Comments by "Luredreier" (@Luredreier) on "The Courland Pocket WW2 History Documentary BATTLESTORM Part 2 The Baltic Tragedy" video.

10:34 So far so good. But the whole "no incentive to work" part doesn't hold water... 20:38 People had similar notions here in Norway during WW2. But history is written by the victors as they say. So the labor party (social-democrats with ties to the part of the resitance that cooperated with Britain and the exciled goverment) hushed down role of the communist resistance in fighting for the country (one that was quite significant to be frank) and jailed those who faught alongside the axis for treason after the war, not to mention all the women who where punished just for loving members of the axis forces... Despite many of the ones fighting for the Axis did so because they saw the Soviet invasion of Finland during the winter war as a greater threat to the nordics then the Axis. Given the history of my family if we had been Latvians instead we'd probably have faught for the Soviets during WW2... WW2 was just a (curse word starting with "cluster") on so many levels... 21:09 Now we're touching on the topic of what exactly is "socialism". Plus of course your right wing bias... You're great at history, but your understanding of the history of the actual socialist movements (as opposed to the warfare done by the Soviets) seems to be... lacking... 21:41 The Soviet communists where not socialists even by their own admission. "National Socialism" isn't socialism on any level and your video stating otherwise made conclusions that the data simply didn't support. Mind you, the words "socialism" and "communism" has had a bit of reversal in meaning with time due to changing political circumstances. So calling the communists in Soviet Russia for socialists can arguably be justified and unlike the Nazies they actually had shared roots with the socialist movements of Europe. You where using the argument that the Nazies where socialists because they had some policies involving things like worker rights something that even right wing organizations in many European countries have because the political center in those countries where further left then in other countries like the US or UK, that in itself doesn't define such political parties as socialist in the slightest. You also use the argument that it's there in the name, yet another thing that's completely and utterly irrelevant. The point here is what was the end goal for the different political parties. And that's very different for Nazies and socialists/communists and anarchists. The modern term "socialist" is used mainly for those who try to work within the system to bring about a gradual change over time. The communist approach is a revolution with a (in theory) temporary authoritarian rule to enforce the socialist/communist ideals before reaching a socialist utopia down the line. The anarchists reject the idea of that temporary authoritarian rule and also reject the idea that the traditional authorities can be usefull in making the world better. All of the above is of course a gross oversimplification, but should get the idea over at least. Nazism on the other hand is just the volk movement and German and Italian nationalism at its core but tries to attract lower class people by sprinkling a tiny bit of socialist ideas (that are loaned and incorporated into an ideology with non-socialist roots rather then fundamental to their ideology), the mix is mainly there to try to achieve more of a grassroot movement rather then leaving nationalism a mainly a upper class ideology like it arguably was before. 22:02 The "evil ideologies" part is debatable since it's debatable if Soviet Russia ever actually was socialist/communist to begin with given the break with the original values of the organizations done by Lenin. Valid arguments can be made either way although people are often reluctant to do so since people love to hate communism due to Soviet Russia and Communist Chinas attrocities, Communist Cabodias attrocities as well as just in general the large amounts of anti-communist rhetorics (and quite frankly also propaganda) in the west it's essentially seen as dissrespectfull towards the victims of these nations to not aknowlege these authoritarian regimes as socialists or communist despite how their rule all diverted from the theoretical background and ideology of the movement all the way between the eighteen houndreds and WW2. These regimes definitivly proved that revolutions are way to susceptible towards being highjacked by authoritarian people in many ways validating the democratic socialist approach of working within the system to try to achieve socialist goals that way since that doesn't create a power vaccum that can be exploited by authoritarian people... But calling the actual ideology "evil" (as opposed to the authoritarian practices of these regimes that did not follow those ideologies and blatantly ignored those values whenever it suited those on top being socialist and communists mostly just in name) just isn't doing the complex situation on the ground justice.
3