitler's government, but neither regulations nor financial incentives were unique for the National Socialists. And the policy as such was more in line with a mixed economy, often used by social democratic governments, but not communists.
3
@RiverogueLander you need to study history more properly and you need to learn some manners.
2
TIK, I don't think that you should skip Christmas. And don't work to hard because you will get burn out, ilka I have been a few times in my life. I may mostly disagree with your political analysis but when it comes to military history, you are doing a magnificent job. The things can be improved needs funds and maybe you should collaborate with others. And when you can, get a lawyer and sue your editor who broke your contract.
2
Oh so you who claim to use your brain think you made a brilliant analysis because it consists of two short sentences? I think Hitler was a liberal because liberals also argue, discuss and analyze with each other. See how much of a brain I have? And all other ideological adherents, including conservatives, mostly think the same and rarely argue with each other.
2
Sorry but I don't buy this. Sending surveys back and forward would amount to so many thousands of pages. That would not strain any railroads, even if required tens of thousands of pages. This information could be realyed by both radio and by air. All of the information counted in weight would amount to a ton at the uttermost maximum. And sure the Germans had a tremendous strain on their logistics, but it cannot all be explained away. The combating nations in WW2 had their strenghts and weaknesses and they and their leaders should largely take the blame for it.
2
As with many wars, the German invasion of the Soviet Union was geared for a relatively short war and there was no real good backup plan. All of these explanations are interesting and important, but they cannot be used as excuses for the failure of German logistics.
2
@bustercrabbe8447 the German Democratic Republic, more commonly known as East Germany, was arguably not democratic simply because it labeled itself in that way? Or what is your opinion? The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, more commonly known as North Korea, is arguably not democratic simply because it labels itself that way. Or what is your opinion. Similarly, National Socialism does not by default become socialist simply because is partially labels it so? Like I said, National Socialism was inspired by some socialist, as well as it was inspired by many other ideologies, but do you fo example see Hitler´s vast privitazations of corporations owned by the government, as a feature of socialism? Steelworkds were privatized and great autonomy was granted for those corporations. Rail networkds were privatized. Stell producing corporations were privatized. Coal producing corporations were privatized. As were chemical corporations and so on and so on. Some corporations decided to not participate in arms production as much as the Nazi government had clearly desired. In a true socialist command economy, do you think that would have been possible? And neither socialism nor National Socialism is primarily an economic program. They both have economic aspects of their economies. Some similar, some extremly different, but their ideologies deal with how they view humanity. While National Socialism emphasizes alleged inequality in the value of human life, socialism (even communism in theory) emphasizes equality of human life. You were silent on that subject. I wonder why? I don't understand why you are not mentioning with one word all of the other aspects of National Socialism that is not a part of socialis ideology in any way, shape or form.
2
Meaning? @ArnoldTohtFan
1
If we are to be picky and nerdy as I have a habit of being, I can say that Persians are not semites. Linguistically and genetically by and large belong to the Indo-Europeans. Roughly 40 % of their main language farsi is Arabic since the Muslim conquests. As fo Arabs, they are surely by and large Semites, although Arab by cultural definition expanded far beyond the Arab ethbicity and genetic makeup. Furthermore, Arabs are not by default Muslims and a significant numbe of them were Christians by the eve of Islam and tens of millions of Arabs are still Christians. Many words are misleading if taken at face value but antisemitism is an established and well understood term for hatred against Jews. Even if the term is of quite late historical origin. As for your comment on gassing, that is a method of murder and as you imply was not only used against Jews during World War 2, just as a large section of those murdered by the Nazis in World War 2, arguably a majority, were not Jewish. A fraction of them Muslims but not due to their religion, so it is irrelevant. And anyways genovide and persecution is only partially a question of numbers. About half of the Jewish population in Europe was murdered in World War 2. Yes let us stay factual and let us also present facts and arguments that are relevant. @IggyTthunders
1
of course it isn't in the modern sense. People across the idelogical spectrum are antisemitic. However, lots of people have a hard time admitting that and many get close to panic attack of anxiety when they feel like their own political affiliations are targeted. So, there are people who are right-leaning who are antisemitic and there are left-leaning people who are antisemitic. It is that simpel and has always been that simple. @Web720
1
In what way do you think that I was proven wrong @taster321
1
Well christianity was developed through the teaching of Jesus who was a Jew, as well of his followers in Judea who were of both Jewish and Greek ethnicity. The twelve disciples of Jesus were all Jews, but again, Jesus had many followers among whom Greeks were overrepresented. This is made abundantly clear in both the Gospels as well as in historic research. Furthermore, the first churches were what we today call orthodox Christianity and it mostly gained Greek converts in the eastern Mediterranean. Whether Jesus is a king of the Jews or not is a matter of religious belief. Jesus himself never claimed that title. Nor did he claim that he was the Jewish Messiah. Such a claim would warrant his execution, although he was executed anyway. @ChristopherJames1993
1
Christians don't necessarily belive that, although Christians believe that Jesus is the son of God, came to earth to spread the Gospel and die for the sins of mankind. Jews don't believe that Jesus is the king of Jews. And like you just said yourself, the religious standing is a matter of belief. Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet. @ChristopherJames1993
1
From a stricly scholarly perspective, that limited claim could be labeled as correct. However and in the real world and in practical terms, I think that it is largely irrelevant. That is a bit like analysing whether blavk Africans who were enslaved and sent across tyhe Atlantic in the late 16th and early 17th century were actually vitcims of racism. While Jews in the Middle Ages (including those who converted to Christianity) were persecuted on purely religious grounds as the concept of "race" didn't exist as we know ity, blacks were enslaved under religious excuses. Nevertheless, both ethnicities were persecuted and in the same manner as they would continue to be for several centuries to come. @DiotimaMantinea-qm5yt
1
Fine. You use the term "Anti-Judaism" for persecutions of Jews prior to 1880 and onwards. That might be, I say might be, a more accurate expression since it doesn't involve connotations to the supposed existence of a "Jewish race", which were terms in which antisemites thought. To be clear, the Holocaust both in it's scope and ideological reasoning is definitely something new in world history and Jewish history. I never claimed anything else. But also, it is in ideological as well as practical terms a continuation of prior persecution and discrimination of Jews throughout history. If you study the analyses that leading Nazis were making at the time, and I think you have, you will see multiple references to Jews throughout history and the persecution of them. Of course, what we may call antisemitism didn't emerge out of a historical vacuum. Der Endlösung, or "The Final Solution", was seen by the Nazis as the only viable way to "deal" with the "problems" they believed that Jews were responsible for. Jews in Spain were forced to wear various forms of yellow signs, be they yellow circles or yellow star Davids. The Nazis pivked that idea up some 500 years later. Many arguments of "Anti-Judaism", such as Jews allegedly being economic exploiters, child molestors and so on, were very old and emerged thousands of years before the emergence of modern antisemitism. Nazis and others simply picked them up and used them. In other words a continuation and culminationof previous sentiments and actions towards Jews. @DiotimaMantinea-qm5yt
1
I wrote an elaborate response to your comment, but unfortunately, I can't see it being published. That happens sometimes to not only me but to others. Perhaps you can see it?@DiotimaMantinea-qm5yt
1
@dwwolf4636 Yes absolutely and I have most of his works at home. I also studied his writings in several seminars. Still, one can of course always learn more about the man. If there is something you wish to tell me, then please do so sir.
1
@Armintanzarian1 Why does every giraffe have wings? You are asking me leading question that is wron from the start. Neither every "leftist" or "rightist" is antisemite and I think that you know that perfectly well. However, you feel to think otherwise and facts won't change your feelings.
1
@RiverogueLander As you have nothing else to say, all you can do is sit behind your computer and spew insults. It shows your weakness and insecurity. If you are unaware of the persecution of Jews fo being Jewish throughout thousands of years, you have really isolated yourself intellectually.
1
It should be said a million times that when it comes to the acquisition of oil, the Axis had two possible outcomes of their Caucusus campaign. 1. They fail to execute their campaign and therefore do not get access to the oil fields and therefore get no access to the oil. This is what actually happened. 2. The succeed in conquering Groznyl and Baku and they STILL don't get to accumulate any significant amout of oil, because the Soviets had both destroyed the oil fields and removed the equipment. And the Soviets DID remove much of their oil refinery equipment, oil refinery workers and they did deploy explosives at their oil fields. Even oil fields that were captured by the Germans, such as Maikop, were partially destroyed by the Soviets and it would take years until the Germans could have those oil fields operational at even a decent level. So how would the Axis obtain more oil then? The answer is simple. They should not have launched their offensive, which quickly cost far mor eoil than they could have obtained even under the best of circumstances. On the other hand, what about denying oil to the Soviets? Well, the Soviets could have obtained more oil from the U.S. and the British, even at the expense of their own military operations if necessary. Particularly from Iran. Furthermore, The Soviets actually managed to INCREASE their oil production despite the loss of Maikop, the partial destruction of Groznyj and the partial evacuation of oil workers from Baku. The drilled more oil wells in Siberia. So what more? Did Operation Blau's objective of cutting of river traffic at the Volga made the operation worthwile? My take is that although the Germans to a large degree did manage to cut off much of the traffic along the Volga as they reached Stalingrad, that traffic would without a doubt have been cut off for a few crucial months anyway, since the Volga froze during winter. In my opinion the entire military operation was a fools errand.
1
These are fantastic and imporant historic revelations, but given that Hitler was later appointed by the army to spy on revolutionary parties, maybe Hitler was a mole in the communist party?
1
@thug588 german "blood" has got nothing to do with logistics.
1
@thug588 oh in what way?
1
@docutube9701 haha, good one!
1
@OctaBech I need not ask Ukrainians about Russian colonialism because I am perfectly aware of it already, thank you. Although it would always be interesting to speak with Ukrainians about their history regardless. "Russian colonialism", which is the term that you used, is the very correct term. Russian colonialism had persisted in Ukraine several centuries before the communists existed. Russian colonialism had been exerted during Czarist Russia. Things get a lot more complicated when it comes to the Soviet Union and it's relation to Ukraine. As you probably know, there was an abundance of Ukrainian communists and they were fiercly loyal to the Soviet Union. Even during the Great Famine instigated by Stalin in the 30's. At the same time, there were of course strong separatist tendencies in Ukraine that resurfaced during World War II, although most Ukrainians remained loyal to the Soviet state. There were Ukrainians in all levels of government in the Soviet state. The Soviet Union did not conquer Ukraine. It inherited Ukraine from czarist Russia. You wonder what Hitler did in the Soviet Union that didn't already happen there. Many things. Probably too many to mention. Despite Stalin's incredible cruelty, opression and murder of at least several millions of his own citizens, there was generally a rising standard of living and certainly in education in the Soviet Union in the 20's and 30's. Various ethnic groups as well as women were given opportunities that czarist Russia never came close to. In Nazi Germany, Hitler didn't exactly strive for increased equality and representation of ethnic minorities and women. Just to give a brief example.
1
@alixritter9851 Nope. That was not a trade union but a trade association. It was both mandatory to belong to that association or you did not have a legal right towork. Furthermore there was no right to strike in nazi Germany.
1
@alixritter9851 no, they aren't trade unions either. In the Soviet Union they were called "Worker's associations", but they did not have the right to strike. In China, there is no general legal prohibition against strikes, but all alleged trade unions although they may be formed independently, must still affiliate themselves with the state trade union. In practice, strikes are also supressed in CHina and the CHinese government is dismantlig real trade unions in Hong Kong. In Cuba, there is no legal protection for strikes and all so-called "trade unions" are state controlled. So these are not real trade unions, just as the former "German Democratic Republic", known as East Germany, was not democratic simply because it claimed to be.
1
@alixritter9851 I think that the central mistke that you are doing is seeing ideologies as one shoes fits all. You also miss that quite different political systems can still have similarities. Likewise, formally similiar political systems can clearly differ. Labor and means of production was largely govrenment direct in nazi Germany yes, but there were still private companies and major corporations. Nazi Germany was no clear cut command economy and most business was privately owned. On the other hand, ancient Egypt had state owned agriculture and all other major entreprises in ancient Egypt were likewise state owned. Means of production were controlled. Can we therefore say that ancient Egypt was a socialist economy? Of course not. Was the German Emperor Otto von Bismarck a socialsit because he instituted a welfare state with pensions, health insurances, work accident insurances etc., a socialist? He even called his political reforms "state socialism", but was he a socialist? Of course not. As for trade unions, I am not playing with semantics. Basic functions of trade unions are the right to strike and collective bargaining. That is not allowed in communist systems, nor in right-wing dictatorships. Furthermore membership in real trade unions are voluntary, not mandatory. These trade associations are rather modernized superbig versions of guilds dating from mediaeval times, when you could not work in a trade unless you were a membe of a guild. Communist regimes always feel the need to portray themselves as being in power due to the will of the so-called "working class", but they are in reality dictatorships ruled by a small elite. This is the main thing they have in common with all other dictatorships. Communism is one branch of socialism, but so is social democracy, which was and still mostly are based and backed by trade unions. Aside from the mere fact that comunists do strive for dictatorship. They are therefore incompatible political systems eventhough bot communism and social democracy are two branches of socialist ideology.
1
@alixritter9851 oh and I forgot to add, social democracy (again a branch of socialist ideology) does not allow for trade unions to be controlled by the government.
1
@Hauggyful you have sources for your claims? I mean such a distinguished historian as David Stahel described how Soviet railroads were converted.
1
@spotsill why ignore the critics? We who criticise him are the same persons who praises TIK when he does good things, which he usually does and particularly when he describes tactical actions of the war.
1
Hitler constantly refers to God in Mein Kampf. Should we therefore conclude that Hitler was a christian? Hitler was indeed supported by some conservatives, while great many other conservatives detested him. Yes Hitler locked up capitalists, while some capitalists supported him. There were many former communists in the NSDAP, while Hitler not only locked up communists, social democrats and liberals. And Hitler outlawed trade unions. What was Hitler's ideology? Neither of the above. He was a national socialist. @NoNameNoWhere
1