Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
So, Hitler was a Communist in early 1919
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 бер 2022
- There is photographic, video and contemporary reports of Adolf Hitler being elected into the Socialist Bavarian People's State and the Communist Bavarian Soviet Republic. While historians have acknowledged that this happened, they're reluctant to come to any conclusions regarding it (since it will fundamentally undermine their own narratives). In this video, we're going to dive into the evidence and the debate surrounding this topic. Was Hitler a Communist in 1919? Let's find out.
Follow me on Instagram / tikhistory
⏲️ Videos EVERY Monday at 5pm GMT (depending on season, check for British Summer Time).
The thumbnail for this video was created by Terri Young. Need awesome graphics? Check out her website www.terriyoung...
- - - - -
📚 BIBLIOGRAPHY / SOURCES 📚
Video specific source list docs.google.co...
Full list of all my sources docs.google.co...
- - - - -
⭐ SUPPORT TIK ⭐
This video isn't sponsored. My income comes purely from my Patreons and SubscribeStars, and from UA-cam ad revenue. So, if you'd like to support this channel and make these videos possible, please consider becoming a Patreon or SubscribeStar. All supporters who pledge $1 or more will have their names listed in the videos. For $5 or more you can ask questions which I will answer in future Q&A videos (note: I'm behind with the Q&A's right now, and have a lot of research to do to catch up, so there will be a delay in answering questions). There are higher tiers too with additional perks, so check out the links below for more details.
/ tikhistory
www.subscribes...
Thank you to my current supporters! You're AWESOME!
- - - - -
📽️ RELATED VIDEO LINKS 📽️
Hitler's Socialism | Destroying the Denialist Counter Arguments • Hitler's Socialism | D...
The BEST book I've EVER read on Hitler and National Socialism • The BEST book I've EVE...
Karl Marx's Anti-Semitism • Karl Marx's Anti-Semitism
FASCISM DEFINED | The Difference between Fascism and National Socialism • FASCISM DEFINED | The ...
When it REALLY Began - BankWars: Weimar Hyperinflation Episode 1 • When it REALLY Began -...
History Theory 101 • [Out of Date, see desc...
- - - - -
ABOUT TIK 📝
History isn’t as boring as some people think, and my goal is to get people talking about it. I also want to dispel the myths and distortions that ruin our perception of the past by asking a simple question - “But is this really the case?”. I have a 2:1 Degree in History and a passion for early 20th Century conflicts (mainly WW2). I’m therefore approaching this like I would an academic essay. Lots of sources, quotes, references and so on. Only the truth will do.
This video is discussing events or concepts that are academic, educational and historical in nature. This video is for informational purposes and was created so we may better understand the past and learn from the mistakes others have made.
Historian: If Hitler was a socialist, why did he argue with socialists all the time?
Anyone with a brain: Because socialists argue with each other all the time.
The left is never far enough left for each other
@@firingallcylinders2949 Equally, the left, the center-left, the center, the center-right, the right, and the far-right are never far right enough for the far-right.
Adolf's party sat on the right, opposite the communists in parliament. That is literally how left and right parties get labeled left or right. He identified himself and his own party as right-wing, further right-wing than the wealthy moderate conservative capitalist Germans.
@@Thor.Jorgensen
Glad to see you never watch his videos. We got another one.
@@Web720 No, I've watched them. They are just not convincing. In fact, he never cites his sources either. This is why guys like him are labeled holo****t deniers and historical revisionists.
And whenever actual evidence is provided as counterarguments, another unsubstantiated lie is fabricated with no source of evidence.
For example, you never addressed the argument. Why was the N*DAP literally seated on the far right, opposite the far left, opposite the liberals, opposite the social democrats, on the far side of the conservatives, and the nationalists, if they indeed were left-wing?
Exactly. I used to be an avid leftist and I remember all the delegitimizing each faction did. Marxists called anarchists liberals. Anarchists call Marxists fascist (frankly they call EVERYONE, including an-caps fascist, so that's not a surprise) both called revisionists (those not wanting violent revolution, DemSocs) liberals. Anarcho-communists called anarcho-mutualists and individual anarchists secret an-caps and therefore fascist. It never ends.
Anarcho-communists call other anarcho-communists fascist if one of them has a different favorite color then the other, or one likes pepperoni on their pizza and the other doesn't. No one is considered ideologically pure other then the person speaking.
'He had no friends, no job, no family or a life.'
'Yep, definitely sounds like a Communist'.
I had to pick myself up from the floor for laughing too much.
Me too. It does sound like the Communists I've known.
Oh come off of it, it was the end of World War I. NOBODY HAD A JOB FFS!
To be fair, with the long hours people work nowadays, this pretty much describes everyone - the parts about having no family, friends, or life at least.
And everyone is a communist nowadays.
The man just came back from WW1. I mean, tf do people expect? Him to be a happy, cheery ol' lad? C'mon now.
Yeah like the "anarcho-punks" who are really just communists.
Mussolini: I was a syndicalist (i.e. Marxist) anarchist. I want to keep the syndicalism but get rid of the anarchy part. I'll also change the focus from internationalism to nationalism. I'll call my new dialectical spin on syndicalism "Fascism"
Hitler: I was a communist. I want to keep the class struggle politics part but reframe it as racial struggle and I want to get rid of the internationalism and make it nationalistic. I'll call my new dialectical spin on communism "National Socialism."
Socialist: NoT rEaL sOcIaLiSm!!!
And the neo-marxists, via CRT, have reframed class struggle as racial struggle.
Just saying......
exactly. it's just a spin on a prior ideology.
You do realise that Mussolini was not the founder of Fascism, right?
It's as if there's a dystopian coin which features all the worst people in history divided on each side by brand.
@@thephoenix756 Im not sure what your point could possibly be. Is it that only the founder of anything is able to say something, extoll, promote, explain, criticize or pass judgment (etc) about that thing? Perhaps you merely forgot to finish your rhetorical question, explaining who the 'founder of fascism' really is and why Benito got it so horribly wrong.
Historians don’t seem to understand that Germany is the birthplace of modern socialism and that the vast majority of the German people were simply in different sects of socialists. Everyone, including the Nazis, were engaging in the same argument people on the left do when they see other forms of socialism, “that’s not real socialism though” “if I were dictator, this is how my utopia would look”. Little do they know, they have quite a lot in common with Hitler, who said the exact same things.
Take the usual BLM / "anti-racist" scripture, replace "Black/POC" with "German" and "White" with "Jew" and it is indistinguishable from something Hitler would have written.
I will enjoy the hate comments coming. Thanks for standing up for truth, and absorbing the abuse. Many of us thought this for years, but you can't say it because people have been brainwashed by educators that wanted to rewrite history.
The Nazis are beginning to hate already. Surprised the Communists aren't here yet
Hitler probably would have had a black lies matter, sorry, black lives matter t-shirt back in those days. 🏳️🌈
Artist aye? Educated in the liberal world centre of Vienna was he? You can smell the progressive. You know? The "hi I'm a liberal" type for your vote, whilst inside his mind, it's PROGRESSIVE steps to communism.
@@TheImperatorKnight They don't like being compared to each other? But they have so much in common...
@@TheImperatorKnight I've heard them say Hitler's Table Talks are a forgery. The level of cope is astounding
@Fascist Joker That seems a stretch.
Excellent video. Nationalists in Poland always understood that the country was attack by two socialist regimes.
Finally somebody actually goes over Hitler's time as a communist, often in books and documentary's that cover Hitler's life is this overlooked, they always just offhandedly mention it by saying "He was briefly a communist but he didn't like it and moved on" which I always saw as a cop out, yet it is important to understanding every aspect of his life so that others do not follow in his footsteps.
The missing time gap of November 1918 until July 1919 needs better research, and this is just one area in his life that should be covered by researchers. The move to Munich and the why has to be deal with also. Much of this history was destroyed by the NAZI's and later by the communist.
So, that's why hitlers fascism opposed communists then is it? 🤪
If Hitler ever was part of a communist group, there's a reason why he didn't stay, because communism conflicts with what he stood for in the Nazi party. Which is equality for the working person and the elimination of power from the corporations
you didn't like reality so you decided to exaggerate it. He also was catholic and supported capitalism. You ignore that.
@@Tellgryn Thomas Weber covers it to some extent in 'Becoming Hitler'
I googled " hitler/communist type ", and above this result was VOX claiming " Adolf Hitler was not a socialist ". lol
I found a Britanica article that claims Hitler was not a socialist in any meaningful way. It claimed he locked up communists and socialists (ignoring the capitalists he locked up), and it claimed Hitler was Fascist. It also claimed he was supported by conservatives. rofl
The article was rubbish.
Hitler constantly refers to God in Mein Kampf. Should we therefore conclude that Hitler was a christian?
Hitler was indeed supported by some conservatives, while great many other conservatives detested him.
Yes Hitler locked up capitalists, while some capitalists supported him.
There were many former communists in the NSDAP, while Hitler not only locked up communists, social democrats and liberals. And Hitler outlawed trade unions.
What was Hitler's ideology? Neither of the above. He was a national socialist.
@@NoNameNoWhere
@@NoNameNoWhere cope
@@esbenm6544 Project harder, tankie.
@@NoNameNoWhere You know that tankie slur came back to bite on the British Social Democracy when Tony "the big mouth" Blair's "New Labour Party" was released from its trade union cointrol. Blair joined the Imperialist Bush in the NATO tank wars that followed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I'm so glad you covered this. I came across this story a few years ago, and I found it baffling. I couldn't find anymore info beyond the funeral and Hitler's attendance.
History sings, as usual.
Just like with Mussolini.
This is not as special or strange as he claims. At this time Hitler was in the service of the army to infiltrate groups that could pose a threat to the goverment like this group. This is also how he came to know the "German Workers' Party" wich he left the army for and later re-named "The National Socialist Germans Workes Party"!
Wait, I’m confused. Was this before or after he trained in the Tibetan occult?
No it was after he join the Illuminati, and came in contact with Aliens from Pluto.
It must've been at the same time, good catch
For anyone who doesn't get the reference ua-cam.com/video/pAZsANgpOVw/v-deo.html
@@TheImperatorKnight Thank you good sir, I have forgotten about this.
@@TheImperatorKnight Hey TIK, how do you know that this picture is of Hitler and not doppelgänger Hitler?
Todays left refuses to admit Hitler was a left winger.
Because he was not left wing.
@@LaLiLuLeLo_ According to Hitler himself he was but what does he know? You know the truth!😅
@@johnhatchel9681 He describe himself anti communist, anti semitist and racist, he literally killed communists, jailed and invaded Soviet Union, banned communist parties, praises white supremacy which communism clearly opposing. Hey wait a minute random internet dude call him communist and believes, Hitler supporting a ideology founding father was a jewish. Probably internet dude is speaking true.
@@LaLiLuLeLo_ socialism is a social-economic system. His version of socialism was race-based nationalism. He believed in socialism for Germans only within his borders. He was against the free market, trade and entrepreneurship. Corporations were controlled by the state and had no freedom to act on their own. His system was very similar to the Soviet Union
@@user-pvmdmtl Hitler was a socialist but that doesn't mean he was a left winger. Also Germany hsd a corporatism not Soviet style socialism. Left wing socialism very different from right wing socialism. Internationalism is bases of left wing socialism(communism) that cannot be changed.
as an example of how one word can mean different things to barely-different people, consider that an American nationalist would typically be a pro-liberty, smaller-gov't person, but just north in Canada; nationalism would mean pride in the governmental bureaucracy.
JJ McCullough did a great video addressing just that.
There could be an unedited video of Hitler waving the Soviet flag and singing the Internationale and they would still call him a capitalist
"Revolutionary conservative".
How does that work in that guy's mind?
I'm not conservative, but even I understand that "conservative" and "revolutionary" aren't exactly peas in a pod.
@@TheImperatorKnight conservatives are conserving something, yes. And that means that if they lose enough ground, IE rights, liberties, property, ect.. they will revolt to regain what they were conserving.
Best Examples in my opinion,
American Revolution and US Civil War (Confederates as conservatives)
@@amuslockhart519 Conservative is a tricky word the Union tries to conserve the federation of state and the principles by which it was founded and the confederacy try to conserve an antebellum utopia. Just as you could say England was trying to conserve her territories during the American revolution from those Locke-ian liberal revolutionaries. You could also say a communist is trying to conserve his life when the tsar fails at his job. conservatism isn't right wing what your trying to conserve determines your politics
German Conservative Revolution. Ernst Jünger, Carl Schmitt, Oswald Spengler etc.
If everybody and his Schäferhund is branded "Socialist", it is getting difficult. But a Revoution is basically a violent toppling of the old order. So there was definitely a conservative revolutionary potential in Weimar Germany, wanting to overthrow the "lefty-liberals" or however you want to call SPD and all sorts of Bürgerliche.
I honestly love the way you cite sources and base all opinions on evidence, which seems to be a rare trait nowadays.
I too also honestly love the way you cite sources and base all your opinions on rebuttal evidence, which seems to be a rare trait nowadays.
Except that his bibliography is a joke and doesn't support what he says
@@stevereed2472 proof?
@@reviewjimeu9513 I think what @stevereed2472 refer to is, for example, is that many sources TIK uses details Hitlers socialism and evidence for it but the author/historian then proceeds to conclude that "but Hitler was a capitalist" despite the evidence. TIK mentions this quite often and it is probably due to bias on the part of the author/historian as it doesn't make sense to come to those conclusions based on what actually happened.
@@stevereed2472I read the book TIK recommended, Hitler’s True Believers, and the evidence in the book absolutely supports the conclusion TIK drew here.
Am I missing something here? On what basis are you stating that the Freikorps were a "socialist force" or "fighting for socialism" - it seems the only reference to this is that the Democratic Socialists were elected in 1919 and used the nationalist freikorps as a hammer to crush revolutionaries?
This seems to me to be the equivalent of saying anyone who joined the British Army in 1946 was a socialist because Britain had recently elected Labour.....
His basis was that Röhm was socialist and in the organization therefore the organization was socialist itself. The bit about Röhm is true but this guy is a historical revisionist at best and historically illiterate at worst.
I don't see how this is an unacceptable description.
If a normally unaligned force is being used as a hammer to crush [insert ideology] on behalf of [insert different ideology] then is it not fair to call that force a fighting force of the second ideology against the first? Your analogy of labour in Britain removes that neccessary section of "...to crush [insert ideology]..."
If the British Army was being used by Labour to crush the Tories, then it would certainly be a force "fighting for Labour" and it would be a force "fighting for Tories" in the reverse situation.
Edit to return to the initial topic: In the case of Weimar, this was a force "fighting for Democratic Socialism" against Revolutionary Socialism.
@@CubZeez I am waiting for your arguments!
It's simple. As a socialist, once YOU are in power the glorious revolution has succeeded. All other "revolutionaries" are actually reactionary counter-revolutionaries and must be crushed utterly to safeguard the ONE TRUE socialist revolution. Those other socialist movements are obviously false because they aren't helping YOU (the one authentic visionary of true socialism) maintain absolute power.
It would be really interesting, on a Timeline, to see when Hitler changed his Opinion about important matters and views.
Hitler was not the same person in 1919 as he was in 1930/1940/1943 after Stalingrad/1944 Putsch ..
Nein!
No actually technically he was the same person.
I don't think he changed much his views, only became firmer in them. He clearly understood that German working class was backbone of German Reich, yet its potential was wasted by decadent aristocracy remaining from feudal times. He did know that just demands of working class had to be satisfied. On the other hand he understood national and racial question as even more important. Only thing that remained was to find ideology that could keep both goals in balance .
@@8bitorgy clearly?
The only difference is he turned to racial nationalism instead of class.
While I watch and enjoy the military and economic video's, these political video's capture my attention in a way of their own.
It really seems so obvious when I think about it, and the way you cover all the bases with contemporary evidence makes things seem so clear.
Makes me wish more would listen and consider the evidence like this. Great work all around!
I'm glad you enjoy them! I also wish others would listen. Many won't even click on them, and this video has lost me at least 50 subscribers so far.
@@TheImperatorKnight I listen and hear you - just thrown in by a random bystander. And I highly appreciate your concerns and drive to educate in the political sense. You know, you got a strong case, and I love to see you getting cunningly rigorous! Lol
Maybe right to consider in the sense of what you called "blue pilling": if the ruling class is able to deem something as evil, thought is without light and the mind will be enslaved...some off shoot from Jenseits von Gut und Böse. F me for bringing up Nietzsche and rambling on, because I strongly wonder, why do you experience that backlash? Hmmm....maybe u doin ur job good, making history accessible and debatable in a proactive way...Hmmm?!
Anyway: looking forward to uranus!
Love you
Great job TIK
@@TheImperatorKnight People don't like the truth TIK, but please don't get discouraged. You are teaching a lot of people valuable, and important pieces of forgotten history. It's been forgotten by most for a reason, and you are doing God's work by bringing it to light.
@@TheImperatorKnight Fret not, for you have gained at least one subscriber, me! Only 49 to go to offset the damages.
Seriously though, it's such a good video, and I am very pleased to have found it.
Antisemitism is not a "leftist" idea. It is thousands of years older than any political ideology.
It's an idea the left leaned heavily into though - To such an extend that even Lenin hid his ancestry, a fact which only became known when the Russian archives were opened to the public in the 90's.
@@OctaBech @OctaBech the left ideologically does not and has not leaned into antisemitism. However, and this is the most relevant point, antisemitism was rampant throughout all forms of political movements and throughout more or less all Christian denominations.
The Sion Protocol of the Elders was a part of the course litterature at German High Schools long before the Nazis emerged.
There was structured antisemitism within the communist party of the Soviet Union while at the same time there was ironically a dispropirtionately high number of Jews in the communist party and particularly at the highest levels.
Same thing in Germany, where many Jews were active in the various communist and social democratic parties.
Antisemitism was a forbidden ideology within the Soviet Union and yet it persisted, albeit under code names and with poorly disclosed motives.
Antisemitism was strong within the German royal courts, within the nobility, among conservatives and most other groups.
@@thabomuso2575The socialist left used to be antisemitic. These days they are anti-Zionist.
Bernard Shaw says you're wrong
@@mariussielcken so?
Keep piling it on. I’m loving it.
Still recommending Eugen Weber’s “varieties of fascism” written in the early 60s as another source in your arsenal. He understands basic differences between fascism and national socialism. And he takes the radical (as opposed to reactionary) aspects of them very seriously.
Thank you for the recommendation!
@@TheImperatorKnight a very good channel (Guerilla tv) featured your most recent upload about Hitler being spotted at the jewish socialist activist funeral so i came to check out this wonderful channel that was being spoken about in glowing terms, i have to say i am NOT disappointed and subbed instantly as i go through your backlog of uploads and research.
please keep up your amazing research sir!
@@TheImperatorKnight "The Faces of Janus" by A. James Gregor is another must read if you want to know where the left's myths about fascism came from and how they evolved. There's also a great video by Keith Woods that is based on the arguments A. James Gregor made on this topic, the video is called "Is Fascism Capitalism In Decay?".
More self delusion by ignorant right wingers who hold the laughable position that nothing bad can ever come from the right, can’t accept that the right is inherently authoritarian and anti-liberty.
Hi Tik no wonder that you are so often near the breaking point. You are doing anything to get a lot of people pissed of on all sides. Good luck and keep the knowledge coming.
That, plus the fact I work every day and never take time off, and the insanity of the responses ("no, you're wrong and lying because my feelings say so!")
@@TheImperatorKnight maybe it means not a lot, but I really appreciate your knowledge and courage, even I do not agree with you all the time. So I want to thank you for your work, once again.
@@TheImperatorKnight that's why we need Socialism, so you don't have to work everyday and can have time off after we steal the capitalists stuff. (This is a joke.)
It clearly works, as his point of view is shared by the Lotuseaters now, which are a reasonably big podcast of dissident centrists.
Hint this is not a sign of “knowledge”
I've known about this for a while. Wikipedia mentions it as does Richard Evans. I believe a book called "Becoming Hitler the making of a Nazi" covers it too by Thomas Weber
Does Richard Evans mention it in his book "Coming of the Third Reich"? I must have missed that part. He talks about the two Soviets, but I didn't see the bit he mentioned Hitler in relation to them, but I will admit that his book was a last minute addition to the video. Weber's book "Hitler's First War" talks about it towards the end. I haven't read the one you mentioned though, but will check it out.
@@TheImperatorKnight oh yeah. It's how he introduces Hitler. He said something akin to like "A soldier set up to lead ideological training for the Bavarian Soviet Republic. He deserts along with many other soldiers, a communist armband on his right arm. His name, is Adolf Hitler" it's something like that
My nan told me but I've been holding back from releasing it, its taken Smith to slap Rock for me to foist this on our world *
@@TheImperatorKnight could you give me a link to that film 🎥 🎞 with Hitler?
The only reasons that this is so controversial is that this isn't an academic question, it is highly relevant to the Politics of today..... which is incredibly depressing.
1) The Left is based on Communism.
2) Communists always accuse anyone opposed to them of being Nazis..... and the reason they do is because the nazis were the only people in history that were evil & disgusting enough to make Communists seem relatively sane. Sometimes they even try to pretend that Nazis are still a big thing, the excuse of AntiFa and other mercenary gangs.
I wonder if someone here can help me understand why socialists say that socialism is not about the exspansion of the states power even though all the socialists that i know of advocate for a bigger public sector
Forgot to say it but great video
Because if they admit it's about state power they'll lose popular support, so they have to maintain that it's not about state power whilst advocating just that. Hegelian Emotionalism ("logic") at it's finest.
@@TheImperatorKnight well said
Most popular socialists in societies picture themselves heroic punitive revolutionaries in a scripted struggle they script in their heads.
However it is best to ask one what they would be doing in an achieved perfected socialist future. Often they imagine one of three roles:
Government worker...aka tax collector and policeman in reality.
Artist, performer, political thinker....in reality the state will be choosy of artists and performers, requiring them to be forced into strict discipline, slavish work and themes that the State deems useful and not perverted. Thinkers/philosophers are not needed because we achieved The Good already.
Idle person following their own bliss while getting free housing, food, medicine, entertainments, transportation.....
In reality that is only HONESTLY possible in capitalism, due to wise investments of capital and profit taking allowed within the system. Every other system will class this as theft.
The reality is in such an achieved state, they would experience a military lifestyle of being trained by the system, for the system, given a single stripe on their shirt, and be assigned to a task with little choice.
@@STho205 I agree with you about the delusions of the socialists. When they talk about socialism and communism, they imagine a wonderful society where everyone is perfect and hard working, looking after their fellow man, somewhat like a "kibbutz". The problem that always intervenes is human nature, which they ignore. Even Christians who tried to create such a society failed to do so. I was a socialist when I was 15 years old, but as I grew up, I learned more about the reality of human nature as opposed to my earlier youthful idealism.
I first came across a notion that nazism was leftist several years ago. I found it very funny, because it was both ridiculous and it actually held up when you thought about it rather than dismissing it right away. And being a true troll at heart I loved to bring this up in discussions just because it would immediately trigger both right and left wing supporters. However TIK's videos made me think this is not just a funny logical loophole, it might actually be the case. It goes against everything I've been taught, that was why I was rejecting the idea, but my curiosity made me think deeper. I always found it fascinating so many communist and nazi ideas were so similar, but I always presumed that was because extremist regimes drift towards same social policies due to abuse of human rights. The longer I pondered the idea of nazism being leftist, the more I got to believe it actually is. TIK is able to provide such a compelling arguments he has convinced me. I can't watch TV documentaries now without mumbling under my breath, that they get it all wrong. Historians still refuse to consider this possibility, but who knows, maybe they change their view. Hitler was always branded a fascist, because Soviets called him a fascist, even though he was a national socialist, never a fascist. Just the same when I bring this up, leftists call me a fascist. In fact, they scream fascist at anyone who disagrees with them. It seems to me they suffer from a certain view of "I am a leftist and I don't like Hitler, which proves he cannot possibly have also been leftist."
Hitler was really not a leftist. His National Socialist ideals were a combination of extreme social authoritarianism and a kind of mixed economy favoring nationalization of some industries and privatization of some others.
Is it not possibly a case of 'extremes meet'?. Its an open question, but the terms 'left' and 'right' are only based on the seating positions in the UK House of commons
@@matthewnikitas8905 well yes and no. if you didnt toe the party line you immedietly lost your business to nationalization or (nazification). the ceo being replaced with pro nazi sympathizer. it is kinda like what the ccp does with the chinese businesses
@@peterflynn9123 That, and the terms are nuanced. Io, to US, the terms carry diferent connotations to our brethren across the Pond. Granted, the English have an understanding of the the words is closest to our own (I can not imagine why!).
@@matthewnikitas8905 This is how they trap you. Hitler is 100% socialist. The state has ultimate power over all industries, according to Hitler "you don't have to directly own the companies, since they will do whatever you want when you tell them too, and being "private" it unburdens the bureaucracy of the state"
He wasn't a Marxist-Leninist or Stalinist, (even Lenin with the NEP realized, at least, small business should remain private) Stalin wanted the state to own everything. In the end all of them are socialist since they don't believe in the free market.
Hitler glossed over that little fact in "Mein Kampf."
Yes, I quote him in the video where he skips over it
After WW1 nearly all political movements in the world were Socialist. Basically the political movements that appeared after WW1 were just different flavors of socialism. In Russia the two flavors of socialism were the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. In China the two flavors of socialism were the KMT and the CCP.
Most people do not realise that socialism has been the dominant political philosophy around the world since WW1. There are simply different flavors of socialism in various places and it is these different flavors of socialism coming into conflict with each other that has been the basis of most of the politically based wars since WW1.
Socialism is the greatest indicator of a diseased society
True
frankly it makes perfect sense that Hitler would have flirted with communism in his earliest years of adoring socialist activism before forming his National Socialist ideas.
The same people that say capitalists turned to Hitler to survive often forget how American capitalists took advantage of the USSR. Soviet factories were contracted from US companies, yet the Soviets didn't complain about them being capitalists. From what I understand, this stuff occurred because the strongest primitive socialist governments were opportunistic and needed to do what they could to gain power and resources. This is speculation, but I'm willing to bet that the "facist corporations" of Germany would've eventually been absorbed into the state after they've developed a stronger relationship
American trucks, tractors, steel, oil, among so much else, let alone millions from private donors, hired American engineers to help with building projects and massive support from a number of American media giants like The New York Times. Proof I guess that the USSR wasn't Socialist?
Yes we know Socialist love to contradict themselves. People often forget big business giants always look for something to captialize off of even if in a Socialist regime. Get the foot in the door. PepsiCo did this in the USSR as well even got a small fleet of submarines out of the relationship in a comic way.
So it's always funny when someone says "Durrr American Capitalist backed Hitler, so he was obviously a Capitalist." Ignoring all the western support the USSR got from private firms even during the Cold War.
This is one of your best videos. I mean no disrespect but we have to remember that every politician is a complete hypocrite and nothing more than lies. Keep up the great work.
Now that we're at it, I recently discovered that there was Association of German National Jews, an organization founded in 1921 by a man called Max Naumann, who was close to conservative and monarchist views. They defended the assimilation of jews in Germany and even supported Hitler's NSDAP to the point to oppose the boycott of 1933. Later in 1935, the Association was dissolved and Neumann arrested by the Gestapo but was released weeks later.
Today these self hating Jews are known as progressives.
Those were based jews
They were pulling themselves up by there boot straps
Wait, so they were jews that supposed the holocaust?
@@Novvax312 No, they supported the German culture. They thought that Jews and Germans should become the same people, not that they should commit a holocaust on Jews.
Why doesn't any of this surprise me? Ive noticed that there really is very little difference in how marxist style socialism and national socialism manifests themselves.
Great observation. I found they are all the same!
When you realise that both Hitler and Mussolini were Marxists it all comes together.
they are both totalitarian ideologies that hate monarchy, confederacy, and democracy. so they are very similar in their approach to revolution or overthrowing their opposition from governing.
@@FazeParticles to be honest. Those ideologies operated just like monarchy somehow to me. Do you think the same?
@@smilesface3741 not necessarily because monarchy doesn't rule by party which fascism and communism does. monarchs usually like to rule with as little people as possible so there's less back stabbing and bureaucracy bogging down the monarch's decrees. of course you can always water down a monarch's power through reforms and have parties pick up the slack, fill in, and eventually overtake the monarch once it's weak; as opposed to a coup.
“Because they’re all very similar socialist movements” lmao. I laughed so hard. I love your videos. Crazy where you get when your ultimate pursuit is the truth.
but if they are all the same movements, then why did ukraine ban communism and started decommunization in 2015. at the same time ukraine supports the far right parties and people, like bandera, who fought together with the nazis.
@@azerty8866 The Far right parties have barely any support in Ukraine. They only have representation because they are fighting against the Russians. Zelensky hates them.
@@azerty8866 Just because someone sais ''we ban communism and support far right groups, that doesnt mean socialism and nazis arent the same. dumb logic.
Ukraine doesnt understand the difference or the similarities. Its not their fault.
Nowadays People and history teached believes in strict differences between the two. all the world does. Watch the Video again, maybe the nazism vs fashism and nazis are socialists videos. and u will see that there are many similarities.
I mean when i first started to study ideologies, i noticed:
National ''socialism''
wait a second? this means that socialism will be done in a state but only FOR its OWN people?
and ''socialism'' (Communism)
wait a second? this is exactly the same, but without focusing on only one group of culture, rather internationally.
hmmmm interesting
Then i realised, wait a second? the Nazis couldnt be capitalistic when they are ''autark'' right? I looked up their economy, their preparation for war, WELL ITS LIKE SOCIALISM!!
@@azerty8866 What's being said is that Communism and Nazism (and Fascism, Leninism, Trotskyism, etc) are different flavours of Socialism.
Fans of two football clubs can hate one another and fight when their teams meet. They are not the same, but they play the same sport according to the same rules.
@@azerty8866 Class socialism = communism and race socialism = national socialism. That's it. Also, Romania banned nazis and communists.
I don’t know why communists and fascists hate each other, they’re so similar.
That's why they hate each other, they're so similar. They're competing over the same ground.
The same reason why almost every form of socialism hatesthe others.
It's just like the reformation of the Middle Ages. Everyone was still Christian, but they were different variants and disagree on theology. Thus, they fought as bitterly. It's the same reason why many civil wars are so bloody.
@@jakman2179 I'd argue there are bigger differences between Christian beliefs than socialist ones. Church history is fascinating, and learning about the history of the Reformation taught me a lot about Christian theology
Well with totalitarians two ideas are one too many. So...
Hey, Tik. I discovered your channel not too long ago, and I must say, you truly know how to present facts and arguments in an enlightening way. Figured I'd let you know that I believe I know your pain when it comes to talking with these supporters of socialism. In fact, the person I'm about to refer to called himself a lenin-marxist. I'll try to summarize and keep it brief...
Big shocker, he was in denial about Hitler being a socialist, one of his arguments being that socialists cannot be socialist if they murder other socialists. Eventually, as I pressed on with my own arguments (while referencing your videos on occasion), he resorted to calling me a fascist (insisting that it is a right-wing ideology). He claimed that business owners (capitalists) weren't really doing any work themselves. I tried to convince him that Burger King workers shouldn't think that they are the ones creating the profits on their own, because it is the owners/managers who are paying for the locals, electricity, tools and other supplies, so that the workers may work. He then actually asked "what is preventing the workers from paying for the supplies themselves", despite having gone on about how much these common workers struggle financially.
Soon enough, I basically asked "so, you think it's right that workers can just walk in the door of a private business, and then 'democratically' kick out the rightful owner once you become many enough?"
Without hesitation, he said that is they way it should be, because these "evil capitalists" should find work like "the rest of them". At that point, I believe I got the explanation on how he could ask such a stupid question to begin with. It's hard for me to believe that people like him are nothing more than petty thieves. But that would actually give him too much credit. He didn't simply not deny Lenin murdering farmers for "the greater good", but that it was justified, because they "sabotaged the farmers with less earth".
And wouldn't you know it, this lenin-marxist is a history teacher.
But yeah, that's basically it. And they did exactly what they did to you; they dismissed any and all sources provided to them. And every time I questioned his sources, or said "but that was then, it is different now", he resorted to throw around 'fascism' again. It... It really is a case study when you talk with these people yourself.
Very interesting story about your 'friend', because when I was a Leftist, I probably would have agreed with him. They get so focused on the idea that the "Capitalist" has stolen from them, that they feel entitled to "rise up" and steal the wealth back. Therefore, because this idea consumes them, they're willing to ignore or excuse all other facts and logic. They think you're trying to trick them, or convert them somehow, and that you're secretly a "far right" "conspiracy theorist". This is why I've exhausted myself trying to think of ways to get through to them. It's a religious curse that's infected them, poisoning them, and blinding them to the fact that they hold a completely wrong world-view.
@@TheImperatorKnight I see. Yeah, it wasn't until I got my first big pay check that I started looking into politics a little. Tax rates here in Norway are quite high, so it did hurt a little to see my check getting a big piece cut off. It made me understand why people would rather pay minimal amounts towards taxes, if any at all. In any case, all it took for me to stay clear of the left was to simply compare far-left ideologies in the past with the present. It was crazy back then, and it doesn't look much better now either. History repeats itself.
"I want to see the rich being able to take care of themselves. If they can't, then who can?"
-Thomas Sowell
@@HugoTheIcyFire big up for Thomas Sowell
You must keep in mind that you are dealing with a religious cult. You can't argue facts and logic with a religious cult member. You must use cult de-programming techniques for that.
I think the best argument that I've seen toward against Worker's Rising up actually came from the Channel "Foundation for Economic Education" in their video called, Hollywood's Favorite Trope: "It's Just Business" they summed it up quite well when saying the Workers at Starbucks don't actually make the coffee, they don't farm the beans, they don't truck in the resources in nor are they involved at all in the over all process getting the coffee from a forest in South Africa to the kitchen, all the workers does at Starbucks is follow instructions taught to them by the owner or shift manager. Basically every single person ahead of the Worker at Starbucks has more rights to the claim "they make the coffee" than someone wearing a green apron who works there.
People who say business owners do not work is a blatant lie, definitely those who built their business themselves. I know where I work I've seen the plant owner go up in utter rage, not at his workers but trying to deal with customers. People often forget that Business Owners have a job as well normally. In this case he is constantly on the phone with customers answering questions, when he isn't he is patrolling the factory floor waving good morning, good afternoon and trying to get a cheerful mood by hanging out with his employees, because well dealing with customers is a nightmare.
Communism and fascism has more similarities than differences...most leftist academics hate to say this...
Dinesh D souza has spoken extensively on this
Big difference. Communists prohibit capitalism and use the word democracy a lot. Nazis and Fascists allow capitalism and don't claim to be democratic. Authoritarianism is their only similarity.
@@1977-i1h communists are NVERE ever democratic... They hate democracy and the first people to be killed under a socialist regime is liberal democrats (look what happened to non-bolshevik liberals),
Nazis does not allow free market capitalism, they allow crony capitalism (most of German industries had connections to Hitler)
The most educational channel by far...Well documented,nicely put,followed by evidence...
Keep them videos coming
This is complete quote-mining from Ian Kershaw's excellent biography of Hitler. For anyone who has actually read the book, it would be very clear that Hitler was never actually a marxist or a communist.
Yeah, idk about Kershaw but going through some sections from Weber's biography it's clear Hitler wasn't actually a Communist
Hitler's small jump from communism to Nazism makes sense when you understand not just their similarities, but their commom Hegelian roots. Hegelianiam is about process and conflict, assuming a thesis producing and antithesis. Communism produces Fascism/Nazism which together synthesize to create a third we call woke and Chinese Communism today.
So it's not a leap at all. It's more a step to the side in the same room.
As a history student I can not express in full the gratitude I have for this channel. I love history but the education system presents such a narrow-minded and politically packaged teaching that it's great to complement it with channels such as yours. I've learnt as much from watching your videos as I would via reading a dozen books, and its all free. Thank you TIK - keep up the good work.
Just retain your scepticism while watching TIK, as according to his views, Apple is a socialist organisation set out to kill all Jews.
Video "Public vs Private" establish that any enterprise not within the close family is public. Public is the State, and thus socialism. This view was later used in the Weimar videos to prove that the moderate socialdemocrats planned to makes all factories state owned (as well as taking the publishings of the radical Leninist faction as evidence of the intents of the party majority the radicals broke off from when they didn't want to follow the radicals' ideas).
The "Karl Marx anti-Semitism" reach the conclusion ALL socialists per default wants to rid the society of Jews (rather than the Jews religion) by killing them.
Thus, Apple, a publically traded company, is a socialist organisation, and as such has the goal to kill all the Jews.
This said, as long as you do not take it as gospel, TIK often have interesting perspectives to offer, and ALWAYS include a high quality library of sources.
@@johanmetreus1268 Oh absolutely. There are certain things, particularly in regards to public vs private that I disagree with. His nuance is refreshing though.
@@tommyking7430 Quite!
Hände Weg von meinem Land, Hund!
Du kommst in die Hölle
Hitler: I am a socialist who loves socialisty things. I love socialism. Socialism is the best. I love it.
Socialists: It's not entirely clear what he meant by those words...
I find it cute that fascist fanbois like you take the words of Hitler or Goebbels for face value. Of course you believe your great examples, right? Pathetic.
Not marxist socialism
We should, of course, always take politicians at their word, especially dictators. They never lie.
@@kingkefa7130 You have a point, Hitler literally outlined everything he was going to do in Mein Kampf.
Hitler: "We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order."
Absolute mental midgets on the internet: NUH UH HE WAS ACTUALLY A SOCIALIST! IT'S IN THE NAME, STUPID!
TIK is living proof that military history buffs should stay in their lane and just stick to wanking over planes and tanks instead of trying to investigate any deeper questions related to history or society.
Hitler was never communist. He pretended to be for a short while so he would avoid getting killed by them. Even though this video provides great arguments, it still doesn't make any sense. Hitler was never a communist in the first place. He was a full-blown, German patriot and nationalist who started to espouse anti-communist views at the end of WW1. He blamed Germany's defeat on Communism and the Jews too.
Even though he was elected into the Socialist Bavarian People's State, it doesn't necessarily mean that he was a communist but was using this time to study what he could use in order to construct his own argument against communism and lead the Nazis. Hitler was never communist! Never! Hitler was a lunatic who wanted to construct a purified German ethnostate of "Aryans".
He was never a german, also. He was an Austrian alien con artist and failed painter
" Hitler was a lunatic" Stalin, Pol Pots, Mao Zedong were all total lunatics. It's almost like the one qualification necessary to be a socialist revolutionary leader is to be an absolute lunatic.
For a non-communist, he had some very communistic ideas about how an economy should function.
@@cooked.gaming having communist ideas about the economy doesn't make you a communist. You need to have a society ruled by a competent and wise leader who distributes equality among all people.
The economy in term would be planned and the state would be responsible for the internal affairs and development. Because Hitler wanted to develop the Aryan Master Race, he got rid of the communists and established a regime of German supremacy against all non-Germans (even the Germanic groups such as the Brits, Scandinavians and the Benelux).
And that proves why Hitler was not a communist! You cannot say otherwise!
@@cooked.gaming Yeah-yeah, clown. Hitler himself swore and guaranteed representatives of the largest industrial and banking capitals the inviolability of their assets before the elections. Huge capital was behind Hitler and NSDAP.
I love your politics/economics videos, they are so refreshing in this day and age
This is so wrong... the German Workers was far right and the predecessor of the NSDAP (Hitlers party)
@@G73Server Wrong, once again I urge you to actually educate yourself
When was Marx part of the SPD? You keep saying this or "Marx's Social Democratic Party", but as a far as I am aware Marx was never a member of the party. He was influential over the Social Democratic Workers' Party of Germany, which preceded the formation of the Social Democratic Party - but not a member.
When the SPD did form (under the name of the Socialist Workers Party of Germany) Marx was famously critical of its Gotha Program in 1875.
Marx was involved with the First International, which dissolved a year after the formation of the SDP and had courted the German socialist parties for membership, is this what you're referring to? Or do you mean the party was Marxist, which it certainly was and that was later codified, but I hope you appreciate the distinction.
I think Marx was critical because he knew then that what he wrote was going to be misinterpreted rather easily to justify mob ideology at the time. Hence why people still say “communism hadn’t been tried.”
"The difference between Communism and Nazism is simple. Red & Black. Nazis prefer Black then Red. Communists choose the opposite: Red then Black." -- Author Eric Hoffer to Eric Sevareid during a CBS live interview from San Fransisco -1962.
What goes around comes around.
Hitler started as a Communist and Lenin & Stalin created the totalitarian Marxist-Leninist Party movement reforming Bolshevism thus converting it to Fascism.
Most people forget that Lenin in 1923 wrote an article for Pravda extolling Mussolini's reforms of Radical Socialism i.e. Fascism. Lenin adopted Mussolini's "Reforms" and changed Bolshevism to Fascism.
He and Stalin thereafter instituted many changes; created the Supreme Soviet, crushed the other Soviets such as Ukraine, Belarus etc. and sent dissenters to death by pistol shot to the head or through slave labor at the Siberian Gulags.
So in reality the Communists became Fascists both in Germany and Russia.
Communism lasted only about 5 years before it became Fascist.
i would argue this is more along the lines of liking some of Mussolini's ideas and using the ones they liked. Hitler didnt really care for mussolini's fascism but took some ideas from it and used it for his government
even if that's true Lenin is very popular among modern american leftists. and so was stalin but i see some of his popularity waning. that said these leftists still love Karl Marx but they never mention how he didn't achieve anything. like did anyone's life get better by subscribing to his ideology and in what way?
@@FazeParticles some "reactionaries" like Bismark decided to introduce politics, that made the life of the working man better, like universal health care, a pension insurance scheme and such (usually mutuals copied from the miners associations of the middle ages) and so "depressurize" the social situation and take away the readiness for revolution.. If you continue to use Marxian terminology, the workers, at least the better qualified ones, became "petit bourgoise" , lower middle class, and as such reactionary. Revolutionary potential kneecapped.
@@aasphaltmueller5178 i don't think this is any reason for a Marxist revolution or is any reason for modern US leftists and neoliberals to continue to worship Lenin and Marx.
wanted to check wikipedia to see their take on this, and they obviously downplay hitler's involvement completelly giving it their own spin lmao
"It is uncertain whether this indicated that Hitler was a true supporter of the soviet[...]"
Never trust Wikipedia
Pretty disingenuous, Wikipedia states he was a staunch anti-communist by this time.
Hitler denounced a fellow liaison, Georg Dufter, as a Soviet "radical rabble-rouser." Other testimony he gave to the military board of inquiry allowed them to root out other members of the military that "had been infected with revolutionary fervor." For his anti-communist views he was allowed to avoid discharge when his unit was disbanded in May 1919.
Just from a wiki article about Hitler’s political views. Nothing in there about him being a communist at all.
Always a fun one to throw at tankies who insist there's no relation between communism and national socialism
Hitler was task by the army to attend to and take notes in meetings of over twenty emerging political parties (to know if there was somes they should be worried about), this was just one of them, he ended up being himself an active member of the Nsdap, one of which was on the list.
"Anti-semitic like Marx and Stalin"
What?!
They were. Read Marx and look what Stalin did at the end of his life.
@@qweewq5734 Lol sure thing, Stalin kileld millions of Russians and Ukrainians but he is not anti-that but infact anti-semitic.
@@haraldthorson9153 He killed Slavs in the Soviet Union, but he also expelled Jews because they threatened his position. Stalin wasn't loyal to any ethnic group, but to himself and his ideology.
A Jew being anti semitic another lie brought to you by this channel
@@mrmackey8776 because that is what? Impossible?
Wait he was a communist but the communists said the organization he was apart of was a fake, and didn't support the only other communist state in the world, the USSR? Doesn't sound very communist to me though, what kind of history theory and methodology are you utilizing here? I am more interested in how you came to that decision.
The commies under Eisner didn't want to be a puppet of the USSR, there was another group that formed a Soviet that wanted to make Bavaria a satellite of the USSR.
Here's what you might be missing: Jews are people too and they have interests too. They are not just a part of someone's worldview.
Jews were a tiny minority in most eastern-european countries after the war but they often formed the core of communist parties (and subsequently governments). In Poland for example, by the 1960s the party administration had unoficially (but to the knowledge of the society at large) separated into two fractions - "Chamy" i "Żydy" ("the Boors" and "the Jews"). There was much antagonism between them, especially since the latter tended to occupy higher positions, became a bit exclusive and considered themselves superior. But they were fewer in numbers, which lead to a mass deportation of Jews working in the Polish administration to Israel in March of 1968.
I would wager a bet that a similar situation in the socialist party lead to the formation of national socialist views in Hitler and many Germans alike in the 1910s and 1920s.
When did he miss that
I need to point out that the book this video references (Killing History by L.K.Samuels) is written by L.K Samuels who is a well-known Libertarian activist. It seems to me that in that book he tries to reinforce the narrative that all dictatorships are the same and to an extent reinforce the myth that Hitler (and fascism and Naziism more broadly) were left-wing ideologies. Thus, to an extent at least, he might have an ideological motive to come to such a conclusion (Right-wing=good and Left-wing=bad and all that). So please, take this too with some pinches of salt. Many thanks!
This channel is right-wing biased, however, it is still very informative if you are aware of author's manipulations.
@@JeremiaszCzeresniowiecki What manipulation?
@@langelodidio-goaldo1105 No manipulation.
Thats just lefties coping.
Because "far right" is de facto used by the left as a smear due to them linking "right wing" to nazism and fascism, the inconvenient facts that both nazism and fascism are actually Leftwing completely destroy one of their main slurs. It also causes a century of narratives to crumble, because if the general public understands that hitler was a leftist, that means they realize the left was either wrong or, more likely, lied. What other lies have been told? This thread-pulling will quickly unravel the whole scheme of the Left, destroying their power grab ambitions for decades if not centuries to come.
@@JeremiaszCzeresniowieckiwhat manipulation?
Maybe you should look at the motives of other authors, you'll see that WEB Du Bois influenced many history books and his pushed his false narrative that Hitler and the Nazis were right wing.
The Judean People’s Front v The People’s Front of Judaea: The history of Socialism in a nutshell.
I was actually tempted to put that reference in the video because it's appropriate 😂
Wasn’t Mussolini also originally a communist before being kicked out?
Dear Tik, There is another dimension to this part of the saga. Col Walter Nicolai was the German intelligence Officer who supervised the movement of Lenin to Petrograd. His intelligence branch controlled the PAY and initial instruction to the Bolshevik's. I say that because it because when others of the party Asked Lenin if he was an "agent" of the German secret service. Lenin replied "no I am using them". By tracing the gold being paid to the Bolsheviks (Germany wanted a quick end to the eastern front) it can be found that some of the gold found it's way back to Germany for use in establishing "a socialist Revolution, and until that happened a network of reliable revolutionary agents". Eisner's socialist revolution was a "socialist revolution" not a Soviet. The age old socialist utopia coming record was played, however no overt threats of violence. Eisner's revolution failed due to economic mismanagement. However enter Friekorps and A General Von EPP who was apolitical, he recruited Adolf Hitler (along with a lot of others) to see if there was violent revolution brewing. It was his involvement with Eisner's socialism where Hitler found himself. Hitler really did find himself in the socialist camp because of the front line comradeship of the war years. The Economy failed and Von Epp did not step in. Lenin however did by sending a man by the name of Levine the Russian exile living in Mannheim to Munich. Levine and the Spartikustbund stayed out of the Post Eisner turmoil which resulted in A "Soviet" being established by the Far Left Ernst Toller. Again Von Epp watched and began to position forces close by but continued to send in "Agents". To do two things first to incite the left to act and keep an eye on everything. Von Epp's plan was to pounce at the first sign of Bolshevik takeover and Violence. Ernst Toller on April 7th 1919 formed the revolutionary workers council and proclaimed the "SOVIET REPUBLIC OF BAVARIA". At this stage Toller's Soviet went after the upper class wealth. Again wide spread dissatisfaction. As the "Soviet" began to fail Levine with consultation of LENIN decided to step in. At this point hostages were taken. Levine also informed the German-socialists that Von Epp had sent in agents. Suspects were hunted down and shot. Hitler was arrested on suspicion, however some socialists who were veterans said he was a loyal socialist and they let him go.(Levine's Radical Socialist agent hunting squads). Levine was tipped off by one of his socialist agents in the Friekorps and issued the order to kill the hostages. Ernst Toller tried to get the order stopped. The hostages were killed and that level of violence was the excuse Von Epp needed to crush the Bavarian Soviet.
Von Epp also was well aware of the Bolshevik revolutionaries in Germany. F rom Col Nicolai's reports he knew that the Soviets were going to send money into Germany (Home of Marx) to revolutionize it. Hitler was also aware of the "blood thirsty nature of Bolsheviks" and did not like the radical soviet far left. After all they had almost shot him. At that time he was not a vocal anti-jewish activist. Once he made chairman of The DAP however is when he threatened to dissolve the party unless "socialists were allowed to join the party". It was the rabid anti-jewish nature of the Socialists he brought in to make the NSDAP, from which he formulated the internal enemy and external enemy theory. Internal enemy "Jews and Jewish led Bolsheviks" and the external enemy " Capitalist Jews and Bankers". Interestingly a lot of these activities are laid out in Comintern records and NKVD records. In 1945 NKVD tracked down any of Col Nicolai's team and the Col himself and liquidated them on direct order from Stalin himself. He scrawled his approval in green on the file. The inner core of Hitler loyalists were all socialists from the Eisner period. One of Which actually started the SS. Antifa was started by Moscow Communists, Bolshevik influence however they fought everyone and when it came time to stop NAZI's on order from Moscow Antifa refused to join with the CDU and SDU parties and deny Nazi's an electoral victory. You cannot just study the battlefield, because there is a lot of political skullduggery which impacts real wars.
Culturally the Nazis were conservative.
They believed in traditional morality traditional gender roles big families.
This is conservative in the cultural Sense.
Nazism took big government socialism and mixed it with cultural conservativism.
Which is different than most radical egalitarian communist.
Personally I'm okay with the current Hungarian model that gives benefits welfare etc towards the promotion of the family and traditional morality.
You don’t understand the long history of right wing authoritarianism and statism in Europe.
Finally got round to watching this video and wasn't disappointed, very concise and informative. For interest I looked up the Wikipedia articles for Hitler and Schreck, and from the end of the 1918 to mid 1919 for both is just a complete blank.
Edit: Buried on the Wikipedia on the Bavarian Soviet Republic it mentions both Schreck and Hitler. If you look it's there somewhere!
When Leftism meets a sense of humor....
"The fact that he had no friends, no family, or a job, or a life. Yep, definitely sounds like a Communist." - TIK 2022.
That doesn't sit well with me. Yes, I appreciate the humour and realize it's a light cast off remark.
Yet, if you repeat this sort of thing often enough (this wasn't the first), you start dehumanizing people. Or, far worse, underestimating them as political forces for human values. Communists, nazis, fascists, none of these people were idiots. They were convinced or pressed into being part of these societal views, but their lives revolved, just like it does for you and me, around their own lives. They were people. Never forget.
@@hardanheavy I hope that was all intended as a joke.
I also find the blue pill stuff and other modern day references, a bit off putting. I know it's history entertainment, but it taints all the right/left labelling as it just seem to become about modern day political point scoring.
@@stephenmesquire Then you truly don't understand what's at stake. For DECADES - even before World War 2 began, the Left has been LYING about Hitler's politics, not out of mistaken belief nor misunderstanding, but with the intention of protecting their ideology from scrutiny. And during all of those decades, they were lying to further their agenda at the time - right to this day. So the lie that Nazis were Right-wing was intended to label, and score points, and discredit their opposition (things you object to) for the sake of political gain all along. It may be distasteful for you, and it's too bad that you lack the sophistication to understand the deeper implications, but the TRUTH is necessary. Hitler was a Socialist. Nazism was a Leftist ideology only one step removed from either Social Democracy on one side and Marxism on the other. That truth should be liberating, even for a modern Leftist. Finally, you need to overcome your squeamishness when it comes to this kind of debate, if not for the reasons I've already mentioned, but so that you can think critically when others are indifferent or indoctrinated.
@@hardanheavy You are way too fucking sensitive.
It's funny how Occam's Razor gets thrown right out of the window only when it's time to talk about the link between Hitler and Socialism. Everyone is reaching for every explanation except the simplest one
Oh sure by that reasoning Occam’s razor tells us that East Germany really was a German democratic republic and that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea isn’t really a totalitarian state.
Hitler objected to the use of the word socialist in the name of the Nazi party but went along with it then completely redefined what the word meant.
Ignoring that and simply going by the use of the same word isn’t applying Occam’s razor. it’s simply idiotic.
Except what he implemented for the German people was socialism.
@@Herv3 Really in what way? Such social welfare programs as there were in Germany were actually installed in imperial Germany in order to prevent socialism and Hitler scaled many of those back or eliminated them. He also did away with labor unions and worker rights protections to give capitalists more control over their property.
He refused calls to nationalize German industry and aristocratic estates and actually privatized more businesses. Then he hunted down and killed people who advocated leftist policies.
How is this leftist in any way?
@@Herv3 Total make-believe which relies on the vestiges of things put in place by others before Hitler’s rise to power in order to stop Socialism not what Hitler himself did. The unfortunate reality for you people is that Hitler was a right wing anti-communist who did everything he could to do away with the left. He certainly wasn’t a leftist.
It’s uncomfortable for ignorant people of the American alt right to think that authoritarianism has a long conservative history because they like to think of themselves as proponents of individual liberty but that’s not really what they’re doing or what they’re really a part of. Authoritarianism especially in Europe is the true history of the right whether you like it or not.
@@walterbailey2950 I see you're just going to make up your own history and ignore the reality of Hitler's socialism.
In short: Hypocrisy is a close relative to tyranny.
Hitler: “I am a Socialist.”
Smooth brain socialists: “nuh uh”
@Vesta_the_Lesser Strawman.
N Korea is by definition not a democracy… Nazi Germany WAS by definition Socialist.
Hitler was not Capitalist, ergo he was BY DEFINITION on the Left.
Hitler OPPOSED the German right wing pro Monarchy party.
You clearly have zero understanding of sociopolitical terms. Come back when you understand the basic definitions of Communism, Socialism, Fascism, and Capitalism.
@Vesta_the_Lesser No such thing as “radical centrists”… it’s an oxymoron… FFS you’re clueless.
Hitler also claimed he was Socialist during his reign. The Nazi party official platform also says it was Socialist.
Founder of the SS and Hitler’s personal chauffeur was a Communist then Socialist. 2nd in command Himmler was openly Communist and wanted Germans to cultivate German soil formed the betterment of the German Social collective.
To be on the right means you are a Capitalist… Hitler was fanatical about being anti-Capitalist… ergo he was on the left.
The only people who claim Hitler was right wing are morons with Stage 4 Poli-Sci Dunning Kruger.
Thanks so much for another great historical piece, Tik. Your reference to Rainer Zitelmann's book was eye-opening. Also, i would like to ask: Do you have a list of references to the historical affinity between socialism and antisemitism other than Paul Rose's book you mentioned in this video? Thanks!
Karl Marx: On the jewish question or sth. Like that. Straight from the Horses mouth itself.
TIK stated that "anti semitism is a left wing idea". Considering anti-Semitism predates left wing ideals by thousands of years, do you think TIK is the best person to be consulting on the topic?
@@jrton1366 I think TIK is smart enough to know that antisemitism predates the political concept of "left-wing". Obviously what he's reffering to is the influence that antisemitism had on 19th century left-wing revolutionary ideals and movements.
@@joaoeigen His own words were "Anti-Semitism is a left wing idea". Not sure why you're giving him the benefit of the doubt...I trust he means what he says, and the statement is in line with his ancap dogma. This is what these people believe, not sure he is a good reference for the history of anti semitism.
@@jrton1366 The concept of Left vs Right today dates back to the French Revolution. ie even the concept of Liberalism pre-dates the concept of the Political Left or Political Right.
Since then the Revolutionary Left hijacked the word Liberal even though they've rarely ever supported real Liberalism. Even Napoleon's Code of Law which is the foundation for all modern Left wing Dominated countries today in Europe, and one of the champions of the 19th Century Social Revolutionaries himself, was also very antisemitic. Despite created the Napoleon Code of Law, he did exclude J**s from the rights provided by that Code. So... ya. Marx himself who came onto the field many years later also had a nasty tendency to use antisemitism quite a lot. In many respects the very concept of a Capitalist is built on the foundation of Christian stereotypes of J**ish people.
This is FAR removed from Jean Rousseau, and John Locke who are the corner stones to Liberalism in Europe and the Americas. Yet the left who themselves are the ones who defined what Left and Right even is, declare themselves Liberal. In spite of the very fact that Economic Liberalism (Capitalism) can not exist without a Liberal Society, a Liberal Society is required for Capitalism to exist, and is actually ideal for a Liberal Society as private Property is one of the fundamental cornerstones to John Locke in particular as it's required for Individual freedom as that private property protects you from the collective group, which includes the state, at least theoretically.
Leftism is also against Individualism at least has been since the 19th Century. Yet another reason why the Left shouldn't be considered Liberal. The Left is Progressive, not Liberal. Because of this however, Progressivism is a forever changing movement, and as a result everything under the sun has been accused at one time or another as being "FAR RIGHT" why? Because Progressivism has been all over the place so much so that they've been in opposition to just about every political issue throughout history. Even today, modern Libertarianism which is just about the purest form of Liberalism in society today is often called by some on the left a FAR RIGHT ideology... despite that the first generation of Libertarian from the 19th Century were Marxist.
Similar to how Socialist don't know what Socialism is because after 200 years they've still not come to a consensus on what it even is still. Leftist don't even know what Leftism is, nor what Rightism are, as they're social constructs that they've torn, ripped apart and defiled so much that people don't even know what either of them are anymore. So in this respect the concept of Left and Right should in my opinion be thrown out. It's no longer relevant.
So in this respect, Leftism and Rightism should honestly be defined as Collectivism vs Individualism, or Progressivism vs Liberalism, as even Conservatives today are more often than not more Liberal than Progressives.
The commentary section is gonna be ecstasy
Hope you enjoy salty tears, sir, because that's the only thing on the menu
Something very simple but very useful to do is to put Marx and Hitler political programm side by side and to compare how similar they are.
Go on then. Where can I find Marx's "political program"?
@@andyknowles772 Tik gave it in a precedent Marx video.
@@Rochb63
Hmm... Can you name a point from this supposed "political program" of Marx?
Watch the first 15 minutes of this video (I walk through Marx's political program) ua-cam.com/video/pwJf8O1S6eA/v-deo.html
And see this video to know what Marx's ideology is really about ua-cam.com/video/rZh01xRO_Qg/v-deo.html
@@TheImperatorKnight Thanks i was trying to search through the vids but hadn't much time at work
There is a wonderful line in the "bound by one chain" by Nautilus pompilius: "After a Red Sunrise comes a Brown Sunset".
I think it perfectly describes the nature and natural evolution of all socialist movements.
How? Where was the Brown sunset in Burkina Faso?
National socialism never had a chance to fully stabilize and evolve, it did not survive the birth stage. You are making statements out of your behind, Sir.
@@vidura In reality, it did had opportunity to go through the birth stage (And the point is exactly that), but it don't work so it dies as soon as people sees that this ideology doesn't work. The problem isn't with the stages, is with the ideology itself.
@@genbab6989 Your commie was ovethrown by a military triumvirate lmao, thats as fascist as it gets. Of course, backstabbing happened and then you had a "democratic" president for a few decades. Kinda like how Hitler purged his rivals.
Burkina Faso is a pretty weird example lol, I’d ask where the brown sunset was in Russia or China
Interesting video, as always. Thank you for putting in the leg work to present this information in an enjoyable format. Pre-War Germany was quiet a mess, in a lot of different ways. Many people like for forget how fractured Germany was before the 1930s, it was definitely not a united, single, country.
It was a united ones but not centralised, it was a federal state when it was created in 1871
correction: after 1917, not "before 1930".
germany was so united that they defeated russia and created a independent Ukraine, which the brillant radical democrat wilson gave back to the soviets after the war.
@@perobusmaximus No, no correction needed. Prior too the November "Revolution" Germany was "united" in 1871. Most of the lands united under the German Imperial banner at the time weren't even German though, and there were spots within the German Reich proper that were not under the control of the Kaiser. German history does not support what you're saying, the idea of a united Germany is a relatively new concept in the history of the geographic location calling itself Germany.
@@ErokLobotomist are u french, that centralizes everything in paris? of course germany is not centralized, its a federation just like russia or usa.
what i corrected in your text was you term "fractured BEFORE 1930" . come on, u know that, bavaria even became a soviet, get a grip.
germany became "fractured AFTER 1917".
@@perobusmaximus You clearly have zero grasp of what pre-1871 "Germany" looked like. Bavaria becoming a Soviet has nothing to do with the point I'm making. There was never a true "Germany" before Hitler created it, it's why he was so desperate to claim territories that weren't his own as "German". Read even a little bit about what was once known as the "Holy Roman Empire". That wasn't a Federation. I don't know how to make you understand this without making you read a few books on the subject.
Why do you think the SPD was "Karl Marx's social Democratic Party"? Marx had only indirect influence, even in the early history of the party. The name 'SPD' came decades after his death and in 1919 it was even further away from being "his party“.
Why do you keep saying this?
Mussolini was also a Communist during the 14-18 war
They were elected in a soldier's council. This very well could have happened for a myriad of reasons, people have been elected into representative positions multiple times that opposed the ruling government. It happened in France in the late 1700s, it happened in Russia, and given that he joined the DAP that same year and him calling the same councils he was (supposedly) a part of as "Jewish" and denouncing them, this seems more to be the case.
And you can say "oh but he's actually lying." but these types of arguments, especially in the face of first hand sources are always very weak to me. It's not academic language, but its literally just cope.
In fact, when combined with some of his actions in the days following the end of the government in Bavaria, it became rather clear that Hitler had acted in this way primarily for tactical reasons. Taking an available opportunity not to return to his impoverished pre-war civilian life. In fact, this is said by your own source when Hett talks of how once the government had fallen, Hitler aligned himself with the Weimar Republic and as part of a three-person committee assigned to investigate the behaviour of his regiment's soldiers, he ratted out those who had shown sympathy for the Far-Left Governments. Also supported by Volker Ullrich in "Hitler: Ascent 1889-1939"
All these points about "Karl Marx's SPD" are also very bizarre. Setting aside the fundamentally reactionary nature of the Freikorps (them having some Jewish members is to be expected, they did not have a centralised leadership, but the vast majority were opposed to Socialism and were supporters of the later Kapp Putsch), it also completely misunderstands the nature of the SPD. By 1918 calling the SPD "revolutionary" as if it was in any way a Socialist party is completely mistaken. After 1914 and the voting for war credits, the SPD had ceased to be a Communist organisation that it used to be. What you call "Marx's SPD" was effectively a different party to what the SPD became by 1918.
This argument is addressed at 24:40
@@johns3927 Hardly. TIK himself cites Hett earlier on in the video, him then saying "oh but he's wrong about this" is just arbitrary nonsense. Given the conditions of what Hitler was in, he did not have much of a choice. His descision to then immediately work for Weimar after the fall of the gov. and provide long lists of suspected Communists he ran into is further proof that this was just opportunism.
@@genbab6989 The Communist republic was quickly overthrown in fierce street battles with over 600 casualties. During the street battles, Hitler was arrested and interned with other captured communist adherents of the Bavarian Soviet Republic. In his 1936 book Hitler: A Biography, Konrad Heiden, a Munich-born journalist and a Social Democrat himself, remarked that during this period Hitler engaged in heated discussions where he “espoused the cause of Social Democracy against that of the Communists.” That seemed reasonable, since Hitler and everyone in his barracks were in serious trouble. They were all interrogated over whether they were a Communist or a Communist sympathizer. The punishment for being a Communist was execution, imprisonment or exile.
So really, he was just trying to save himself.
Your argument essentially boils down to, "he just so happened to serve in a communist army that he didn't have to and he provided names to save his skin, therefore he wasn't a communist."
Pretty weak.
@@johns3927
>Hitler was arrested and interned with other captured communist adherents of the Bavarian Soviet Republic.
Not so! According to Volker Ullrich in his book, "Hitler: Ascent 1889-1939". Once the government had fallen, Hitler aligned himself with the Weimar Republic and (as part of a three-person committee assigned to investigate the behavior of his regiment's soldiers ) informed on those who had shown sympathy for the Far-Left Governments. What was this committee? In July 1919, he was appointed Verbindungsmann (intelligence agent) of an Aufklärungskommando (reconnaissance commando) of the Reichswehr. Does this sound very Communist to you? It doesn't to me!
> engaged in heated discussions where he “espoused the cause of Social Democracy against that of the Communists.”
Ok so you admit that TIK's argument is wrong. Hitler (at absolute best) was a soc-dem.
>The punishment for being a Communist was execution, imprisonment or exile.
Considering he wasn't even interned and was hired to work for the government. I somehow doubt this.
>
So really, he was just trying to save himself.
Do you know what opportunism means?
>Pretty weak.
What about that is weak? Setting aside that you yourself said that Hitler was a soc-dem not a Communist, the fact that Hett (Who TIK HIMSELF CITES) then says "to conclude from this that he was a Communist is not accurate" and who then substantiates it with the fact that Hitler worked for the Weimar government to root out Communists and including the fact that Hitler also denounced the Bavarian government as "Jewish." To dismiss this as pretty weak, all it shows to me is that you refuse to accept any idea that would call into question if Hitler supported the ideology that he continuously rallied against, denouncing it as a "Jewish plot" and killing thousands of because he thought they were in league with "Jews and Moscow"
@@genbab6989 Nope, Hitler was arrested following the fall of the Bavarian Soviet Republic. This is documented in Thomas Weber's "Becoming Hitler: The Making of a Nazi". Hitler insisting that he was not a communist following his arrest is not credible. His life was literally on the line here. Trying to take any actions he took against his former comrades in this context is very desperate indeed. You'll have to do better than that.
Can we please agree on the fact that politics are far, far to complex to be divided into an one-dimensional left-right-axis?
Disagree. Put the left and the right in the same camp. It's really socialists vs anarchists. It's still simple.
@@f__kyoudegenerates It's not considering some on the right are completely anti-anarchism and fully pro-cop and pro-state just not a leftist state. If you gave right wingers a leftist that behaves nationalistically they've fall in love, and that's how you get national socialism, the socialists love them because they're still socialist and anti-capitalist and the nationalists love them because they're nationalistic as opposed to globalistic.
Thus you get a "third way" which is how many fascists refer to their movement for a reason, it mixes and merges things from both the "left" and the "right" to create a united movement that they can all either get behind or tolerate in silence
@@f__kyoudegenerates that would at least make more sense when talking about the level of power a government should have, but we still have other issues, like liberalism vs conservatism.
Yes. This.
One should see everything as straight up the ideology itself rather than left-right spectrum.
For example:
Iraq, Afghanistan and now Ukraine were supported by supporters of liberal internationalism and disliked by those who disliked liberal internationalism (whether left or right).
"Liberals vs conservatives" are also seeing as left vs right.
The truth is that liberalism as political philosophy aren't really that friendly to social conservatism.
It can't be a good day without a new TIK video to watch!
Battlestorm Stalingrad got me hooked and I just can't stop watching. Keep up the good work!
In 'The Trial of Adolf Hitler: The Beer Hall Putsch and the Rise of Nazi Germany' by David King, a transcript of the trial reveals that during the existence of the 'Bavarian Soviet Republic', Hitler gave lectures on the benefits of Socialism to recently discharged young soldiers.
This is same as "Hitler didn't die in 1945, but escaped to X" - they also have pictures of Hitler in Argentina, Brazil.. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The only problem is that Kurt Eisner never was a communist and therefore never been a member of the KPD. And no, the Bavarian State was not a bohlsevik movement because Eisner had disagreed with Marx's and Lenin's ideas. Eisner was in SPD when the party was NOT a communist party (Marxist Leninist) Party. Even more when the SPD broke in the socialist democratic and the communist fanctions, Eisner went to the first one and became a follower of Embert. So if you want to talk about the FACTS you have to serve them all the way.
I did some research, and it does seem to be the case that Eisner did not present himself as a bolshevik, although he was a socialist. However, the government that Hitler was elected to under Max Levien was undeniably communist.
@@johns3927 He can be as much socialist as he wants, dear John, the title though of this video that is supposed to present Facts , refers to communists. Eisner was a supporter of Embert, President of Germany ( andpresident of the SPD party) who support the far right groups and the Freikorps in their struggle against Communists. If someone's wants to read a real historical book about the period, I recommend as an historian myself, the Ein Lesebuch zur deutschen Geschichte 1918-1933, of Heinrich August Winkler.
@@kraftwerkVS Yes, I'm agreeing with you. Hitler was still a commie serving under the Max Levien government though.
@TIK There are copyrights of pictures of AH? Wtf. That should be history and public interest. This sound utterly ridiculous to me.
I agree, but unfortunately this is the case. Getty Images and similar will crack down on you if you use "their" historical images without consent (paying them). And obviously UA-cam's algorithm is insane when it comes to using footage that's in other videos, which is why I avoid using all video footage of historical events and stick to pictures.
Taking someone else's property and giving it away for 'free' sounds like Socialism.
.
Phenomenal video as per usual! It's a shame that mainstream education and "historians" care not for distinguishing between National Socialism and Fascism, while also suppressing the socialist grounding of these ideologies. Your videos about these subjects always make me feel more knowledgeable than most when talking about these ideologies.
Hitler was a very opinionated and cynical man, so I think he was thinking "as long as its not the current government"
He was an ethno-communist after that, so he hadn't changed much.
No he wasn’t. Naming your movement "socialist" doesn’t make it a socialist movement, or even communist as you called it.
The "Democratic People’s Republic of Korea“ is also not democratic for that matter. There was a sort-of socialist movement in the the NSDAP, especially around the Sturmabteilung (SA) of the Nazi party. It was purged and its leaders executed in 1934. Hitler (at least in the 20s and afterwards) was a not a socialist nor communist. There is no doubt about that among historians, it’s a conspiracy theory.
@@tempo5366
Owning private property in a totalitarian state is impossible by definition, because totalitarian state does not recognize any authority other than its own. That includes owners authority over his property.
There is that, plus everything else NSDAP did, for submission of EVERYTHING and EVERYONE to the needs and desires of the state.
Most of historians are socialists themselves, along with the rest of the academia, so it's not a surprise that they don't like a comparison.
@@paulbenedict1289 Interesting thought. But same historians write about the brutal nature and crimes of socialist governments like the USSR or GDR. Why only lie about the supposedly socialist Nazi party? Why not about them?
@@tempo5366 🤣🤣🤣
@@tempo5366
Total submission of everything and everyone to needs and wishes of the party and the state is as socialist/communist as you can possibly get.
Thank You for the Hitler was/was not a socialist/communist series. In these times of cancel culture and the NEO coolness of "socialism" this series of videos
REALLY IS STUNNING AND BRAVE!!!
You risk cancel culture, but you tell the truth!
And nobody else is saying it.
Hitler's participation in the CBSR was briefly mentioned in Lost Battlefields' excellent video about Himmler, and I can't think of a better independent historian to take a deeper look into this than TIK. Well done, sir.
Great profile picture man. A man of culture
@@sergeant_chris6209 Blue Oyster Culture
one of my favorite bands from the 1970s. 🤙
@@herrgodfrey9563 Mine too. Also one of my favorite bands from the '80s, '90s, '10s and '20s.
Great video TIK. I am not surprised to learn that all these civilization destroying ideologies have similar roots and in many ways are indistinguishable. I am enjoying your inflation series, it would be great if that series could be expanded all throughout the interwar years explaining the economic situation of Germany during that period. It is a shame that you do not have the resources of Indy Neidell or The Great War channel, because you would certainly make better use of them.
In the future I would like to get more insight into the bitter clashes between the brown shirts and other socialists on the streets during the Weimar Republic and the NSDAP being placed on right when it got representation in the Reichstag. Lastly, have you made any podcast appearances? I think you could rock the liberty circuit with your historical revisionism, it would be awesome to listen to!
Please explain how National Socialism is "civilisation destroying "
Oh god, the comment section will be on fire.
Thanks TIK for taking one for the team again .
Let's all agree that Graf Anton von Arco-Valley is a really cool name.
Not as cool as Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz von Groß-Zauche und Camminetz
@@TheImperatorKnight Let alone Maximilian Maria Joseph Karl Gabriel Lamoral Reichsfreiherr von und zu Weichs an der Glonn
@@TheImperatorKnight You want me to pronounce that for you? :D
Good luck putting that in an email.
I remember watching a Channel 4 documentary from the early 1990s, narrated by Robert Carlyle, which mentioned that Hitler had been a member of the Communist party before becoming the leader of the National Socialist party.
How times change!
Nazi-ism/fascism and communism are just two names for the same totalitarian leftism. Socialism, including "democratic" socialism, is just the name for the transition to totalitarian collectivist leftism. The labels of these are called slightly different names by different leftists trying to hide this. Don't get lost in the semantics. Fascism and communism are just two competing forms of collectivism/leftism.
Mussolini was also a member of a socialist/communist party in Italy. This just shows that socialism/communism and fascism/naziism have the same basic economic systems. The difference is in their left or right social ideologies.
Hitler was not antisemitic until later with his time in Vienna. The person helping him sell his artwork in Vienna was jewish.
Yes and no. Communism thinks on a more international level as opposed to Fascism/Nazisim that thinks more on a national level, "We take care of our own" type thinking. Which is okay as long as you treat everyone, including minorities, as your own.
You need more than one axis. Left/right is trapping you. There isn't anything 'right' wing about these ideologies, they just change the tribal group that is propped up and the tribal group to tear down in the process.
The difference is in which mask they wear on any given day.
@@soulknife20 I agree. Their economic systems are all command economies vs free enterprise. National Socialism is nationalistic and International Socialism is internationalistic. The contrast is in how varying ethnic or racial groups are treated are different between naziism and communism. Fascism did not make as big of a deal of ethnic or racial groups as in Italy or Spain. Japan's racial superiority political system was very similar to Germany's.
It's all left wing. It's just slightly right of the tankies.
quote by gerira "Kershaw's biography argues that Hitler, still a soldier, was transferred into Bavaria. Bavaria at that time had both a socialist government and a revolutionary movement with popular support among many soldiers. Soldiers also elected representatives, and they had official duties that connected to the socialist program of the government.
Kershaw suggests Hitler ended up as a representative (Vertrauensmann) of this regular army company, not as a member of any "Red Brigade". Kershaw says it's unclear whether he had any political sympathy for the socialist government. He may just have been trying to maintain his position in the military in a time and place where that meant working with a socialist government and elected soldiers' representative bodies.
It's not the same as being a member of the various "Red Armies" that existed on and off throughout Germany around this time, which were voluntary militias of socialist/communist workers and soldiers. Throughout the revolutionary period in Germany, soldiers often had the opportunity to elect representatives, and those representatives could be socialist or conservative. Kershaw quotes some witnesses claiming that Hitler supported the mainstream Social Democrats as a bulwark against the communists. This is compatible with Hitler being a pragmatic conservative faced with a perceived revolutionary threat, or with being a confused young man being influenced by very dynamic political processes. (Note that Germany's most conservative forces had made a temporary alliance with the Social Democrats to repress communism on a national scale at around this time.)
As Kershaw writes, on the dynamics of soldiers' politics in this time:
"If indeed, as was later alleged, he voiced support for the Social Democrats in preference to the Communists, it was presumably viewed as a choice of the lesser of two evils, or even, by those in Hitler’s unit who knew him of old, as an opportune adjustment betraying none of his real nationalist, pan-German sympathies. Ernst Schmidt, for example, who by then had been discharged but was still in regular touch with him, spoke later of Hitler’s ‘utter repugnance’ at the events in Munich. The nineteen votes cast for ‘Hittler’ on 16 April, electing him as the second company representative - the winner, Johann Blüml, received thirty-nine votes - on the Battalion Council, may well have been from those who saw him in this light."
So this means that many soldiers were conservative anti-Communists, and found that during the revolutionary events in Bavaria the best option they had was expressing support for Social Democracy. Hitler may have been elected as a soldiers' representative with the support of this conservative current among the soldiers.
Sources:
Kershaw's "Hitler: Hubris", ch. 4
Pierre Broué, "The German Revolution 1917-1923""
KERSHAW: defining Fascism is like trying to nail jelly to the wall
ME: sounds like you're saying Fascism doesn't exist and never has
KERSHAW: no no no it totally existed and exists but I just have no idea what it actually is
but it wasnt ReAl fAsCiSm! rEaL FaCIsMs HaSnT bEeN tRiEd yEt!
To paraphrase, "The only difference that distinguishes Nazism to Marxism is National Socialism believes in the division of racial classes, not economic ones."......So essentially, Nazism is just Critical Race Theory.
Always has been.
Also ironic is that he (Hitler) is obviously referring to the SDP when he says, "...just as our national-bourgeois parties are." He considered the SPD tainted by Marxism and characterized it as bourgeois because they embraced the idea of Socialist Revolution through gradual change using the organs of existing government rather than violent upheaval followed by a police State. So the SPD, KDP, and DAP were three Socialist/Marxist groups vying for power and vilified one another over each one's version of ideological purity.
Ideological purity spiraling from Communists? Why does that sound so familiar? I'm sure they'd never do such a thing today...
@@Bingo_Bango_ Leftist purity spirals are a relatively new thing in America. There were instances of it in the past, but they ceased once the crises resolved. Leftists here have enjoyed near monolithic lock-step for decades. I think that is part of the reason American Leftists have such a hard time understanding how one Leftist piece of crap could hate on another Leftist piece of crap, because Post Modern Neo-Marxism has never been seriously divided here, until recently.
@TIK, I have a couple of questions/comments:
1) Do you feel like we should stop using the terms "Communism" and "Democracy", since both of those have neither been achieved nor possible to be achieved? Communism is a social utopia, just as Democracy is a democratic utopia. For either to be implemented, no single person would ever have more power or status than anyone else. Since the former USSR and current state of China clearly have differing tiers of status, power, pay, etc., it would be incorrect to call it Communism. It is like using the term "racism" when there is but a single "human" race, with everything else being differences in melanin (overly simplistic but you get the idea) and choice of how to pray to a god.
2) Great video. I think that the biggest takeaway is that Hitler has always been a massive culmination of contradictions. He soldiered on, with Jewish people. Was part of an organization and went to the funeral of a Jewish person, followed the political ideas, of a Jewish person (Marx), saved the life, of his half-Jewish driver and was ok with Goring saving the life of half-Jewish Milch, allowed Jewish winners of the Iron Cross to change their status to "honorary Aryan", etc. Many of his speeches changes, from deliverance to deliverance, based upon the reactions of the crowd thus altering the points he was making. Is it any wonder that his "feelings" were all over the place? He left Austria, in WW1 because he didn't want to fight in a multi-ethnic Army. Yet, almost 30 years later, he invades and takes over the same land and people, with whom he didn't want to fight alongside, and is more than happy to ally with the Hungarians. He wasn't even a National Socialist, until he listened to Eckart. And Hitler didn't think that Germans were from Atlantis or part of a lost northern tribe of the sun.
3) I also think that we need to stop including anti-semitism into a specific political ideology. That has existed, for millennia, and is more a function of the Catholic church on top of a great many more things.
4) Finally, do you still hold that German WW2 National Socialism is a "3rd way"? And how is it that people call it fascism and far-right? The truth is, and I'm not into politics, I don't know that we can really call it Socialism, in the sense of what we deem that to be today, because current day Socialism and left-political leaning is all about welfare programs, flattening of wealth, etc. and yet Hitler was greatly opposed to all of that. In short, I think that Socialism is too broad of a political concept, especially in the grand scheme of history, and that it takes away, from discussions, trying to pigeon hole people into neat definitive aspects with no "grey" in-between.
I swear, this is all like trying to decipher a 10 dimensional cube.
There’s nothing to decipher. It’s very confusing because it’s incoherent and full of actual non sequiturs. There’s no meaning to be found here. It’s nonsense.
Tik should really take the transcripts of these videos and publish them in paperback form, you never know when our Gods in San Bruno might decide that knowing Hitler went to Kurt Eisner's funeral is just a bit too much!
I've been tempted to create something like a blog where I can post the scripts or other essays too. Definitely something I've been considering
@@TheImperatorKnight That would be really, really cool.
It seems the only reason Hitler did not remain a communist is because there were too many Jews in it. Hitler agreed with and supported communism but wanted a communist state without Jews, hence National (Germans Only) Socialism.
Thanks to these videos, I am beginning to see just how similar Nazis and Communists are ideologically. I have always instinctively detested Leftist/Socialists who claim Capitalism is the cause of Climate Change and needs to be replaced with benevolent (ha!) Socialism but I never could put my finger on why I detest the Leftists so much, only that both Nazis and Leftists create gulags to kill their enemies and I instinctively know by the insinuations by Leftists that, given the power, they will kill in the camps once again.
Communism doesn't contain any more Jews than the population at large, and you will get doxxed if you say otherwise.
Stay afraid. 😃
Another bit of proof that there is no left or right wing to authoritarianism.
There is though.Its just that National socialists are not right wing at all.
They are leftists.Right wing authoritarianism would be the USA or the UK for example.
Socialism based on nationalism; so fascism?
I have a fine appreciation for the sanity check you provide. I grew up learning Hitler hated communism and fascism, yet, being very confused that what he was instituting in Germany smelled a lot like, well, communism and fascism. I guess it was OK when he did it because Russia and Italy weren't doing it right; the rallying cry of every socialist.
Brent Hayes
Socialism based on nationalism; so fascism? Wrong is it National Socialism or short, NazI.
@@Gromkiii what did he say thats wrong, you said hes wrong and then rearranged the words to say the literal exact same thing he said
It's easier to ask leftists what socialists policies did Hitler not employ? Most leftists don't understand economics but socialism is an economic system and it has an economic definition and Hitler's Germany meets that definition.
He never stopped being one, simply tried to adapt it into his own version that was palatable to the general public.
Were you dropped as a kid
@@ceklian7979 If that's what it takes to speak the truth then sure.
@@com.7869 you'll go back in time and drop yourself as a baby?
Socialism is socialism. Socialists eat other socialists. Mussolini and thus Hitler went the other way communism did. They still hated capitalism but loved capitalists. They loved the benefits of capitalism but still wanted that economic and societal control. I've brought this up before on how China today actually is very close to Nazism.
Tik, this video is outstanding. Honestly. I’ve studied history academically, studied WW2 similar to yourself in my spare time. Read countless memoirs and spent countless hours studying. This is why I love your videos, I knew pretty much none of this. Keep it up mate, bravo.
Modern communists: Hol up!
CONFUSED SCREAMING
Leftists lgbt is more accurate
US neoliberals: that's amazing.
The “left-wing” members of the SA were called Roastbeefs by the Germans: brown on the outside, Red on the inside
Hitler was a vegetarian too.