Marxist always try to say Schacht was responsible for the recovery in Germany and was the guy behind Hitler. This was not the case at all, he was only responsible for temporary privatization measures that were also largely a myth. Schacht is a man fired by Hitler and put into a concentration camp for trying to kill Hitler, a man who was called; “An exponent of world capitalism and hostile to the state’s revolutionary approach to economics” by Otto Wagner the head of the Nazi economic policy branch. Schacht was a liberal economically and was against state intervention in commerce. He was against the state-sponsored programs to combat unemployment. He also hated the MMT stuff Feder came up with before Keynes. This is from Adolf Hitler by John Toland, Schacht was told; “I have called you in order to hand you your dismissal as president of the Reichsbank” Schacht took the piece of paper extended to him. “You don’t fit into the national socialist picture it reads”. All this does is indicate that Hitler hated him and this is further solidified in Hitler’s Table Talk where he called him a freemason, a tool, and an obstructionist. The guy was used then removed after he was done being useful. Even when they bring up Big Business propping up Hitler that’s also a flat out Lie and Cope. German Big Business and The Rise of Hitler by Henry Turner, Mr. Turner writes; “To What extent did the men of German big business undermine the Weimar Republic? To what extent did they finance the Nazi party and use their influence to boost Hitler into power? As should be evident by this point the answer in both cases is a great deal less than has generally been believed. Only through gross distortion can big business be afforded a crucial or even a major role in the downfall of the republic. The early growth of the NSDAP Took place without any significant aid from the circles of large-scale enterprise. Centered in industrially underdeveloped Bavaria, tainted with illegality as a consequence of a failed beer hall putsch of 1923, saddled with a program containing disturbingly anti-capitalist planks and amounting only to a raucous splinter group politically, The NSDAP languished in disrepute in the eyes of most men of big business throughout the latter part of the 1920s. The major main executives of Germany proved with rare exception resistant to the blandishments of Nazis including Hitler himself, who sought to reassure the business community about their party’s intentions. Only the electoral breakthrough of 1930, achieved without aid from big business drew attention to it from that quarter. From The Development and Character of the Nazi Political Machine, 1928-1930, and the Nsdap Electoral Breakthrough; After weighing all the evidence. We must recognize that the financial subsidies from industry were overwhelmingly directed against the Nazis. Bulk of the funds in the party treasury came from membership dues.” This an echo of what Peter Drucker, an American writer, and university professor, stated in 1939: “It is not true that ‘big business’ promoted Fascism. On the contrary, both in Italy and in Germany the proportion of Fascist sympathizers and backers was smallest in the industrial and financial classes. It is equally untrue that ‘big business’ profits from Fascism; of all the classes it probably suffers most from totalitarian economics and Wehrwirtschaft.” Explaining this point even more thoroughly is James Pool in Who Financed Hitler; “The party's financial substance was however made possible not just by the donations of the most generous contributors but by the day-to-day income from the average members. Every member of the party was expected to pay his dues of one Mark per month and give whatever his means would permit, but since many of them were unemployed there was very little surplus income. You have no idea Hitler later told Gregor Strasser what a problem it was in those days to find the money to buy my ticket when I wanted to deliver a speech at Nuremberg. Looking back at the financing of Hitler’s political activities from 1918 to 1923 one thing is particularly interesting. Many historians have contended that the national socialist party was financed and supported by big business? Yet as has been seen only two of Germany’s major industrialists FritzThyssen and Ernst von Borsig gave anything to the Nazi party during these early years. Donations came from some conservative Munich businessmen who were at the height of the communist danger as well as small Bavarian factory owners like Grandel, the Berlin piano manufacturer Bechstein and the publisher Lehmann. But none of these men despite their wealth could fit properly in the category of big business. There is no evidence that the really big industrialists of Germany such as Carl Bosch, Hermann Biicher, Carl Friedrich von Siemens, and Hugo Stinned or the great families such as the Krupps and the leading bankers and financiers gave any support to the Nazis from 1918 to 1923. Indeed few of them knew this small party from Bavaria even existed. Most of Hitler’s donations came from wealthy individuals who were radical nationalists or anti-Semites and contributed because of ideological motivation. To a certain extent the wealthy white Russians fit into this category; they could also be looked on as the only real interest group that hoped to gain a definite political-economic objective from their aid to the Nazis” The historian Richard J. Evans even says this in The Coming of The Third Reich; “The Nazi Party depended on such commitment [fiance from the grass roots]; much of its power and dynamism came from the fact that it was not dependent on Big business or bureaucratic institutions such as trade unions for its financial support.” You also have Schleicher a conservative who attempted to "tame" Hitler into cooperating with his government by offering him vice-chancellor and threatening him with an anti-Nazi alliance of parties, the so-called Querfront ("cross-front"). Hitler refused to abandon his claim to the chancellorship and Schleicher's plan failed. In response to this Goebbles said; “The Notion of the Führer as Vice-chancellor of a bourgeois cabinet is too grotesque to be taken seriously.” This entire narrative of fascism and nazism being capitalism in decay is fucking stupid. I can say this as a Fascist, WE ARE SOCIALIST! And Nationalist. Anyways in the modern context I’m more concerned about nationalism vs globalism anyways. Besides one of the people behind Fascist Syndicalism is Edmondo Rossoni; he was a “fascist syndicalist” who was a major trade union leader in Italy and played a large role in formulating syndicalism in Italy, which left its mark via the Italian Corporate System. In Mussolini’s Il Popolo d'Italia newspaper, he claimed that “only the Fascist syndicates could complete the revolution.” In the early 1920s, Rossoni’s trade unions threatened the industrialists so much that it was even speculated by some industrialists on whether to hire communists to fight the fascists. In the book Italian Industrialists From Liberalism to Fascism this is written in the Liberal-Fascism section; “Salvemini continued: “now the industrialists are no longer content with Mussolini. They are not as manageable as they wished.” At the end of actual, referring to information passed along to Donati, editor of the Catholic newspaper Il Popolo, Salvemini noted: “An industrialist of Turin told Donati that in his circle people are beginning to ask themselves if it might now be wise to pay the Communists to fight the Fascists!” In early May, the future Communist leader Palmiro Togliatti wrote to Gramsci in Moscow that “The Industrial classes are rather wary of the new regime, fearing unpredictable developments in the class struggle with Fascist syndicates.” You have a history more so of Big Business financing communists not fascists or nazis. In fact I would just say look at modern social media companies or George Soros with BLM to Antifa. Fuck these people
@@TheImperatorKnight Socialists try to portray Hitler as a tool of capitalists, free market fanatics (like you TIK :P ) try to portray him as a socialist , but he was neither. Simply saying, In economic terms Hitler kept somewhere in the middle, and didn't have ideological problems of sometimes moving closer to capitalism and sometimes to socialism. Why ? Because Hitler did not consider economy as a heart of his ideology (that place was taken by biology, i.e. race problem) . And Hitler kept this middle road until the war started, and then gradually switched to total command economy, but other countries did that too, even US.
@@aleksazunjic9672 Fascist and Nazi economic models is based on corporatism. Everything is brought into the orbit of the state via the guilds, i.e. corporations or syndicates or in Hitler’s case a single national trade union. You have syndicates that engage in collective-bargaining for things like wages, prices, and production quotas. Utilities are under direct state ownership like banks, infrastructure, and so forth to prevent private enterprise from subverting state authority. Further proof of this is in Mein Kampf in Vol. II, in the Personality and The Conception of The Völkisch State: “The best state constitution and state form is that which, with the most unquestioned certainty, raises the best minds in the national community to leading position and leading influence. But, as in economic life, the able men cannot be appointed from above, but must struggle through for themselves, and just as here the endless schooling, ranging from the smallest business to the largest enterprise, occurs spontaneously, with life alone giving the examinations, obviously political minds cannot be ‘discovered.’ Extraordinary geniuses permit no consideration for normal mankind. From the smallest community cell to the highest leadership of the entire Reich, the state must have the personality principle anchored in its organisation. There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word ‘council’ must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man. The principle which made the Prussian army in its time into the most wonderful instrument of the German people must some day, in a transferred sense, become the principle of the construction of our whole state conception: authority of every leader downward and responsibility upward. Even then it will not be possible to dispense with those corporations which today we designate as parliaments. But their councillors will then actually give counsel; responsibility, however, can and may be borne only by one man, and therefore only he alone may possess the authority and right to command. Parliaments as such are necessary, because in them, above all, personalities to which special responsible tasks can later be entrusted have an opportunity gradually to rise up. This gives the following picture: The völkisch state, from the township up to the Reich leadership, has no representative body which decides anything by the majority, but only advisory bodies which stand at the side of the elected leader, receiving their share of work from him, and in turn if necessary assuming unlimited responsibility in certain fields, just as on a larger scale the leader or chairman of the various corporations himself possesses. As a matter of principle, the völkisch state does not tolerate asking advice or opinions in special matters - say, of an economic nature - of men who, on the basis of their education and activity, can understand nothing of the subject. It, therefore, divides its representative bodies from the start into a political chamber and a corporative chamber that represents the respective trades and professions. In order to guarantee a profitable co-operation between the two, a special selected senate of the élite always stands over them. In no chamber nor in the senate does a vote ever take place. They are working institutions and not voting machines. The individual member has an advisory, but never a determining, voice. The latter is the exclusive privilege of the responsible chairman, who must be entirely responsible for the matter under discussion. This principle - absolute responsibility unconditionally combined with absolute authority - will gradually breed an élite of leaders such as today, in this era of irresponsible parliamentarianism, is utterly inconceivable. Thus, the political form of the nation will be brought into agreement with that law to which it owes its greatness in the cultural and economic field.” Furthermore in Vol. II, The Trade-Union Question “As things stand today, the trade unions in my opinion cannot be dispensed with. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions in the nation’s economic life. Their significance lies not only in the social and political field, but even more in the general field of national politics. A people whose broad masses, through a sound trade-union movement, obtain the satisfaction of their living requirements and at the same time an education, will be tremendously strengthened in its power of resistance in the struggle for existence. Above all, the trade unions are necessary as foundation stones of the future economic parliament or chambers of estates… As already emphasised, the germ cells for the economic chambers will have to reside in bodies representing the various occupations and professions, hence above all in the trade unions. And if this future body representing the estates and the Central Economic Parliament is to constitute a National Socialist institution, these important germ cells must also embody a National Socialist attitude and conception… This state, to be sure, must, in place of the mass struggle of the two great groups - employers and workers - (which in its consequences always injures the national community as a whole by diminishing production) assume the legal care and the legal protection of all. Upon the economic chambers themselves it will be incumbent to keep the national economy functioning and eliminate the deficiencies and errors which damage it. The things for which millions fight and struggle today must in time be settled in the Representative Chambers of Estates and Professions and in the Central Economic Parliament. Then employers and workers will not rage against one another in struggles over pay and wage scales, damaging the economic existence of both, but solve these problems jointly on a higher plane, one where the welfare of the Volksgemeinschaft and of the State will be as a shining ideal to throw light on all their negotiations. Here, too, as everywhere, the iron principle must prevail that the interests of the Fatherland must come before party interests.”
@@aleksazunjic9672 Now none of the above stuff was implemented sure but! To quote the introduction of Corporate Freedom of Action in Nazi Germany, which was a lecture delivered at the German Historical Institute in Washington which delves into why the privatization narrative is flawed: “The central, load-bearing propositions of the Buchheim-Scherner interpretation are as follows: 1. The Nazi state regulated German business in order to achieve autarky and rearmament, but did so quite unsystematically and never established anything resembling a centrally planned economy. 2. Because the Nazi state generally respected private property rights and freedom of contract, the regime rarely forced corporations to serve its objectives, but rather offered an array of inducements, which firms could take or leave without adverse consequences, to get enterprises to meet the regime’s production goals. 3. Given this context, private enterprises in Nazi Germany retained much of their autonomy over their investment decisions and production strategies, which continued to reflect managers’ estimates of long-term commercial prospects. The problem with all of these propositions is that they are half-truths. Point 1 uses the well-known improvisation and lack of central planning that characterized Nazi economics to divert attention from the fact that the interventionist spiral set in motion by Nazi trade policy in 1933-34 developed by 1938 into a full-blown, comprehensive, and state-mandated rationing and allocation system for every factor of production. That system then became more rigorous during the war and almost airtight from 1942 on. Point 2 is right that the Nazi regime preferred the carrot to the stick, for both ideological and practical reasons, but quite wrong to deny the intimidating effect of the most spectacular exceptions to this preference: the forced sale of Junkers aircraft in 1933, the conscription of private enterprises to underwrite the formation of the Braunkohle Benzin AG (Brabag) in 1934, and the virtual confiscation of the Salzgitter iron ore fields from German heavy industry in 1937 as part of the establishment of the Hermann-GöringWerke, not to mention the impact on corporate decision-making of the numerous removals of chief executives during the war, including Paul Reusch of the Gutehoff nungshütte, Willy Messerschmitt and Ernst Heinkel in the aircraft industry, and Franz Josef Bopp at BMW. Point 3 is correct that many corporate leaders recurrently imagined- indeed, longed for-an economic future that would resemble the pre-Nazi, free-market past and thus tried to sustain their traditional core operations. But Buchheim and Scherner both overstate the limited success that most large firms enjoyed in clinging to business as usual and understate the considerable extent to which many executives modified their evaluations of commercial prospects along party lines in the key interval of 1937-42.” Reading this we begin to see why the privatization narrative is flawed, especially when presented to us by Marxists. Privatization was only pursued in a limited capacity, and the industries privatized were brought back into the state sector with the regulations and political maneuvering put forth by the state. The narrative neglects much of the explorations which happened, and another good book which I will not go into much which covers a lot of the expropriations and regulations is The Vampire Economy by Gunter Reimann. Reimann was a German Marxist, so before anyone calls him out for bias, he had a Marxist bias which would lead him to still label the German economy as capitalist even though he covers extensive regulations, state planning, price-fixing, expropriations, etc. Even admitting these were socialist policies. These are even covered in The Wages of Destruction too. To elaborate on this point, I will quote Antisemitic Anticapitalism in German Culture from 1850-1933 by Matthew Ryan Lange: “Moreover, Nazí decrees of 1937 compelled further cartelization to streamline the chain of command and prepare for war, which had been the goal of the Four-Year Plan of 1936. The results of this massive interventionist policy were “complete consolidation of the entire economy, complete elimination of personal initiative and freedom of choice.”81 Even if a semblance of private ownership of business remained before the outbreak of World War II, with war raging on two fronts the National Socialists took the final step when they created the Amt für Zentrale Planung (Office for Central Planning) in 1942 which removed any remnants of private initiative.” The German economy had extensive state control and curbed private business interests unlike what Marxists like to tell you, showing its parallels to the Italian economy, relying on systems of state planning boards, economic representation, state allocation, and so forth. However, if one is not yet convinced, I will now quote “The Nazi Economic Recovery, 1932-1938” by Richard J. Overy: “Even heavy industry, that had favoured some degree of autarky and state aid in the early 1930s, found that the extent of state control exercised after 1936, and the rise of a state-owned industrial sector, threatened their interests too. The strains that such a relationship produced have already been demonstrated for the car industry, the aircraft industry and the iron and steel industry; but much more research is needed to arrive at a satisfactory historical judgement of the relationship between Nazism and German business. What is already clear is that the Third Reich was not simply a businessman's regime underpinning an authoritarian capitalism but, on the contrary, that it set about reducing the autonomy of the economic élite and subordinating it to the interests of the Nazi state.” All “private” initiatives in the German economy were ultimately up to the state to manage and allocate to its whims, which makes it nothing like the private sectors we see in capitalist economies. Having more parallels with countries like modern Red China and Tito’s Yugoslavia. In fact, according to the Nazi Economic Recovery which I just quoted, private enterprise was to be treated as more of placeholder management rather than “private” in any substantial way, as I mentioned earlier. To quote the book again: “As the state extended its role in supervising or regulating all the main economic variables, it developed a more coherent economic system. German economists christened the system 'die gelenkte Wirtschaft', the managed economy. Under such a system businessmen were regarded as economic functionaries serving the interests of the nation rather than as independent and enterprising creators of wealth. The concept of the 'managed economy suited the regime's ideological ambitions, but stifled enterprise.” Everything provided beforehand echoes this same sentiment, and to further substantiate upon this, I will quote Nazism, 1919-1945: State, economy, and society 1933-1939: “By 1939, businessmen were subject to a whole range of controls on imports, the distribution of raw materials, prices, wages, employment, capital markets and so on. The Government dictated to a large extent what and how much they should produce, the amount of new investment, where new plants should be built, the type and amount of raw materials to be used, what prices to charge their customers and what wages to pay their employees, the amount of profit they could take and how it should be used-largely in reinvestment or for the purchase of Government bonds.” With all that being said, Corporate Freedom of Action in Nazi Germany cites a statement by Hitler and his State Secretary: “In my book on IG Farben, I cited numerous such examples, including Hitler’s public remark in September 1937 that “[i]f private enterprise does not carry through the Four Year Plan, the state will assume full control of business,” and State Secretary Brinkmann’s warning a conference of insurance and banking executives in October 1938 not to “underestimate the possibility of the state managing wherever business cannot produce to an adequate degree or perform creatively.” Hitler did not have a lax attitude towards private initiative as I have just shown, and the German economy as a whole did not operate by this sense of “private” initiative and privatization. Even the citation they use arguing for privatization refutes itself because many of these companies were allocated to the higher ranking members within the party and the party was the state. They were controlled by a National Trade Union (German Labor Front), just more regulations, economic planning or ways to increase further control or ownership by the state. Essentially this functioned not much different than the Italian model. Now if you read Wegener’s memoirs or Hitler’s Table Talks. He planned to eventually implement the similar bureaucratic bodies based on occupation in a Corporative parliamentary system with a senate acting sorta like the Italian Fascist Grand Council. So yes the stuff in Mein Kampf was being pushed gradually. All of this was identified as a version of German socialism that was anti-communist with people like Rudolf Jung in the early years to later on with people like Wegener or even Reinhardt. Even non-Nazis like Werner Sombart and Oswald Spengler in the conservative revolution were pushing German Socialism.
@@ZoranZoltanous You are burdening yourself with trifles :D Hitler was not interested in any pure economic model, be it corporatism, capitalism, socialism etc ... He simply wanted Lebensraum for his Volk . Economy was just a tool, but his core belief was that if he had strong, Aryan, pure blooded people, such people would build its own civilization and society including economy. In economic terms, his primary concern was to build strong industry that could support his armies, but at the same time not to overburden people with hardship in order to avoid mutinies and revolutions of 1918. Therefore, until the war started, Hitler was moving sometimes towards socialism, sometimes toward capitalism, seemingly haphazardly . In fact, he didn't care . All he wanted was to built up Wehrmacht and prepare for war as best he could.
the mystery of why Hitler lost WW2 is solved. Hitler lost because he got rid of Schacht. Schacht gave +10 percent speed to build civilian factories, but "madman Hitler" only built military factories
@@spiffygonzales5160 "Let me get this straight, Mr. Papen, you thought you could put Hitler in charge and then control him from behind the scenes? That's... hmm... acquitted on grounds of mental retardation."
Not charged as a war criminal at Nuremberg, von Papen was classified as one in 1947 by a German de-Nazification court, and sentenced to eight years' hard labor. He was acquitted following appeal after serving two.
Weird how Mayer Rothschild the individual's 3 individual sons pursued his individual goal qnd the famioy has pursued that goal in concert with coethnics. Since, there are no groups and all
It makes more sense if you say "We're going to increase military spending so we can go take other peoples' stuff". Everyone understands taking other peoples' stuff.
Not necessarily a contradiction, it should be said. There are situations where there is no golden middle, while two more radical positions do each work. Indeed this happens somewhat frequently. Here particularly, there is no contradiction, as long as you plan to stabilize the economy with war booty, which Hitler did plan.
@@Paciat it was told to me over and over and over growing up. War gives us a good economy and mankind makes so many yuge leaps forward during wars, I was told many times by the WW2 generation. People need order and authority, they would say.
@@odysseus2656 Then you were told wrong. War economy is horrible with you as a civilian getting nothing of of it. Soviet Union in the years 1914 - 1945 had a war focused economy (almost wartime at best). And there are many stories where Soviet soldiers are stunned by the capitalist (read Soviet enemy) quality of life. Also wartime economy dosnt focus at the far future and with hindsight is often is called irresponsible. WW2 generation believed that working hard with overtime makes you understand more than the economy of their own wallets.
I would really love a video going over the plunder the Germans did during the war to sustain themselves, and how they used the economies of occupied areas. Your video on Greece was excellent in this regard but one in the same vein on France, Belgium or in the East would be insightful.
Alsace and Lorraine would be good case-studies for this. When the Nazis took over they inserted party members into all businesses, siezed capital and other property if people resisted, exiled owners and politicians, and otherwise purged the regions of anybody who could oppose their political or economic plunder.
The mistake Schacht made was telling the mad dog Hitler that the Reichbank was broke & could no longer pay for rearmament. Also that inflation was rising fast due to out of control spending. GONE!
This suits me, because it makes British Indian Army plain British. Pakistani activists estimate that there are about 1,000 “honor” killings every year.
@@silent_stalker3687 Probably because he undermined his entire career with his own hypothesis? If you cant proof a system because actors are irrational, you cant then turn around and sell me a fuckin system based on people being rational. Bro thats like a person telling me not to take antibiotics that arent approved then turning around and trying to sell me some crystals. Yes you might be right about the medicine, but why the fuck would I buy what your selling when you just told me not to buy shit that aint approved. You're hocking some fucking crystals as a cure to the common cold. Fuck outta here. You just told me not to do that.
@@tomogburn2462 When governments have rational (honest) policies, people act rationally (on the whole). For example they save AND spend. However as fiat allows govts. to act irrationally (dishonestly), the people start doing the same. If your policies encourage 0 saving because inflation destroys savings, then people won't save and will begin frantically bidding up real assets. This bubble creation starts to become self sustaining. As we saw in Holland's Tulip Mania and in Bitcoin today. Irrational govts=irrational economic behavior.
The most interesting theory I've read is that WW2 was a battle between occultists with Churchie following Crowely and Addie following Blavatsky. FDR put the pyramid and the eye on the dollar bill. Weirdo occultists were part of GB, Germany and US governments.
Also - I applaude that you are talking about things like this, even though it is not necessary the most crowd-gathering subject. Yet, it is critical to understand why and how WW2 went the way it did.
This guy was fired bcos Germany started the focus to demand sudetenland. Fell bad as that Germany missed 10% construction speed that could have helped in operation Barbarossa.
What is interesting in this context: He turned back to become a Nazi some time after Nuremberg and democracy. Potentially a video about the post-war career of Mr Schacht would deserve it's own coverage.
Every time my wife hears your voice, she imagines a big hairy red bearded viking (re how to train your dragon), and finds the reality is quite a contrast. Can you arrange some costuming to help with her cognative dissonance? 🤣 Thank you very much for you hard work in putting these videos together.
This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes...” The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design” - Hayek.
@TIK So, you say that there is a theory that basically states: "Hitler was not a real nazi! Real national socialism has never been tried!" I am pretty sure I heard that one before...
No dude, just some guys think hitler was made to be the german leader and start ww2 to make the world shy away from nationalism as it was actually getting more and more popular before ww2. To then allow capitalism to profit even more from societies that dont give a fuck from the product comes from and how dependent a nation is from another and vice versa. Lots of details but you can just google it
The biggest problem people have in understanding anything about 1900-1945, is human inability to genuinely understand the mindset of humans that lived before their birth. People's only frame of reference is from their own lives, and it has since, never been similarly chaotic in the world as it was between WWI & WWII. So all we can do is "imagine" how it must have been like, without ever really understanding.
Some intellectuals are reluctant to argue with these hair-brained theories, but TIK will take on Nazis or Commies or whoever. It is good, not talking about these theories gives them a sort of creditability, like they are some "secret information" that no one can argue with. Thank You TIK
I fully agree. The problem I have right now is that it's hard to actually tackle the arguments because the arguments are difficult to find due to all the censorship. I understand why people knee-jerk react and demand that Nazi or Communist books and content get taken down, but it doesn't solve the issue. All it does is drive it underground, making it more difficult for people like me to address it.
@@TheImperatorKnight as a rule, if you find yourself doing the same thing the Nazis did, you should examine your actions carefully. Deplatforming was practiced extensively by the Nazi party. When I was young they made a big deal about "book burning", but what is the difference between book burning and suspending some ones TH-cam channel? The underlying concept is that, decisions of this type should be made by the powerful, in back rooms and secret meetings, not by the general public.
@@JohnKobaRuddy I looked at The Finnish Bolshevik's channel, I did not know that existed. I don't think "in person" debates are all that great, I think that they should just make videos responding to each other's videos. A sort of, video back and forth debate. The arguments will be better researched and better presented, which will help people make better decisions.
The mistake Schacht made was telling the mad dog Hitler that the Reichbank was broke & could no longer pay for rearmament. Also that inflation was rising fast due to out of control spending. GONE!
Schacht: "No central bank is capable of maintaining the currency against an inflationist spending policy on the part of the state." Jerome Powell and Joe Biden: *Uncomfortable glances.*
I’m so glad you brought up the religious conflicts between nazis and Schact. Too many people think the nations socialists were Christians…if you know anything about Bonhoeffer, you know that is ludicrous.
As an accountant, I have allways been interested in economic history. The post WW1 period in general is very interesting, and confusing, because nations went to the extreme in various ways. With things like hyper inflation, the depression etcetera as a result. Germany (and Soviet) was the most extreme.
*You have very little on Japan in WWII. From 1931 - 1945 Japan, by its actions and objectives mirrored Hitlers ideals of Racial Nationalism against the Chinese, and Japan showed identical signs of economic failures as Germany. ...When the Military and Political Elite of Japan Met Hitler in Germany in the beginning of 1930's, Did Japan copy and paste the economic Structure of Hitler's National Socialism to be Japan's new economic structure??*
Another excellent video, well researched and well reasoned. I quibble with your bald assertion that “groups do not exist’. Perhaps they don’t, but societies behave as if they do, and an analysis which recognizes the tensions and interactions between individuals and groups, groups and groups, and groups of groups between each other produces a more coherent and useful model than the technically true but behaviorally false notion that humans do not form themselves into associations based upon religion, economic interest, ethnicity, beliefs. And a whole host of other factors. It’s a mistake, as you so cogently point out, to try and treat ‘groups as monolithic. It’s also a mistake to pretend they they are not a factor in human behavior. Just my $.02. Great video.
@@jakublulek3261 Thats an interesting question...I doubt if he would have had time..painting is so time consuming especially water painting that Hitler favoured..
Your good sense in seeking to understand the economic constraints to military power (arms, food, logistics and the limits of finance) is very refreshing. You consequently highlight the not infrequent disconnect between populist, illogical ideologies and economic, military reality. I look forward to more of you insightful and reasoned analyses of history. Congratulations on a brilliant channel.
Bro a dictator can be wtv you wanna be. There have been countless of good dictators and countless of bad dictators. Its a matter of the people choosing the right one.
Hey TIK! If we assume you produce content at the same rate until you retire, how many decades of WWII historian energy do you think you have in you? I ask in the vein of being curious as to how a person dives into the same period of history for many years without becoming fatigued. I personally find it amazing and inspiring that you can pursue a single topic (more like category - there are many topics within the War in its entirety) for such a long time and maintain deep interest and inspiration in terms of ideas for new content. Are there any other events in history that you think you could delve similarly deep into? Do you see TIK being a WWII+ channel for the span of your career? My apologies if this comes off as rude as that is not my intention.
Awesome video. Thank you SO MUCH for touching on this. So few people know about the financial relationships that continued between Nazi Germany and the allies during the war. The BIS is the key to it all. Best WW2 historian on the tube.
yesss!! Been waiting for a video on Schacht. In the debate whether Hitler was a socialist, the argument that Hitler was a capitalist because he appointed a 'very' capitalist economist was the one argument from socialists that i couldn't answer.
Schacht made sure the money was available for state expenditure. What could be more socialist than that? Hitler was criticised for not nationalising but he seems to have realised that industry is best run by those who know it well, not civil servants. The British post-war government, in some ways more Nazi than Hitler, made the mistake of nationalising. One result was that the Coal Board was run from Hobart House in Belgravia, a long way from a coalmine. I had an interview with the staff manager. We discussed the plays of Euripides. See Corelli Barnett's book, 'The Lost victory.' Hitler was not only a socialist but a uniquely successful one. Remember he made health care free, in 1943!
It's why they're called the vampire state. The army they built bankrupted the economy and was instead funded by robbing neighbor states and Jews. As effective as the strategy is of making war pay for itself, it only works with an endless string of EASY victories, which is impossible.
Just a quick question. If Schacht was trying to prevent war, was warning others about Hitler, then was imprisoned by him, why was he tried and convicted after the war? He clearly did reprehensible things but was this enough for his conviction? Great video by the way 👏
"... he certainly wanted to keep the economy mostly private, saying "The sate should not run business itself and take responsibility away from private enterprises". By 'private enterprise', he meant corporations which now dominated the economy between 1933 and 1936, themselves coming ever more under control of the State - a process that ..." So I just noticed that you called corporations 'mostly private' and them 'coming ever more under control of the State' as not keeping them ' mostly private'. May I point out that it stands in oposition to your previously expressed views on corporations not being privately owned entities. What is more, Schacht reasoning and the whole situation doesn't really make sense if we assume that corpos aren't private. Why would a classical liberal care if they are state controlled or not if they aren't privately owned from the definition?
It's a interesting question. I think the answer is the German industrial capitalism was exceptionally organised (kartellized) from its inception. You have to remember that Germany was economically unified before it was politically unified so that German industrialists saw themselves as national leaders. Which may help to explain why Schacht despite being a liberal banker, was prepared to accept a much more controlled economy than a British or American banker would have.
What is a "nazi argument"? This seems very disingenuous. I've heard a lot of nazis, but never this argument. The real story is that Schacht got the job in the first place because his predecessor told Hitler the Reichsbank was broke. Schacht on the other hand told Hitler he would find him billions of marks, no problem. So Hitler went with the guy who promised to get him what he wanted. Later, when Schacht objected, he no longer served a purpose and was fired. He might have been right or wrong, but that doesn't really matter.
Since we are talking about logistics in this video, I can't help but ask a couple questions: In most City-States of Classical Greece, the Hoplites were middle-class heavy infantry who bought and paid for their own arms and armor. Roman Legionaries prior to the Marian Reforms (~100BC) were also Citizen-Soldiers who bought and paid for their own equipment. However, with the rise of Macedon and the Marian Reforms, both Greece and Rome made their respective transitions from privately-funded Citizen-Soldiers to full-time professionals funded and equipped by the State. How did private funding vs public funding affect warfare in Classical Antiquity? In the Middle Ages, with the breakdown of centralized authority in western Europe, the paradigm of warfare shifted to a military elite of landed warrior-aristocrats, supported by a shield-wall of levied infantry. The Nobility both paid for and personally led military expeditions, and manpower was provided by contractual obligations of vassals for their liege lords. How did the semi-privatized logistics of medieval warfare affect the armies of the Middle Ages?
"Since we are talking about logistics in this video" We are? And I'm not an expert on ancient or medieval warfare, unfortunately. I will note that the Roman Republic expanded, whereas the Empire didn't do so as much, then the Empire split in two, with the west having a massive military and social budget which forced them to dilute their gold based money into fiat currency, causing them to suffer from inflation, which then destroyed their economy and helped speed up their collapse.
@@strategicgamingwithaacorns2874 common misconception: warfare in the middle ages were not nobility supported by levied infantry as the paradigm. while levy systems existed, the norm was to rely solely on professionals and semi-professionals that made up retinues and mercenaries (although the connotations have shifted today, mercenaries in medieval times were often locally recruited). levies were only used when retinues were not sufficient and there wasn't enough money (or willing volunteers) to use short-term contract soldiers. its hard to compare the middle ages to other periods in terms of logistics because they relied so much more on poliorcetics, that is fortifications and siege warfare. and Fabian tactics were also far more popular (thanks to De re militari). we do know that at least in terms of food supply the decentralized system was superior for mobility (as shown later by Napoleon), and the fact spare parts wasn't an issue means the lack of centralized arms and armor was irrelevant, or even an advantage [armour was more common and more extensive for most of the medieval period than earlier or later, although arguably this is more technological than economic], also later on the decentralized dutch military system of the renaissance also proved superior in siege warfare to the centralized Spanish one. it is important to note the eastern roman empire switched voluntarily to a (then) more western-style (decentralized) military system which is credited as saveing the empire from the arabs aswell as their defeat of the Bulgarians (and other slavs). Byzantine sources describe it as more efficient in terms of resources including but not limited to manpower (and modern historians tend to agree) another thing of note, it took 200 years of near-continuous warfare to kick the crusaders out of 'the holy land', despite their recruitment pool and origin of their supply chain being on the other side of the Mediterranean sea (and said sea being full of anti-crusader pirates and raiders) and being heavily outnumbered. many historians consider this to be a clear example of the strength of the system.
The film "Maximillian" dramatizes much of the economic realities of Medieval Warfare, as Mary I of Burgundy needed to marry him, in order to fend off the advances of the French, after the death of her father Charles the Bold in battle.
@@TheImperatorKnight Oh dear. You need to read more Roman monetaryl history. But basically goes like this. Silver coinage until mid - 3rd century. Partial demonetization under Diocletian (the military annona) Partial remonetization under Constantine (the gold solidus). Full remonetization under Anastasius (late 5th century, bronze coinage). This is highly over simplified but will do as a rule of thumb. Based on Michael Grant, The Climax of Rome, chapter 3.
TIK I hope you will cover more topics in interwar period especially in politics and economy, because it's very interesting and i never learn about it in my school (since, maybe, our country wasn't directly affected). Sure your videos about military history in WW2 is one of the best in youtube, but I hope you will cover more this. I also hope that you will cover the situation in post-war period. But don't forget to rest and be healthy. Thanks for your great videos
You'll be happy to know that I'm working on a big video or series (not sure which yet) on a major inter-war event... Still a while away from finishing the research on it yet, but it'll happen at some point
Thank you for one of the most interesting videos on TH-cam. I think you need to understand the economics of Nazi Germany before you can understand the war since it is so intertwined. I know if no other TH-camr who goes into the economics of WWII like you. I know some people say stick to tanks but if you try to understand WWII by looking at tank battles I'd argue you have no intention of understanding it at all.
Tik you have the best informative channel on YT about WWII. Can I recommend hiring an animator to make simple history-style animations but focused on WWII to go with you're in depth analysis to help viewers understand better. Your channel would explode.
I love pre-WW2 Industrial Analytics of the Weimar Republic / Third Reich! TIK, if possible, please share a few words on the "MeFo - Wechsel", as it is related and interesting! Thank you for your well done contents!
Great work as always, TIK! BTW, a certain chap on Quora wrote an article on you that was....quite interesting, to say the least. Curious to see your opinions on it. Best of luck with the next Battlestorm episode(;
My interest is in what happened to Gottfried Feder, why did Hitler push him to one side along with his radical economic ideas and instead favour the laissez-faire and central banker, Schact?!
After Schacht was dismissed from the Reichbank in 1939, he remained in the government as Minister Without Portfolio until 1943. See Schacht My First Seventy Years, p. 415. Schacht was tried for war crimes at Nurnberg, and was ably defended by Rudolf Dix, and won acquittal. There was a pre-Bundesrepublic denazification trial where Schacht was sentenced to hard labor, but he won his appeal in 1948. See Schacht, My First Seventy Years, pp.502-513.
I'm not sure if youtube is censoring me: This video sucked. 1. It does not discuss Schachts financial maneuvers, which were convoluted and brilliant. 2. Schacht ended up in a concentration camp. I believe it omitted that small fact. 3. Schacht did not seek autarky, he sought instead to foster trade with states which would be pro-nazi or at least not anti-nazi in order to generate the foreign exchange he needed. 4. Video doesn't describe or explain the role MEFO and OeFA bills played in the run up to the war 5. The discussion of the havara agreement is nigh absent, and simplistic 20 minutes of "Schacht wasn't really a nazi, sort of" might make sense for someone less important but Schacht was instrumental in Hitler's exercise of power, and held a ministerial post up to 1943 This Video Sucked.
TIK,in your video "But TIK, the reason WHY Hitler started WW2 make no sense!" you said "it's also why Reich's economy began to implode once they stopped conquering new territories and coudn't balance the financial situation any more"I concluded that Hitler would have to conquer the whole world. had he done this by around the 1950s then he would have had to colonize Mars. is it an overinterpretation?
Third Reich's economy became a "loot economy". In order to stay in power Hitler had to pump money into the military and propaganda projects. The German economy could not support this so they stole what they needed, first from the Jews and then from the Czechs. Once was started, they kept looting from the Poles, French, Greeks and then the Soviet regions they conquered. They were propping up their own economy with looted resources and slave labour. Even then key pieces of their infrastructure like the railways were starting to fail. If they conquered Europe and had to fight the US, they would have to keep looting to build up a navy and airforce big enough to challenge the US. They would have to to do with their own economy on the edge of disaster and the conquered areas wrecked by war and stripped by the looting. Even if they got peace with the US, they would have to rebuild the economy of Europe on their own. In the end, I see that kind of Empire turning feudal with local governor bleeding their eras dry to pay tribute to Berlin while also making themselves stinking rich.
There are certain extreme and completely preposterous positions that frankly are not worth arguing - i.e those you take on in the last 5 minutes of the video. You have to ask yourself TIK, if presenting logical arguments to a fool is worth the effort. Will it change their minds? Of course not. I’m reminded of Schlact’s planting corn analogy when I think of this. I believe that 90% or more of your TH-cam audience sincerely enjoys and appreciates your content. Maybe you might consider addressing mainly reasonable counterpoints - versus the more fantastic, devoid of reality ones. This was a great well researched, well presented video and underpins the economic basis of the start of WW2 by Germany that you’ve made before. To me Schlact failed to muster enough imagination to realize the road Hitler was actually driving down. Even in his last memo - his economic lecture to Hitler - he seems to have no grasp that the war was what Hitler wanted.
One recommendation. Could you please stop reading Hitler's quote in "angry madman Hitler's voice" ? This kind of "emotional manipulation" is really overdone.
Ahamed gets it only slightly wrong. Its not that Hitler had no interest in economics, its that he had no ATTACHMENT to economics. Its why questions like "Is Hitler a Socialist" are pointless questions. He was utilitarian. If you ignore what Hitler said, and go entirely by what he did, he picked up and dropped ideas anytime he thought it might be useful to do so. He didnt believe in anything outside of his own "destiny". Idealism was subservient to that goal. Not a goal in and of itself.
These conspiracy theories stem from Fritz Thyssen's attempt to bribe the Nazis. He was immediately robbed in 1939 and arrested in France in 1940, so clearly they were not together.
Right off the start, you make a fatal mistake. Schacht was never Hitlers economics minister. He was Montague Norman's errand boy. All economic decisions came from the Bank of England, not the Reichbank. The only competent discussion of the 1930s requires discussing how Hitler, the Austrian Hippie, was Germanys punishment for Bismarks crime of unifying Prussia around Freidrich Lists American System of Political Economy and rejection of British Free Trade. Keynes can be disposed of by his own admission that his theories can only work under a Fascist dictatorship. Schachts slave labor model required Hitler to enslave all opposition to Schachts looting on behalf of London and Wall St. after they took over whatever industries weren't stolen under the Ruhr occupation. Let's not forget that competent leadership such as Rathenau and Scheicher were all assassinated. Schacht got off Scott free at Nuremburg to further destroy other countries such as Brazil under its dictator. As Keynesian Abba Lerner said in his debate with Lyndon LaRouche in 1973, 'if Germany had done what Schacht ordered, Hitler would not have been necessary." th-cam.com/video/8m93hJOTG8Y/w-d-xo.html
Fascinating video TIK, schacht is a fascinating person, whom I've never heard of before. He's kind of anathema to the nazi's being a liberal, Christian, banker. Still though its interesting how he managed to stay in position until 1939, even when he didn't fit it, and he himself didn't want to fit in. I reckon there must have been a lot of drama that happened in the backrooms of the german government.
I'm surprised to hear you've never heard of him before! I've mentioned him a few times. And yes, there will have been a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes which will now have been lost to history, sadly
except Hitler was CONSTANTLY bleating about how GOD himself and "Divine Providence" bullshit blahblah. Schacht was not an anathema to the nazis otherwise he would never have been the chief banker let alone hold a post as Minster in the government until 1943.
This content is more valuable then the time you are putting in it! Even the long BATTLESTORM series needs to get waaaaaayy more attention. But sadly, it is what people will value, and not what time and effort you put in. But luckly it is! Otherwise it would be socialism 🤣 TIK! Thank you for your video's and thank you for inspiring me to make a documentary about Operation Market Garden! I even hired Terri Young to draw the Arnhem Map in WW2 time era! Thanks again! 👍 (and i will definitly name you in the description of my docu!)
Schacht was Jewish, and it is not true that he favored the deportation of the Jews; on the contrary, at first he opposed it and proposed to Hitler an economic plan to provide, through the use of credits granted by banks, funds which would be used to in turn to the Jews of Germany to be able to have the necessary means to rebuild a dignified life outside of Germany. A curious fact is that Hitler, at first, agreed with Schacht's proposal, the one who firmly opposed it was the chief rabbi of the synagogue in Great Britain who opposed it and did not allow the implementation of the plan.
I allways love how nobody besides the Dutch and, to a múch lesser extend, the Germans can pronounce the sch- vowel. It's not 'sj-'. Ch in Dutch is pronounced as a 'g'. So it becomes 'sg-' BUT....this is the hardes, troatiest, rasping, deep down 'g' you ever heard to get it right. More like 'sggh-'. And yes, Schacht means (mine)shaft in Dutch. For advanced lessons and identification purposes try these: Scheveningen, schoonmoeder, schut, schut, schut. Still, 10 points for effort and a very informative video. Thanks👍🏻
20:54 That's a cute libertardian truism TIK but try and go to your local Chinatown and tell me how that plays in Peking. It don't. And it never has. Again: you cannot play with this atomized individualism you love so much when the enemy practices in-group preferences to the point where they basically own your country and dictate terms to you in a rather centrally authoritarian way. The Chinese, even if they adopted laisse-faire economics of the type you're espousing will never let you in to play in all their reindeer games because guess what: you're not part of their group and can't ever be because blood is thicker than lucre. You libertardians need to understand this: groups of people really do exist. They certainly exist more tangibly even in the worst cases than any ideology or abstraction you could ever espouse and those concepts that don't acknowledge this reality like your particular libertardian brand are doomed for the ash-heap, hence why no one takes you yucks seriously and why most libertarian parties are in the pocket of larger parties using them for their own benefit. People aren't tabula rasas you can fit into whatever mold you want them to and most of them fit into a mold forever incompatible with your views. So, no. There are groups of people. Groups of people comprised of individuals, yes, but individuals that have grouped up and will do what's deemed best for the collective even at the expense of the individual. The Chinese and their history are living proof of how effective this can be and the horribly hilarious extents the British Crown in tandem with the rest of the cabal of european powers had to go to finally collapse even the Ching show just how powerful a large ethnically homogenous state truly is even when its run by fools and the CCP show how dangerous it is when it's run by shrewd serpents.
Races don't exist, but racists do. As I have been saying for years now, Socialism is Racism and Racism is Socialism. A "race" is a social group. So note, I'm against the ideology that makes "racism" a thing, not against "races" which don't exist. See the difference? The Chinese Communist Party is a problem, but that doesn't mean that the Chinese people are. Those that buy into Communism might be, but not all. Judge the individual for their actions, not based on what others in a group do. To put it another way, a lot of Americans voted for a particular party. Does that mean that all Americans are bad? No. Does it mean that everyone who voted for that particular party are bad? No. But the people who are in that party and are doing bad things are bad. And those that support such a party are also questionable. But not all Americans are bad. You cannot judge everyone just because they supposedly belong to a group.
Read about Naturalization in Vietnam or any Asian country. They take these things seriously. "Persons applying for naturalization must have Vietnamese names." "Obeying the Constitution and laws of Vietnam; respecting the traditions, customs and practices of the Vietnamese nation." "Applicants for naturalization must be able to listen, speak, read and write in Vietnamese in accordance with the living and working environment."
@@TheImperatorKnight "Races don't exist, but racists do." Dude, just come out and say there are more than two genders. Seriously. Just own up to your complete left-leaning British brainwashing you're still yoked to despite having shed off so much of the nonsense they try injecting you with out the womb on the isles. Because those same 'scientists' you love crowing about are the same 'scientists' who say there are more than two genders and that is was totally reasonable for the West to nuke its economy and upend its society even more than usual and take unvetted mRNA alterer they literally had to change the dictionary definition of to consider it a 'vaccine' for a virus that has a 99 percent recovery rate. I'd also like to remind you those same scientists, fittingly enough, are reds that'd eat libertardians like for breakfast if the state told them to. "The Chinese Communist Party is a problem, but that doesn't mean that the Chinese people are" Taiwan begs to differ. The Ching that you tommies went to such hilarious narco-state lengths to bring down begs to differ. Every other dynasty going back since forever begs to differ. decidedly Does it mean that everyone who voted for that particular party are bad?
@@VunderGuy One man was deported to Somalia a couple of days ago. In addition to being born and living in Finland, he is the guardian of two children living in Finland. His parents failed to apply for citizenship and he committed crimes. On a larger scale, this case is like seeing a unicorn. It will certainly be an adventure of a lifetime!
Marxist always try to say Schacht was responsible for the recovery in Germany and was the guy behind Hitler. This was not the case at all, he was only responsible for temporary privatization measures that were also largely a myth. Schacht is a man fired by Hitler and put into a concentration camp for trying to kill Hitler, a man who was called;
“An exponent of world capitalism and hostile to the state’s revolutionary approach to economics” by Otto Wagner the head of the Nazi economic policy branch.
Schacht was a liberal economically and was against state intervention in commerce. He was against the state-sponsored programs to combat unemployment. He also hated the MMT stuff Feder came up with before Keynes. This is from Adolf Hitler by John Toland, Schacht was told;
“I have called you in order to hand you your dismissal as president of the Reichsbank” Schacht took the piece of paper extended to him. “You don’t fit into the national socialist picture it reads”.
All this does is indicate that Hitler hated him and this is further solidified in Hitler’s Table Talk where he called him a freemason, a tool, and an obstructionist. The guy was used then removed after he was done being useful.
Even when they bring up Big Business propping up Hitler that’s also a flat out Lie and Cope. German Big Business and The Rise of Hitler by Henry Turner, Mr. Turner writes;
“To What extent did the men of German big business undermine the Weimar Republic? To what extent did they finance the Nazi party and use their influence to boost Hitler into power? As should be evident by this point the answer in both cases is a great deal less than has generally been believed. Only through gross distortion can big business be afforded a crucial or even a major role in the downfall of the republic.
The early growth of the NSDAP Took place without any significant aid from the circles of large-scale enterprise. Centered in industrially underdeveloped Bavaria, tainted with illegality as a consequence of a failed beer hall putsch of 1923, saddled with a program containing disturbingly anti-capitalist planks and amounting only to a raucous splinter group politically, The NSDAP languished in disrepute in the eyes of most men of big business throughout the latter part of the 1920s. The major main executives of Germany proved with rare exception resistant to the blandishments of Nazis including Hitler himself, who sought to reassure the business community about their party’s intentions. Only the electoral breakthrough of 1930, achieved without aid from big business drew attention to it from that quarter. From The Development and Character of the Nazi Political Machine, 1928-1930, and the Nsdap Electoral Breakthrough;
After weighing all the evidence. We must recognize that the financial subsidies from industry were overwhelmingly directed against the Nazis. Bulk of the funds in the party treasury came from membership dues.”
This an echo of what Peter Drucker, an American writer, and university professor, stated in 1939:
“It is not true that ‘big business’ promoted Fascism. On the contrary, both in Italy and in Germany the proportion of Fascist sympathizers and backers was smallest in the industrial and financial classes. It is equally untrue that ‘big business’ profits from Fascism; of all the classes it probably suffers most from totalitarian economics and Wehrwirtschaft.”
Explaining this point even more thoroughly is James Pool in Who Financed Hitler;
“The party's financial substance was however made possible not just by the donations of the most generous contributors but by the day-to-day income from the average members. Every member of the party was expected to pay his dues of one Mark per month and give whatever his means would permit, but since many of them were unemployed there was very little surplus income. You have no idea Hitler later told Gregor Strasser what a problem it was in those days to find the money to buy my ticket when I wanted to deliver a speech at Nuremberg.
Looking back at the financing of Hitler’s political activities from 1918 to 1923 one thing is particularly interesting. Many historians have contended that the national socialist party was financed and supported by big business? Yet as has been seen only two of Germany’s major industrialists FritzThyssen and Ernst von Borsig gave anything to the Nazi party during these early years. Donations came from some conservative Munich businessmen who were at the height of the communist danger as well as small Bavarian factory owners like Grandel, the Berlin piano manufacturer Bechstein and the publisher Lehmann. But none of these men despite their wealth could fit properly in the category of big business.
There is no evidence that the really big industrialists of Germany such as Carl Bosch, Hermann Biicher, Carl Friedrich von Siemens, and Hugo Stinned or the great families such as the Krupps and the leading bankers and financiers gave any support to the Nazis from 1918 to 1923. Indeed few of them knew this small party from Bavaria even existed. Most of Hitler’s donations came from wealthy individuals who were radical nationalists or anti-Semites and contributed because of ideological motivation. To a certain extent the wealthy white Russians fit into this category; they could also be looked on as the only real interest group that hoped to gain a definite political-economic objective from their aid to the Nazis”
The historian Richard J. Evans even says this in The Coming of The Third Reich;
“The Nazi Party depended on such commitment [fiance from the grass roots]; much of its power and dynamism came from the fact that it was not dependent on Big business or bureaucratic institutions such as trade unions for its financial support.”
You also have Schleicher a conservative who attempted to "tame" Hitler into cooperating with his government by offering him vice-chancellor and threatening him with an anti-Nazi alliance of parties, the so-called Querfront ("cross-front"). Hitler refused to abandon his claim to the chancellorship and Schleicher's plan failed.
In response to this Goebbles said;
“The Notion of the Führer as Vice-chancellor of a bourgeois cabinet is too grotesque to be taken seriously.”
This entire narrative of fascism and nazism being capitalism in decay is fucking stupid. I can say this as a Fascist, WE ARE SOCIALIST! And Nationalist. Anyways in the modern context I’m more concerned about nationalism vs globalism anyways.
Besides one of the people behind Fascist Syndicalism is Edmondo Rossoni; he was a “fascist syndicalist” who was a major trade union leader in Italy and played a large role in formulating syndicalism in Italy, which left its mark via the Italian Corporate System. In Mussolini’s Il Popolo d'Italia newspaper, he claimed that “only the Fascist syndicates could complete the revolution.” In the early 1920s, Rossoni’s trade unions threatened the industrialists so much that it was even speculated by some industrialists on whether to hire communists to fight the fascists.
In the book Italian Industrialists From Liberalism to Fascism this is written in the Liberal-Fascism section;
“Salvemini continued: “now the industrialists are no longer content with Mussolini. They are not as manageable as they wished.” At the end of actual, referring to information passed along to Donati, editor of the Catholic newspaper Il Popolo, Salvemini noted: “An industrialist of Turin told Donati that in his circle people are beginning to ask themselves if it might now be wise to pay the Communists to fight the Fascists!” In early May, the future Communist leader Palmiro Togliatti wrote to Gramsci in Moscow that “The Industrial classes are rather wary of the new regime, fearing unpredictable developments in the class struggle with Fascist syndicates.”
You have a history more so of Big Business financing communists not fascists or nazis. In fact I would just say look at modern social media companies or George Soros with BLM to Antifa. Fuck these people
Great post! I'm going to pin this because it's well written
@@TheImperatorKnight Socialists try to portray Hitler as a tool of capitalists, free market fanatics (like you TIK :P ) try to portray him as a socialist , but he was neither. Simply saying, In economic terms Hitler kept somewhere in the middle, and didn't have ideological problems of sometimes moving closer to capitalism and sometimes to socialism. Why ? Because Hitler did not consider economy as a heart of his ideology (that place was taken by biology, i.e. race problem) . And Hitler kept this middle road until the war started, and then gradually switched to total command economy, but other countries did that too, even US.
@@aleksazunjic9672 Fascist and Nazi economic models is based on corporatism. Everything is brought into the orbit of the state via the guilds, i.e. corporations or syndicates or in Hitler’s case a single national trade union. You have syndicates that engage in collective-bargaining for things like wages, prices, and production quotas. Utilities are under direct state ownership like banks, infrastructure, and so forth to prevent private enterprise from subverting state authority. Further proof of this is in Mein Kampf in Vol. II, in the Personality and The Conception of The Völkisch State:
“The best state constitution and state form is that which, with the most unquestioned certainty, raises the best minds in the national community to leading position and leading influence.
But, as in economic life, the able men cannot be appointed from above, but must struggle through for themselves, and just as here the endless schooling, ranging from the smallest business to the largest enterprise, occurs spontaneously, with life alone giving the examinations, obviously political minds cannot be ‘discovered.’ Extraordinary geniuses permit no consideration for normal mankind.
From the smallest community cell to the highest leadership of the entire Reich, the state must have the personality principle anchored in its organisation.
There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word ‘council’ must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man.
The principle which made the Prussian army in its time into the most wonderful instrument of the German people must some day, in a transferred sense, become the principle of the construction of our whole state conception: authority of every leader downward and responsibility upward.
Even then it will not be possible to dispense with those corporations which today we designate as parliaments. But their councillors will then actually give counsel; responsibility, however, can and may be borne only by one man, and therefore only he alone may possess the authority and right to command.
Parliaments as such are necessary, because in them, above all, personalities to which special responsible tasks can later be entrusted have an opportunity gradually to rise up.
This gives the following picture:
The völkisch state, from the township up to the Reich leadership, has no representative body which decides anything by the majority, but only advisory bodies which stand at the side of the elected leader, receiving their share of work from him, and in turn if necessary assuming unlimited responsibility in certain fields, just as on a larger scale the leader or chairman of the various corporations himself possesses.
As a matter of principle, the völkisch state does not tolerate asking advice or opinions in special matters - say, of an economic nature - of men who, on the basis of their education and activity, can understand nothing of the subject. It, therefore, divides its representative bodies from the start into a political chamber and a corporative chamber that represents the respective trades and professions.
In order to guarantee a profitable co-operation between the two, a special selected senate of the élite always stands over them.
In no chamber nor in the senate does a vote ever take place. They are working institutions and not voting machines. The individual member has an advisory, but never a determining, voice. The latter is the exclusive privilege of the responsible chairman, who must be entirely responsible for the matter under discussion.
This principle - absolute responsibility unconditionally combined with absolute authority - will gradually breed an élite of leaders such as today, in this era of irresponsible parliamentarianism, is utterly inconceivable.
Thus, the political form of the nation will be brought into agreement with that law to which it owes its greatness in the cultural and economic field.”
Furthermore in Vol. II, The Trade-Union Question
“As things stand today, the trade unions in my opinion cannot be dispensed with. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions in the nation’s economic life. Their significance lies not only in the social and political field, but even more in the general field of national politics. A people whose broad masses, through a sound trade-union movement, obtain the satisfaction of their living requirements and at the same time an education, will be tremendously strengthened in its power of resistance in the struggle for existence.
Above all, the trade unions are necessary as foundation stones of the future economic parliament or chambers of estates…
As already emphasised, the germ cells for the economic chambers will have to reside in bodies representing the various occupations and professions, hence above all in the trade unions. And if this future body representing the estates and the Central Economic Parliament is to constitute a National Socialist institution, these important germ cells must also embody a National Socialist attitude and conception…
This state, to be sure, must, in place of the mass struggle of the two great groups - employers and workers - (which in its consequences always injures the national community as a whole by diminishing production) assume the legal care and the legal protection of all. Upon the economic chambers themselves it will be incumbent to keep the national economy functioning and eliminate the deficiencies and errors which damage it. The things for which millions fight and struggle today must in time be settled in the Representative Chambers of Estates and Professions and in the Central Economic Parliament. Then employers and workers will not rage against one another in struggles over pay and wage scales, damaging the economic existence of both, but solve these problems jointly on a higher plane, one where the welfare of the Volksgemeinschaft and of the State will be as a shining ideal to throw light on all their negotiations.
Here, too, as everywhere, the iron principle must prevail that the interests of the Fatherland must come before party interests.”
@@aleksazunjic9672 Now none of the above stuff was implemented sure but! To quote the introduction of Corporate Freedom of Action in Nazi Germany, which was a lecture delivered at the German Historical Institute in Washington which delves into why the privatization narrative is flawed:
“The central, load-bearing propositions of the Buchheim-Scherner interpretation are as follows:
1. The Nazi state regulated German business in order to achieve autarky and rearmament, but did so quite unsystematically and never established anything resembling a centrally planned economy.
2. Because the Nazi state generally respected private property rights and freedom of contract, the regime rarely forced corporations to serve its objectives, but rather offered an array of inducements, which firms could take or leave without adverse consequences, to get enterprises to meet the regime’s production goals.
3. Given this context, private enterprises in Nazi Germany retained much of their autonomy over their investment decisions and production strategies, which continued to reflect managers’ estimates of long-term commercial prospects.
The problem with all of these propositions is that they are half-truths. Point 1 uses the well-known improvisation and lack of central planning that characterized Nazi economics to divert attention from the fact that the interventionist spiral set in motion by Nazi trade policy in 1933-34 developed by 1938 into a full-blown, comprehensive, and state-mandated rationing and allocation system for every factor of production. That system then became more rigorous during the war and almost airtight from 1942 on. Point 2 is right that the Nazi regime preferred the carrot to the stick, for both ideological and practical reasons, but quite wrong to deny the intimidating effect of the most spectacular exceptions to this preference: the forced sale of Junkers aircraft in 1933, the conscription of private enterprises to underwrite the formation of the Braunkohle Benzin AG (Brabag) in 1934, and the virtual confiscation of the Salzgitter iron ore fields from German heavy industry in 1937 as part of the establishment of the Hermann-GöringWerke, not to mention the impact on corporate decision-making of the numerous removals of chief executives during the war, including Paul Reusch of the Gutehoff nungshütte, Willy Messerschmitt and Ernst Heinkel in the aircraft industry, and Franz Josef Bopp at BMW. Point 3 is correct that many corporate leaders recurrently imagined- indeed, longed for-an economic future that would resemble the pre-Nazi, free-market past and thus tried to sustain their traditional core operations. But Buchheim and Scherner both overstate the limited success that most large firms enjoyed in clinging to business as usual and understate the considerable extent to which many executives modified their evaluations of commercial prospects along party lines in the key interval of 1937-42.”
Reading this we begin to see why the privatization narrative is flawed, especially when presented to us by Marxists. Privatization was only pursued in a limited capacity, and the industries privatized were brought back into the state sector with the regulations and political maneuvering put forth by the state. The narrative neglects much of the explorations which happened, and another good book which I will not go into much which covers a lot of the expropriations and regulations is The Vampire Economy by Gunter Reimann. Reimann was a German Marxist, so before anyone calls him out for bias, he had a Marxist bias which would lead him to still label the German economy as capitalist even though he covers extensive regulations, state planning, price-fixing, expropriations, etc. Even admitting these were socialist policies. These are even covered in The Wages of Destruction too.
To elaborate on this point, I will quote Antisemitic Anticapitalism in German Culture from 1850-1933 by Matthew Ryan Lange:
“Moreover, Nazí decrees of 1937 compelled further cartelization to streamline the chain of command and prepare for war, which had been the goal of the Four-Year Plan of 1936. The results of this massive interventionist policy were “complete consolidation of the entire economy, complete elimination of personal initiative and freedom of choice.”81 Even if a semblance of private ownership of business remained before the outbreak of World War II, with war raging on two fronts the National Socialists took the final step when they created the Amt für Zentrale Planung (Office for Central Planning) in 1942 which removed any remnants of private initiative.”
The German economy had extensive state control and curbed private business interests unlike what Marxists like to tell you, showing its parallels to the Italian economy, relying on systems of state planning boards, economic representation, state allocation, and so forth. However, if one is not yet convinced, I will now quote “The Nazi Economic Recovery, 1932-1938” by Richard J. Overy:
“Even heavy industry, that had favoured some degree of autarky and state aid in the early 1930s, found that the extent of state control exercised after 1936, and the rise of a state-owned industrial sector, threatened their interests too. The strains that such a relationship produced have already been demonstrated for the car industry, the aircraft industry and the iron and steel industry; but much more research is needed to arrive at a satisfactory historical judgement of the relationship between Nazism and German business. What is already clear is that the Third Reich was not simply a businessman's regime underpinning an authoritarian capitalism but, on the contrary, that it set about reducing the autonomy of the economic élite and subordinating it to the interests of the Nazi state.”
All “private” initiatives in the German economy were ultimately up to the state to manage and allocate to its whims, which makes it nothing like the private sectors we see in capitalist economies. Having more parallels with countries like modern Red China and Tito’s Yugoslavia. In fact, according to the Nazi Economic Recovery which I just quoted, private enterprise was to be treated as more of placeholder management rather than “private” in any substantial way, as I mentioned earlier. To quote the book again:
“As the state extended its role in supervising or regulating all the main economic variables, it developed a more coherent economic system. German economists christened the system 'die gelenkte Wirtschaft', the managed economy. Under such a system businessmen were regarded as economic functionaries serving the interests of the nation rather than as independent and enterprising creators of wealth. The concept of the 'managed economy suited the regime's ideological ambitions, but stifled enterprise.”
Everything provided beforehand echoes this same sentiment, and to further substantiate upon this, I will quote Nazism, 1919-1945: State, economy, and society 1933-1939:
“By 1939, businessmen were subject to a whole range of controls on imports, the distribution of raw materials, prices, wages, employment, capital markets and so on. The Government dictated to a large extent what and how much they should produce, the amount of new investment, where new plants should be built, the type and amount of raw materials to be used, what prices to charge their customers and what wages to pay their employees, the amount of profit they could take and how it should be used-largely in reinvestment or for the purchase of Government bonds.”
With all that being said, Corporate Freedom of Action in Nazi Germany cites a statement by Hitler and his State Secretary:
“In my book on IG Farben, I cited numerous such examples, including Hitler’s public remark in September 1937 that “[i]f private enterprise does not carry through the Four Year Plan, the state will assume full control of business,” and State Secretary Brinkmann’s warning a conference of insurance and banking executives in October 1938 not to “underestimate the possibility of the state managing wherever business cannot produce to an adequate degree or perform creatively.”
Hitler did not have a lax attitude towards private initiative as I have just shown, and the German economy as a whole did not operate by this sense of “private” initiative and privatization. Even the citation they use arguing for privatization refutes itself because many of these companies were allocated to the higher ranking members within the party and the party was the state. They were controlled by a National Trade Union (German Labor Front), just more regulations, economic planning or ways to increase further control or ownership by the state.
Essentially this functioned not much different than the Italian model. Now if you read Wegener’s memoirs or Hitler’s Table Talks. He planned to eventually implement the similar bureaucratic bodies based on occupation in a Corporative parliamentary system with a senate acting sorta like the Italian Fascist Grand Council. So yes the stuff in Mein Kampf was being pushed gradually. All of this was identified as a version of German socialism that was anti-communist with people like Rudolf Jung in the early years to later on with people like Wegener or even Reinhardt. Even non-Nazis like Werner Sombart and Oswald Spengler in the conservative revolution were pushing German Socialism.
@@ZoranZoltanous You are burdening yourself with trifles :D Hitler was not interested in any pure economic model, be it corporatism, capitalism, socialism etc ... He simply wanted Lebensraum for his Volk . Economy was just a tool, but his core belief was that if he had strong, Aryan, pure blooded people, such people would build its own civilization and society including economy. In economic terms, his primary concern was to build strong industry that could support his armies, but at the same time not to overburden people with hardship in order to avoid mutinies and revolutions of 1918. Therefore, until the war started, Hitler was moving sometimes towards socialism, sometimes toward capitalism, seemingly haphazardly . In fact, he didn't care . All he wanted was to built up Wehrmacht and prepare for war as best he could.
the mystery of why Hitler lost WW2 is solved. Hitler lost because he got rid of Schacht. Schacht gave +10 percent speed to build civilian factories, but "madman Hitler" only built military factories
Hi
@@Dora-exnxplora Hi
Can you Min Max money supply?
Actually if you rush only mil factories is better anyway.
@@oceanmadrosci3381 haw dare you call me Madman
I give up this man is never gon go on a break no matter what
Actually... I may have to take a day off tomorrow. Absolutely knackered right now
You're .... not a machine? Oh my. 😄
No, I'm not a machine... beep
Yes but the point of his videos is Hitler micromanaging everything.
@Evan Langston You made me laugh out loud, thank you for that!
Damn it, I wanted that +10% civilian factory construction speed.
Love your work TIK
You dont need it after the first few years though
FIRST! And is that a HOI reference?
@@TheImperatorKnight yes it is!
*Heavy Water intensifies*
@@TheImperatorKnight have you played hoi4? And did you like it?
Schacht's words regarding government expenditure and inflation could be relevant today.
Yes, yes it could
With the benefit of hindsight it is
Hjalmar Schacht, one of the only three acquitted at the first Nüremberg tribunal. The others being von Papen and Fritzsche.
Seriously blows my mind how Papen of all people managed to be acquitted. Can someone 3explain that to me?
@@spiffygonzales5160 "Let me get this straight, Mr. Papen, you thought you could put Hitler in charge and then control him from behind the scenes? That's... hmm... acquitted on grounds of mental retardation."
Not charged as a war criminal at Nuremberg, von Papen was classified as one in 1947 by a German de-Nazification court, and sentenced to eight years' hard labor. He was acquitted following appeal after serving two.
Weird how Mayer Rothschild the individual's 3 individual sons pursued his individual goal qnd the famioy has pursued that goal in concert with coethnics. Since, there are no groups and all
@@spiffygonzales5160 He was a obedient and loyal Knight of Malta of the Jesuit Vatican.
Hitler: We need to increase millitary spending to save our economy which is going downhill due to millitary spending.
Shlact: 😑
Average German voter: This makes sense.
It makes more sense if you say "We're going to increase military spending so we can go take other peoples' stuff". Everyone understands taking other peoples' stuff.
Not necessarily a contradiction, it should be said. There are situations where there is no golden middle, while two more radical positions do each work. Indeed this happens somewhat frequently.
Here particularly, there is no contradiction, as long as you plan to stabilize the economy with war booty, which Hitler did plan.
@@Paciat it was told to me over and over and over growing up. War gives us a good economy and mankind makes so many yuge leaps forward during wars, I was told many times by the WW2 generation. People need order and authority, they would say.
@@odysseus2656 Then you were told wrong. War economy is horrible with you as a civilian getting nothing of of it.
Soviet Union in the years 1914 - 1945 had a war focused economy (almost wartime at best). And there are many stories where Soviet soldiers are stunned by the capitalist (read Soviet enemy) quality of life.
Also wartime economy dosnt focus at the far future and with hindsight is often is called irresponsible.
WW2 generation believed that working hard with overtime makes you understand more than the economy of their own wallets.
I would really love a video going over the plunder the Germans did during the war to sustain themselves, and how they used the economies of occupied areas. Your video on Greece was excellent in this regard but one in the same vein on France, Belgium or in the East would be insightful.
Agree on this! It's a fascinating but also horrifying subject.
Taking it a step farther would also be good; how all of that was wasted in a scatter-brained system.
Alsace and Lorraine would be good case-studies for this. When the Nazis took over they inserted party members into all businesses, siezed capital and other property if people resisted, exiled owners and politicians, and otherwise purged the regions of anybody who could oppose their political or economic plunder.
The mistake Schacht made was telling the mad dog Hitler that the Reichbank was broke & could no longer pay for rearmament. Also that inflation was rising fast due to out of control spending. GONE!
@@mikeoz4803 of what inflation are you speaking?
Another video about economics?
"A blessing from the lord!"
It's not really about the economics too much, unfortunately.
@@TheImperatorKnight it's close enough :)
Prescott Bush was Hitler's banker in America, via the Union Banking Corporation.
i love your voice changing dynamically while you quote something or someone, not so many people can do that correctly and immersively
Yes ,we all love TIK's growly bad guy voice.
Perfect for keeping yourself from getting audio quoted out of context!
“I was CLEARLY doing the Hitler voice”
"you're all individuals" ...
"I'm not"
Honestly, it sometimes feels like I'm repeating that scene...
"We are all individuals"
There are ONLY individuals, all collective "sharing of the ego" are mere abstractions, philosophical nonsense if watched closely.
@@jakublulek3261 "We are all individuals"
This suits me, because it makes British Indian Army plain British. Pakistani activists estimate that there are about 1,000 “honor” killings every year.
It amazes me that most of history could be considered a lonney tunes cartoon or similar with how insane and ridiculous some of the circumstances where
The July Crisis of 1914 has to be the best example of an Arrested Development-esque plot in real life.
Reality certainly can be stranger than fiction.
Welcome to Planet Earth: the planet ruled by psychotic apes.
@@juansantos-lq2kz believe me I know that ; just listening to politicaticans talk and act like they know what they’re talking about hurts my head
same, except it depresses me
Hey TIK. Great call out on Mises work and praxeology. Really good insert there.
Did he finally realize Mises is an idiot? Whats the timestamp for this?
@@tomogburn2462 how is he a idiot?
@@silent_stalker3687 Probably because he undermined his entire career with his own hypothesis? If you cant proof a system because actors are irrational, you cant then turn around and sell me a fuckin system based on people being rational.
Bro thats like a person telling me not to take antibiotics that arent approved then turning around and trying to sell me some crystals.
Yes you might be right about the medicine, but why the fuck would I buy what your selling when you just told me not to buy shit that aint approved. You're hocking some fucking crystals as a cure to the common cold. Fuck outta here. You just told me not to do that.
@@tomogburn2462
When governments have rational (honest) policies, people act rationally (on the whole). For example they save AND spend. However as fiat allows govts. to act irrationally (dishonestly), the people start doing the same. If your policies encourage 0 saving because inflation destroys savings, then people won't save and will begin frantically bidding up real assets. This bubble creation starts to become self sustaining. As we saw in Holland's Tulip Mania and in Bitcoin today. Irrational govts=irrational economic behavior.
The most interesting theory I've read is that WW2 was a battle between occultists with Churchie following Crowely and Addie following Blavatsky. FDR put the pyramid and the eye on the dollar bill. Weirdo occultists were part of GB, Germany and US governments.
Also - I applaude that you are talking about things like this, even though it is not necessary the most crowd-gathering subject. Yet, it is critical to understand why and how WW2 went the way it did.
This guy was fired bcos Germany started the focus to demand sudetenland. Fell bad as that Germany missed 10% construction speed that could have helped in operation Barbarossa.
What is interesting in this context: He turned back to become a Nazi some time after Nuremberg and democracy. Potentially a video about the post-war career of Mr Schacht would deserve it's own coverage.
Power is a drug.
Every time my wife hears your voice, she imagines a big hairy red bearded viking (re how to train your dragon), and finds the reality is quite a contrast. Can you arrange some costuming to help with her cognative dissonance? 🤣 Thank you very much for you hard work in putting these videos together.
My wife keeps telling me TIK sounds like a big strong policeman with handcuffs and a truncheon...
...are we missing something?
Hitler hired Schacht O'Neal for his powerful inside game and rebounding. He fired him for his awful free throw percentage.
Don't be Schachtin' a fool!
The Germans never used the term "Blitzkrieg". They preferred the term "The Schacht Attack".
Schacht attack!
Hack-a-Schacht
This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes...” The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design” - Hayek.
I read somewhere that Hitler once said, "Everytime I shake Schacht's hand I count my fingers afterwards"
really?
@@latagawande1978 Yes really!
@TIK So, you say that there is a theory that basically states: "Hitler was not a real nazi! Real national socialism has never been tried!"
I am pretty sure I heard that one before...
No dude, just some guys think hitler was made to be the german leader and start ww2 to make the world shy away from nationalism as it was actually getting more and more popular before ww2. To then allow capitalism to profit even more from societies that dont give a fuck from the product comes from and how dependent a nation is from another and vice versa. Lots of details but you can just google it
The biggest problem people have in understanding anything about 1900-1945, is human inability to genuinely understand the mindset of humans that lived before their birth. People's only frame of reference is from their own lives, and it has since, never been similarly chaotic in the world as it was between WWI & WWII. So all we can do is "imagine" how it must have been like, without ever really understanding.
Excellent point.
yeah, a lot of things happening today make no sense to me, half the world never even existed before 9/11 the other half did for one example.
Hitler fired Schacht because he's jealous of Schacht's stache.
Hjalmar had a "schactache."
Some intellectuals are reluctant to argue with these hair-brained theories, but TIK will take on Nazis or Commies or whoever. It is good, not talking about these theories gives them a sort of creditability, like they are some "secret information" that no one can argue with. Thank You TIK
I fully agree. The problem I have right now is that it's hard to actually tackle the arguments because the arguments are difficult to find due to all the censorship. I understand why people knee-jerk react and demand that Nazi or Communist books and content get taken down, but it doesn't solve the issue. All it does is drive it underground, making it more difficult for people like me to address it.
@@TheImperatorKnight as a rule, if you find yourself doing the same thing the Nazis did, you should examine your actions carefully. Deplatforming was practiced extensively by the Nazi party. When I was young they made a big deal about "book burning", but what is the difference between book burning and suspending some ones TH-cam channel? The underlying concept is that, decisions of this type should be made by the powerful, in back rooms and secret meetings, not by the general public.
He’s been asked to debate his stance on communism etc plenty of times. The Finnish Bolshevik even did videos on tiks take on ideologies
@@JohnKobaRuddy I looked at The Finnish Bolshevik's channel, I did not know that existed. I don't think "in person" debates are all that great, I think that they should just make videos responding to each other's videos. A sort of, video back and forth debate. The arguments will be better researched and better presented, which will help people make better decisions.
The mistake Schacht made was telling the mad dog Hitler that the Reichbank was broke & could no longer pay for rearmament. Also that inflation was rising fast due to out of control spending. GONE!
Schacht: "No central bank is capable of maintaining the currency against an inflationist spending policy on the part of the state."
Jerome Powell and Joe Biden: *Uncomfortable glances.*
I’m so glad you brought up the religious conflicts between nazis and Schact. Too many people think the nations socialists were Christians…if you know anything about Bonhoeffer, you know that is ludicrous.
"Sacked Schacht" is not the easiest phrase to rattle off quickly
As an accountant, I have allways been interested in economic history. The post WW1 period in general is very interesting, and confusing, because nations went to the extreme in various ways. With things like hyper inflation, the depression etcetera as a result. Germany (and Soviet) was the most extreme.
I m pretty sure its mandatory to make another excellent video on Germany's rearmament program!!Great work mate.Greetings from Greece
*You have very little on Japan in WWII. From 1931 - 1945 Japan, by its actions and objectives mirrored Hitlers ideals of Racial Nationalism against the Chinese, and Japan showed identical signs of economic failures as Germany. ...When the Military and Political Elite of Japan Met Hitler in Germany in the beginning of 1930's, Did Japan copy and paste the economic Structure of Hitler's National Socialism to be Japan's new economic structure??*
Another excellent video, well researched and well reasoned. I quibble with your bald assertion that “groups do not exist’. Perhaps they don’t, but societies behave as if they do, and an analysis which recognizes the tensions and interactions between individuals and groups, groups and groups, and groups of groups between each other produces a more coherent and useful model than the technically true but behaviorally false notion that humans do not form themselves into associations based upon religion, economic interest, ethnicity, beliefs. And a whole host of other factors. It’s a mistake, as you so cogently point out, to try and treat ‘groups as monolithic. It’s also a mistake to pretend they they are not a factor in human behavior. Just my $.02. Great video.
You forgot the real reason why Hitler fired Schacht. He didn't like his paintings.
Well he did paint a grimm future
I am curious if Hitler continued his painting even when in power. Berchtesgaden has some phenomenal scenery, no wonder he loved it over there.
@@jakublulek3261 Thats an interesting question...I doubt if he would have had time..painting is so time consuming especially water painting that Hitler favoured..
Well rounded presentation.
Your good sense in seeking to understand the economic constraints to military power (arms, food, logistics and the limits of finance) is very refreshing. You consequently highlight the not infrequent disconnect between populist, illogical ideologies and economic, military reality. I look forward to more of you insightful and reasoned analyses of history. Congratulations on a brilliant channel.
This is very well done TIK (if you will allow, because I'm usually a critic). The cross examination of Schact at Nuremburg is telling.
For a dictator everyone is just a tool to be used and then to be discarded.
Unlike democratic leaders?
@@nikolajwinther5955 Democratic leaders are limited in their power and influence.
@@nikolajwinther5955 watch for the edge
Bro a dictator can be wtv you wanna be. There have been countless of good dictators and countless of bad dictators. Its a matter of the people choosing the right one.
But how do you choose the right one though? Gaddafi started off good, then he became corrupt
Thank you for making videos. let alone high quality.
Hey TIK!
If we assume you produce content at the same rate until you retire, how many decades of WWII historian energy do you think you have in you? I ask in the vein of being curious as to how a person dives into the same period of history for many years without becoming fatigued.
I personally find it amazing and inspiring that you can pursue a single topic (more like category - there are many topics within the War in its entirety) for such a long time and maintain deep interest and inspiration in terms of ideas for new content.
Are there any other events in history that you think you could delve similarly deep into? Do you see TIK being a WWII+ channel for the span of your career?
My apologies if this comes off as rude as that is not my intention.
Awesome video. Thank you SO MUCH for touching on this. So few people know about the financial relationships that continued between Nazi Germany and the allies during the war. The BIS is the key to it all. Best WW2 historian on the tube.
yesss!! Been waiting for a video on Schacht. In the debate whether Hitler was a socialist, the argument that Hitler was a capitalist because he appointed a 'very' capitalist economist was the one argument from socialists that i couldn't answer.
That's not very unusual for socialists to do before they're ready for the final (and total) power grab.
Schacht made sure the money was available for state expenditure. What could be more socialist than that? Hitler was criticised for not nationalising but he seems to have realised that industry is best run by those who know it well, not civil servants. The British post-war government, in some ways more Nazi than Hitler, made the mistake of nationalising. One result was that the Coal Board was run from Hobart House in Belgravia, a long way from a coalmine. I had an interview with the staff manager. We discussed the plays of Euripides. See Corelli Barnett's book, 'The Lost victory.' Hitler was not only a socialist but a uniquely successful one. Remember he made health care free, in 1943!
I appreciate that you publicize your sources of your information.
As a Pole I was always told, though not in school, that Germany was on the brink of economic collapse and only the War saved them.
It's why they're called the vampire state. The army they built bankrupted the economy and was instead funded by robbing neighbor states and Jews. As effective as the strategy is of making war pay for itself, it only works with an endless string of EASY victories, which is impossible.
@@samsonsoturian6013 he got very close tho
Hitler: PRINT MONEY!
Also Hitler: 13:13
Your Hitler impersonation while reading his quotes always cracks me up.
Schacht seems like he wasn't too bad compared to modern economists.
Just a quick question. If Schacht was trying to prevent war, was warning others about Hitler, then was imprisoned by him, why was he tried and convicted after the war? He clearly did reprehensible things but was this enough for his conviction?
Great video by the way 👏
Who else misses Halder already?
Guess we found Halder's alt account
@@jackobrien47 ya
"... he certainly wanted to keep the economy mostly private, saying "The sate should not run business itself and take responsibility away from private enterprises". By 'private enterprise', he meant corporations which now dominated the economy between 1933 and 1936, themselves coming ever more under control of the State - a process that ..."
So I just noticed that you called corporations 'mostly private' and them 'coming ever more under control of the State' as not keeping them ' mostly private'. May I point out that it stands in oposition to your previously expressed views on corporations not being privately owned entities. What is more, Schacht reasoning and the whole situation doesn't really make sense if we assume that corpos aren't private. Why would a classical liberal care if they are state controlled or not if they aren't privately owned from the definition?
It's a interesting question.
I think the answer is the German industrial capitalism was exceptionally organised (kartellized) from its inception.
You have to remember that Germany was economically unified before it was politically unified so that German industrialists saw themselves as national leaders.
Which may help to explain why Schacht despite being a liberal banker, was prepared to accept a much more controlled economy than a British or American banker would have.
this is what is happening in the us tech oligarchs controlling govt and subverting justice.
Yesss! A Professor Sir TIK lecture!
What is a "nazi argument"? This seems very disingenuous. I've heard a lot of nazis, but never this argument.
The real story is that Schacht got the job in the first place because his predecessor told Hitler the Reichsbank was broke. Schacht on the other hand told Hitler he would find him billions of marks, no problem. So Hitler went with the guy who promised to get him what he wanted.
Later, when Schacht objected, he no longer served a purpose and was fired. He might have been right or wrong, but that doesn't really matter.
Video quality has noticeably gone up tik, good stuff
Since we are talking about logistics in this video, I can't help but ask a couple questions:
In most City-States of Classical Greece, the Hoplites were middle-class heavy infantry who bought and paid for their own arms and armor. Roman Legionaries prior to the Marian Reforms (~100BC) were also Citizen-Soldiers who bought and paid for their own equipment. However, with the rise of Macedon and the Marian Reforms, both Greece and Rome made their respective transitions from privately-funded Citizen-Soldiers to full-time professionals funded and equipped by the State. How did private funding vs public funding affect warfare in Classical Antiquity?
In the Middle Ages, with the breakdown of centralized authority in western Europe, the paradigm of warfare shifted to a military elite of landed warrior-aristocrats, supported by a shield-wall of levied infantry. The Nobility both paid for and personally led military expeditions, and manpower was provided by contractual obligations of vassals for their liege lords. How did the semi-privatized logistics of medieval warfare affect the armies of the Middle Ages?
"Since we are talking about logistics in this video"
We are?
And I'm not an expert on ancient or medieval warfare, unfortunately. I will note that the Roman Republic expanded, whereas the Empire didn't do so as much, then the Empire split in two, with the west having a massive military and social budget which forced them to dilute their gold based money into fiat currency, causing them to suffer from inflation, which then destroyed their economy and helped speed up their collapse.
@@TheImperatorKnight "we are?"
Economics = Logistics.
@@strategicgamingwithaacorns2874 common misconception: warfare in the middle ages were not nobility supported by levied infantry as the paradigm. while levy systems existed, the norm was to rely solely on professionals and semi-professionals that made up retinues and mercenaries (although the connotations have shifted today, mercenaries in medieval times were often locally recruited). levies were only used when retinues were not sufficient and there wasn't enough money (or willing volunteers) to use short-term contract soldiers.
its hard to compare the middle ages to other periods in terms of logistics because they relied so much more on poliorcetics, that is fortifications and siege warfare. and Fabian tactics were also far more popular (thanks to De re militari). we do know that at least in terms of food supply the decentralized system was superior for mobility (as shown later by Napoleon), and the fact spare parts wasn't an issue means the lack of centralized arms and armor was irrelevant, or even an advantage [armour was more common and more extensive for most of the medieval period than earlier or later, although arguably this is more technological than economic], also later on the decentralized dutch military system of the renaissance also proved superior in siege warfare to the centralized Spanish one.
it is important to note the eastern roman empire switched voluntarily to a (then) more western-style (decentralized) military system which is credited as saveing the empire from the arabs aswell as their defeat of the Bulgarians (and other slavs). Byzantine sources describe it as more efficient in terms of resources including but not limited to manpower (and modern historians tend to agree)
another thing of note, it took 200 years of near-continuous warfare to kick the crusaders out of 'the holy land', despite their recruitment pool and origin of their supply chain being on the other side of the Mediterranean sea (and said sea being full of anti-crusader pirates and raiders) and being heavily outnumbered. many historians consider this to be a clear example of the strength of the system.
The film "Maximillian" dramatizes much of the economic realities of Medieval Warfare, as Mary I of Burgundy needed to marry him, in order to fend off the advances of the French, after the death of her father Charles the Bold in battle.
@@TheImperatorKnight
Oh dear.
You need to read more Roman monetaryl history.
But basically goes like this.
Silver coinage until mid - 3rd century.
Partial demonetization under Diocletian (the military annona)
Partial remonetization under Constantine (the gold solidus).
Full remonetization under Anastasius (late 5th century, bronze coinage).
This is highly over simplified but will do as a rule of thumb.
Based on Michael Grant, The Climax of Rome, chapter 3.
"No central bank is capable of maintaining the currency against an inflationist spending policy on the part of the state".
TIK I hope you will cover more topics in interwar period especially in politics and economy, because it's very interesting and i never learn about it in my school (since, maybe, our country wasn't directly affected). Sure your videos about military history in WW2 is one of the best in youtube, but I hope you will cover more this. I also hope that you will cover the situation in post-war period. But don't forget to rest and be healthy. Thanks for your great videos
You'll be happy to know that I'm working on a big video or series (not sure which yet) on a major inter-war event... Still a while away from finishing the research on it yet, but it'll happen at some point
Thank you for one of the most interesting videos on TH-cam. I think you need to understand the economics of Nazi Germany before you can understand the war since it is so intertwined. I know if no other TH-camr who goes into the economics of WWII like you. I know some people say stick to tanks but if you try to understand WWII by looking at tank battles I'd argue you have no intention of understanding it at all.
Hjalmar schaht is undeniably one of the biggest economists in the past century
Because socialism was not amenable to accountability?
Just guessing.
Your logical deductions are exquisite
Thanks for another great video, please take a break. That last Stalingrad video was a monster.
Tik you have the best informative channel on YT about WWII. Can I recommend hiring an animator to make simple history-style animations but focused on WWII to go with you're in depth analysis to help viewers understand better. Your channel would explode.
Nothing I appreciate more than a paper trail to someone's reasoning/understanding. It's like this guy sees what purpose it serves.
Love your intelligent , objective, educated analysis TIK.
Danke.
I love pre-WW2 Industrial Analytics of the Weimar Republic / Third Reich!
TIK, if possible, please share a few words on the "MeFo - Wechsel", as it is related and interesting!
Thank you for your well done contents!
Great work as always, TIK! BTW, a certain chap on Quora wrote an article on you that was....quite interesting, to say the least. Curious to see your opinions on it.
Best of luck with the next Battlestorm episode(;
My interest is in what happened to Gottfried Feder, why did Hitler push him to one side along with his radical economic ideas and instead favour the laissez-faire and central banker, Schact?!
After Schacht was dismissed from the Reichbank in 1939, he remained in the government as Minister Without Portfolio until 1943. See Schacht My First Seventy Years, p. 415. Schacht was tried for war crimes at Nurnberg, and was ably defended by Rudolf Dix, and won acquittal. There was a pre-Bundesrepublic denazification trial where Schacht was sentenced to hard labor, but he won his appeal in 1948. See Schacht, My First Seventy Years, pp.502-513.
another great video homie. keep it up
I'm not sure if youtube is censoring me: This video sucked.
1. It does not discuss Schachts financial maneuvers, which were convoluted and brilliant.
2. Schacht ended up in a concentration camp. I believe it omitted that small fact.
3. Schacht did not seek autarky, he sought instead to foster trade with states which would be pro-nazi or at least not anti-nazi in order to generate the foreign exchange he needed.
4. Video doesn't describe or explain the role MEFO and OeFA bills played in the run up to the war
5. The discussion of the havara agreement is nigh absent, and simplistic
20 minutes of "Schacht wasn't really a nazi, sort of" might make sense for someone less important but Schacht was instrumental in Hitler's exercise of power, and held a ministerial post up to 1943
This Video Sucked.
I agree, totally gives the Jewish element a complete pardon. But if it didn't, it would not be allowed on TH-cam.
TIK,in your video "But TIK, the reason WHY Hitler started WW2 make no sense!" you said "it's also why Reich's economy began to implode once they stopped conquering new territories and coudn't balance the financial situation any more"I concluded that Hitler would have to conquer the whole world. had he done this by around the 1950s then he would have had to colonize Mars. is it an overinterpretation?
Probably not if I'm being honest
Third Reich's economy became a "loot economy". In order to stay in power Hitler had to pump money into the military and propaganda projects. The German economy could not support this so they stole what they needed, first from the Jews and then from the Czechs. Once was started, they kept looting from the Poles, French, Greeks and then the Soviet regions they conquered. They were propping up their own economy with looted resources and slave labour. Even then key pieces of their infrastructure like the railways were starting to fail. If they conquered Europe and had to fight the US, they would have to keep looting to build up a navy and airforce big enough to challenge the US. They would have to to do with their own economy on the edge of disaster and the conquered areas wrecked by war and stripped by the looting. Even if they got peace with the US, they would have to rebuild the economy of Europe on their own. In the end, I see that kind of Empire turning feudal with local governor bleeding their eras dry to pay tribute to Berlin while also making themselves stinking rich.
Because starting a world war to loot and plunder and fuel a war machine isnt a rational or logical thing to do hence making no sense?
You should read,
The Man in The High Castle, since the Nazis do exactly that in that novel (colonise Mars having wrecked Earth).
More great work TIK, thank you!
I think the song lyrics " there ain't no rest for the wicked, money don't grow on trees" is very applicable hear lol
Thanks TIK for an excellent video on Mr Schacht and his 'attempt' to stabilise the pre War German economy.
This is the only channel so far that makes me feel like reading some books about economy.
Tik please can you make your videos available for 144p? Things are really hard for us in Nigeria . Love your videos are very enlightening
There are certain extreme and completely preposterous positions that frankly are not worth arguing - i.e those you take on in the last 5 minutes of the video. You have to ask yourself TIK, if presenting logical arguments to a fool is worth the effort. Will it change their minds? Of course not. I’m reminded of Schlact’s planting corn analogy when I think of this. I believe that 90% or more of your TH-cam audience sincerely enjoys and appreciates your content. Maybe you might consider addressing mainly reasonable counterpoints - versus the more fantastic, devoid of reality ones. This was a great well researched, well presented video and underpins the economic basis of the start of WW2 by Germany that you’ve made before. To me Schlact failed to muster enough imagination to realize the road Hitler was actually driving down. Even in his last memo - his economic lecture to Hitler - he seems to have no grasp that the war was what Hitler wanted.
One recommendation. Could you please stop reading Hitler's quote in "angry madman Hitler's voice" ? This kind of "emotional manipulation" is really overdone.
Schacht was one of the three men to be declared free and without sentencing by the nuremberg trials
I searched Schacht heard Sutton, so I subscribed.
Ahamed gets it only slightly wrong. Its not that Hitler had no interest in economics, its that he had no ATTACHMENT to economics. Its why questions like "Is Hitler a Socialist" are pointless questions. He was utilitarian. If you ignore what Hitler said, and go entirely by what he did, he picked up and dropped ideas anytime he thought it might be useful to do so. He didnt believe in anything outside of his own "destiny". Idealism was subservient to that goal. Not a goal in and of itself.
speaking straight facts here
It’s all about the BIS bank
11:16 The Third Reich's "money printer go brrr" moment.
I love how TIK keeps nailing the Nazis (and correctly so) as being socialist in principle and action.
I'm just telling it as it is. If Hitler was a Capitalist, then he would have zero reason to sack Schacht
These conspiracy theories stem from Fritz Thyssen's attempt to bribe the Nazis. He was immediately robbed in 1939 and arrested in France in 1940, so clearly they were not together.
Your hitler was a socialist video makes much more sence to a layman now
No notification again but I checked and the upload was 15mins ago... damn YouT***
Right off the start, you make a fatal mistake. Schacht was never Hitlers economics minister. He was Montague Norman's errand boy. All economic decisions came from the Bank of England, not the Reichbank. The only competent discussion of the 1930s requires discussing how Hitler, the Austrian Hippie, was Germanys punishment for Bismarks crime of unifying Prussia around Freidrich Lists American System of Political Economy and rejection of British Free Trade. Keynes can be disposed of by his own admission that his theories can only work under a Fascist dictatorship. Schachts slave labor model required Hitler to enslave all opposition to Schachts looting on behalf of London and Wall St. after they took over whatever industries weren't stolen under the Ruhr occupation. Let's not forget that competent leadership such as Rathenau and Scheicher were all assassinated. Schacht got off Scott free at Nuremburg to further destroy other countries such as Brazil under its dictator. As Keynesian Abba Lerner said in his debate with Lyndon LaRouche in 1973, 'if Germany had done what Schacht ordered, Hitler would not have been necessary." th-cam.com/video/8m93hJOTG8Y/w-d-xo.html
Didn't expect to see you here. Good insight
Fascinating video TIK, schacht is a fascinating person, whom I've never heard of before. He's kind of anathema to the nazi's being a liberal, Christian, banker. Still though its interesting how he managed to stay in position until 1939, even when he didn't fit it, and he himself didn't want to fit in.
I reckon there must have been a lot of drama that happened in the backrooms of the german government.
I'm surprised to hear you've never heard of him before! I've mentioned him a few times. And yes, there will have been a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes which will now have been lost to history, sadly
except Hitler was CONSTANTLY bleating about how GOD himself and "Divine Providence" bullshit blahblah. Schacht was not an anathema to the nazis otherwise he would never have been the chief banker let alone hold a post as Minster in the government until 1943.
I'm kinda glad that I do not view Hitler as an idiot. An ideologue sure. There is a reason for every decision.
This content is more valuable then the time you are putting in it! Even the long BATTLESTORM series needs to get waaaaaayy more attention. But sadly, it is what people will value, and not what time and effort you put in. But luckly it is! Otherwise it would be socialism 🤣 TIK! Thank you for your video's and thank you for inspiring me to make a documentary about Operation Market Garden! I even hired Terri Young to draw the Arnhem Map in WW2 time era! Thanks again! 👍 (and i will definitly name you in the description of my docu!)
You shoud stop being biased and stop linking socialism with lazyness.
@@ivanbro1208 If you were lazy, how easy would it be for you to exploit socialism?
@@SandervkHistory what do you mean?
Awesome how you make the voices for Schackt and Hitler. Cool video. Can I get college credit?
Schacht was Jewish, and it is not true that he favored the deportation of the Jews; on the contrary, at first he opposed it and proposed to Hitler an economic plan to provide, through the use of credits granted by banks, funds which would be used to in turn to the Jews of Germany to be able to have the necessary means to rebuild a dignified life outside of Germany. A curious fact is that Hitler, at first, agreed with Schacht's proposal, the one who firmly opposed it was the chief rabbi of the synagogue in Great Britain who opposed it and did not allow the implementation of the plan.
Well done!
It's sad when you demand the sudetendland and he can no longer be your political advisor.
I allways love how nobody besides the Dutch and, to a múch lesser extend, the Germans can pronounce the sch- vowel. It's not 'sj-'.
Ch in Dutch is pronounced as a 'g'. So it becomes 'sg-' BUT....this is the hardes, troatiest, rasping, deep down 'g' you ever heard to get it right. More like 'sggh-'.
And yes, Schacht means (mine)shaft in Dutch.
For advanced lessons and identification purposes try these:
Scheveningen, schoonmoeder, schut, schut, schut.
Still, 10 points for effort and a very informative video.
Thanks👍🏻
Brilliant! Many thanks!
Very interesting, thanks for a good video
Thanks, I will now read about Schacht. Curiously I left a bookmark at the very page in one of my books.
Lewis you might want to look at the dealing of the Bank of International Settlement in WW II
20:54
That's a cute libertardian truism TIK but try and go to your local Chinatown and tell me how that plays in Peking. It don't. And it never has. Again: you cannot play with this atomized individualism you love so much when the enemy practices in-group preferences to the point where they basically own your country and dictate terms to you in a rather centrally authoritarian way. The Chinese, even if they adopted laisse-faire economics of the type you're espousing will never let you in to play in all their reindeer games because guess what: you're not part of their group and can't ever be because blood is thicker than lucre. You libertardians need to understand this: groups of people really do exist. They certainly exist more tangibly even in the worst cases than any ideology or abstraction you could ever espouse and those concepts that don't acknowledge this reality like your particular libertardian brand are doomed for the ash-heap, hence why no one takes you yucks seriously and why most libertarian parties are in the pocket of larger parties using them for their own benefit. People aren't tabula rasas you can fit into whatever mold you want them to and most of them fit into a mold forever incompatible with your views. So, no. There are groups of people. Groups of people comprised of individuals, yes, but individuals that have grouped up and will do what's deemed best for the collective even at the expense of the individual. The Chinese and their history are living proof of how effective this can be and the horribly hilarious extents the British Crown in tandem with the rest of the cabal of european powers had to go to finally collapse even the Ching show just how powerful a large ethnically homogenous state truly is even when its run by fools and the CCP show how dangerous it is when it's run by shrewd serpents.
Races don't exist, but racists do. As I have been saying for years now, Socialism is Racism and Racism is Socialism. A "race" is a social group. So note, I'm against the ideology that makes "racism" a thing, not against "races" which don't exist. See the difference?
The Chinese Communist Party is a problem, but that doesn't mean that the Chinese people are. Those that buy into Communism might be, but not all. Judge the individual for their actions, not based on what others in a group do.
To put it another way, a lot of Americans voted for a particular party. Does that mean that all Americans are bad? No. Does it mean that everyone who voted for that particular party are bad? No. But the people who are in that party and are doing bad things are bad. And those that support such a party are also questionable. But not all Americans are bad. You cannot judge everyone just because they supposedly belong to a group.
Read about Naturalization in Vietnam or any Asian country. They take these things seriously.
"Persons applying for naturalization must have Vietnamese names."
"Obeying the Constitution and laws of Vietnam; respecting the traditions, customs and practices of the Vietnamese nation."
"Applicants for naturalization must be able to listen, speak, read and write in Vietnamese in accordance with the living and working environment."
@@TheImperatorKnight
"Races don't exist, but racists do."
Dude, just come out and say there are more than two genders. Seriously. Just own up to your complete left-leaning British brainwashing you're still yoked to despite having shed off so much of the nonsense they try injecting you with out the womb on the isles. Because those same 'scientists' you love crowing about are the same 'scientists' who say there are more than two genders and that is was totally reasonable for the West to nuke its economy and upend its society even more than usual and take unvetted mRNA alterer they literally had to change the dictionary definition of to consider it a 'vaccine' for a virus that has a 99 percent recovery rate. I'd also like to remind you those same scientists, fittingly enough, are reds that'd eat libertardians like for breakfast if the state told them to.
"The Chinese Communist Party is a problem, but that doesn't mean that the Chinese people are"
Taiwan begs to differ. The Ching that you tommies went to such hilarious narco-state lengths to bring down begs to differ. Every other dynasty going back since forever begs to differ. decidedly
Does it mean that everyone who voted for that particular party are bad?
@@VunderGuy ^word salad
@@VunderGuy One man was deported to Somalia a couple of days ago. In addition to being born and living in Finland, he is the guardian of two children living in Finland. His parents failed to apply for citizenship and he committed crimes. On a larger scale, this case is like seeing a unicorn. It will certainly be an adventure of a lifetime!
For a while I didnt believe you knew what you were talking about about.
But these videos are getting better and better.
Real research.
15:01 You do too much for our sake.