Could you possibly make an episode on the gypsy genocide during the Holocaust or porajmos. I feel like it's not really talked about. Only in 1979 it was actually accepted by Germany that they actually did what they did.
I did not know that the Soviets forced the SPD and the KPD to merge. That had to be a rough marriage, the KPD hated the SPD and considered them fascists as well
Aber man kam sich unter der Nazi-Herrschaft und in der unmittelbaren nachkriegszeit wieder näher. Allerdings lernten die Sozialdemokraten schnell dass mit den stalinisten keine sinnvolle Zusammenarbeit möglich war und die SPD nahm erst in den 70er eine etwas freundlichere Haltung ein, jungsozialisten die zu Kommunisten freundlich wurden allerdings dennoch aus der Partei ausgeschlossen. Es gab allerdings in der sed durchaus einige prominente Sozialdemokraten.
it's a marriage of political convenience like many marriages from feudal times. if they had married earlier like before 1933, then history could have been different.
Very intersting topic, Stefan. My father, who is 91 years old today, visited East Germany in 1963. He was scared about the west currency he had under his pockets in the way back across the Shame Wall. The communists doubt he was brazilian when checking his documents, due to his german fluency. Danke! 🇩🇪 Obrigado! 🇧🇷
"The Russians allowed 4 parties to develop in East Germany but they had to work to communist principles. " How different is that from the US? We have two parties which both adhere to capitalist principles. Third parties are excluded from most debates and rarely get on the ballot.
@@lesinge8868 If the law states that - you have a first-past-the-post voting system - where candidates must fund their own campaigns - with few limitations on campaign funding - where campaigning needs to be done via privately-owned media (= expensive) ... then the law almost guarantees a two-party system where both parties are bribed by wealthy donors. That is callled a plutocracy.
@lesinge8868 not technically, practically. Same result. The thing is the people with power, the same 1% who control both parties, own the media etc. use a form of soft-authoritarianism. They're much more subtle but the end result is the same. The 1% get 90% of the legislation they support enacted while everyone else is lucky to get 10%. It's been proven. Americans are fortunate because they reap the benefits of the US military state's oppression of people in developing countries. We don't execute our political enemies in the US but we train and support the people who execute our political enemies in places like Chile, Honduras, Columbia, Nicaragua, Guatemala etc. The thing that should be important to Americans is the fact that the US is losing it's superiority on the world stage and along with it the benefits of such. That means a scramble here at home for what will remain and that is when you'll see the true nature of the beast let loose on the American people.
Have you considered that the reason the two largest parties "abide by capitalist principles" is because the voters have historically not supported Socialism and do now want a socialist party. It is not a mandate by law to appeal to capitalism unlike in a communist society where it is.
@planderlinde1969 of course that's possible however it's also possible that the same people who control everything control education and children are raised from an early age to believe socialism is dangerous and even though the government doesn't specifically forbid socialism the people who run the corporations which control the government make sure socialists are blacklisted or denied access to media etc. So, is it enshrined in law? No. Is it enforced by others means? Yes, most definitely.
What happened in 1990 was not a reunification of Germany but rather an "anschluss" of the western part which absorbed the eastern part on an economic, political, administrative and institutional level.
Being Dutch, some of your videos don't interest me personally but you have this interest in niche topics that I share with you. Thank you for offering this content and if you ever have the time/resources to make longer/more in-depth videos, you would be one of RUclips's top history channels for sure.
@@HistoryHustle I forgot to mention that you interact with your audience through the comment section. That is appreciated as well. Other channels make mistakes and when I try to correct them, I and others are ignored like we are not good enough to be listened to and/or we don't know what we are talking about. All the best for 2024. Looking forward to what is about to come from you.
But capitalism is a form of ownership. A planned state can still be capitalist if the businesses are owned by private entities. Free market capitalist? No. Capitalist? Certainly. This is a confusion of economic terms.
The Nazis allowed businesses to be in private ownership but dicated what they could manufacture, how many they had to manufacture, and how much to sell for. It was capitalism on a short leash in the service of the State.
Can it be called ownership if one doesn't have control? I don't really think so, especially if the lack of control is the rule, not the exception in the prevalent economic system.
yup, having an oligarch like Porsche, Maybach, Mercedes, Pfizer, Henschel, etc etc is socialist XDDDDDD its private ownership of property, SO ITS CAPITALIST. Socialism means democracy at workplace and social ownership of means of production, learn it
I’ve always been fascinated by the photograph of Walter Ulbricht ( inheritor of Thaalman’s leadership, as he languished in imprisonment ) and Josef Goebels ( Berlin Gauleiter at the time ) holding forth at a joint NSDAP - KPD rally. Imagine the incredible tension in the hall !
Goebbels was a pussy lol. Government/State really is the end of Natural Selection. Every coward can become a leader, in the right sneaky political circumstances.
You revealed a lot for me - in media, the rise of Hitler is not correlated to monopoly capitalism and is a direct result of the poor suffering - due to the depression. Every American should watch this. Especially those who don’t know what Nazi is short for, or the difference between fascism and Nazism - which is most of us. Thanks again
‘The Man without a Face’ - ‘Memoirs of a Spymaster’ by Markus Wolf gives an interesting perspective on this subject. Markus Wolf was the effective head of the DDR Foreign Intelligence Service from 1950 to 1985 approx
I came away from my brief time in the GDR (1986) , baffled , even though I was not naive on Marxist historical thought. , on this and aspects of German history (ie Protesrant Reformation) . I have not even seen this topic addressed before. Cheers to this most prolific content generator . Cheers Stephan !
You ask at the 0:35 mark, "Why didn't Communists prevent this?" We can ask, why didn't other western powers prevent this? Imperialism in the manifestation of other western powers were delighted with fascism in Germany. It served them in so far as it was an outpost in order to smash the USSR. Well... they failed didn't they? It was the USSR which was victorious in the second war of the imperialist powers to redivide the world. Now with another crises upon us, the imperialist powers prepare a 3rd World War and once again they target Russia as they carve up the loot.
Note that "Socialism" for Hitler mend something different compared to what Marxists understood as Socialism. Hitler and other Nazi's were very much under the influence on what was called "Prussian Socialism" which had nothing to do with Marxism, but stemd from the works by Oswald Spengler. Hitler thus understood as National-Socialism more in the lines of "working for the glory of the nation" or some abstract notion. This becomes ever more clear if you take into account that Conservatives in the west gave Hitler the benefit of the doubt or sometimes outright supported him as "fighter against Communism". Whatever 'economic planning' was going on in Nazi-Germany, they had not a GOSplan, like in the USSR, lot of sectors were privatized instead of nationalised
The difference between Marxist Socialism and National Socialism is that Maxism wanted to socialize the people or working class at the expense of the rich who are class enemies of the proletariat and should be murdered. National Socialism wanted to socialize the race (ayrans) to the expense of the jews who were race enemies. Yes the Nazis did have a centrally planned economy. Privatization wasn't really a thing. Yes you could own a factory or business however if your business didn't cooperate with the party it would be Nationalized. This happened to Professor Junkers when the Nazis kicked him out of his own factory.
@@planderlinde1969 That's a stretch.. privatization wasn't a thing? economists have pointed out that the privatization in Fascist Italy and Nazi-Germany were the first modern examples of Privatization that we later saw under Neo-Liberalism. Surely there was some economic planning, but every country on the planet does that to some extent. Loyalty to a nationalist party is the opposite of socialism. Like I said, Hitler understood 'socialism' as some nationalist notion about loyalty to, and working for, the state. But he never answered to any serious socialist or communist economic ideals.
Thank you!!! It drives me insane how some people try and make out that 1. All Marxists are the same with the same philosophies and view points and 2. That Hitler was really a "socialist" and therefore socialism and Nazis are the same thing.
I have a different take on why communists always talked of fascists and rarely nazis althought you also make a very good point, another psrt of it was stalin was literally allied with nazi germany until Hitler's betrayal so wanted to talk about fascist states in more abstract terms, an attempt to misdirect blame .
The video is very bised. Nazis were virulently anti-socialist and anti-communist. The socialists were the first people to be purged and put in concentration camps. Nazi Germany had elements of the planned economy in the same way liberal democracies regularly intervine on the "free market". Capitalism and private property were never abolished during Nazi Germany, which makes the statement that Germany was socialist ridiculous. It was a capitalist country. Capitalists didn't lose their property. On the contrary, they often profited by using the free labour provided by the marginalised groups that were disempowered by the Nazis, especially the Jews. Marxist historians were right in their assessment of the situation.
@@HistoryHustle Anything I said is factually correct. Nazis were anti-marxist and anti-communist, which is proven both by their rhetoric as well as their violent actions against the communists and anarchists. The socialists were the first to be purged in Nazi Germany as well as fascist Italy. In Spain the civil war was between republicans, communists and anarchists on the one hand, monarchists, fascists and conservatives on the other. All forms of fascism are a reaction to proletarian distress and socialist agitation caused by the worsening of material conditions under capitalism (in crisis), political instability that is a consequence of economic volatility. Most liberal democracies have elements of planned economy. They intervene in the "free" market in a number of ways, from subsidies to stimulate certain sectors of the economy to government initiatives and public run services. Private property was never abolished under Nazi Germany. Communism, as Marx defines it, is essentially the elimination of private property, and as a consequence the bourgeoisie. All of these are historical facts, that both Marxist historians as well as certain liberal historians would agree on. Narrativization is a common way to present historical facts as a cohesive unfolding of material and social forces driving societal events. Both liberal and Marxist historians engage in narrativization.
@@HegemonicMarxism I refer to TIK History. Nazi ideology was full of contradictions. Hating communism but signing a pact with them anyway. Hating Poles as Slavs but co-operate with Slovakia. Much of the economy of the III Reich was state run.
@@HistoryHustle To your first point. Nazis ideologically hated communism, but would align with the Soviets circumstantially for practical reasons for a short period. In the same way, Hitler admired the US, especially its industrial developments, and thought of the British as fellow Aryan brothers, but went to war with both of them, due to its expansionist ambitions. The behaviours between states can rarely be reduced to their ideological status, and it's always primarily determined by power struggles, strategic thinking and geopolitical goals. The USSR signed the non-aggression pact with Germany for a number of reasons: 1) it needed time to prepare for a potential invasion from Germany, as Stalin was aware of Hitler's views on the Slavic people and Bolshevism (or Judeo-bolshevism as he would say); 2) The Soviets invaded Poland to secure their western borders, and 3) to fulfill its own expansionist ambitions. So, even though Nazis and Bolsheviks hated each other on an ideological level, they still agreed to cooperate in this limited situation as it was strategically sound for both of them to do so. To your second point, Nazi Germany did have a partially planned economy, maintaining elements of free market liberalism. I don't think that "planned economy" equals "communism", but it was a characteristic of most, if not all self identified socialist countries that adopted a soviet model of economic development. State interventionism is still present in most liberal democracies to different degrees. There is heavy state involvement in the "free market" in almost any capitalist stats, from The US to the European social democracies. Similarly, Nazi Germany did have a certain degree of centralised economic development, but maintained most of the private sector. I would say that the elimination of private property is a more accurate property of a communist society than the dichotomy of "planned economy vs free market". The Soviet Union didn't have capitalists, and most private property was abolished and collectivised under the supervision of the state. Nazi Germany, on the other hand, did have both capitalists and private property, though it was stronger state intervention in the private sector. For this reason, Nazi Germany was not a socialist country, or at least not socialist in any traditional leftist sense, from neither an anarchist perspective nor a Marxian one. Hitler himself recognised when asked why Nazis named themselves socialist that they could as well have been named The Liberal Party. The labels someone self identifies as are irrelevant if they're not backed by actions consistent with their supposed ideology. Nobody would argue that North Korea for example is a democracy, in the liberal western understanding of the word, simply because it has the word "democratic" in the name.
Yeah, I’m a history teacher and I am well-versed in this, not only as a historian, but I am also well-versed in the far right’s attempt at divorcing itself from its own bloody history with regards to the third Reich. In an attempt to do so, it is falsely claimed that the “Nazis were socialists,” using only the name as evidence, as if the DPRK is a democracy because it’s in the name! Nothing the Nazis did was socialist. Claiming they were leftists denies the Holocaust because the first people to suffer in their concentration camps were leftists: socialists, communists and trade unionists! Martin Niemöller’s famous quote supports this, as does the Night of the Long Knives and the entire Nazi ideology, which falsely believed that socialism, communism, and any leftist movement was a result of a Jewish conspiracy. The Nazis were fascists! The only difference between Italian fascism and German fascism was a larger element of white supremacy. Now, History Hustle, I will admit to being wrong about this, which is everything I’ve learned about this subject as a historian, if you can show me a primary source from the East German Ministry of Education that explicitly supports your claim that they “deliberately avoided calling them socialists, because the East Germans were (actually) socialists. Show us a primary source! I speak German, so you don’t even need to translate it for us. We don’t just believe someone because they say it on RUclips. There is too much bias and disinformation with regard to what the Nazis were. I doubt the East Germans were doing this to protect their own names. Indeed, they were accurately calling the Germans fascists because, in practice, and even in their own rhetoric, they were.
Very interesting explanations Stefan, TIK has also covered this matter in depth and I'd say come to the same conclusions. The German communists in exile in Russia 1933-45 would make an interesting film too ! I always look forward to your next film mate !
That was good. In truth, all the talk about why Nazis rose to power is really about one thing - times were bad, and Hitler sounded like the best deal offered. Anyway, I doubt the ding dong at 7:41 had anything to do with it. I was wondering if you could show the bell one day? I'd like to see it. Take care.
It is true to say that "You'll get to keep the private ownership model as long as you make the military goods first" isn't capitalism...... it would be equally disingenuous to say that socialism is "We are gonna let you keep the private ownership model, as long as you make the military goods first."
Today far right parties often react schizofrenic towards Hitler's far right stance. But Hitler was very clear about being anti-socialist and communist. In an interview, which took place between Adolf Hitler and George Sylvester Viereck in 1923, Hitler discussed the question of whether the Nazi Party was socialist. In the interview, Hitler acknowledged the use of the term "socialist" in the name National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP) but argued that the party's interpretation of socialism differed from that of Marxist or traditional socialists. Hitler stated that the term "socialist" was retained in the party's name for historical reasons and to attract workers to the cause. It was in fact an ordinary marketing trick to lure socialists into their camp, well yeah... The Nazi party (NSDAP) is considered a right-wing party because: Extreme far right Patriotism and Nationalism: The Nazi Party promoted an extreme form of nationalism that focused on the idea of a racially pure German state. This emphasis on national identity and the superiority of the Aryan race aligns with right-wing nationalist ideologies. Authoritarianism: The Nazis advocated for a strong, centralized state with authoritarian control. They sought to suppress political dissent, control the media, and eliminate opposition, which are characteristics associated with right-wing political ideologies. The association between authoritarianism and socialism or communism in the rhetoric of some right-wing leaders often stems from historical and ideological arguments. Anti-Communism: The Nazis were vehemently anti-communist and saw communism as a threat to the German nation. Opposition to left-wing ideologies, particularly communism and socialism, is a characteristic often associated with right-wing politics. Hitler criticizes Marxist ideologies or where he outlines his own vision for the German state in his autobiography "Mein Kampf", in particular, Volume 1, Chapter 2 ("Years of Study and Suffering in Vienna") and Volume 2, Chapter 2 ("The State"). Social Conservatism: The Nazi Party promoted traditional social values and rejected what they perceived as degenerate influences, including modern art and certain cultural practices. This aligns with a socially conservative agenda typically associated with right-wing politics. Hitler underlined also other right-wing Social Conservatism characteristics like Family Values, Cultural Preservation, Resistance to Social Change, Law and Order and Education Policy, advocating for education policies that emphasize traditional values and moral teachings, and they may resist what they perceive as progressive or liberal influences in school. Corporate Collaboration: While the Nazis did not strictly adhere to traditional capitalist economic principles, they maintained a form of collaboration with German industrialists and business interests. This cooperation between the state and private enterprise is a feature often associated with far right-wing economic policies. Anti-Semitism: The Nazis promoted anti-Semitic ideologies, blaming Jews for various societal problems. Although anti-Semitism is not exclusive to any political ideology, the extreme and systematic nature of anti-Jewish policies under the Nazi regime contributed to the perception of the Nazis as a right-wing party.
some former nazi commanders like gdr and the allied gertman republic was has same settings former nazi commander in bundespear there in there both military structures to have veterans to train and strengthen there military
So, history was used in East Germany, like it is used today, not by what actually happened, but by the politics of the current regime, and how they can benefit from that narrative. So we are living through something like the East German government today... That explains a lot, Thanks...
Nazi economy was a plannified economy, but not in the same way / level as the Soviet economy (where private enterprises were practically abolished... of course, if we exclude the NEP and the failed Perestroika reform). Capitalism (= private ownership of the means of production) was allowed in Nazi germany, as soins as it didn't interfere with the political ideals of the NSDAP (which also had public many enterprises and a welfare state provided by them)... and with that eugenic policies command by the state / Nazi party, that made them had (almost) complete control on the german population.
You may think they are culturally similar, but the leading figures in those regimes did not. In fact, they thought of each other as arch enemies. Both regimes were totalitarian dictatorships, but their basic ideology was wildly different. In the Spanish civil war they supported opposing sides. And the first political party that Hitler outlawed was the KPD.
"Thats what Communists do bend history to suit current. politics" Yes they do sometimes. But only Communists, never anybody else? Media Western anti Communism when it goes on about the Communists sometimes, inad ertently, is pointing an accusing finger at itself. Communist misdeeds are the misdeeds of the accusing anti Communists as well. Never truer than when to do with changing Western interpretations of Germany and the Second World War.
The SDP held the chancellorship under the Kaiser, and early in the postwar Republic. The SDP cousins were the menshevik Social Democrats in Russia. Under the Kaiser the SDP supported annexation from Belguim to the Baltics.
Making a planned economy isn’t what makes a place communist though? Large corporations plan their economies all the time, and nobody’s calling Walmart a communist organization. The differences lie between who owns the means of production, this is some 101 level stuff that takes very little reading to figure out.
Thank you for another exposition on an interesting but seldom explored niche of WWII history. Many interesting points, but this one especially caught my attention: "The difference between bourgeois capitalism and Fascism [according to postwar East German propaganda] is one of degree." This is correct. Hitler's government was the marriage of government-sponsored enterprises with privately owned enterprise in a capitalist economy, similar to FDR's New Deal. In both countries, the government built the power utilities and highways, while private companies poured the concrete. Like you mention, the essential difference between Hitler's government and all other European totalitarian regimes was its virulent racism. Soviet Communism was brutal, but not racist. Nor was Mussolini's Fascism especially racist. Jews were persecuted only reluctantly and half-heartedly in Italy, while Russian prisoners captured by Italian armies operating in Italy were treated humanely, such as receiving the same rations as Italian soldiers. Whereas Hitler's regime killed all the Jews and Russians who fell into their hands, often in cruel ways by working and starving them to death.
Jews weren't especially persecuted in Italy. because there weren't many. Italian fascism was highly racist however look at they did to the Ethiopians and Slavs of the Balkans. not as inhumanely efficient as Germany for sure but they still had concentration camps and mass killings
@@dancarter6044 "When dealing with such a race as Slavic-inferior and barbarian-we must not pursue the carrot, but the stick policy. ... We should not be afraid of new victims. ... The Italian border should run across the Brenner Pass, Monte Nevoso and the Dinaric Alps. ... I would say we can easily sacrifice 500,000 barbaric Slavs for 50,000 Italians" Benito Mussolini. idk what you're talking about there were Italian concentration camps for the Slovenes and Croatians
I don't know why you think all communist historians view things exactly the same lol. That's like saying all capitalist historians view things the same, weird.
@@lordsleepyhead When you look into it all evidence points to Hitler and his Nazis trying to implement Socialism from a socialist economy to socialist ideals.
The Nazi party started life as The German Workers Party. AH was not the founder of this ideology, he was no intellectual. The Party was later renamed The National Socialist and German Workers Party (in English translation), to more closely reflect its aims and ambitions.
According to tik the nazi's were socialist. I tend to agree. Both the USSR and nazi Germany were both totalitarian. And I was always under the impression that the spd was always pro communist. I know I will get flack for my comments. Great video,and love your background scene. Plus fascist Italy had no real ill intentions against jews. So fascism doesn't really have the racist or religious persecution as socialism does or did.
Wrong on several points. 1. The SPD was/is democratic socialist. (It's even in their name.) The KPD was revolutionary socialist. In the interbellum there was a lot of animosity between the SPD and the KPD. 2. Italian fascism was anti-democratic and ultranationalistic, but not inherently racist (although they were more white-supremacist than the European democracies, and later in the war they did allow transports of Italian Jews to the camps). But the Nazis were strongly racist and antisemitic, from the start. Most fascist movements in other countries were also racist. 3. Socialism is not racist; they view society as divided by class, not by race. Socialism is often anti-clerical, because the clerics often sided with wealthy capitalists. 4. Italian fascism was anti-clerical, because their ideology centered around nationality. But they could not push this, because Catholicism was still strong in Italy.
@@dalstein3708 You are right but wrong on the third note. Socialism means that the state owns the means of production. You are talking about marxist socialism but that is just one flavour of socialism. Fascism and national socialism are also forms of socialism.
Honestly TIK is the only person on earth with a well defined socialism. Marxist socialism think that national socialism and fascism are rightwing because rightwing means bad and leftwing means good. This kind of monkey thinking gets you nowhere.
Even under your definition of socialism, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany were not socialist. The means of production were still privately owned. Your definition also does not cover anarchist forms of socialism, where the workers own the means of production but there isn't a state. (It doesn't even cover Marxism, because Marx envisioned a stateless society as the end point of developments.) Definitions aside, the horrors of Nazism and Stalinism did not stem from their being socialist. It was because they were authoritarian: the leaders had limitless power, and used ruthless violence to achieve their goals.
@@dalstein3708 The means of production both in fascist Italy and national socialist Germany were publicly owned. The directors of all large factories had to be members of the party and did their bidding. Anarchy does not exist in socialism. Anarchy means that there is no social hierarchy and a state is per definition an hierarchy. What you are talking about is communism. All forms of socialism degenerate into an authoritarian cesspool though I acknowledge that the various genocides that happened isn’t strictly in the political theory of socialism. Even Adolf Hitler did not envision a genocide at the beginning. Though all states that deviate from liberalism will eventually end up this way.
Honestly, it's a bit disappointing that a history teacher do mistakes like these. You well know that whatever name you call yourself, what matters it's what you do. It's actually very simple, in the capitalism the means of production are in private hands and/or controlled by a bourgeoise state. In a socialist economy, the means of production are socialized (which is different that nationalized/statized). It has nothing to do with the state (which is an instrument of class domination) having more or less to say in the economy planification, specially because in the end the planification is a mean to an end, not and goal itself. There are other error/misconceptions in the video that honestly don't make any sense to try to refute if we are starting with errors right from the beginning. This doesn't mean everything is wrong, but man, you have a ton of things you can criticize about DDR and Marxism in general, no need to resort on things that are just not true.
Interesting how totally oblivious many liberals (not all of course, but too many tend to think "I THINK THIS WORD MEANS THIS, SO THEREFOR THIS WORD IS THE THING I SAID"; a fallacy already noticed by scholars in the middle ages) are to the pervasiveness of their own ideology in their views - and how oblivious they tend to be about other ideologies (i guess this is always the case with the hegemonic ideology, though). First actually bad video by HH. GDR was shit, and their historical analysis propably worst out of any marxist analysis' (the "Stamokap" -analysis). It is ludicrous to talk about "marxist" views on fascism as if it was or is a monolith. Gramsci, Hilferding, Thalheimer, Tasca, Poulantzas, Bauer, Lukacs, Padmore - they all had differing views... Even amongst leninists the views differed greatly. I would recommend the book "Marxists in the face of Fascism", as it is a good collection of different branhces of marxism. If one says "according to these and these liberals socialism is this and/or this, and therefore x was socialism" (and the fascism is not fascism is even more tiresomely stupid, and only the most averse to sosiology and economics would say anything so ludicrous) is a more analytical way of saying it.
Yeah you are falling for the “the left is good and the right is bad therefor bad socialists are rightwing” fallacy. National socialism is a leftwing form of socialism. If you would say that national socialism is capitalism and a form of liberalism I have to diagnose you with late stage clownitism and this is in fact terminal 🤡
@@johkupohkuxd1697 Marx and Engels were themselves hypocritical bourgeoisie; they utilised the labour of their servants to enjoy a comfortable lifestyle. There was nothing new about the way Stalin etc ruled their citizens.
First I want apologize for my poor english. I am fluent in spanish, portuguese and french...but my germanic languages are weaks and poors. I desagree in some matters: the first is identify the forced stalinist-communist version of History with the historical method of marxism, the historical materialism. Even marxist historians as Moreno Fraginal were persecuted by communist dictatorship. It is possible to use that method and not to be communist or even to be a great communist historian...or Josep Fontana, Perry Anderson, Gordon Childe, Thompsom, Christopher Hill, Geoffrey de Saint Croix, etc were not great and honest historians??? Two: a capitalist society,even a dictatorship ally with big capitalists, can be under intervention of the state. Precisely the III Reich, where great capitalist helped Hitler, and earnt a lot of money with the supression of Unions, making guns, planes, with slave work, robbering jew enterprises, exploiting other markets in occuped countries, etc..Even Farben was in AUSCHWITZ. Another example is my country, Spain, where Franco implemented the Autarchia, with total control of the state over the market, but whose beneficts were to landlords and great capitalism. I agree with the bad role of KPD in 1930-33. In fact that party was one of the guilties of the Hitler's rise, attacking the SPD as "social-fascist". Other guilty is SPD, what made a sad agreement with the army in 1918 and used the freikorps against the revolution in 1919.
Grateful again for your insight and dispersing of history so we can see how the political parties view and distort history (not an unusual thing). Though there are a lot of issues with, no better to say it, than capitalism, I'm just astounded that those who fight against it are truly power hungry themselves and those who have power tend to not want to share it among "the masses". The upper echelons of any political party are filled with luxury (nothing new there), so I guess the litmus test of what works is what percentage of "the masses" are able to indulge in the wealth of their nation. Yet people are fickle - if some demagogue rattles them up enough to say this group or that group is the cause of a nations problems - historically I think its not a good thing. That is why we end up with Hitler's, Mao's, Lenen's, Pol Pot's, etc. etc. (we came close in the states with our own rabble rousers of McCarthy's of the 50"s and Trump's of this time. So how do "the masses" fall for the lies? Maybe be those so called leaders using a little truth mixed by nationalistic and charismatic fever at times hit a chord (tragically - yes) with us. My apologies for a long winded and simplistic response
yup, having an oligarch like Porsche, Maybach, Mercedes, Pfizer, Henschel, etc etc is socialist XDDDDDD its private ownership of property, SO ITS CAPITALIST. Socialism means democracy at workplace and social ownership of means of production, learn it and deal with it
The owners of Porsche, Maybach, Mercedes, IG farben and Krupp were all members of the national socialist german workers party (NSDAP). The NSDAP had a law that forced heads of directors to be party members. These people did the exact bidding of the state because they were planted there and through them the national socialist state had control of means pf production. Socialism means that the state owns the means of production. This is the actual definition and may vary from your made up definition.
@@serdradion4010 National Socialist Germany was not capitalist. Capitalism means that individuals own the means of production. In National socialist Germany the National socialist german workers party owned the means of production.
Germany's Hitler leadership made orders for various tech from different companies on their territory of control and payed them in Reich Marks, collected trough taxes, or inflationary printed. Factories and business were owned personally, not by the state. In the war time, economy might have functioned different. There is no democracy at the working place. In factories, state administration and else, working process and control supervision is preplanned. Employees organisation is rigid, division of working process is done among the employees.
East German Perspective on WW2:
ruclips.net/video/sulUHXKlj08/видео.html
✅ ヽ(͡◕ ͜ʖ ͡◕)ﾉ 🍀 🇧🇷
some people like Leo Strauss had strange perspectives about how WW2 was the fault of liberal democracy, which sounds like something Plato would say 👀
Could you possibly make an episode on the gypsy genocide during the Holocaust or porajmos. I feel like it's not really talked about. Only in 1979 it was actually accepted by Germany that they actually did what they did.
@@deziderziga1484😢
@@deziderziga1484 perhaps one day.
I did not know that the Soviets forced the SPD and the KPD to merge. That had to be a rough marriage, the KPD hated the SPD and considered them fascists as well
Aber man kam sich unter der Nazi-Herrschaft und in der unmittelbaren nachkriegszeit wieder näher. Allerdings lernten die Sozialdemokraten schnell dass mit den stalinisten keine sinnvolle Zusammenarbeit möglich war und die SPD nahm erst in den 70er eine etwas freundlichere Haltung ein, jungsozialisten die zu Kommunisten freundlich wurden allerdings dennoch aus der Partei ausgeschlossen. Es gab allerdings in der sed durchaus einige prominente Sozialdemokraten.
"Social Fascists".
@@gumdeo Laughable accusation.
it's a marriage of political convenience like many marriages from feudal times. if they had married earlier like before 1933, then history could have been different.
@@johkupohkuxd1697 why
Very intersting topic, Stefan. My father, who is 91 years old today, visited East Germany in 1963. He was scared about the west currency he had under his pockets in the way back across the Shame Wall. The communists doubt he was brazilian when checking his documents, due to his german fluency.
Danke! 🇩🇪 Obrigado! 🇧🇷
Interesting to read. Congrats with your father's birthday!
You're videos give me answers to questions I didn't even know I had!
🙂👍
"The Russians allowed 4 parties to develop in East Germany but they had to work to communist principles. "
How different is that from the US?
We have two parties which both adhere to capitalist principles. Third parties are excluded from most debates and rarely get on the ballot.
It’s not forced by a foreign occupier, nor is it *technically* required by our own laws.
@@lesinge8868 If the law states that
- you have a first-past-the-post voting system
- where candidates must fund their own campaigns
- with few limitations on campaign funding
- where campaigning needs to be done via privately-owned media (= expensive)
... then the law almost guarantees a two-party system where both parties are bribed by wealthy donors. That is callled a plutocracy.
@lesinge8868 not technically, practically. Same result. The thing is the people with power, the same 1% who control both parties, own the media etc. use a form of soft-authoritarianism. They're much more subtle but the end result is the same. The 1% get 90% of the legislation they support enacted while everyone else is lucky to get 10%. It's been proven.
Americans are fortunate because they reap the benefits of the US military state's oppression of people in developing countries. We don't execute our political enemies in the US but we train and support the people who execute our political enemies in places like Chile, Honduras, Columbia, Nicaragua, Guatemala etc.
The thing that should be important to Americans is the fact that the US is losing it's superiority on the world stage and along with it the benefits of such.
That means a scramble here at home for what will remain and that is when you'll see the true nature of the beast let loose on the American people.
Have you considered that the reason the two largest parties "abide by capitalist principles" is because the voters have historically not supported Socialism and do now want a socialist party. It is not a mandate by law to appeal to capitalism unlike in a communist society where it is.
@planderlinde1969 of course that's possible however it's also possible that the same people who control everything control education and children are raised from an early age to believe socialism is dangerous and even though the government doesn't specifically forbid socialism the people who run the corporations which control the government make sure socialists are blacklisted or denied access to media etc. So, is it enshrined in law? No. Is it enforced by others means? Yes, most definitely.
What happened in 1990 was not a reunification of Germany but rather an "anschluss" of the western part which absorbed the eastern part on an economic, political, administrative and institutional level.
The GDR stopped to exist yes.
Being Dutch, some of your videos don't interest me personally but you have this interest in niche topics that I share with you. Thank you for offering this content and if you ever have the time/resources to make longer/more in-depth videos, you would be one of RUclips's top history channels for sure.
Great to read Chris! Best wishes for 2024 🎆
@@HistoryHustle I forgot to mention that you interact with your audience through the comment section. That is appreciated as well. Other channels make mistakes and when I try to correct them, I and others are ignored like we are not good enough to be listened to and/or we don't know what we are talking about. All the best for 2024. Looking forward to what is about to come from you.
Socialist and one-party state are two things worst in any term.
Great video, man! I'd love to hear some insights about how GRD politicians viewed reunification.
That be cool.
Strongly agree with this idea….
🥉👍
Or their views on nato and Warsaw pact countries gaining independence
Informative and intresting again 👍
🙂👍
But capitalism is a form of ownership. A planned state can still be capitalist if the businesses are owned by private entities. Free market capitalist? No. Capitalist? Certainly. This is a confusion of economic terms.
The Nazis allowed businesses to be in private ownership but dicated what they could manufacture, how many they had to manufacture, and how much to sell for. It was capitalism on a short leash in the service of the State.
Free markets are capitalist.
The third Riech was a socialist state
Yes but businessman have to follow plannings and quotas and have nothing in their choice, is it capitalism ? All profit is taxed for state capital
Can it be called ownership if one doesn't have control? I don't really think so, especially if the lack of control is the rule, not the exception in the prevalent economic system.
yup, having an oligarch like Porsche, Maybach, Mercedes, Pfizer, Henschel, etc etc is socialist XDDDDDD its private ownership of property, SO ITS CAPITALIST. Socialism means democracy at workplace and social ownership of means of production, learn it
Great topic to highlight. Excellent work!👍
👍👍👍
I’ve always been fascinated by the photograph of Walter Ulbricht ( inheritor of Thaalman’s leadership, as he languished in imprisonment ) and Josef Goebels ( Berlin Gauleiter at the time ) holding forth at a joint NSDAP - KPD rally. Imagine the incredible tension in the hall !
Didn't know about this, interesting!
Goebbels was a pussy lol. Government/State really is the end of Natural Selection. Every coward can become a leader, in the right sneaky political circumstances.
You revealed a lot for me - in media, the rise of Hitler is not correlated to monopoly capitalism and is a direct result of the poor suffering - due to the depression.
Every American should watch this.
Especially those who don’t know what Nazi is short for, or the difference between fascism and Nazism - which is most of us.
Thanks again
The depressin was directly caused by capitalism..
Thanks!
Many thanks Jesse for your generosity.
‘The Man without a Face’ - ‘Memoirs of a Spymaster’ by Markus Wolf gives an interesting perspective on this subject.
Markus Wolf was the effective head of the DDR Foreign Intelligence Service from 1950 to 1985 approx
I came away from my brief time in the GDR (1986) , baffled , even though I was not naive on Marxist historical thought. , on this and aspects of German history (ie Protesrant Reformation) . I have not even seen this topic addressed before. Cheers to this most prolific content generator . Cheers Stephan !
Stefan, nice but I have a question, how did the GDR East Germans explain Stalin's treaty with Hitler? Thanks
A neccesary evil because the western countries refused co-operation with the USSR.
Interesting and thought provoking as always ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
You ask at the 0:35 mark, "Why didn't Communists prevent this?" We can ask, why didn't other western powers prevent this? Imperialism in the manifestation of other western powers were delighted with fascism in Germany. It served them in so far as it was an outpost in order to smash the USSR. Well... they failed didn't they? It was the USSR which was victorious in the second war of the imperialist powers to redivide the world. Now with another crises upon us, the imperialist powers prepare a 3rd World War and once again they target Russia as they carve up the loot.
He asks “why didn’t the communists prevent this?” because the video is about how the communists framed the rise of hitler. How are you this dense?
Your brain is rotted with that amount of propaganda rolling around in it.
Note that "Socialism" for Hitler mend something different compared to what Marxists understood as Socialism.
Hitler and other Nazi's were very much under the influence on what was called "Prussian Socialism" which had nothing to do with Marxism, but stemd from the works by Oswald Spengler.
Hitler thus understood as National-Socialism more in the lines of "working for the glory of the nation" or some abstract notion.
This becomes ever more clear if you take into account that Conservatives in the west gave Hitler the benefit of the doubt or sometimes outright supported him as "fighter against Communism".
Whatever 'economic planning' was going on in Nazi-Germany, they had not a GOSplan, like in the USSR, lot of sectors were privatized instead of nationalised
The difference between Marxist Socialism and National Socialism is that Maxism wanted to socialize the people or working class at the expense of the rich who are class enemies of the proletariat and should be murdered. National Socialism wanted to socialize the race (ayrans) to the expense of the jews who were race enemies.
Yes the Nazis did have a centrally planned economy. Privatization wasn't really a thing. Yes you could own a factory or business however if your business didn't cooperate with the party it would be Nationalized. This happened to Professor Junkers when the Nazis kicked him out of his own factory.
@@planderlinde1969 That's a stretch.. privatization wasn't a thing? economists have pointed out that the privatization in Fascist Italy and Nazi-Germany were the first modern examples of Privatization that we later saw under Neo-Liberalism. Surely there was some economic planning, but every country on the planet does that to some extent. Loyalty to a nationalist party is the opposite of socialism.
Like I said, Hitler understood 'socialism' as some nationalist notion about loyalty to, and working for, the state. But he never answered to any serious socialist or communist economic ideals.
For me main difference between both of them is ussr were internationalist whereas fascist were ultranationalist.
Fascist economics are more corporstivist, ThirPosotionists I believe. (Could be wrong, though).
Thank you!!! It drives me insane how some people try and make out that 1. All Marxists are the same with the same philosophies and view points and 2. That Hitler was really a "socialist" and therefore socialism and Nazis are the same thing.
Enjoy Stefan love your channel 👍✌️🍻Cheers
👍👍👍
My favorite channel keep it up👍
🙂👍
3:03 - 4:01 wonderfully explained.
I have a different take on why communists always talked of fascists and rarely nazis althought you also make a very good point, another psrt of it was stalin was literally allied with nazi germany until Hitler's betrayal so wanted to talk about fascist states in more abstract terms, an attempt to misdirect blame
.
Very interesting video to watch.
🙂👍
Love these east Germany docs Stefan 🫶🏻
You just raised the bar again/ Excellent. BZ
Many thanks for your reply!
The video is very bised. Nazis were virulently anti-socialist and anti-communist. The socialists were the first people to be purged and put in concentration camps. Nazi Germany had elements of the planned economy in the same way liberal democracies regularly intervine on the "free market". Capitalism and private property were never abolished during Nazi Germany, which makes the statement that Germany was socialist ridiculous. It was a capitalist country. Capitalists didn't lose their property. On the contrary, they often profited by using the free labour provided by the marginalised groups that were disempowered by the Nazis, especially the Jews. Marxist historians were right in their assessment of the situation.
According to Marxists.
@@HistoryHustle Anything I said is factually correct. Nazis were anti-marxist and anti-communist, which is proven both by their rhetoric as well as their violent actions against the communists and anarchists. The socialists were the first to be purged in Nazi Germany as well as fascist Italy. In Spain the civil war was between republicans, communists and anarchists on the one hand, monarchists, fascists and conservatives on the other. All forms of fascism are a reaction to proletarian distress and socialist agitation caused by the worsening of material conditions under capitalism (in crisis), political instability that is a consequence of economic volatility. Most liberal democracies have elements of planned economy. They intervene in the "free" market in a number of ways, from subsidies to stimulate certain sectors of the economy to government initiatives and public run services. Private property was never abolished under Nazi Germany. Communism, as Marx defines it, is essentially the elimination of private property, and as a consequence the bourgeoisie. All of these are historical facts, that both Marxist historians as well as certain liberal historians would agree on. Narrativization is a common way to present historical facts as a cohesive unfolding of material and social forces driving societal events. Both liberal and Marxist historians engage in narrativization.
@@HegemonicMarxism I refer to TIK History. Nazi ideology was full of contradictions. Hating communism but signing a pact with them anyway. Hating Poles as Slavs but co-operate with Slovakia. Much of the economy of the III Reich was state run.
@@HistoryHustle To your first point. Nazis ideologically hated communism, but would align with the Soviets circumstantially for practical reasons for a short period. In the same way, Hitler admired the US, especially its industrial developments, and thought of the British as fellow Aryan brothers, but went to war with both of them, due to its expansionist ambitions. The behaviours between states can rarely be reduced to their ideological status, and it's always primarily determined by power struggles, strategic thinking and geopolitical goals. The USSR signed the non-aggression pact with Germany for a number of reasons: 1) it needed time to prepare for a potential invasion from Germany, as Stalin was aware of Hitler's views on the Slavic people and Bolshevism (or Judeo-bolshevism as he would say); 2) The Soviets invaded Poland to secure their western borders, and 3) to fulfill its own expansionist ambitions. So, even though Nazis and Bolsheviks hated each other on an ideological level, they still agreed to cooperate in this limited situation as it was strategically sound for both of them to do so.
To your second point, Nazi Germany did have a partially planned economy, maintaining elements of free market liberalism. I don't think that "planned economy" equals "communism", but it was a characteristic of most, if not all self identified socialist countries that adopted a soviet model of economic development. State interventionism is still present in most liberal democracies to different degrees. There is heavy state involvement in the "free market" in almost any capitalist stats, from The US to the European social democracies. Similarly, Nazi Germany did have a certain degree of centralised economic development, but maintained most of the private sector. I would say that the elimination of private property is a more accurate property of a communist society than the dichotomy of "planned economy vs free market". The Soviet Union didn't have capitalists, and most private property was abolished and collectivised under the supervision of the state. Nazi Germany, on the other hand, did have both capitalists and private property, though it was stronger state intervention in the private sector. For this reason, Nazi Germany was not a socialist country, or at least not socialist in any traditional leftist sense, from neither an anarchist perspective nor a Marxian one. Hitler himself recognised when asked why Nazis named themselves socialist that they could as well have been named The Liberal Party. The labels someone self identifies as are irrelevant if they're not backed by actions consistent with their supposed ideology. Nobody would argue that North Korea for example is a democracy, in the liberal western understanding of the word, simply because it has the word "democratic" in the name.
I know this guys a moron
Yeah, I’m a history teacher and I am well-versed in this, not only as a historian, but I am also well-versed in the far right’s attempt at divorcing itself from its own bloody history with regards to the third Reich.
In an attempt to do so, it is falsely claimed that the “Nazis were socialists,” using only the name as evidence, as if the DPRK is a democracy because it’s in the name!
Nothing the Nazis did was socialist. Claiming they were leftists denies the Holocaust because the first people to suffer in their concentration camps were leftists: socialists, communists and trade unionists! Martin Niemöller’s famous quote supports this, as does the Night of the Long Knives and the entire Nazi ideology, which falsely believed that socialism, communism, and any leftist movement was a result of a Jewish conspiracy.
The Nazis were fascists! The only difference between Italian fascism and German fascism was a larger element of white supremacy.
Now, History Hustle, I will admit to being wrong about this, which is everything I’ve learned about this subject as a historian, if you can show me a primary source from the East German Ministry of Education that explicitly supports your claim that they “deliberately avoided calling them socialists, because the East Germans were (actually) socialists. Show us a primary source! I speak German, so you don’t even need to translate it for us.
We don’t just believe someone because they say it on RUclips. There is too much bias and disinformation with regard to what the Nazis were. I doubt the East Germans were doing this to protect their own names. Indeed, they were accurately calling the Germans fascists because, in practice, and even in their own rhetoric, they were.
Very interesting explanations Stefan, TIK has also covered this matter in depth and I'd say come to the same conclusions. The German communists in exile in Russia 1933-45 would make an interesting film too ! I always look forward to your next film mate !
Very excellent & interesting. Thank You
Thanks for your reply.
A very good explanation, thank You!
Thanks for replying.
I learned a lot again!
😀👍
That was good. In truth, all the talk about why Nazis rose to power is really about one thing - times were bad, and Hitler sounded like the best deal offered. Anyway, I doubt the ding dong at 7:41 had anything to do with it. I was wondering if you could show the bell one day? I'd like to see it. Take care.
Weer erg interessant!!
Dank!
It is true to say that "You'll get to keep the private ownership model as long as you make the military goods first" isn't capitalism...... it would be equally disingenuous to say that socialism is "We are gonna let you keep the private ownership model, as long as you make the military goods first."
Today far right parties often react schizofrenic towards Hitler's far right stance. But Hitler was very clear about being anti-socialist and communist. In an interview, which took place between Adolf Hitler and George Sylvester Viereck in 1923, Hitler discussed the question of whether the Nazi Party was socialist. In the interview, Hitler acknowledged the use of the term "socialist" in the name National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP) but argued that the party's interpretation of socialism differed from that of Marxist or traditional socialists. Hitler stated that the term "socialist" was retained in the party's name for historical reasons and to attract workers to the cause. It was in fact an ordinary marketing trick to lure socialists into their camp, well yeah...
The Nazi party (NSDAP) is considered a right-wing party because:
Extreme far right Patriotism and Nationalism: The Nazi Party promoted an extreme form of nationalism that focused on the idea of a racially pure German state. This emphasis on national identity and the superiority of the Aryan race aligns with right-wing nationalist ideologies.
Authoritarianism: The Nazis advocated for a strong, centralized state with authoritarian control. They sought to suppress political dissent, control the media, and eliminate opposition, which are characteristics associated with right-wing political ideologies. The association between authoritarianism and socialism or communism in the rhetoric of some right-wing leaders often stems from historical and ideological arguments.
Anti-Communism: The Nazis were vehemently anti-communist and saw communism as a threat to the German nation. Opposition to left-wing ideologies, particularly communism and socialism, is a characteristic often associated with right-wing politics. Hitler criticizes Marxist ideologies or where he outlines his own vision for the German state in his autobiography "Mein Kampf", in particular, Volume 1, Chapter 2 ("Years of Study and Suffering in Vienna") and Volume 2, Chapter 2 ("The State").
Social Conservatism: The Nazi Party promoted traditional social values and rejected what they perceived as degenerate influences, including modern art and certain cultural practices. This aligns with a socially conservative agenda typically associated with right-wing politics. Hitler underlined also other right-wing Social Conservatism characteristics like Family Values, Cultural Preservation, Resistance to Social Change, Law and Order and Education Policy, advocating for education policies that emphasize traditional values and moral teachings, and they may resist what they perceive as progressive or liberal influences in school.
Corporate Collaboration: While the Nazis did not strictly adhere to traditional capitalist economic principles, they maintained a form of collaboration with German industrialists and business interests. This cooperation between the state and private enterprise is a feature often associated with far right-wing economic policies.
Anti-Semitism: The Nazis promoted anti-Semitic ideologies, blaming Jews for various societal problems. Although anti-Semitism is not exclusive to any political ideology, the extreme and systematic nature of anti-Jewish policies under the Nazi regime contributed to the perception of the Nazis as a right-wing party.
What is your point exactly regarding the video?
some former nazi commanders like gdr and the allied gertman republic was has same settings former nazi commander in bundespear
there in there both military structures to have veterans to train and strengthen there military
🥇👍
Intriguing.
👍
So, history was used in East Germany, like it is used today, not by what actually happened, but by the politics of the current regime, and how they can benefit from that narrative.
So we are living through something like the East German government today... That explains a lot, Thanks...
I disagree Nazi Germany was never a plan economy. I invite everyone to see the work of the French historian Chapoutot on is essay on Nazi management.
Nazi economy was a plannified economy, but not in the same way / level as the Soviet economy (where private enterprises were practically abolished... of course, if we exclude the NEP and the failed Perestroika reform). Capitalism (= private ownership of the means of production) was allowed in Nazi germany, as soins as it didn't interfere with the political ideals of the NSDAP (which also had public many enterprises and a welfare state provided by them)... and with that eugenic policies command by the state / Nazi party, that made them had (almost) complete control on the german population.
The communist/fascist animosity always reminds me of culturally similar neighboring countries that always complain about one another.
You may think they are culturally similar, but the leading figures in those regimes did not. In fact, they thought of each other as arch enemies.
Both regimes were totalitarian dictatorships, but their basic ideology was wildly different. In the Spanish civil war they supported opposing sides. And the first political party that Hitler outlawed was the KPD.
puppet state
"Thats what Communists do bend history to suit current. politics" Yes they do sometimes. But only Communists, never anybody else? Media Western anti Communism when it goes on about the Communists sometimes, inad ertently, is pointing an accusing finger at itself. Communist misdeeds are the misdeeds of the accusing anti Communists as well. Never truer than when to do with changing Western interpretations of Germany and the Second World War.
The SDP held the chancellorship under the Kaiser, and early in the postwar Republic. The SDP cousins were the menshevik Social Democrats in Russia. Under the Kaiser the SDP supported annexation from Belguim to the Baltics.
What is your point exactly regarding the video?
Lookin good brother! 6.75 cut wbu
👍
@@HistoryHustle can u host ?
great vid
🥈👍
Very tough topic to discuss. I guess many of the ' politically inactive' masses in the 1930's died in some trench on the Eastern front.....
Making a planned economy isn’t what makes a place communist though? Large corporations plan their economies all the time, and nobody’s calling Walmart a communist organization. The differences lie between who owns the means of production, this is some 101 level stuff that takes very little reading to figure out.
Nice.
👍
Thank you for another exposition on an interesting but seldom explored niche of WWII history. Many interesting points, but this one especially caught my attention: "The difference between bourgeois capitalism and Fascism [according to postwar East German propaganda] is one of degree." This is correct. Hitler's government was the marriage of government-sponsored enterprises with privately owned enterprise in a capitalist economy, similar to FDR's New Deal. In both countries, the government built the power utilities and highways, while private companies poured the concrete. Like you mention, the essential difference between Hitler's government and all other European totalitarian regimes was its virulent racism. Soviet Communism was brutal, but not racist. Nor was Mussolini's Fascism especially racist. Jews were persecuted only reluctantly and half-heartedly in Italy, while Russian prisoners captured by Italian armies operating in Italy were treated humanely, such as receiving the same rations as Italian soldiers. Whereas Hitler's regime killed all the Jews and Russians who fell into their hands, often in cruel ways by working and starving them to death.
The Reds killed millions cruelly building their socialist paradise with brutal labor, starvation rations, camp cruelty and the cold
Jews weren't especially persecuted in Italy. because there weren't many. Italian fascism was highly racist however look at they did to the Ethiopians and Slavs of the Balkans. not as inhumanely efficient as Germany for sure but they still had concentration camps and mass killings
@@dominikrode8184 Well no one back then thought much of the Africans but the Italians got along with the Slavs pretty well
@@dancarter6044 "When dealing with such a race as Slavic-inferior and barbarian-we must not pursue the carrot, but the stick policy. ... We should not be afraid of new victims. ... The Italian border should run across the Brenner Pass, Monte Nevoso and the Dinaric Alps. ... I would say we can easily sacrifice 500,000 barbaric Slavs for 50,000 Italians" Benito Mussolini. idk what you're talking about there were Italian concentration camps for the Slovenes and Croatians
Everyone forgets 🇦🇹 coming out of ww2
Everyone?
Define "evil" please
Ted Bundy
In Soviet Union the documentary documents you.
True.
I don't know why you think all communist historians view things exactly the same lol. That's like saying all capitalist historians view things the same, weird.
Damn Stefan. I'm disappointed in you.
Why?
Please explain.
"The Nazi's were actually socialists" is a lazy right wing talking point and should not be perpetuated.
@@lordsleepyhead When you look into it all evidence points to Hitler and his Nazis trying to implement Socialism from a socialist economy to socialist ideals.
The Nazi party started life as The German Workers Party. AH was not the founder of this ideology, he was no intellectual.
The Party was later renamed The National Socialist and German Workers Party (in English translation), to more closely reflect its aims and ambitions.
Looks like the type of "historian" that would appear on PragerU...
Care to explain?
According to tik the nazi's were socialist. I tend to agree. Both the USSR and nazi Germany were both totalitarian. And I was always under the impression that the spd was always pro communist. I know I will get flack for my comments. Great video,and love your background scene. Plus fascist Italy had no real ill intentions against jews. So fascism doesn't really have the racist or religious persecution as socialism does or did.
Wrong on several points.
1. The SPD was/is democratic socialist. (It's even in their name.) The KPD was revolutionary socialist. In the interbellum there was a lot of animosity between the SPD and the KPD.
2. Italian fascism was anti-democratic and ultranationalistic, but not inherently racist (although they were more white-supremacist than the European democracies, and later in the war they did allow transports of Italian Jews to the camps). But the Nazis were strongly racist and antisemitic, from the start. Most fascist movements in other countries were also racist.
3. Socialism is not racist; they view society as divided by class, not by race. Socialism is often anti-clerical, because the clerics often sided with wealthy capitalists.
4. Italian fascism was anti-clerical, because their ideology centered around nationality. But they could not push this, because Catholicism was still strong in Italy.
@@dalstein3708 You are right but wrong on the third note. Socialism means that the state owns the means of production. You are talking about marxist socialism but that is just one flavour of socialism.
Fascism and national socialism are also forms of socialism.
Honestly TIK is the only person on earth with a well defined socialism. Marxist socialism think that national socialism and fascism are rightwing because rightwing means bad and leftwing means good.
This kind of monkey thinking gets you nowhere.
Even under your definition of socialism, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany were not socialist. The means of production were still privately owned.
Your definition also does not cover anarchist forms of socialism, where the workers own the means of production but there isn't a state. (It doesn't even cover Marxism, because Marx envisioned a stateless society as the end point of developments.)
Definitions aside, the horrors of Nazism and Stalinism did not stem from their being socialist. It was because they were authoritarian: the leaders had limitless power, and used ruthless violence to achieve their goals.
@@dalstein3708 The means of production both in fascist Italy and national socialist Germany were publicly owned. The directors of all large factories had to be members of the party and did their bidding.
Anarchy does not exist in socialism. Anarchy means that there is no social hierarchy and a state is per definition an hierarchy. What you are talking about is communism.
All forms of socialism degenerate into an authoritarian cesspool though I acknowledge that the various genocides that happened isn’t strictly in the political theory of socialism. Even Adolf Hitler did not envision a genocide at the beginning. Though all states that deviate from liberalism will eventually end up this way.
Germany didn't deserve reunification.
Ok.
Well this Dutch dude has Never watched the documentary of Hitler the greatest story never told! If he did he would understand WW2 history BETTER!
This Dutch dude rejects neo Nazi revisionism.
@@HistoryHustle Okay then stay ignorant
Honestly, it's a bit disappointing that a history teacher do mistakes like these.
You well know that whatever name you call yourself, what matters it's what you do.
It's actually very simple, in the capitalism the means of production are in private hands and/or controlled by a bourgeoise state. In a socialist economy, the means of production are socialized (which is different that nationalized/statized). It has nothing to do with the state (which is an instrument of class domination) having more or less to say in the economy planification, specially because in the end the planification is a mean to an end, not and goal itself.
There are other error/misconceptions in the video that honestly don't make any sense to try to refute if we are starting with errors right from the beginning.
This doesn't mean everything is wrong, but man, you have a ton of things you can criticize about DDR and Marxism in general, no need to resort on things that are just not true.
Yes indeed, there is no point in writing a comment like this when you have errors right from the beginning.
@garethfairclough8715 TIK has also been criticized for not understanding socialism very well, there are numorous debunking videos on him
Interesting how totally oblivious many liberals (not all of course, but too many tend to think "I THINK THIS WORD MEANS THIS, SO THEREFOR THIS WORD IS THE THING I SAID"; a fallacy already noticed by scholars in the middle ages) are to the pervasiveness of their own ideology in their views - and how oblivious they tend to be about other ideologies (i guess this is always the case with the hegemonic ideology, though). First actually bad video by HH. GDR was shit, and their historical analysis propably worst out of any marxist analysis' (the "Stamokap" -analysis).
It is ludicrous to talk about "marxist" views on fascism as if it was or is a monolith. Gramsci, Hilferding, Thalheimer, Tasca, Poulantzas, Bauer, Lukacs, Padmore - they all had differing views... Even amongst leninists the views differed greatly. I would recommend the book "Marxists in the face of Fascism", as it is a good collection of different branhces of marxism.
If one says "according to these and these liberals socialism is this and/or this, and therefore x was socialism" (and the fascism is not fascism is even more tiresomely stupid, and only the most averse to sosiology and economics would say anything so ludicrous) is a more analytical way of saying it.
Yeah you are falling for the “the left is good and the right is bad therefor bad socialists are rightwing” fallacy.
National socialism is a leftwing form of socialism. If you would say that national socialism is capitalism and a form of liberalism I have to diagnose you with late stage clownitism and this is in fact terminal 🤡
Definitely one pf your best videos. shows the idiocy of marxism. my boss was a Marxist and he was a jackass too n
A marxist boss... sounds like a hypocrite...
@@johkupohkuxd1697
Marx and Engels were themselves hypocritical bourgeoisie; they utilised the labour of their servants to enjoy a comfortable lifestyle.
There was nothing new about the way Stalin etc ruled their citizens.
Blõde Ostern.
?
First I want apologize for my poor english. I am fluent in spanish, portuguese and french...but my germanic languages are weaks and poors. I desagree in some matters: the first is identify the forced stalinist-communist version of History with the historical method of marxism, the historical materialism. Even marxist historians as Moreno Fraginal were persecuted by communist dictatorship. It is possible to use that method and not to be communist or even to be a great communist historian...or Josep Fontana, Perry Anderson, Gordon Childe, Thompsom, Christopher Hill, Geoffrey de Saint Croix, etc were not great and honest historians??? Two: a capitalist society,even a dictatorship ally with big capitalists, can be under intervention of the state. Precisely the III Reich, where great capitalist helped Hitler, and earnt a lot of money with the supression of Unions, making guns, planes, with slave work, robbering jew enterprises, exploiting other markets in occuped countries, etc..Even Farben was in AUSCHWITZ. Another example is my country, Spain, where Franco implemented the Autarchia, with total control of the state over the market, but whose beneficts were to landlords and great capitalism. I agree with the bad role of KPD in 1930-33. In fact that party was one of the guilties of the Hitler's rise, attacking the SPD as "social-fascist". Other guilty is SPD, what made a sad agreement with the army in 1918 and used the freikorps against the revolution in 1919.
This is good. Communists always had elaborate rationalizations for their interpretations of history. Interesting to see it all laid out here.
LOTS OF OLD WERMACHT SOLDIERS GET NEW JOBS FROM DDR....GDR
Any numbers?
@@HistoryHustle NON BUT I PRESSUME
🙃🙃🙂🙂
Ok.
@@HistoryHustle 🙂
Grateful again for your insight and dispersing of history so we can see how the political parties view and distort history (not an unusual thing). Though there are a lot of issues with, no better to say it, than capitalism, I'm just astounded that those who fight against it are truly power hungry themselves and those who have power tend to not want to share it among "the masses". The upper echelons of any political party are filled with luxury (nothing new there), so I guess the litmus test of what works is what percentage of "the masses" are able to indulge in the wealth of their nation. Yet people are fickle - if some demagogue rattles them up enough to say this group or that group is the cause of a nations problems - historically I think its not a good thing. That is why we end up with Hitler's, Mao's, Lenen's, Pol Pot's, etc. etc. (we came close in the states with our own rabble rousers of McCarthy's of the 50"s and Trump's of this time. So how do "the masses" fall for the lies? Maybe be those so called leaders using a little truth mixed by nationalistic and charismatic fever at times hit a chord (tragically - yes) with us. My apologies for a long winded and simplistic response
Lotta stuff in this is inaccurate
Feel free to explain.
@@HistoryHustle Mainly the stuff about Hitler not being a capitalist
yup, having an oligarch like Porsche, Maybach, Mercedes, Pfizer, Henschel, etc etc is socialist XDDDDDD its private ownership of property, SO ITS CAPITALIST. Socialism means democracy at workplace and social ownership of means of production, learn it and deal with it
There are different modes of socialism, even in capitalist society .
The particular explained one under the communist leadership failed.
The owners of Porsche, Maybach, Mercedes, IG farben and Krupp were all members of the national socialist german workers party (NSDAP). The NSDAP had a law that forced heads of directors to be party members. These people did the exact bidding of the state because they were planted there and through them the national socialist state had control of means pf production.
Socialism means that the state owns the means of production. This is the actual definition and may vary from your made up definition.
@@serdradion4010 National Socialist Germany was not capitalist. Capitalism means that individuals own the means of production. In National socialist Germany the National socialist german workers party owned the means of production.
Germany's Hitler leadership made orders for various tech from different companies on their territory of control and payed them in Reich Marks, collected trough taxes, or inflationary printed.
Factories and business were owned personally, not by the state.
In the war time, economy might have functioned different.
There is no democracy at the working place. In factories, state administration and else, working process and control supervision is preplanned.
Employees organisation is rigid, division of working process is done among the employees.
Sounds just like the American leftist..
Care to back that up?