Now that I think about it, none of my highschool textbook even attempted to explain why the hyperinflation inGermany happened. Convenient isn't it ?

@TheImperatorKnight

4 жыл бұрын

On a similar note, I would recommend to you the book "America's Great Depression" by Murray Rothbard. It actually explains what caused the depression, which history books don't do either.

@edvaneckert2348

4 жыл бұрын

You can watch the same mechanisms when you look at actual populism in Hungary, Italy, and even Trump and Johnson: they were stearing public mind to aggressionsagainst minorities and guilty conspiratirs against the state and you declare the running system as corrupt and unfit and you attack the so called over intellectual elite and common sense in general. You just maintain simple solutions, isolation and military authority and so on... and you show off that you are completly convinced ancüd chosen by god and the Vorsehung (antisipation) to having the right and national duty to change EVERYTHING.. This is what max 34% of the German voters found attractive.... the last election the Nazis began loosing these voters again.

@Nygaard2

4 жыл бұрын

SpyMonkey3D What school did you go to??

@Longtack55

4 жыл бұрын

Don't conflate any ignorance of a topic taught in your childhood with a conspiracy to withhold information. History tends to be subjective. Read "Mein Kampf" and you'll get Hitler's subjective "truth." Out and out socialism has its perils and the warm-fuzzy idealistic economic policies that led to German hyperinflation demonstrate this. Look at Venezuela and Cuba. (Economic shitholes.)

@edvaneckert2348

4 жыл бұрын

@@Longtack55 what does the hyperinflation in 1921 have to do with Venezuela. Resukt was that employees and small people lost everything while property and factory owners profited from it. Idea was to make reparation payments of the Versailles treaty impossible. Do you know the letter between Brüning and Stresemann which i mentionned? To insinuate me being an conspiracy guy is a bit cheap, isnt it? how about your ignorance?

They see racism as the right. So anytime racism appears in history, historians say there go those conservatives again. Even if they were politically socialist, progressives, etc. This is done extensively in US history and drives me absolutely insane.

@laisphinto6372

2 жыл бұрын

any of these fools say that should answe that question what are the racist stereotypes of jews and force them to answer that question because a lot what socialists say about capitalist sounds an awful lot like what people say about jews they just use the word capitalist more.

@jasoncornell1579

Жыл бұрын

Drive Leftists crazy tell em Hitler was a socialist drives them absolutely nuts I promise

@SeasideDetective2

2 ай бұрын

I think it's fair to say that racism was a feature of the left before about 1900 and a feature of the right afterward.

@brett6239

2 ай бұрын

@@SeasideDetective2 It has always been and is still a feature of the left. Conservative Republicans always fought Jim Crow, until it was defeated. Then the left immediately pushed affimative action. And now critical race theory. Always the left, never the right.

@screwstatists7324

2 ай бұрын

Political racism is an authoritarian policy, but so is antiraceism. Politica nutrality is libertarian.

Isnt it sad that you literally have to state: "ATTENTION: I'm NOT a Nazi, nor a Fascist, nor a Marxist.", if you just want to make a video explaining and critically looking at something from history.

@internetstrangerstrangerofweb

4 жыл бұрын

Nathan Von Dutch Only people that are afraid of their own audience do that lmao

@NathanMulder

4 жыл бұрын

@@internetstrangerstrangerofweb Hm I rather think so KZread doesn't delete his content.

@monsterhunter445

4 жыл бұрын

@Texas Man lol yes the good old days when the world was peaceful and people were generally more happy when just men ran things. Ok you have nothing backing this claim. Yes men used to rule in most places but only because society setup these gender norms. In my opinion men and women are just as capable a lot of things like women are weaker than men is just stupid thinking. Yes they can be generally but they also can be just as strong or stronger. Men and women are humans we might have some difference but teach a women math she will learn just like a man. If you believe in democracy you would understand women just deserve as much representation as men do

@bigwezz

4 жыл бұрын

@Texas Man there's nothing wrong with a female leader, just look at Queen Victoria for example, and the empire she led.

@thecreepnextdoor7560

4 жыл бұрын

@@bigwezz I think Elizabeth is a better example but yeah

I remember when I was studying pre war Germany in highschool history, the teacher specifically told the class several times if we were in Germany in 1933, we would all likely voted for hitlers nazi party because the nazi party would be the most appealing and actually got things done unlike the Weimar socialist parties

@jussim.konttinen4981

4 жыл бұрын

@@AgendaFiles Elections to the Reichstag during Nazi rule took the form of a single-question referendum asking whether voters approved of a single list of Nazis. In that situation, voting is like going to church. Y'all should take a look at this list of freedom indices: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices

@Matt_History

4 жыл бұрын

@@jussim.konttinen4981 he's pointing out that if the Weimar republic had continued to function and not appoint Hitler to emergency Chancellor he would have won a future election. Learn to read

@jussim.konttinen4981

4 жыл бұрын

@@Matt_History You claim the Nazi election were honest. Don't make me laugh.

@Matt_History

4 жыл бұрын

@@jussim.konttinen4981 what are you even saying? The Nazis would not be in charge of an election if the Weimar republic stood. Again learn to read. A 14% minority party would not be able to rig the election run by the Zentrum

@jussim.konttinen4981

4 жыл бұрын

@@Matt_History Here's an honest election: SDP 39.7% en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939_Finnish_parliamentary_election

Hitler said in a speech : “Liberalism glorified individuality, Marxism glorified humanity, but both ignored the people, National Socialism fanatically affirms the people. The first and deepest representatives of the people is that part that feeds people from the riches of the earth and thus provides for the continuation of the family of the nation.”

@SoloTravelerOffTheBeatenPath

4 жыл бұрын

@FBI Fascists are actually fairly left-wing economically. Listen to some of Mussolini and Mosley's speeches, they were very anti-capitalism.

@kimoandrews5802

4 жыл бұрын

@Rebel Friend Yes... the industrialists in Germany hated hitler... oh wait

@johnburns4017

3 жыл бұрын

_" Marxism glorified humanity"_ Marx was an *economist.* Amazing how people get it so wrong.

@johnburns4017

3 жыл бұрын

@Sons of Liberty75 *You are a complete idiot.*

@johnburns4017

3 жыл бұрын

@Sons of Liberty75 The manifesto was a pamphlet. *You are a complete idiot.*

Germans were used to the idea of a strong ruler IE: the Kaiser. The German experience with multiple parties was not very promising, given the hyper inflation and then the great depression. Hilter offered a return to rule under a single strong leader, and I think a lot of Germans became a bit nostaligic for the good old days when there wasn't a mishmash of small parties and single strong leaders. This also explains the popularity of Hindenburg.

@miwi9883

Жыл бұрын

But Germans were also used to many powerful factions on Germany prior to 1871

@thomasjamison2050

Жыл бұрын

@@miwi9883 Not factions, actual separate states with their own sovereignty, and none of them were republics or democracies in any real sense. Some did have parliaments of sorts, but not with any real power compared to their respective monarchs. There were parties, or at least obvious political groups, but none that any real agency.

@NoahBodze

8 ай бұрын

Not really. They just wanted someone who would get rid of the outsiders debasing everything German. They felt then how the Irish feel now, or people in Detroit felt in the 1940s. Think about the outsiders to the west who run to us now, suck welfare and housing benefits from the natives and then call the natives evil for celebrating the religion that built where they ran. That was Weimar Germany. The person censoring this comment is an immigrant Hindu from one of the poorest and backwards countries on earth. How dare he! History looks different through the prism of the present, no?

@A-A_P

3 ай бұрын

​@@miwi9883 the unification movement was very popular already after 1848, so the sentiments opposed to one strong unified germany had dwindled for at least the previous 50-90 years. The Kaiser on the other hand was as recent as the times e.g. before Obama (an influencial example from the US, there can be found many for all cultures for ~2010, not an american myself anyhow) are to us, the times before smartphones. Many men had served under the kaiser in the prevous war, that also was very important.

I happen to be from Germany and it is great to see how you achieve to pack all the facts we into a consistent narrative that, unlike the education we receive in school, does not require either malice or gullibility of the German people.

@daveharrison4697

3 жыл бұрын

Putting a nuanced argument against that, it does require a degree of gullibility, but its the gullibility of those suffering economically and voting for what they see as a radical alternative in the hope it will get better, because they think it can't get much worse. Similar is happening on the Eastern fringes of the EU right now- Viktor Orban being a particularly obvious example.

@noneofyourbusinessna740

Жыл бұрын

How is ww2 viewed from the axis side of view ?

@patrick3426

Жыл бұрын

@@noneofyourbusinessna740 depends on the country, as a german, what i learned was mostly the Holocaust, to a lesser degree the war crimes and not really much about about battles etc.

@mitchwatson6787

Жыл бұрын

Anyone who votes for anything remotely socialist is gullible

@NYG5

Жыл бұрын

@@patrick3426 lmao typical, it's the same in the US. Pages and pages of the holocaust, nothing on geopolitics, economics or the manner in which the war was fought. US Civil War is similarly reviewed.

"And then one day, for no reason at all..."

@edvaneckert2348

4 жыл бұрын

I would rather say: "And the one day for MuLTIPLE reasons in many aspects (traditional reliigios antisemitism, imperilistic racism, missing democratic traditions, antidemocratic authoritarian militarism, not having looking for the responisible culprits who were responsible for beginning the WWl and so forth ...) about 30% of Germans were voting for Hitler which let to bringing the Nazis to power. Giebbles said " they only gonna bring me out of power carrying me as a dead man out of my office"

@DaveSCameron

4 жыл бұрын

I feel a superior tone from you, do you honestly believe that you and yours would/will behave differently to those folks?

@adriano7444

4 жыл бұрын

@@DaveSCameron it's just how the meme goes.

@MadsenAltamirano

4 жыл бұрын

@@edvaneckert2348 You aren't very original, are you? Also, fix your spelling. It's Goebbels, not Giebbels, and he probably didn't say "gonna."

@edvaneckert2348

4 жыл бұрын

@@DaveSCameron There were many Germans who were against the Nazis but within half a year there were concentration campus (Schutzhaftlager) installed and roundabout 300.000 Germans were imprisonned and tortured with NO chnace of a rightful law case or an attorney. But i am sure you knew that, right? The rest were cowards and backed down... then the Nazis were very successful and got great admiration in conservative circulations e.g, by Prescott Bush and W. Churchill and many others... in the first years... i am sure you know that already...

I know for a fact that this is a brilliant talk TIK, and here's why. I'm no longer young (quite the opposite in fact), but I have a unique position with regard to this argument. My grandfather on my mothers side was a German infantryman, and he was a POW in Britain during the latter stages of WW2. He ended up working on a farm, met my grandmother, they fell in love and got married, and here we are. He lived to a ripe old age, and when I became interested (very interested, in fact) in German history, I had many in-depth discussions with him. And of course, we spoke about Hitler, his rise to power, the war, the persecution and mass murder of Jews, etc, etc. The fact is that History in hindsight should be objective (it often isn't!), but even at the best of times, when you are living through the time in question, it's almost impossible to be objective. However, in Germany after the Wall Street Crash in the late 20's - let alone all the post WW1 problems that came previously - they were the worst of times. My Grandfather and his parents were fed up with democracy, and fed up with politicians in-fighting, no bread on the table, with no jobs, with the loss of National pride, and with no hope for the future. They were terrified of Communism because (as you rightly said) they believed the consequences would be catastrophic...maybe even literally fatal. They then began to take notice of Hitler and the National Socialists. Hitler seemed to be a man who didn't mince his words, who had a definite view of things, and who spoke his mind. They saw the SA as thugs, but viewed them as a necessary evil because they were part of a dynamic movement who were going to bring about real change. Things were so confused and many people were so poor, that they felt that they had nothing to lose and that any change had to be for the better. As hard as it is for people to accept this, Hitler had incredible charisma. My Great-Grandfather took my Grandfather to hear him speak just before he came to power, and he was mesmerised and enthralled by what he said and how he said it. Like you said, Hitler told the voters what they wanted to hear, and he gave them a vision of the promised land. He really was seen as a messianic figure who's popularity grew with the apparent success of his early policies. Like many of the Germans who believed that their standard of living would improve substantially after Hitler came to power (and for many Germans, at the beginning it did), he believed that this man must be right and that his policies made sense . It's very easy to sit back and judge the many people who supported Hitler and voted for him, but hindsight is a wonderful thing!

@Viking2dk

4 жыл бұрын

great comment. cheers

@athcnv

4 жыл бұрын

1: luckily the US did not have such a massive economic crisis before Trump came to power. Although partisan gridlock sure sounds familiar 2: Hitler had definite views, but were they consistent day to day? Or did he confidently and repeatedly state contradictory statements that changed day to day? Did he REALLY speak his mind, or did he only make people FEEL he was speaking his mind? 3: incredible charisma. Well that's one way of saying he was skilled at targeting everyone (in Germany)'s common sense, best judgment, intuition and gut instincts (their intuitive thought process), so they'd FEEL it was great, but only if it was HITLER who said or did it. 🤔 The only upshot is that Trump's popularity is unlikely to grow because his early policies have not been as apparently successful, and I think that's cos whereas Hitler had aims for the country (get rid of the Jews and conquer the Lebenraum) and believed his most controversial statements, and actually wanted to govern the country and could do the boring admin work to establish a dictatorship, Donald is too lazy and stupid and ignorant and focused on doing whatever is the correct level of controversial for him and his positive personal reputation/cult of personality, so it would get HIM attention and make HIM look good. Because he really is THAT narcissistic and focused on his insatiable need to get himself attention and look good. 😑

@scavenger6268

4 жыл бұрын

My family held a similar situation with extended family and historically my family had been one of a long line of soldiers and policemen. The crises that repeatedly happened and the government was viewed as the only safe possibility of a job and therefore food on the table. Regardless, my extended family attempted to feed their own by planting fruit trees in the country and raising some pigs or chickens in the city since food costs were so ridiculous and i heard one story of them making a rat stew recipe when their food was stolen. Afterwords, when you have a guy that promises not only food on your table but to also walk strong and proud of yourself or technically of the nation made quite the siren's call.

@mrdanforth3744

2 жыл бұрын

Years ago I saw an account of one of Hitler's speeches by an Englishman who was a student in Germany in the early thirties. He went to a Nazi meeting with some of his student friends, a French boy, a Swedish girl, and two German students. He wasn't impressed by Hitler and neither were the other two foreigners but the German boys came away with stars in their eyes going "isn't he wonderful". Hitler seemed to have the knack of appealing to a German audience on an emotional level regardless of politics or promises. Many commentators have said this.

@Daren6111

2 жыл бұрын

What were your grandfather's thoughts on the persecution & mass murder of jews?

my great-grandmother had voted for the NSDAP at the time and she had the following reasons for doing so 1. They were an alternative to the mainstream parties and the KPD 2. She had 7 children and the Nazis wanted to support large families financially 3. She didn't know much about their goals

@mattevans4377

11 ай бұрын

And even if she did know the true goals, she likely would have looked the other way because it benefitted her.

@NoahBodze

8 ай бұрын

What’s not discussed is the alternatives to them, which is the most likely reason. At one end of the beer hall is an Austrian veteran who wants national responsibility, respect and higher wages for his people. At the other end of that hall is a tiny foreigner jewess who’s never held a hammer calling for global revolution and for Germans to kill all their business owners. Even knowing how it all went down, I’m siding with the painter over Red Rosa, and that’s an indictment on her. People chose the painter because everyone else was THAT MUCH WORSE.

@BengalEmpire767

8 ай бұрын

​@@NoahBodzeI like to believe that there were germans running the political parties IN Germany, and that the austrian painter was a bad man, but that is only in hindsight. For the average german impoverished by weltkrieg, hyperinflation and great depression, and with democracy having apparently proved itself incapable, they probably didnt know nor care.

@NoahBodze

8 ай бұрын

@@BengalEmpire767 When a tiny Jewess named Luxembourg, who can barely speak English and has never held a hammer, is at one end of the beer hall talking about overthrowing her host’s government and customs and joining a “worldwide revolt,” whoever is making a speech at the other end of that beer hall will be your new leader. Fascism was just way better than communism. That’s what happened.

@BengalEmpire767

8 ай бұрын

Yo i glitched out i can only see your comment in the notifications but not here

If you have the choise between the communists, the weimar liberal establishment and the nazis it's not so hard to see why people would vote for them. Also the German Lives Matter narrative was attractive.

A difficult question and a very good answer. In addition, this citation (not 100% exactly written) is very important: "The Nazi Party was funded by the grassroots of the Nazi Party. Even within the depression, people were asked for entry fees (...)"

@antoniorose2461

2 жыл бұрын

God is fair, if you look at history (it is His Story after all), people got what they asked for: Israelite wanted kingdom, then they got ruled by kings; Russian wanted revolution, then they got “led” by strong men Lenning and Stalin; German wanted welfare and total employment, then they got it through Hitler; Chinese wanted reparation from land and business owners, then they got Mao to put everything (including people’s mind) under state control; Venezuelan wanted free healthcare and college, then here comes Chavez to implement, and they “enjoy” the result so much, don’t they?; …. What do people want nowadays?

Wow this has a deep understanding of economics, which is almost always missing in these sort of discussions.

@michelangelobuonarroti4958

3 жыл бұрын

Don't be fooled he's so biased it's ridiculous.

@whattawhaddaya6561

3 жыл бұрын

Michelangelo Buonarroti how so?

@burtonkephart6239

3 жыл бұрын

@@michelangelobuonarroti4958 everybody is biased or partisan but I don’t feel he is so biased but has been rather direct and fair as much as that is possible.

@diehard2705

3 жыл бұрын

@@michelangelobuonarroti4958 just because he’s biased doesn’t mean he’s wrong

@MarekDohojda

3 жыл бұрын

@@michelangelobuonarroti4958 I am biased, I hate murder, and theft. I consider that a great evil, and have 0 tolerance for either (note I said murder, not killing as there are times when it is justifiable). So explain to me, how me being biased in those terms makes me wrong? Would you consider it better if I was for SOME murder... like may be instead of 50 million people, 25 million, to be central? It's not about being biased it's about being right. Furthermore, you stated a opinion, you gave nothing to back it up.

Weimar Germany sounds like our modern society...

@ericanderson7346

3 жыл бұрын

We just had four years of a leader demonizing and scapegoating a minority population, promising to make the country “like the old days,” obsessed with ‘law and order,’ calling the press the “enemy of the people,” and demanding patriotism of the highest order. Yep, a lot like it in fact.

@PaulKRedd

5 ай бұрын

And before that, we had four years of scapegoating the 1%. Did you know that in 1930 the % of Germans who were Jewish was, you guessed it, 1%. What a coincidence.

@MikeJones-qn1gz

Ай бұрын

Scary isn’t it? Humans have the collective memory of a sand flea.

more info in this 30 min vid than the entire History Channel archive

@cheapsuit1234

3 жыл бұрын

And no aliens

Yeah, I always thought it weird when I was in school that the National Socialists were portrayed as Fascists and Capitalists, considering their own name has the word 'socialist' in it...

@HarrDarr

4 жыл бұрын

@J Mo Capitalism and socialism are not zero sum games.

@HarrDarr

4 жыл бұрын

@J Mo Anti socialist policies does not mean that the party is capitalist nor not socialist. Nor does capitalist measures mean that the party is capitalist.

@HarrDarr

4 жыл бұрын

@J Mo In politics, especially once you go from a minority party/opposition, into power you'll notice that tunes can change quite wildly, you can say criticize the ruling party all you want, when you're not in charge, not making decisions but once you get into power, you will undoubtedly have to compromise your idealism and make deals with the devil. The NSDAP was a socialist party, just not your typical social democratic or marxist party.

@HarrDarr

4 жыл бұрын

@J Mo What sort of government does not have some level of private ownership, not even the most hardcore communist nations like USSR forbade private ownership, actively worked with state sponsored companies. It's shallow and reductive to call fascism corporatocracy, especially since no two fascist states throughout history has ever been alike; Franco, Italy, Germany, Japan were all ""fascist"" but all operated very differently from eachother outside of the whole authoritarian streak.

@HarrDarr

4 жыл бұрын

@J Mo I doubt thats what you mean, but that's technically exactly what the nazis were doing, taking ownership away from non-nazis and awarding it t to nazis, just like communists routinely take wealth away from those in disfavor and "redistribute it", the corruption and greed of communism and national socialism is only a difference in terminology, not method or ideology.

"The economically ignorant vote themselves broke"

@n00btotale

4 жыл бұрын

Yet when you implement austerity measures, you handicap your ability to pay off your debt. So instead of debt being buried in economic growth, you have debt burying economic growth.

@alexandrub8786

4 жыл бұрын

And democracies vote themselfs out of power.

@Pectus72

4 жыл бұрын

It is often ignored that the majority of Germans voted against Hitler in all free elections.

@n00btotale

4 жыл бұрын

@@Pectus72 It's not really as clear-cut as that, because throughout the Weimar Republic it was an unwritten rule that it was impossible to get an absolute majority in the Reichstag. Meaning that coalitions were the name of the game.

@h0lx

4 жыл бұрын

@Aggressive Tubesock how thid US politics seep into this thread? Lets keep specific countries out of it. most of the world don't care about the US

The freeze frame at 1:20 sounds about right. I'm not even 40 yet, but I see that every single election. People will say "Oh Hillary will do this" or "Trump will do that" and it's completely baseless. People like a character first and then attribute things that may or may not exist. A famous example of this is when US elections were broadcast on TV, and it became clear that a more attractive candidate would "win" the debate more often.

@craigclemens986

3 жыл бұрын

Except Trump did what he promised, or tried to.

@NYG5

Жыл бұрын

@@craigclemens986 to an extent. Instead of draining the swamp he liked to put the swamp on his cabinet, like that worm bolton.

@WiseOwl_1408

3 ай бұрын

​@@craigclemens986government worked against him. Generals lie

No, no, that historian did _not_ just say that Stalin's Russia was less of a disaster than Hitler's Germany. Did he? OMG.... A couple of points-- the Weimar Republic never enjoyed unreserved support in some sectors of the country. Industrial magnates, the Army, the conservative circles of the Church, and so on, never fully accepted it, and rather wished for something else to come along. Too many people accepted the republic as a slightly preferable alternative to Bolshevism, and were all too eager to dump it like a bad habit when something else came along. At the same time, we should remember that at no point in time did the Nazis win a majority in any general Reichstag election. The last three elections were July 1932- 37.27%, November 1932- 33.09% and March 1933 (after the Nazi's had gained power through entering into coalition government)-- 43.9%. Even after their coming to power, more Germans voted for someone else than for the National Socialists. Once again, proportional representation and a fragmented opposition gave Hitler his chance. Lastly, I think modern historians flounder a little in explaining the rise of Nazism and Hitler because they are hindered by 20-20 hindsight. They _know_ choosing the Nazis was an irrational and self-destructive course of action, and they may have difficulties wrapping their heads around how an otherwise orderly people like the Germans could fall into such a pit. But people often are not rational, even when they are trying to be, and all too often in situations in which they fear something-- Bolshevism-- or loathe something-- a failed experiment in democracy-- they are all too often capable of reading into an agenda or onto a candidate aspects a coldly objective eye might not see. I could mention modern examples, but have no desire to roll a live hand grenade into the discussion. Hitler, to some extent or another, was always going to have to depend on being something of a _tabula rasa_ for people, on which they could write their hopes and fears.

@3gunslingers

4 жыл бұрын

_"modern historians flounder a little in explaining the rise of Nazism and Hitler because they are hindered by 20-20 hindsight. They [...] have difficulties wrapping their heads around how an otherwise orderly people like the Germans could fall into such a pit."_ Well, It's the same situation with the AfD today. Seemingly no one can explain why they are as popular as they are. The people have all the same reasons to vote for the nationalistic idiots today as they had in 1930.

@3gunslingers

4 жыл бұрын

@Jason Buford Loving your own country and NOT voting for the idiots in the AfD is NOT mutually exclusive. I would even say they go together very well.

@FifinatorKlon

4 жыл бұрын

@@3gunslingers The AfD is the only party that claims to actively fight the hordes of migrants that flooded the country ever since the end of WW2. That's the reason why people vote for them. For many people mass migration is a huge concern. If all your choices are bad you might as well just vote for the people who have the shortest history in being disgusting liars and degenerates while also at least claiming to be on your side. Germany should've never strived from being a monarchy anyways. Germans need authority not to go full bananas, as can be seen in all political camps in Germany today.

@PaulKRedd

5 ай бұрын

Your % arguement is WEAK. 43.9% is a LOT in that system. More than Bill Clinton got in 1992. I believe prior to that the other parties had received Chancellorship with lower totals.

@A-A_P

3 ай бұрын

​​@@3gunslingers voting for some fake-conservatives (=importing ideas from the US, a country with countless problems and a history of unfairity everywhere, WHILE claiming to be local, patriotic and anti-globalist) rarely helps anything indeed, their populism, too, tends to make things exponentially worse, no matter the other subpar choices. The german conservatives could be very progressive and open-minded on the basis of the beginning of the Weimar republic, but choose not to be.

I can remember a guy once saying that he had spoken to truck drivers in French bars who understood more about economics than the average college professor in the United States. That kind of fact might have something to do with it. Anyway, it took a year to find this video, but it earned you a sub.

@georgiishmakov9588

3 жыл бұрын

turns out people in the real economy understand the real economy better

@YlL-ji2sl

Жыл бұрын

I doubt it.

@Biggiiful

Жыл бұрын

@Yl53 L94. I don't. The average US economics "expert" is a Marxist and Keynesian influenced individual surrounded by other Marxist and Keynesian believers. Marxists and Keynesians are fundementally economically illiterate. The average truck driver who hasn't been brought up in brainwashing factories will easily understand basic economics better then the most "decorated" western Professors

@marcusaurelius4941

Жыл бұрын

truck drivers are free souls by nature, while academics go through so many hoops of indoctrination that they become merely a hivemind of average watered down academic view

@TheRealZeke2003

Жыл бұрын

Only a Libertarian thinks they can understand something more by studying it less. They fail to see how they are as stupid as the Marxists they hate.

This is happening again... 2040’s are gonna be lit...

@leeseyr503

3 жыл бұрын

It's taking place far quicker because of the information age ... this will be a rapid blast thru history...and a combination of 1920s, depression, ww2 destruction , 1970s plus the follow 1987,1992,2001,2007,2020 Should fair for total destruction of most of the world and people... Because when the system collapses this time round the effects will be the equivalent to a ELE .. GOOD LUCJ

@leeseyr503

3 жыл бұрын

@Benjamin Guilatco yea and I wonder why that would be ... to blur the lines enough that they can abuse the wording then enforce laws to suit. Far right we see now , is not a patch on what it use to be ... now far right is anything that isn't far to extreme left ..

@elduce2942

3 жыл бұрын

@Benjamin Guilatco mate he was right wing. Nothing wrong with his socialist policies considering almost every company is against right wingers and yet they are still granted tax cuts

@thelifeinside6729

3 жыл бұрын

@@elduce2942 our companies are being proped up by government policies, and insurance companies. You can't go bankrupt if the government has your back.

@gigantopithecushominoidea8779

3 жыл бұрын

Understand this, the winners write history, if the rebels win they say it was against tirany, if the government wins it was for the good of the citizens. Wake up!

The major factor is quite simple. They were shit scared of a communist power grab and not without cause. They had recently seen what happened in the USSR and were horrified. In Hitler's crazy ramblings this was called "judeo-bolshevismus", but many still felt that they had to choose between the lesser of two evils at that point in time. Even President Hindenburg who really despised Hitler, made the same calculation, when he gave him emergency powers. He also thought that it was the lesser of two evils, and that Hitler could be controlled. He was way wrong, but it is easy to look at things in hindsight. Of course it is a mix of factors, but I say this is the major one, often left out.

@davidriddiford7385

10 ай бұрын

You are spot on. At the last free election in 32 the 2 biggest parties were the Nazis and the communists. When confronted with the possibility of a communist government many in the middle class and the business elite supported the Nazis as the only alternative to keep the communists out of the picture. They had the history of what happened immediately after WW1 with the communes and didn’t want to risk that again. The Nazis were as a consequence very well funded. Think of Hitler flying around in an aeroplane during the election campaign Must have cost a fortune in 32 Also the Nazis were very successful in pursuing the women’s vote and the agrarian workforce 2 major groups of voters virtually ignored by the others And the Nazis toned down the anti semitism in areas of Germany like Hamburg where Jews actually lived When you look at it in hindsight it is somewhat surprising the Nazis didn’t get more of the vote

Watching American politics between 2016 and 2020, I've seen that it's perfectly possible for people to vote *against* something, even if they are harming their own interests. And neither the Democratic nor the Republican parties offer anything concrete; their "platforms" consist of "We're not Them." It's all about how they make the voters *feel*, not about actual solutions.

@ericanderson7346

3 жыл бұрын

So in 2016 the people voted for someone who had a useless border wall as his only policy proposal. But they sure loved his vague promises of “greatness.”

@zk0rned

3 жыл бұрын

@@ericanderson7346 that's such a dogshit comment, both parties were against him at the time as it's profitable for corporations to have cheap unskilled labor pumping in and the democrats know they will vote for them so you can keep your mouth shut you ignorant fool

@zk0rned

3 жыл бұрын

we had an economic boom and denuclearised north korea and we made peace in the middle east so what's the problem lol

@johkupohkuxd1697

Жыл бұрын

@@zk0rned Denuclearized North Korea? Source please? Peace in the Middle East? The area is still full of tension with the Palestinian Question still in the air. There was improvement with the downfall of Isis, but the area isn't suddenly a haven of stability.

Literally reminds me of the language of the Green New Deal. No actual solutions or proposals, but plenty of vague policy goals to pave the way for economic controls - for the good of the public, nonetheless.

@TheSlowJoe

2 жыл бұрын

Hell, the whole video reminds me of the situation here in the U.S. Everything the Nazis did to get power the Democrats are doing also, but worse.

@TheRealZeke2003

Жыл бұрын

> No actual proposals or solutions Libertarians proving they don't read.

@TheRealZeke2003

Жыл бұрын

@@TheSlowJoe Like when the Democrats created the FEMA camps for Gun Owning Patriots and when they went to war with Canada to replace their population. I also remember when they killed millions of Unvaccinated people. Very tragic.

@sdporres

Жыл бұрын

@@TheRealZeke2003 If you propose something without knowing the impact it will have its not a solution - since you don't know the impact it will have.

@datigoturia1125

11 ай бұрын

That is not possible because the Democrats are the good guys. It must look to you like Donald Trump and his Nazi thugs.

"Get Brexit done" - a vague, glib position with no details behind it that got millions of people who'd never voted Tory before but were sick of interminable crisis to vote for it.

Socialists: "I'm socialist and I hate national socialism, therefore nazis weren't socialists." Neonazis: "I'm nazi and I'm not socialist, therefore NSDAP wasn't socialist." Me: "No one learned ANY of the political lessons of the XX century, so put on your seatbelt kids, we're in for a WILD RIDE."

@matthew8153

3 жыл бұрын

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.

@TheRealZeke2003

Жыл бұрын

Libertarians: "Nazism is when you print money. Socialism is when the Government kills people. Keynes is a Nazi and a Communist and a Liberal. This all makes sense. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery."

when I look at the west today... I completely UNDERSTAND why they voted for him

Some of the most well researched historical content I have found online, and not afraid to ax the tough questions. Just ACE stuff; true academia. Amazing.

I'm sure all of the comments on this vid will be civil and well-reasoned.

@82dorrin

4 жыл бұрын

@Pepe The Great The Kurds didn't help us at Normandy! Where were they in our Revolution?? When we were trying to win independence from Spain??

@WJack97224

4 жыл бұрын

@Onyx1916, Should the be in a free world? Who decides the rules? Was he anointed by God? Is free speech curbed by anyone who decides what is allowed?

@82dorrin

4 жыл бұрын

@Targaryen Dynasty *Eats popcorn* I do love it when I trigger people.

@waysidetimes9226

4 жыл бұрын

@Targaryen Dynasty bro he's trolling. Our revolution from Spain? Come on man... You're being too easy 😉

@Raptor302

4 жыл бұрын

@@waysidetimes9226 Actually I think the "Kurds not helping with Normandy" was a direct quote.

6:19 I'm kinda skeptic of these affirmations. Gay rights? Abortion? I didn't go into this rabbit hole, but from a quick research gays were "tolerated" in the 20's Germany and abortion was always prohibited, but the maximum penalty was "reduced" at the time The agenda looks exactly like 2018's US democratic party one, as if they were campaining in Weimar Republic. Since the book referred is from 2018, It's easy to imagine it's purpose 😉

You should be a teacher, much better than the ones we have

@sdporres

3 жыл бұрын

He is a teacher, what do you mean? He has more than 100k students.

@voltamars8306

3 жыл бұрын

yep, hopefully reaching a wider audience.

"Everyone" didn't vote for the Nazis. In the '32 election, the nazis came in first, closely followed by the Communists and then the Social Democrats. They each pulled roughly a third of the vote. So you could say that in the 32 election, two thirds of the voters in Germany voted AGAINST Hitler.

@TIK... I was very impressed (as usual) with the work you put into this great q&a video. Much respect, sir!

@TheImperatorKnight

4 жыл бұрын

Thanks Brandon! I can't do this for every Q&A question, but I thought that this one was a great question which deserved a little more than me sitting in front of my books haha

@loyaltyisroyalty5616

4 жыл бұрын

I completely understand. But the ones you do pick to expound on are actually really good topics. Thanks for all your work and research you put in to your videos! Top shelf stuff! Happy holidays!

@n00btotale

4 жыл бұрын

Honestly, I thought that there was much to be desired: I find TIK's explanation (5:00) unconvincing, given the lack of consensus amongst economists on this topic, glossing over the Great Depression touting ONLY the Laissez-Faire method as functional is decidedly misleading. I only believe that it is necessary for TIK to go into MUCH greater detail- since his explanation, derived from a single source does not do justice to the situation. A good starting point would be discussing the New Deal as opposed to the various economic plans of Germany. Since, keep in mind, for a long-term economic plan, Brüning was only in power for two years and von Schleicher for one. Which means that all of their policies must be viewed as having been cut short by the NSDAP. I find TIK's explanation (12:14), that because the Papiermark was not the specific currency used to pay war reparations meant that hyperinflation was solely the fault of the Weimar Republic disingenuous. Even a cursory glance at Wikipedia reveals that Germany was using Papiermarks to purchase foreign currency, which was then used to pay off reparations. That TIK does not justly rebut this reveals his neck-high bias. Which due to a lack of consensus amongst the economic community means that taking one side over the other is disingenuous.

@loyaltyisroyalty5616

4 жыл бұрын

@noobtotale ok. Please link the video you made on the topic along with sources. For comparison, that is. Thanks!

@n00btotale

4 жыл бұрын

@@loyaltyisroyalty5616 I can't make a video due to certain limits of my ability, but I can sure write an essay! *Austerity during Depression:* A glance at the Mises Institute, and that of mainstream economists such as Paul Krugman reveals that there is a lack of consensus between economists on the subject of their expertise. Logically, this means that a balanced presentation, championing neither side, must be used. For an introduction to the two schools of thought, see here: Investopedia: The Austrian School of Economics www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/austrian-school-of-economics.asp Investopedia: Keynesian Economics www.investopedia.com/terms/k/keynesianeconomics.asp Where my issue lies with TIK, is that he selectively cites economic texts which corroborate the narrative he attempts to push, brushing the New Deal off as extending the Depression in the US, and saying that the public spending under the NSDAP was counterproductive. To see some examples of disagreement, see the Mises Institute, Paul Krugman and any number of Austrians and Keynesians. *Papier Mark, Hyperinflation, and Reparations:* Actually, having dug around in my bookshelf, I found a quote from 'The Weimar Republic' by Stephen J. Lee which corroborates the Wikipedia statement about purchasing foreign currency: _"Once the Reparations Commission had announced the final bill in 1921 the government had two further considerations. One was _*_the need to find foreign currency to pay the reparations_*_ to keep the Allies happy. The other was to avoid transferring the impact of this to the German economy-which would make the German population profoundly unhappy. Deficit financing was the short cut to achieving this equation. The clinching factor was that domestic financial collapse would demonstrate to the Allies in the strongest possible terms the inherent injustice of the reparations terms. _*_Once the French had invaded the Ruhr, there was little incentive to put a stop to the printing presses and the hyper-inflation merged with the government policy of passive resistance. As events turned out, this proved effective in bringing the Allies to their senses. "_* Stephen J. Lee, 'The Weimar Republic', p. 52 EDIT: _" The connection between the various developments in the reparations saga and the collapse of the mark is too strong to be coincidental. Inflation became hyper-inflation immediately after the announcement of the final amount of 132,000 million gold marks by the Reparations Commission in 1921: the government increased the printing of paper money to buy foreign currency in order to meet its obligations."_ Ibid. p. 51 On the whole, this makes sense for monetary reparations. Gold marks would have to be converted into foreign currency anyway, so paying the equivalent in Papier Marks, and converting them to foreign currency is effectively the same thing. After all, good luck finding someone who accepts British Pounds in the Eurozone.

You sir, are brilliant! Thank you for all the hard work it takes to put it all together.

I was born and have been educated in a socialist East European country back in 80s and I have no idea why any of this is considered shocking and controversial in the West o.O

@burlbird9786

2 жыл бұрын

@@ijusthatenormiesihavenooth1164 there weren't many to start with ;)

Honestly, the same reason people voted for Trump; both movements were built off the same exact groups in society: -Small business owners -The middle class -Rural populations -Veterans and ultra-nationalists -People opposed to unions and democracy -Those identifying as part of the ethno-religious majority (German Protestants in the 1930s, White Protestants and White Catholics in today’s US) -People worried about the “foreign hordes” pouring in to destroy the race (the Slavs for Germany, the general non-white migrant caravans for the US) Meanwhile, both H*tler and Trump struggled to gain votes from the same groups: -The actual working class -Urban areas -Unions -The universities and people working in the arts -Ethno-religious minorities (German Catholics and German Jews in 1930s, non-white and non-Christian Americans in today’s US) -Business elites (although this group would eventually switch sides once they felt H*tler could no longer be stopped; they didn’t like the N*zis and didn’t want to share power with them, but priority 1 was always to crush the unions) If you voted for Trump, you almost definitely would’ve voted for the N*zis. The only exceptions are probably the pro-Israel ultra-hawks, who share all the same sentiments as the N*zis but only would’ve opposed them because the N*zis were attacking all Jews (if they were primarily focused on attacking another minority group, the pro-Israel crowd would’ve backed H*tler.) Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of Jews both in 1930s Germany and 2010s-2020s US opposed H*tler and Trump, respectively.

There were up to 40 separate political parties represented in the Reichstag during the Weimar Republic.

@TheKickingDonkey

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, although at the maximum (1928 & 1930) "only" 15 Parties actually IN parliament at a time. The current Knesset (Israel) has parliamentarians of 22 (!) parties plus independents, while only having 120 seats (compared to the Reichtag's roughly 500-600).

Nice new background, very subtle.

@TheImperatorKnight

4 жыл бұрын

I'm glad to hear you like it! I'll let Terri know that she's done another good job :)

@barsukascool

2 ай бұрын

@@TheImperatorKnightis Terri your editor?

BREAD and CIRCUSES . In 1930 (and earlier)(1) the german people were starving. The Nazi's ran the largest soup kitchen program in Germany. They gave them BREAD. (2) Germans love parades. The Germans love singing. The Germans love law and order. The Germans saw all this in the frequent parades run by the Nazi's in the "beautiful" uniforms and marching order of these "elite." The NAZI'S gave them CIRCUSES. You are looking for complex answers to a simple answer. It worked for the Romans, it worked for the Nazi's. BREAD and CIRCUSES. So I disagree with you complex answer. People wanted and still want simple answers. You make it out to be idiology. You suggest that the German people read Mein Kampf. They bought the book AFTER Hitler came into power. They still never read it. I read it - or at least tried to many decades ago. It was unreadable (to me, anyway). Nope your way to complex here, look at the simple answer, Bread and Circuses.

@FifinatorKlon

4 жыл бұрын

Why did you put the word beautiful under quotation marks? Nazis were kinda retarded to some margin, but their uniforms were pretty dope in comparison to the rest of that time period.

@r.g.8977

4 жыл бұрын

@@FifinatorKlon Dear FifinatorKlon: The Nazi uniforms, meant different things at different times. In the 1920's they meant several things, depending on the color. In the 1930's that changed, significantly. First, in the early thirties, before power, and that changed after power was achieved and after the night of the long knives. I'm not an expert, there are you tube videos which explain such. I do not personally like uniforms. The term beautiful was just meant for those who do (or don't), and just as away of there use to gain power. When they did the brown shirts were eliminated from power, as well as there ideas. This was soon replaced with terror, and new meaning for the uniforms. Complex issue for the germans of the time.

@gabrielnieves3972

4 жыл бұрын

@@r.g.8977 i thought you liked simple answers

Evans: Why did people vote for Hitler? Also Evans: proceeds to describe the Frankfurt School

You forgot to mention that Germany borrowed to finance WW1, instead of raising taxes to pay for it. This would have been fine if they had won the war. After the war they printed marks in order to buy foreign currency to make their reparations payments. These two facts may not explain completely the hyperinflation, but they are important, and you didn't even mention them.

Great content, just this nitpick: "Z" at the beginning of German words is read like the 'zz' in 'pizza', so "Zentrum" (Centre) should be something along the lines of "TSentrum". I never heared "Reich" pronounced with a 'k" at the end. "-ig" at the end is read "-ich" like the the sound in the Scottish word "loch", but -ag is ag, so e.g. "Tag" (day) is not usually read "Tach" (although there are many dialects). There are not too many phonetic rules, they should be listed on Wikipedia and You can memorize them in an hour and improve Your content without turning it into a Grammar lesson, of course. :) Keep up the good work :)

Once I have followed a speech of Hilter, probably my first time because I was accustom to hear just few words with comments. I have listen to it knowing all what it was done in the second world war and in the lagers. But I have understood what could have been to listen to him before the war and without to have read Mein Kampf having therefor the experience we have. There are moments when we are all tired of politicians and their language. Hitler was speaking in a different way and I have felt that he was saying something that could attract all those that are disappointed. The politic of the Nazi was not at all vague. It was also amazing how they did most of all what they promised and if they were not defeated ...

1. Germany was an occupied country, German areas abroad were controlled by neighboring countries. His support was highest in the eastern regions. 2. Foreign debt and a ruined economy. 3. General degeneracy. Women were literally selling their daughters on the street. 4. Broken homes. Many single and desperate mothers, boys without fathers. 5. Female suffrage. Yup, women wanted back to the good old times. 6. The communists were just as bad. They achieved similar election results, they had their own party army similar to the SA. And had they won they would have built concentration camps too. And if you look at Germany today, you won't believe they lost the war. At least they won significantly better conditions than in 1919, and that's basically why they fought this unwinnable war.

Wow, so you make a video about the Nazis, and criticize socialism more than you criticize nazism...

@cheydinal5401

4 жыл бұрын

@mendaix Fuck off

My god, I can't believe how beautifully this was executed. I shan't be able to thank you enough for this video, a hole of knowledge was just filled and I am grateful for this. Please keep up this good work, we need more of this and KZread shouldn't demonize these kind of videos, that's pretty unfair and idiotic.

@n00btotale

4 жыл бұрын

Honestly, I think there is much to be desired: I find TIK's explanation (5:00) unconvincing, given the lack of consensus amongst economists on this topic, glossing over the Great Depression touting ONLY the Laissez-Faire method as functional is decidedly misleading. I only believe that it is necessary for TIK to go into MUCH greater detail- since his explanation, derived from a single source does not do justice to the situation. A good starting point would be discussing the New Deal as opposed to the various economic plans of Germany. Since, keep in mind, for a long-term economic plan, Brüning was only in power for two years and von Schleicher for one. Which means that all of their policies must be viewed as having been cut short by the NSDAP. I find TIK's explanation (12:14), that because the Papiermark was not the specific currency used to pay war reparations meant that hyperinflation was solely the fault of the Weimar Republic disingenuous. Even a cursory glance at Wikipedia reveals that Germany was using Papiermarks to purchase foreign currency, which was then used to pay off reparations. That TIK does not justly rebut this reveals his neck-high bias. Which due to a lack of consensus amongst the economic community means that taking one side over the other is disingenuous.

@xJavelin1

4 жыл бұрын

@@n00btotale In your first point you ask that TIK use more sources as a basis for his argument. In your second point you cite a cursory glance at Wikipedia (seriously!) as a counter to his argument. This kind of blatant inconsistency does nothing for your credibility.

@n00btotale

4 жыл бұрын

@@xJavelin1 That's what I was thinking- if Wikipedia has the gall to put something on like that, surely TIK should consider this. Precisely why I'm bringing it up for discussion, since it has two citations next to it. All I am doing is asking for more clarification, since on the whole, his economics videos are vague and inferior compared to his Battlestorm etc. _"Since reparations were required to be repaid in hard currency, not the rapidly depreciating paper mark, one strategy that Germany used was the mass printing of bank notes to buy foreign currency, which was then used to pay reparations, greatly exacerbating the inflation of the paper mark.[11][12]"_ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_the_Weimar_Republic

@n00btotale

4 жыл бұрын

@@xJavelin1 Actually, having dug around in my bookshelf, I found a quote from 'The Weimar Republic' by Stephen J. Lee which corroborates the Wikipedia statement about purchasing foreign currency: _"Once the Reparations Commission had announced the final bill in 1921 the government had two further considerations. One was *the need to find foreign currency to pay the reparations* to keep the Allies happy. The other was to avoid transferring the impact of this to the German economy-which would make the German population profoundly unhappy. Deficit financing was the short cut to achieving this equation. The clinching factor was that domestic financial collapse would demonstrate to the Allies in the strongest possible terms the inherent injustice of the reparations terms. *Once the French had invaded the Ruhr, there was little incentive to put a stop to the printing presses and the hyper-inflation merged with the government policy of passive resistance. As events turned out, this proved effective in bringing the Allies to their senses."* _ Stephen J. Lee, 'The Weimar Republic', p. 52 On the whole, this makes sense for monetary reparations. Gold marks would have to be converted into foreign currency anyway, so paying the equivalent in Papier Marks, and converting them to foreign currency is effectively the same thing. After all, good luck finding someone who accepts British Pounds in the Eurozone.

@n00btotale

4 жыл бұрын

@@xJavelin1 Then, there's this: _"Inflation became hyper-inflation immediately after the announcement of the final amount of 132,000 million gold marks by the Reparations Commission in 1921: _*_the government increased the printing of paper money to buy foreign currency_*_ in order to meet its obligations."_ -Ibid.

Why entire Europe is allowed today to embrace Socialism like, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Spain, Greece, Portugal, Italy, France ..... but it was wrong and not allowed for Germany to do so in the 1930s?? Why the blatant hypocracy ???

We are starting to see something like this in the US. With the upcoming economic collapse and almost no likelihood of either of the regular party crapheads able to come up with a real solution, people are starting to look for something else. It's not yet clear just how and when that will more solidly arise, but it's clearly starting to fulminate at this point.

@Anthony-jo7up

3 жыл бұрын

It's part of the communist playbook and something KGB defectors like Yuri Bezmenov warned about. They destabilize the nation, make it so confusing and miserable the way it is, that radical change is desired. Then they offer communism as the solution to all the issues, even though it caused them. In Weimar it is likely a similar situation was taking place, but the communist parties got blindsided by the Nazi takeover.

12:14 the German national Bank was during the Weimar Republic run by foreign powers. So the inflation was not Germans fault and they had good reasons to be upset by their misery caused upon them by outsiders.

@BQD_Central

3 жыл бұрын

Flatout wrong, the national bank took orders from the government

@jin8982

3 ай бұрын

​@@BQD_Centraland the government had connections with the foreign powers. And the same government was also the one who helped Js promote prostitution and tr@nsgenderism.

6:45 sounds like Western Culture today.

@filipsebest2170

4 жыл бұрын

@m omg, you are wizard.....

@huuphu17

4 жыл бұрын

@m So, Marxism destroys civilization?

@n00btotale

4 жыл бұрын

​@m If anything at all, the liberal democrats did a lot of work FOR the Weimar Republic. Your repost only emphasises the negative aspects of the Republic, whilst ignoring the genuine positive change that actually happened. As for the rest of your arguments about the 'woes' of life under libertarianism, you are sorely mistaken. It is in fact likely a good thing these practices existed, since the alternatives for these people (starving) were judged by them to be worse. See Section 3 for more. Yes, Jews were implicated in corruption, but so were Germans- see the Lahusen Family Scandal (link to an annotated lecture below, section 4), which was far larger than all of the Jewish ones combined. You mean to say, that the right was unrepresented by the media? Then where could Hitler possibly have gotten his word out? See Alfred Hugenberg, section 5. In short, your copy-paste lacks sources, and most concerningly, logic. *1. Constitutional Framework:* First of which, the new Weimar Republic was endowed with a constitution which despite its failures, aimed for rights which are widely regarded as being indispensable to democracy. _“The theoretical framework of the Weimar constitution was impeccably democratic. The document, drafted by the liberal jurist Hugo Preuss aimed to combine the principles of the first Ten Amendments of the Constitution of the United States, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, and twentieth century refinements.”_ - ‘The Weimar Republic’, by Stephen J. Lee As for its failures particularly in Article 48, it is not as though it was without success. _"As President between 1919 and 1925, Ebert had used this, as intended, only occasionally-as, for example, when the very existence of the Republic was threatened by the Kapp Putsch in 1920. Ebert’s successor, Hindenburg, had no compunction about regularising the extraordinary."_ -Ibid. *2. Foreign Policy* Others such as Gustav Stresemann, had an undeniable role in the recovery of Germany as a respected power,* let alone recovery from hyperinflation. To which I must say, that TIK is being misleading, since despite that reparations payments were not paid directly in Papier Marks, Papier Marks were used to purchase foreign currencies, which were then used to pay for the reparations. *2. a.* As for Hyperinflation: _"The Chancellorship was also used effectively, especially at the height of the crisis in 1923. Gustav Stresemann was prepared to take a pragmatic and tough line which extricated Germany remarkably quickly from economic collapse [including the introduction of the Rentenmark]."_ -Ibid. In other words, they screwed over the French, and got away with it. *2. b.* _"Improved relations between Germany and the western powers were largely the result of the efforts of Gustav Stresemann, Foreign Minister between 1923 and 1929."_ - Ibid. _"By the time that Stresemann died in 1929, relations between Germany and the rest of Europe had improved considerably and the Allies were already pulling out, before schedule, the troops they had placed in the Rhineland under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles."_ - Ibid. _"Most historians consider that Stresemann’s diplomacy achieved a great deal during his lifetime: Kolb, for one, says, ‘it must be acknowledged that his six years in office were astonishingly successful’. (9)"_ - Ibid. It is undeniable that Stresemann's diplomatic work, despite not being as confronting as foreign ministers under Brüning and von Schleicher, was highly effective. Since he used _"diplomatic gestures intended to increase the credibility of a statesman who was prepared to balance short-term concessions with the hope of long-term gain." - Ibid. Thus, Stresemann brought about actual change by "revisionism through diplomacy, not through war."_ - Ibid. *3. "Depravity" in Art and Culture:* I genuinely don't understand why you care- art and its expression has evolved over the centuries. In fact, if it's evolution says something about 'modern art', condemnation is literally like saying as a fan of Baroque music, that all who do not staccato their quavers (hint hint, Romantic music) are indecent. To which they would say that the high-flung origins of Baroque music, being restricted to the upper class, leant their music an overly dainty and unnatural feel. Honestly, if you feel like you can express yourself better than any modern artist, I don't think anything's stopping you from doing it better than them. *4. JEWS!* Yeah, that's cherry-picking at its finest. Check out the Lahusen family's scandal, which unfortunately receives barely a fraction of the attention it deserves because Jews weren't implicated. Ironic, since it was bigger in scope than all of the Jewish scandals combined, yet the alt-right media (shock and horror) of the day unsurprisingly downplayed it. 'WHAT CRISIS? SPECULATION, CORRUPTION, AND THE STATE OF EMERGENCY DURING THE GREAT DEPRESSION' www.ghi-dc.org/fileadmin/user_upload/GHI_Washington/Publications/Bulletin55/bu55_009.pdf *5. A Media controlled by Non-Germans:* _"The German Media, much like today, collaborated with the political & social Elite, ignoring the plights of everyday Germans and the complete degradation of German culture. Who ran the major newspapers & publishers in Weimar? No Germans. Theodor Wolff Georg Bernhard Rudolf Mosse"_ - m In fact, Richard J. Evans notes consistently throughout his 'The Coming of the Third Reich', that this is false. Since both sides of the political spectrum were EXTREMELY well represented by all sorts of news organisations. From unscrupulous evening opinion pieces, to party papers- the most infamous of which actually supported the Nazis. _"When social unrest increased, after benefits were cut in 1930, Hitler used fear of Communism to get support from industrialists. *Alfred Hugenberg, an industrialist who owned a chain of newspapers,* and Fritz Thyssen, a steel manufacturer, along with other industrialists formed the Harzburg Front. _ _The Harzburg Front helped finance the Nazi election campaigns in 1932-1933. This ensured the Communists were defeated. " _ -‘The Coming of the Third Reich’, by Richard J. Evans

@n00btotale

4 жыл бұрын

@@filipsebest2170 See my comment for your mind to be blown- again.

@n00btotale

4 жыл бұрын

@m In case Section 3 was unconvincing, I find it irrational to say that the content of the 'dadaism' and 'cubism' depicted on that twitter account from which you copy+pasted your comment is different to the likes of illustrations to Dante Alighieri's 'Divine Comedy', since suffering IS the emotion that they wanted to convey. Moreover, that it is news that someone would be so bold as to paint a female with her legs spread flies in the face of pretty much all sculpted art. Which for centuries has depicted almost or fully naked people, and on many occasions, the expression of sexuality. What is really ironic though, is that the author cited an article which disproves his thesis, that Jewish corruption plagued the Weimar Republic. Since Jews were not responsible for Lahusen family scandal, which as the article RIGHTLY SAYS was *_worse than all of the Jewish scandals combined._* www.jta.org/1934/02/27/archive/answers-10

A late comment. In his memoir Hoess describes National Socialism as the best way of life for the German people. As for Weimar, Gauleiter Goebbels "cleaned up" Berlin including human exploitation in nightclubs and prostitution. The Nazis were proud of these "achievements" as was the conservative German public... Great lecture Tik. 🙏🇦🇺

Part of the answer is that most of them didn't. The Nazis never won a majority while there were still meaningful elections.

Kinda sad that modern historians don't seem to be able to put themselves in the mindset of interwar Europe. So they fall back on viewing those times from a modern perspective, for what good that will help to explain things.

@Aivottaja

4 жыл бұрын

That's because they're ideological storytellers instead of historians.

@derekbaker3279

4 жыл бұрын

@@Aivottaja Not all of them.

@Aivottaja

4 жыл бұрын

@@derekbaker3279 Anyone unable to do put aside his personal, current day ideologies.

@lostsaxon7478

4 жыл бұрын

that's because people would hate Communism and Socialism if they did. The Bolshevik Revolution happened which was the worst genocide in human history and what followed was various uprisings all over Europe. Historians seem to "forget" there were two bloody Communist uprisings in Germany before the Nazis took who more or less came from the Freikorps who fought against those uprisings.

@derekbaker3279

4 жыл бұрын

@@lostsaxon7478 Good points. So, here's my question for you: In your opinion, .. given the Communist uprisings, the permissive urban environments that bothered rural/religious Germans, etc., were the Germans more enamoured with the psuedo-religious, tradition-honouring, socially-conservative 'comforting-authoritarian' image of the Nazis, who promised to 'make Germany great again'....or did the German people make their voting choice using the political, ideological analysis that TIK outlined in his video?

I think the Nazis received votes for two fundamental reasons…. They wanted socialism and nationalism so they voted for the national socialists. The catastrophic failures of the Great War and then two economic collapses made mainstream parties look like they had causes these failures. Therefore people wanted change, they wanted the socialist benefits like government benefits but they feared communist violence and unrest. Hitler offered the benefits of socialism without the danger of communism while also promising to unite Germany as a nation. That’s why they were elected, and like all socialist governments it ended badly. Also the racist focus ended even worse.

A German worker who drank his family's food budget at the bar could no longer do so when stormtroopers would force his wages towards his wife first.

I just came across your chanel and boy is it a treat. Great content

and one day, for no reason at all...

@DaveSCameron

4 жыл бұрын

Behave yourself and put your wig back on, fool.

@Willy_Tepes

4 жыл бұрын

If there were communist revolutionaries shooting up the streets, I would vote for Hitler too.

@DaveSCameron

4 жыл бұрын

@@Willy_Tepes Ah but would you make a pact with them (years before any Sowjets shot a gun on german soil!) then dissect Poland with said communists?

@DaveSCameron

4 жыл бұрын

@Blanc Neige x

@Willy_Tepes

4 жыл бұрын

@@DaveSCameron Not a fucking chance, but then again I am not a politician and don't need to take strategic decisions. I am not the kind of person that makes compromises ;) The Soviets actively supported communist movements all over the world from day one, so they were behind the troubles in Germany.

I regret it took me so long to find this channel. Very interesting, I have subscribed.

Sein Fein in Ireland use to call itself "national socialist" but then Recently called themselves "social democrats"..... but they are not the racial nationalists but Marxists. This why I don't like Tik History... he provides no context or variaions or meaning or defintions which provide relief to a burning question...."what is in a name or a word or title?".... could I call Hitler a social conservative? or a "liberal democrat"?.....

I believe that era didn't tell all the secrets . Something still hidden.

short answer high unemployment people were starving

@thethirdman225

3 жыл бұрын

And Hitler gave them bread and later, work.

The focus here on economics only covers half the Why. There was an awful lot of social reasons. "Degradation of family, of self, of sexuality, Queer theory and Sexology". Hitler's rhetoric weren't born from nowhere. Normalisation of child sex workers to feed families for example. Porn and sex industries as a whole. The Snuff movie was born in Weimar as a way the wealthy making fun of the poor. People hungry as hell, living in hell. Had enough. Add to that the economics covered in this video... And well, the rest as they say. The fact is, 90% (to emphasise sum not exacts) of the the people in Banking, filmography (the snuff and porn industries basically... I know, Fd up), sexologists, etc etc. That were considered behind the social ails of the time. The people in large behind the Bolshevik revolution thus rise of the communist evil. We're Jews. That's how Hitler managed to convince the people of his scapegoat. So I cannot imagine the Jews were voting for him, not alot anyway. The gossip of those things was already becoming palpable prior to his first election. AND I WANT IT DAMNED CLEAR! I do NOT agree with his rhetoric. Merely there was an observable fact behind it, and if those things needed a change, fair enough. But how and what he did, was abhorant, unforgivable and NOT the way to do it. 90% of a few small things, is not 90% of the entire ethnic group. To paint all the same brush is foul beyond comprehension. We always need to be mindful of where, on either side of extremes, the Overton Window defines the en masse perspectives. If we ever see it swing either side too hard. It is our responsibility as a society to balance ourselves TF out. Because it doesn't move, it swings. And all this is Farr too easy to happen again if we don't be very careful.

i ve watched the first 27 min of your video and I agree with your take on the economic reasons why Hitler got elected. What you miss to mention are historical reasons and the german way of live/thinking/wordview. - Germans on mass were deeply aware (to a certain degree) what happend in 1914. Therefor they were really pissed when it came to the treaty of Versailes and its declaration, that germany was the only responsible party for WW1. Furthermore Hitler was a fighting veteran in their eyes, not some pencil pusher behind the front lines. - Germans were fed up with ever changing coalition governments and having to vote "once a year", while nothing really changed for the better. Democracy lacking effiency. Keine Zucht und Ordnung! - The shock of hyperinflation cant even be grasped. When I was a child in the 1980s in east germany people were still alive who lived through it. That event inflicted nearly as much terror in the german psyche as the war itself, especially among women. They spoke about in a way, you cant imagine. It especially devestated the middle class, small shop owners and small buisness men, who were doing well for themselfs getting things going after the war. The second economy downturn in the late 20s and early 30s, was the final nail in the coffin for them. Democracy was done, bring in the strong man.

"...for no reason at all..."

@DaveSCameron

4 жыл бұрын

What an absurd comment, try talking to your grandfather or an elderly German person then etch such a useless line ...

@Willy_Tepes

4 жыл бұрын

@@DaveSCameron There would be no reason to vote for nationalists today either, LOL.

@Pectus72

4 жыл бұрын

wrong, the correct answer is, the majority did not vote for Hitler

@Willy_Tepes

4 жыл бұрын

@@Pectus72 The correct answer is that only 43.4% voted for him in 1933. He did however take power entirely legally.

Happy Holidays Mr TIK and family 🎅🎄❄

An explanation about why do people vote for Trump please. Comparison between the Nazi and Communists is purile and pathetic

I'm a Marxist and I totally agree with you that German National Socialism was a form of socialism. Marx even describes Reactionary German Socialism (by exactly that name) in the Communist Manifesto.

Thank you for the history lesson, was extremely informative 👍

*"Where there's chaos, there's opportunity!" - Little Finger*

@praisethesun.praisedeussol6051

3 жыл бұрын

Rip

@faisalkamal4319

Жыл бұрын

Chaos isn't a pit it's a ladder

Another disadvantage of proportional representation is that it puts the candidates at the mercy of parties. The parties decide who gets on the list, and in what order. It puts the voters at the mercy of parties too, so you don't get to be represented by an individual you voted for. A candidate may be very popular with voters and yet have no chance to get elected because s/he can't hook up favorably with a party; the party also has almost no incentive to hook up with popular individual candidates, and so the candidates have no leverage over the parties, only vice versa. it seems a great mechanism for corruption.

Well researched, highly informative and enlightening presentation. Thank you very much. It should also be noted that the Nazis only had a third of the seats in the Reichstag when Hitler became chancellor in 1933. It is through party alliances, that still is part of the German democratic process that Hitler became chancellor.

The one point I will never support you on : the ideological notion that capitalism or socialism will always fail or succeed is not a sound statement. You can have a very democratic capitalist or socialist State. The factors of stability and of freedom in such societies are many and nuanced. I remain convinced that fascism, if defined by the root issues, can occur in many types of societies and regimes, whether they are capitalists, socialists, etc. Yes, fascism can clearly occur under a State that claims to be capitalist and free. I am not saying Germany was that case: it was not. But saying that socialism always fails is an exaggeration, though most extreme forms have either failed or become authoritarian States. I will agree that extreme capitalism leads to very different issues... In all cases, when in crisis, folks can suddenly support extreme forms of nationalism and reductions of freedoms.

@nottoday3817

4 жыл бұрын

Well, capitalism cannot fail because capitalism has no practical definition of failure like socialism and communism has (have?). In communism, failure occurs when the focus of the state is not the benefit of the people, but to serve the goals of those in power. And this has happened. And, ironically, not with Stalin as Stalin, however tyranical he might have been, still gave a lot back in terms of reforms, infrastructure economy etc. Many judge inter-war USSR forgetting from where they started. They were not Victorian Era Britain with multiple colonies to plunder and murder. They were a turd with a golden hat which did not even manage to properly industrialise. No. The fail of communism in USSR occured when the leaders tried to secure their position and outmatch the US on Western grounds instead of playing on their own terms. Through further extension, socialism fails when it reverts back to social classes. When people start clinging to their positions by any means instead of accepting they are worn out. But how can capitalism fail? Well, in practice we have no answer for 2 reasons: 1. We never had real capitalism, so TIK can shove every economy book he preaches up his ass. Economics and politics are, have been and will always be two branches of the same tree. You cannot separate them and say 'leave economics alone'. 2. The main ideea of capitalism is the transfer of capital. Aka invest and gain from your investments. However this is the general principle of humanity. We invest something to gain something in return. You cannot break that.

@Baraz_Red

4 жыл бұрын

@@nottoday3817 An interesting point of view. I presume TIK means economic crisis or any other form of collapse (social, State) when he says "failure", but I do see your point. Capitalism does have some goals (increase in capital) and is often linked to political ideals (freedom to try), so some could say that a given country has failed or not from a capitalist point of view.

@MakeMeThinkAgain

4 жыл бұрын

When prices are determined by anything other than the market, bad things happen.

@Baraz_Red

4 жыл бұрын

​@ThatBadGuy If you define fascism by root aspects or issues, such as only the "deserving" (and other criteria like national usefullness) have the actual rights and freedoms, including other similar fascist concepts, you can ignore the form and propaganda of any given State to determine if it has fascist policies. Whether a government CLAIMS to have this or that value, whether it applies a capitalist or socialist economy, it can absolutely have fascist policies on many levels. - Saying that a capitalist State cannot be fascist is also ideological blindness or moronic. Maybe you are not saying that, but it seems so.

@n00btotale

4 жыл бұрын

@@MakeMeThinkAgain Yes, but sometimes we might even be better off with a compromise. Just because a bad thing might happen in the future doesn't always mean we should sell ourselves short in the present, since we may become what we aim to prevent.

East Front of ww2: National-Socialists vs International-Socialists

@yingyang1008

4 жыл бұрын

best comment on this thread

Excellent presentation Tik, lot of good points! My conclusion from this is that as a capitalist-type government introduces more and more socialist economic policies during economic setbacks, they weaken the very foundation of quickly returning to a stable economy because they inevitably fail to produce the promised results. They also introduce the popularity of ever more extreme socialist policies, as well as anti-capitalist ideologies. In the grand scheme of its history, America seems to be on the path towards a radical socialist government, which only those who believe in the US Constitution’s limits on government power can avert. However, they are becoming outnumbered over time because of the socialist influence in its educational system, public and social media, and the entertainment and tech industries, which don’t promote a limit on government power, but promote an anti-constitution feeling instead without allowing any discussion or logical debates. So, unless there were a reverse to these extreme socialist policies primarily in its education system, then it’s inevitable that the majority of American citizens will eventually vote themselves into a disastrous and Armageddon-type scenario, with similar results as evidenced in the most prominent examples of Russia, China, and Germany, among many other smaller examples, like North Korea, Cuba, and much of Africa and SE Asia.

I think it's safe to say that Germany - to be specific, a "pure Aryan" Germany - was the Nazis' only policy. When people try to claim, for example, that the Nazis were either pro- or anti-abortion, I point out that they were pro-abortion AND anti-abortion by turns, depending on whether it would further their racial agenda.

Although currently I may not agree with every part of this, and I believe there are other aspects, this is incredibly insightful and I think this perspective is valuable. Thank you for the explanation, it has certainly altered my perspective.

@johnsaxon5154

3 жыл бұрын

So socialists are so gullible they will vote for a party just because it has the word 'socialist' in it.

@stupidweasels1575

3 жыл бұрын

@@johnsaxon5154 i think the more general and valuable lesson is that people will vote for the party thats "on there side" and promises radical change in a stagnating political scene.

@johnsaxon5154

3 жыл бұрын

@@stupidweasels1575 Sorry I sent the previous message to the wrong person. I do apologise.

He was right. Look at Europe today 😢

@Ueiksg

9 ай бұрын

Please educate yourself

@bradpittjr.3655

9 ай бұрын

@zombiehorsefranzferdinand9304 The war was to protect Europe from the African, Arab and Asian invasion. We lost the war and our homeland.

@Ryan-pz2wh

8 ай бұрын

@@bradpittjr.3655remember the f0urteen words brother 👍

Nice video. However, the part about hyperinflation is somewhat misleading. It is laid out that the creation of new welfare programs was the main baddie driving hyperinflation. The programs were indeed expensive, but also very much needed - much like they were under the depression in the US. The difference was the shortsighted way of financing the government expenditures. Instead of increasing revenue, they just printed more money. Also, we shouldn’t discount that reparations were 1/3 of the German deficit in the early 20’s.

@cas343

2 жыл бұрын

After fighting and losing a world war, a massive amount of territory, and a large amount of its male workforce the government knew that there was nothing left to tax. The wealth of the country had already been spent on the war.

Why did people vote for Hitler? Dear TIK. I am not joking. If you want to understand how German people were in those times, you have to read Karl May. He published since 1880 and was a bestseller author, even after his death. He also was an impostor and so he was able to write exactly what the people wanted to read. Hitler was a personality similar to him and referred to things, a liberate racism, which you can read also at Karl May. I miss this aspect in your video. Hitler took the philosophic elements of his time together and spread them, didn't think about contradictions, was not even able to. For many years he was not effective. Why this changed in 1930 we can hear from you. In 1975 I had a teacher who was a doctor of history and told us pupils about the time before the 3. Reich. Hard to belief, he was no Nazi, he survived a KZ. He just talked as a scientist and from his early years. I cannot imagine a better source. So, what historians say sounds mostly wrong and irrelevant to me. Good idea to work this theme!

So what you're saying is "Socialism ruins everything". Imagine my Venezuela...

@soberanisfam1323

4 жыл бұрын

socialism is working in Scandinavia

@edwardcullen1739

4 жыл бұрын

@@soberanisfam1323 LOL. None of the Scandinavian countries are Socialist.

@soberanisfam1323

4 жыл бұрын

Edward Cullen Venezuela is not socialist

@PORRRIDGE_GUN

4 жыл бұрын

@@soberanisfam1323 No. Effective social policies and democracy works well in Scandinavian countries. It does of course amount to the same thing.

@noeenricodomanais2517

3 жыл бұрын

@@soberanisfam1323 Scandinavia is a group of capitalist countries with accessible healthcare and education, not socialists.

Perfect. Very well pointed

Thanks for a very detail explanation of this most important question.

The error of fiat currency and central banking is so important but this simple truth is not taught in government schools in the US because the education system/people are dependent on subservience to the politicians who have the power to borrow funds so as to pay salaries. Yes, education should be privatized as should all political government interventions in our rights to free will, freedom to choose. Well done; good on ya mate.

Whats faster than light. Me after I see the notification from TIK. Yes I can watch the vid before it was made. It´s just physics.

Thanks TIK I knew a bit about this, but you explained the situation very well. Especially what cause the German inflation.

Hit it out of the park TIK! I keep asking Socialists to define "Socialism" and even "Fascism" (as they always say the Nazis were Fascists which they were not, they were Nazis which is something different) and they never can. Love your videos. This needs to be shown in schools but never will.

@maryfinnfan4140

2 жыл бұрын

modern day socialists are fascists. WEF, royal family, wdstern govts all in it together.

@Hannodb1961

Жыл бұрын

Socialism means that the government takes over the role of mommy and daddy, so that you can remain a kid as an adult.

@TheRealZeke2003

Жыл бұрын

Can you define these words yourself?

Great job exlaining these. Such a shame we don't teach basic history like this in schools. There would be so much less socialist morons walking around in the streets and parliament treatening to wreck havoc.

TIK "basic economics" = my economic ideology. Economics is not a n empirical discipline like mathematics To this day no comprehensive effort is made in the discipline to identify and monitor the effects of various economic system in an effort to determine the optimum economic systems. Instead, most economic departments espouse ideologies and call them "basic economics".

thank you, you really help to understand and it is crucially important.

Fascinating-thank you.

Once again TIK has made a great point and as usual explains things better than any book I have read. Excellent as usual.Time to make TIK our PM

Just came across this vid of yours I hadn't seen yet. It's funny because this exact question is what perplexed me in H.S. and began my interest in the more complex and detailed history of WW2. I remember telling my teacher how I just couldn't understand how a guy that actually tried to overthrow the government, and then went to prison for it, could ever have been put into a position of being able to take total control of that country. That just seemed so baffling and unbelievable to me at the time. And even after all I've learned since then, this vid gives me even more to understand. Thanks TIK, great vid.

@NYG5

Жыл бұрын

Dont ask questions, just remember muh 6 million!!!

@TheRealZeke2003

Жыл бұрын

Trump is being indicted rn and there is a small chance he ends up in prison. But the people who like him will vote him regardless so idk why you seem so confused.

people did vote for the Nazis and they didn't win very many seats in Parliament in 1928 but they did have a total of around 18 or 20 seats in 1930 ..because of the depression in the United States that started the summer of 1932 even making things worse for Europe and everybody else around the world except Italy and the Soviet Union , the people in Germany had an even worse.. the people in Germany had it bad in the twenties because of the horrible inflation and unemployment and here it was awful in 1932 and the Nazis promised them work for bread.in 1932 the Nazis had nearly a hundred seats all together in Parliament and then the beginning of 1933 the president of Germany appointed Hitler as Chancellor.. Hitler was never elected even though he was head of the Nationalist Socialist Party but he was appointed and then a little over a year later when the president died is when Hitler became dictator and fuhrer

What would happen if there was no economics profession. Seems like they just make everything they touch worse.

This is great. Your explanation that "reparations," which were mostly never paid, somehow caused WW2 is BS is very well done.

@tylerbozinovski4624

3 жыл бұрын

But there's also France invading the Ruhr region, and the fact that the war had started to make Germany go broke.

@ernstjunger2835

3 жыл бұрын

I think it was 2015 when the final rate of the Versailles reparations were paid. Look it up.

@stephenleblanc4677

3 жыл бұрын

@@ernstjunger2835 Interesting fact. Is there a point to that?

@ernstjunger2835

3 жыл бұрын

@@stephenleblanc4677 if you mean what my answer relates to: you claimed that reparations were mostly never paid.

@stephenleblanc4677

3 жыл бұрын

@@ernstjunger2835 Prior to the election of Hitler's party. But, if they have since been paid, maybe that's interesting. Germany is not the undisputed strongest nation in Europe and his been for about 20-30 years.

I haven't watched the video yet, is this another one of those the Nazis were really Socialists videos?

@DaMarlboroMan3

4 жыл бұрын

Yes

@matushova1779

4 жыл бұрын

They weren't Socialists.

@gameer0037

4 жыл бұрын

@Fabian Kirchgessner good argument.

@crobert79

4 жыл бұрын

@Jason Buford must be true if it's written down

@8bitorgy

4 жыл бұрын

Yes the point of the video is that Hitler needed living space for his socialist paradise and that the Communists were preventing it. Also the video explains how the voters rejected both capitalism and bolshivikism

The discussion of whether the Nazis were socialists or capitalists is misguided. They used the term socialism to advertise but many of their policies were incompatible with socialist ideas. Gassing Jews and conquering Lebensraum, even at the cost of many German lives isn't socialism. At their core the Nazis didn't operate in the socialism/capitalism distinction, it's simply the won't category. Primarily they were ethno fascists and populists. What really got them elected was a combination of vague promises together with their diabolic move to blame everything on a "Sündenbock" - Jews and other "Untermenschen".

@barsukascool

2 ай бұрын

Socialism is the state ownership of the means of production. Purely an economical term, nothing more, nothing less. Thus, tge National Socialist WERE socialists.

@boatman189

2 ай бұрын

National socialist workers party platform was all socialist or liberal, universal health care, free education kindergarten thru college, pro-abortion, gun control, blaming the 2% (Jews then whites today) or victimization, cancelling others opinions, controlled media. Also, Lol, "ethno facists and populists" are the new words socialists use instead of racists and facists which have lost all meaning do to over use.

Let's say someone found the formula to change lead into gold about a 100 yrs ago, gold prices plunged and ruined everything. A good way to return to normal would be to try to create as much disinformation about the formula and just ignore that the crash was caused by it.

Great video, as always

Hindsight is a Great thing but I imagine I would have certainly been tempted to vote for Him,desperate times.And communism wouldn’t have looked terribly attractive.