Video

Somehow that got translated as bad

Cabaret

All the Proof you need, that the rebels are the good guys.

Thanks very much for taking the time to comment, much appreciated.

Nor do I, because this assumes free will.

Thanks for the comment, glad it was helpful.

That's the point. So much of fascism is about reducing complex issues into sound bites, singable tunes, catch phrases.

fhat

​@@headoverheels88 Britain is now sadly full of 'Facists' trying to surpress an opinion opposite to their own and force hard left wing ideology and views onto everyone!!

Thanks for taking the time to comment. I say much the same thing in episode 6 about why history is dangerous. But I do take issue with your scare quoted experts. History is done by people who know what they are doing and follow the rule of scholarship. It's like going to a doctor when you're ill. Personally, I prefer to be advised by someone who is qualified.

Sorry I only just saw this. Thanks for taking the time to comment. I hoped this would provoke a response. Personally, I felt most uncomfortable at apparently excluding self-taught amateur historians. On balance I think the distinction is worth it pedagogîcally, as I want my students to understand and respect the profession. There are many popular historians who would apparently not make my cut, Barbara W. Tuchman was someone I thought of when writing the film. However, I would argue that McCullough, Tuchman and all the amateurs are real historians for two reasons which do not contradict my point. Firstly, they obey the rules of historical scholarship as established by the professional historical community and secondly, their work is recognised by that community as being history.

It was a shameful disgusting period, and full of fear

@@sapphomet.7777 no ,people were happy !!

Human shit would work just as perfectly as manure. If they didn't use it then they were shitting themselves on good crop growth

Then you need to look harder. Night soil has been used all throughout history. People collected it from everywhere it gathered and sold it for fertilizer. Just search night soil.

Indeed. It had to feature in my latest film about totalitarianism. czcams.com/video/SgbsvYnEe-M/video.html

@@JonesNerzic Yes homosexual society is so much better

YOUTH!!

Jews were in Nazis also ..

And in Gaza today we can see why they were so spot on

​@@22grenaWhat do you mean the decades long suppression and tyranny from Hamas over supposedly their own people!!!!!

😕 "The greatest tragedy of our world is not the victims of cruelty, but that so many of those victims would, given the opportunity, stand in the shoes of their oppressors and wield the same whip with equal enthusiasm." 😕

Thanks for taking the time comment Ranald.

861.00/2 - 2246: Telegram The Charge in the Soviet Union (Kennan) to the Secretary of State SECRET Moscow, February 22, 1946--9 p.m. [Received February 22--3: 52 p.m.] 511. Answer to Dept's 284, Feb 3 [13] involves questions so intricate, so delicate, so strange to our form of thought, and so important to analysis of our international environment that I cannot compress answers into single brief message without yielding to what I feel would be dangerous degree of over-simplification. I hope, therefore, Dept will bear with me if I submit in answer to this question five parts, subjects of which will be roughly as follows: (1) Basic features of post-war Soviet outlook. (2) Background of this outlook (3) Its projection in practical policy on official level. (4) Its projection on unofficial level. (5) Practical deductions from standpoint of US policy. I apologize in advance for this burdening of telegraphic channel; but questions involved are of such urgent importance, particularly in view of recent events, that our answers to them, if they deserve attention at all, seem to me to deserve it at once. There follows Part 1: Basic Features of Post War Soviet Outlook, as Put Forward by Official Propaganda Machine Are as Follows: (a) USSR still lives in antagonistic "capitalist encirclement" with which in the long run there can be no permanent peaceful coexistence. As stated by Stalin in 1927 to a delegation of American workers: "In course of further development of international revolution there will emerge two centers of world significance: a socialist center, drawing to itself the countries which tend toward socialism, and a capitalist center, drawing to itself the countries that incline toward capitalism. Battle between these two centers for command of world economy will decide fate of capitalism and of communism in entire world." (b) Capitalist world is beset with internal conflicts, inherent in nature of capitalist society. These conflicts are insoluble by means of peaceful compromise. Greatest of them is that between England and US. (c) Internal conflicts of capitalism inevitably generate wars. Wars thus generated may be of two kinds: intra-capitalist wars between two capitalist states, and wars of intervention against socialist world. Smart capitalists, vainly seeking escape from inner conflicts of capitalism, incline toward latter. (d) Intervention against USSR, while it would be disastrous to those who undertook it, would cause renewed delay in progress of Soviet socialism and must therefore be forestalled at all costs. (e) Conflicts between capitalist states, though likewise fraught with danger for USSR, nevertheless hold out great possibilities for advancement of socialist cause, particularly if USSR remains militarily powerful, ideologically monolithic and faithful to its present brilliant leadership. (f) It must be borne in mind that capitalist world is not all bad. In addition to hopelessly reactionary and bourgeois elements, it includes (1) certain wholly enlightened and positive elements united in acceptable communistic parties and (2) certain other elements (now described for tactical reasons as progressive or democratic) whose reactions, aspirations and activities happen to be "objectively" favorable to interests of USSR These last must be encouraged and utilized for Soviet purposes. (g) Among negative elements of bourgeois-capitalist society, most dangerous of all are those whom Lenin called false friends of the people, namely moderate-socialist or social-democratic leaders (in other words, non-Communist left-wing). These are more dangerous than out-and-out reactionaries, for latter at least march under their true colors, whereas moderate left-wing leaders confuse people by employing devices of socialism to seine interests of reactionary capital. So much for premises. To what deductions do they lead from standpoint of Soviet policy? To following: (a) Everything must be done to advance relative strength of USSR as factor in international society. Conversely, no opportunity most be missed to reduce strength and influence, collectively as well as individually, of capitalist powers. (b) Soviet efforts, and those of Russia's friends abroad, must be directed toward deepening and exploiting of differences and conflicts between capitalist powers. If these eventually deepen into an "imperialist" war, this war must be turned into revolutionary upheavals within the various capitalist countries. (c) "Democratic-progressive" elements abroad are to be utilized to maximum to bring pressure to bear on capitalist governments along lines agreeable to Soviet interests. (d) Relentless battle must be waged against socialist and social-democratic leaders abroad. Part 2: Background of Outlook Before examining ramifications of this party line in practice there are certain aspects of it to which I wish to draw attention. First, it does not represent natural outlook of Russian people. Latter are, by and large, friendly to outside world, eager for experience of it, eager to measure against it talents they are conscious of possessing, eager above all to live in peace and enjoy fruits of their own labor. Party line only represents thesis which official propaganda machine puts forward with great skill and persistence to a public often remarkably resistant in the stronghold of its innermost thoughts. But party line is binding for outlook and conduct of people who make up apparatus of power--party, secret police and Government--and it is exclusively with these that we have to deal. Second, please note that premises on which this party line is based are for most part simply not true. Experience has shown that peaceful and mutually profitable coexistence of capitalist and socialist states is entirely possible. Basic internal conflicts in advanced countries are no longer primarily those arising out of capitalist ownership of means of production, but are ones arising from advanced urbanism and industrialism as such, which Russia has thus far been spared not by socialism but only by her own backwardness. Internal rivalries of capitalism do not always generate wars; and not all wars are attributable to this cause. To speak of possibility of intervention against USSR today, after elimination of Germany and Japan and after example of recent war, is sheerest nonsense. If not provoked by forces of intolerance and subversion "capitalist" world of today is quite capable of living at peace with itself and with Russia. Finally, no sane person has reason to doubt sincerity of moderate socialist leaders in Western countries. Nor is it fair to deny success of their efforts to improve conditions for working population whenever, as in Scandinavia, they have been given chance to show what they could do. Falseness of those premises, every one of which predates recent war, was amply demonstrated by that conflict itself Anglo-American differences did not turn out to be major differences of Western World. Capitalist countries, other than those of Axis, showed no disposition to solve their differences by joining in crusade against USSR. Instead of imperialist war turning into civil wars and revolution, USSR found itself obliged to fight side by side with capitalist powers for an avowed community of aim. Nevertheless, all these theses, however baseless and disproven, are being boldly put forward again today. What does this indicate? It indicates that Soviet party line is not based on any objective analysis of situation beyond Russia's borders; that it has, indeed, little to do with conditions outside of Russia; that it arises mainly from basic inner-Russian necessities which existed before recent war and exist today. At bottom of Kremlin's neurotic view of world affairs is traditional and instinctive Russian sense of insecurity. Originally, this was insecurity of a peaceful agricultural people trying to live on vast exposed plain in neighborhood of fierce nomadic peoples. To this was added, as Russia came into contact with economically advanced West, fear of more competent, more powerful, more highly organized societies in that area. But this latter type of insecurity was one which afflicted rather Russian rulers than Russian people; for Russian rulers have invariably sensed that their rule was relatively archaic in form fragile and artificial in its psychological foundation, unable to stand comparison or contact with political systems of Western countries. For this reason they have always feared foreign penetration, feared direct contact between Western world and their own, feared what would happen if Russians learned truth about world without or if foreigners learned truth about world within. And they have learned to seek security only in patient but deadly struggle for total destruction of rival power, never in compacts and compromises with it. It was no coincidence that Marxism, which had smoldered ineffectively for half a century in Western Europe, caught hold and blazed for first time in Russia. Only in this land which had never known a friendly neighbor or indeed any tolerant equilibrium of separate powers, either internal or international, could a doctrine thrive which viewed economic conflicts of society as insoluble by peaceful means. After establishment of Bolshevist regime, Marxist dogma, rendered even more truculent and intolerant by Lenin's interpretation, became a perfect vehicle for sense of insecurity with which Bolsheviks, even more than previous Russian rulers, were afflicted. In this dogma, with its basic altruism of purpose, they found justification for their instinctive fear of outside world, for the dictatorship without which they did not know how to rule, for cruelties they did not dare not to inflict, for sacrifice they felt bound to demand. In the name of Marxism they sacrificed every single ethical value in their methods and tactics. Today they cannot dispense with it...

​@@JonesNerzic many thanks Richard. And what a perspicacious tract it is. We have a Russian lady in our village who has lived in France for 15 years and doesn't want to go back, but... the mindset has not changed a bit. Maybe the lack of a copula in their language cripples logical thinking.

Yes. It is probably closest to Ralph Waldo Emerson quoting Plato in "Eloquence," Society and Solitude (1870). The punishment which the wise suffer who refuse to take part in the government is to live under the government of worse men.