“But Hitler Crushed the Trade Unions!”
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 01. 2023
- A discussion on the idea that Hitler crushed the trade unions, touching upon the DAF (Deutsches Arbeitsfront - German Labour Front), Robert Ley, and the works of many historians, including William Shirer and Adam Tooze.
This video is discussing events or concepts that are academic, educational and historical in nature. This video is for informational purposes and was created so we may better understand the past and learn from the mistakes others have made. And just to be clear, I'm NOT a Nazi, nor a Fascist, nor a Marxist, and I don't subscribe to any other form of totalitarian ideology.
Follow me on Instagram / tikhistory
⏲️ Videos EVERY Monday at 5pm GMT (depending on season, check for British Summer Time).
The thumbnail for this video was created by Terri Young. Need awesome graphics? Check out her website www.terriyoungdesigns.co.uk/
- - - - -
📚 BIBLIOGRAPHY / SOURCES 📚
This video's source list docs.google.com/spreadsheets/...
The full list of all my sources docs.google.com/spreadsheets/...
- - - - -
⭐ SUPPORT TIK ⭐
This video isn't sponsored. My income comes purely from my Patreons and SubscribeStars, and from CZcams ad revenue. So, if you'd like to support this channel and make these videos possible, please consider becoming a Patreon or SubscribeStar. All supporters who pledge $1 or more will have their names listed in the videos. There are higher tiers too with additional perks, so check out the links below for more details.
/ tikhistory
www.subscribestar.com/tikhistory
Thank you to my current supporters! You're AWESOME!
- - - - -
ABOUT TIK 📝
History isn’t as boring as some people think, and my goal is to get people talking about it. I also want to dispel the myths and distortions that ruin our perception of the past by asking a simple question - “But is this really the case?”. I have a 2:1 Degree in History and a passion for early 20th Century conflicts (mainly WW2). I’m therefore approaching this like I would an academic essay. Lots of sources, quotes, references and so on. Only the truth will do.
"Nazi Germany was a capitalist society where the government froze everybody's wages." - Historians, unironically.
They also capped the profits.
It's about who owns the means of production lol not if "goberment do things." State capitalism is still capitalism you clowns 🤡
@@McHobotheBobo The government STILL owns YOU, Nazi or Communist.
@@McHobotheBobo to quote most people who know anything about economics: state capitalism is just communism with a foreign market the government profits from
@user-ow9lp2gw3b Lmao, you are a clown named Dunning 🤡
Who could've guessed centralizing all authority would hurt the little guy?
"Well done for Hitler combatting the Patriarchy !" Sir, that one was brillant !
So Hitler was a feminist? Is that the claim being attempted here? Because practically everything Hitler ever said or wrote about women indicates otherwise.
Perhaps "feminazi" is a more apt term than we realized XD
@@AngelicusEXperimentwanna troll a feminist rally by blasting the Horst Wessel lied? 😂
@@AngelicusEXperiment Janice Fiamengo
The Soviet Union crushed the trade unions. They existed, but had no independent voice at all. They were organs of the state, just like the companies, the police, the army, the media, etc. They got to operate Palaces of Culture (workers' social clubs) and some vacation spots.
In 1962, during 'reformer' Khrushchev's rule, was the Novocherkassk rebellion. Workers protesting reduced wages, increased production quotas, and higher prices were met by the Red Army's gunfire and mass arrests.
Ironically, many of the protest leaders had been inspired by films and histories taught in school of worker uprisings against the Tsar from 1905 until the Revolution.
If we look at Germany prior to 1933, we find that the antagonist of the labour unions was the KPD (Communist Party of Germany), and Germany was not alone. In the '20s and '30s, the Comintern came to the conclusion that the real enemy was the Social Democrats and labour unions allied to them. They were 'social fascists', worse than the fascists.
_Mussolini's success brought the subject of fascism sharply to the attention of the Communist International, which had previously given it little consideration. An Italian Commission was set up at the Comintern's Fourth Congress in November-December 1922, and its resolution referred to the fascists as “the most radical wing” of the bourgeoisie. But the old Italian Socialist party was blamed most for Mussolini's victory. “The real forerunner of fascism was reformism,” the resolution declared. “The treachery of the reformists is primarily responsible for the great sufferings of the Italian proletariat.”_
_... “class against class.” It was introduced at the Ninth Plenum of the Comintern in February 1928 (a “plenum” was an enlarged meeting of the top leadership or, in effect, a miniature world congress). The slogan signified that there were now only two classes facing each other in mortal combat-the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The Communist parties alone represented the interests of the proletariat. All other parties, movements, and groups represented the bourgeoisie. Of the latter, the most dangerous were the Social-Democrats and all species of “reformists.” This excommunication from the true family of the proletariat included not only the Social-Democratic parties_ *but also the trade-union movements associated with them* . _“Class against class” was first applied in Great Britain, where it was taken to mean that the British Communists could no longer support the Labour party electorally. Thus the British Communist leaders were persuaded in Moscow to put up, for the first time, their own candidates against the Labour party._
_Even in Germany, which had the largest and strongest Communist party outside Russia, “class against class” meant that the Communists consigned to an enemy class the organizations which contained the vast majority of workers. In 1930, for example, the German Communist party reported a membership of 135,808; the German Social-Democratic party, 1,021,777. The Communist trade-union opposition claimed a following of 136,000._ *But the “free trade unions,” associated with the Social-Democratic party, contained 4,716,569 members; the so-called salaried employees (angestellten) unions, 1,620,970; the Christian (Catholic) trade unions, 778,863; and another group (Deutsche Gewerkvereine), 163,302.* _The Communist vote was about half that of the Social-Democrats-4,592,100 to 8,577,700. Even at the Communist high point and Social-Democratic low point in November 1932, the latter's vote was still considerably larger-7,248,000 to 5,980,200. Many more workers, of course, voted for the Catholic Center and other parties. The theory of social-fascism, then, put by far the largest number of organized workers into quasi-fascist parties which were so far gone that, for the Communists, there was only one thing to do-destroy them._ ( _The Ghost of Social Fascism_ , Theodore Draper)
and trade union in fascistic regimens like Franco's were organs of the capitalist lords. ever heard of 'national-sindicalism'?
Great points!!
So basically the bullshit theory socialists like to preach being played out on paper and showing why it will never work and a bunch of unhinged ramblings. Got ya.
So nazi germany does all things the soviet union does,but it's capitalist.I feel like i need to take some powerful drugs to understand commies.
Thats how shit lools like, with no imagine
I have read both of Mr Shirer's books about Nazi Germany (his other one was The Nightmare Years). I recall that in one of the books (I don't recall which) Mr Shirer related an interview he did with some factory workers a few years after Hitler came to power. When he asked them about the loss of freedom they experienced after HItler becoming their leader, they all said they preferred the Third Reich because of the fact they all had jobs, better pay and steady employment.
Exactly! Like Soviet era Russian’s…are now describing how the collapse of CCCP Communism, was the greatest catastrophic tragedy of 20th century history? Oh socialism…how wicked are thee…
Servile people will volunteer over their rights & morals for a paycheck.
It's sad.
and an eventual horrible death in the snow of Stalingrad or the bombs from the Ango-American justified air-offensive
@@lollypop333100 Now that's a hell of a trade-off
There are still people who praise the system for getting those darned trains running on time, after years of Weimar Republic-era mismanagement and chaos. Much the same thing can be said of the Soviet Union: there are people who still remember the Soviet era fondly for its ability to take all the chaos out of their lives under the relative security and predictability of a planned economy. Similarly, one of the "crowning achievements" of the US economy was the government's ability to collectivize all the money it required to throw at the space race to get its propaganda victory against its collectivist competitors, and all the money it needed to buy a highway system it couldn't afford to maintain, and all the money it needed to buy one of the greatest military powers on earth to throw at its national security and other problems, and so on, while bankrupting its citizens in the process, and all the money it needed to buy itself out of poverty and drug addiction and any other problems, while the problems only grew worse..... it all comes down to pretty much the same economic philosophy of looting as much money as possible for a centralized government to burn up in a spending race to the bottom, with lots of people remembering the "good old days" when everything seemed better while the limited supply of honest money was still available to be spent like a drunken sailor on anything the government set its mind to funding at the expense of its citizens....
Princess Peach crushed the unions in the Mushroom Kingdom, until King Koopa came in and liberated us. Of course, she contracted Italian mercenaries to attack us and the rest is history
Username checks out
Don't listen to the propaganda people
kek
You're almost thinking a bit too much buddy. Stick to mastering your tank controls. The glorious utopia awaits.
That's propaganda by the wario party mate don't fool yourself
I want to deeply thank you for your content, I started watching your videos a few years ago, and you've completely opened my eyes. i used to not care about politics/economics/history or how the world works. but you have changed me completely. thank you tik!
you are honestly the sharpest historian out there
This guy is a buffoon when it comes to literally anything but analyzing battles don’t let him brainwashed you Hitler privatized huge swaths of the economy, even the word “privatization” was coined for what hitler did in Germany - hitler also EXPELLED the only actually economically socialist wing of the Nazi party, aka the strasser faction and killed the strasser brothers. It is WELL known that hitler got his support and funding from wealthy German industrialists. The very reason hitler even became the premiere / head of the reichstag was because far right wing leaders plotted to put him into power, along with the backing of Bon Hindenburg and schlecter , in order to destroy the German communist and socialist parties. These are historical FACTS. To say hitler was a socialist is just a crazy absurdity. It’s the act of someone who desperately wants to believe hitler was a socialist facts do not support this ridiculous notion. And yes,, he DID crush trade unions and replace them with a Nazi version. If hitler was a socialist major parts of the economy would have been nationalized. Hitler spoke endlessly about how socialism and Marxism were evil. Stick to talking about how battle groups attack eachother on fancy maps that’s your speciality you clearly do not understand the actual history of the Nazi party or what socialism actually is or means. He literally set nazi brown shirt into the streets to attack and kill socialists.
TIKs entire argument in this video relies on the DAF being a trade union. Yet in the same video he confirms:
- The N4zis raided and imprisoned the existing trade union leaders in concentration camps (a notable omission on the camps)
- Was compulsory for all workers.
- Had no ability to initiate strike action.
- Was directed by the state, it was an arm of the state not of the workers
- Had no democratic structure, so the members had no way to actually use the union to achieve anything.
He then says that every other historian has it wrong to say that they destroyed trade unions, because the above organisation existed.
That is what passes for sharp political analysis?
@@jrton1366 lol... cope
@@jrton1366 In other words DAF was a monopolization of the trade unions, people were not in ownership of themselves as they were property of the nation. In being property of the nation being able to strike would effectively be an attack on the nation. What is so hard to understand about it? You are trying to apply a capitalist ideal of self ownership in a situation where it was not the case.
@@shangri-la-la-la You just acknowledged it's not a union. You literally just stated that the people are unable to organise, strike, or vote because that is an attack on the nation. So how the fuck is it a union then exactly? Please explain? Because TIK told you it was?
"Hitler wasn't a socialist!"
"Hitler broke the not state owned trade unions, and established one governmentally controlled union is proof that he was a capitalist!"
I guess capitalism is state control, and socialism is public/private control? Sounds logical
Socialism has nothing to do with state control. Many socialists in Bolshevik-controlled Russia were disillusioned after the state took over the unions' structures.
Its state capitalism
I am a socialist then 😂
@@mikemcmike6427 hmm... I wouldn't say it's a mix of socialism and capitalism, more so that economically it was socialist (or trying to be socialist), and culturally it utilized a neopagan reactionary religion with white supremacy attached. If you could provide sources debunking TIK's points that would be nice.
@@antonijedjordjevic5545 Nope
"But is this really the case"
Best quote
Literally every TIK video ever in a nutshell
Oh yeah the affectation of his facial expression and voice totally isn’t annoying *raise eyebrow, squint*
@@seanbeadles7421 and yet here you are
@@wtice4632 what’s that have to do with anything? Are you a sim?
@@seanbeadles7421 am i a simulation? No im simply pointing out that despite finding this guy so annying you are still here commenting on his videos and it makes on wonder why you are here. So why are you?
Props to TIk for being one of the VERY few historians on youtube who actually cites the sources they are using in their videos.
It's sad that this is the exception rather than the rule.
meanwhile the Indy Neidell team "trust us bro we're the experts - YOU VILL NOT KWESTION ZE SOURCE"
This is the main reason why I don't watch other CZcamsrs very often. If you're not citing your sources, of if you're just using a Wikipedia article (like one of my lecturers at university did), then I'm not going to trust what you say.
We are all on the same internet with the same access to the near total sum of all human knowledge. Sources are a waste of time, if you dont believe something, go find out for yourself. Stop relying on others. Listen & verify on your own.
@@LucVNO "We are all on the same internet with the same access to the near total sum of all human knowledge."
That is actually untrue. The internet doesn't have anywhere near the total sum of our knowledge. Most of the knowledge is in books, and that which finds itself onto the internet is just the tip of the iceberg, and usually biased propaganda (e.g. Wikipedia)
@@LucVNO can i see a source for that statement?
I cannot believe how lucky we are to have a true historian out here. Every video you make is a banger and you are one of the only historians out here speaking genuine truth backed up by primary sources. You’re the best
He isn't a historian
He is a youtuber he doesn't have a degree in history therefore he can't be a historian
@@sbevexlr848 He does have a degree in history. He’s stated this multiple times.
@@Undead38055 when?
@@sbevexlr848 The definition of historian is this. "an expert in or student of history, especially that of a particular period, geographical region, or social phenomenon." technically you don't need a degree to be an expert in or student of history especially with so much knowledge available freely now a days. Though I will admit it probably wouldn't hurt your case to have one.
@@sbevexlr848 watch the Q&As 💀
Another outstanding presentation on a difficult topic.
This proved very useful after coming across someone who claimed "Nazi Germany did not have worker Councils like the USSR did." Thanks TIK!
More and more I’m seeing the socialism of the National Socialists as a keystone topic in 20th century history. In The way this historical bias against it has informed, justified, and covered up a lot of bad ideas in regards to socialism, capitalism, and totalitarianism. What you’re doing is so important, and so damned refreshing. Thank You for your courage and tenacity. I plan on helping out your show, ASAP.
Nazis invented privatization, Hitler & his adviser Schacht sold formerly state-owned industries to private profit making
Private groups like Thyssen & Krupp supported Nazis and were allowed to dictate the conditions for the workers & lowered wages & increased hours
You had ought to watch Razörfist's video on Abraham Lincoln as well. Illuminating.
@@snaek2594 Lincoln was correct
@@wtfhah in?
@@snaek2594 in depriving Slaveocracy of its basis in human flesh
The Soviet and the communist China also crushed labor unions.
China is doing very well right now though? China has a similar nation-wide Union
@@leveenntt False, and false. Good job :-)
The more I watch your videos the more coherant I start to get understanding conflicting economic systems.
The more you watch his videos, the more one-sided your understanding gets.
@@karloskarlinderstrom6943 most people are going to end up like that anyway, to be fair.
"commieservatives"....I'm so stealing that one. What a delightfully insightful term of art!
DAF was similar to Soviet trade unions. On paper they were powerful, but in reality they were at best controlled opposition. In both cases right to strike did not exist, so strictly speaking they were not real trade unions. More like organizations that did soften some of party policies in order to make them more acceptable to workers. And in turn they built loyalty towards the system .
The soviet trade unions were not opposition in any way. It was a vital tool of the ruling (communist) party in control of employees and employers. Just like the DAF the socialist unions were enforsing the will of The Party on life of emloyees - including their "free" time.
@@jkotekvolnycz Well, nope. Both in USSR and in Germany there was usual conflict between "workers must produce more" and "workers need more benefits" . Unlike capitalistic system where trade unions would represent only worker demands and management would represent capital, in USSR and Third Reich trade unions would act as intermediaries between the Party and grass root workers. Socialist system was afraid of wildcat strikes. so they used trade unions to blow off some steam and achieve favorable compromise.
Indeed. The Bolsheviks were more than happy to brutally suppress any unions or workers that didn't toe the state line, like when Lenin ordered the army to open fire on (socialist!) workers protesting in 1917 or 1918.
@@EndOfSmallSanctuary97 In USSR state became the employer. In Third Reich there were still private owners, but with increased state control (especially in strategic enterprises) so essentially state became employer. Even in Yugoslavia which experimented with self-management of workers, party apparatchiks effectively controlled worker's councils , so in the end state was employer. Therefore, it was in the interest of the state that workers work more and get paid less. Therefore, any strike was considered harmful .
@badofi For National-Socialists economy and ideology about economy were secondary, but still important. NS was closer to modern Social-Democrats in their views, allowing private ownership. Yet, it should be remembered that even communist countries did allow private ownership of the means of production in some periods. For example, so called NEP period in USSR (1920s) then Perestroika in 1980s and even somewhat before. Yugoslavia also did allow limited private ownership etc ... Main reason for right wing classification was attitude towards Jews. While Jews controlled communist movement (at least early on), NS was of course totally opposed to them. Thus, communists rejecting NS had to paint them as something totally opposed.
As someone who was born in a communist country, I seriously have to wonder what's controversial about your view here. I mean, we had only one union, the state one...
Was reading through Shirer's work recently and I thought the way he explained it showed that the DAF held a lot more control than he ultimately declared it to have. Thanks for clearing things up Tik. Keep it up.
Sure, the DAF had some real control. But that just begs the question: who was in control of the DAF? It was party officials, not workers or workers' representatives.
@@brucetucker4847 maybe, but if so what difference does it make if it operates in the workers best interest against capitalists?
@@larrypage2793 It didn't. It operated in the government's interest. Any benefits that came to the workers did so only to the extent the Nazis thought it would make them more productive in support of the war effort.
@@slaterslater5944 That is the product of totalitarianism. Remember that they were anti-democracy too. The party believes they know what's best for the workers, race, and the state (on paper), so no additional representatives are needed. Lenin and Stalin were similar in that regard, minus race.
@Larry Page
Spoiler alert: it operated in favor of the capitalists against the workers.
Shirer's book was one of the first history books I read as a child. That inspired me to try Mein Kampf, which I never finished. 😉
LOL, yeah, it`s a tough read. ..
Shirer's book was the first one I read on the topic, as it was my grandad's copy and he gave it to me. But that doesn't stop people from saying "if only you read Shirer, TIK, you would understand how the war REALLY went down!" 🤨
@@TheImperatorKnight What do you think of Joachim Fest's work like 'The Face of the Third Reich' for instance?
@@TheImperatorKnight I read Shirer in junior high, and Mein Kampf in high school (not part of school, I'm just a history nut). Both are tough reads, but I managed both.
Armchair Psycho: The goal of Mein Kampf was to create a mythological narrative that could be sold the common man who didn't necessarily understand or need to understand these concepts. The goal was to hook people emotionally so they'd support National Socialism, aka a "noble lie".
I have now garnered TWO Facebook suspensions for pointing out that Hitler was a socialist.
CZcams deletes my comments all the time. I have to wait about a minute to be sure they stick.
Same, I got an instagram strike for claiming that he was a socialist.
You should look into what happened on the night of the long knives
I got booted off for a day for mentioning that the National Socialists weren't the first guys to use the swastika.................. on a Finnish history community chat. Finland was using the symbol before the Third Reich, but facts don't matter to the FB thought police.
@@fcktherich6913 Whar are you insinuating? It was about the sa, not socialsm.
The only modern history channel on youtube worth watching
Really enjoyed the Stalingrad series but this is also very good, nice to have your perspective on other battles and parts of WW2
It's right wing propaganda.
Love your work TIK, always setting a gold standard..
Thank you for a fascinating and very informative video Lewis. Your ability to inform and entertain at the same time is amazing.
It’s really enlightening to listen to your take on these subjects.
In my experience the problem with unions is that the union as an entity will act in its own self interest not the interest of the workers. The bigger the union the more true this becomes. The ideals that unionist uphold only hold true if the union consist of the small set of workers who can't be replaced working in a small factory. The larger structures beyond the local become less like a group of friendly coworkers and just becomes another corporation. In the US the only time a union has been useful to me is in pushing back against government pressures on my industry.
The DAF shares no similarities with any Union you have ever been a part of.
If a union grows and grows, it becomes a corporation in and of itself, much like the industry it always claim to represent the workers of, therefore just expecting it to be honest and looking out for the little guy is about as reasonable as Apple looking out for the welfare of the cobalt miners in Africa that it gets its iPhone minerals from
@@Edax_Royeaux What less simple explanation are you arguing against?
More to the point, workers only have to _believe_ that a union will improve their situation to form one; once the organization exists it takes on a life (and, unfortunately, purpose) of its own.
@@Edax_Royeaux I said in my experience. Then gave the experience where it was useful. I am a community college Adjunct, part time and can be fired. Thanks to collective bargaining I have a degree of protection from summary and capricous action, and a pension backed but not funded by the state. Meanwhile the state has pressure to make more and more people pass college. Sometimes the unions are pressured to lower standards and do push back.
@@alexs_toy_barn Exactly. A union of a certain size is just a corporation by another name. The one I am a part actually had its own workers strike. The union was so big the people working for it had a union and were forced to go on strike.
I read Rise and Fall back in high school. The bits I most remember was all the pre-war stuff like the Austrian election, heck, even the German election stuff. It was probably the first book that got me on the track past "Sticking to Tanks" We spent a week or two on ww2, tops, in all of high school.
Yay for TIK Mondays! It really doesn't matter whether you're talking economics, niche sideshows, or in-depth "Is this really the case?" discussions. You never disappoint. :D
Any possibility we'll see your "Penultimate Close Combat Game" video, now that you're on break? I know it's an older video idea and I've been asking constantly for several years, but I can't find your old CC videos on CZcams anymore, and it feels like a loose thread that would be satisfying to tie off...
I'll be honest, I'm probably not going to return to gaming on this channel. I will say that in hindsight my mistake was unlisting all my old gaming videos (although I was concerned with COPPA) and not moving the history videos to another channel. I could have had this TIK channel as gaming, and another TIKhistory channel for history, so that I could come back and do the odd gaming video. But now that this channel is dedicated to history, I can't release a gaming video on it.
@@TheImperatorKnight Not even as a joke? ;)
I mean, you still have your guitar videos on the channel...
@@michaelmccabe3079
I absolutely agree with you, I really got into this channel initially because of the CC gaming video. I would love to see you do one or two a year, and I think the "stick to tanks" crowd would pull their hair out, making it incredibly entertaining 🌞
@@TheImperatorKnight I think it's a good decision not to have gaming videos here; you can always release them elsewhere CZcams or otherwise and plug them here. Any gaming here would be ammunition for your detractors.
TIK-monday is indeed a good one. as anything else what you say (minus the gameing) i personally always look greatly forward to TIK-monday. unlike most,TIK's history explaination isent distorted,more over,every idiot is able to understand it more or less. i mean if i can understand it (someone zero schooling and a lack of brains) hence anyone could. but the sadly many refuse because it screws with their idealogic-socialistic believes. as i always say: work like a socialist,and spend like a capitalist :D
Read Shirer in 6th grade. I found it fascinating but honestly do not remember much of the book 40 years later. TIK is wonderful historian because he looks through a different lens.
Another incredible video TIK. Thanks to your indication I'm currently finishing reading Zitelmann's Hitler's National Socialism and my mind has been blown.
If you showed Shirer and Tooze the protein intake of ukrainians during the 30s they would say Stalin is a capitalist.
he wasn't communist that's for sure, he talked shit about it all the time.
Love the DAF insignia - the Reich had a way with graphic art.
Yes the Waffen SS logo has to be rated the number one symbol of "badass" in western culture. I always marveled at how KISS got away with using it in their band logo.
Funnily enough, George Galloway's Workers Party has a similar insignia, minus the swastika
Funny how he only "crushed the unions" if you don't count the most powerful union in the country.
the most powerful union that had no real power.
@@sjsupa It had immense power the issue was they were organs to the state.
@@hailbane9633 No "real" power. State power is power of state. In the other word, if the state did not want a strike, the Union could not strike on its own.
@@sjsupawhy would you need to strike under socialism
@@hailbane9633 no they had no independent power. They were complete subjects to the power at be. Which is the opposite idea of a genuine trad union.
I get why people like debating about this but at the end of the day I like to remind people we (should) hate hitlerism due to warmongering and genocide, not economic policies
Yet we allied with Stalin
@@yingyang1008 what's ur point?
@@closetglobe.IRGUN.NW0 We pretend we were the good guys fighting evil - yet we allied with Stalin and gave him half of Europe
Everything about WWII is nonsense
@@yingyang1008 nobody considered Stalin the good guy, it was more an expedient the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The russians paid dearly for their secret dealings with Hitler. The cold war started directly after WW2.
@Ying Yang Nazism, is inherently evil. Communism is not. It can be interpreted in many ways. I get what you mean, "yet we allied with stalin". But Nazism can only be interperted in one way which I don't need to explain you already know (atleast I hope so). That's why It was better to ally with stalin. Because Nazism is a destructive ideology.
Shirer was... a journalist and even Wikipedia writes the original manuscript of his "Berlin Diaries" bore no resemblance in its '34 to 38 entries to what was published. It had been extensively rewritten well into WWII.
Good content, TIK. I read Aly's "Hitler's Beneficiaries" about two years ago. In part because you had included it on an earlier video. Thank you.
Good to see you are discussing Tooze as I wondered when that may occur. Looking forward to this one as the uneducated on the subject like to point to this subject so as to ´win’ arguments that they do t remotely understand.
I've actually tackled Tooze before as part of another video (link czcams.com/video/-w1iZ7RqZlU/video.html ) although maybe I need to do a specific video on him at some point
Toozes grandfather was a recruiter of Soviet spies
according to Wikipaedia
@@TheImperatorKnight Oh yes, PLEASE do! That damned book has been waved like a flag..... by people who claim to hate flags.
You know who I mean.
And thanks for the link. :D
@mike mcmike. He doesn't. He relays their evidence, and shows why their conclusions don't match their own evidence. But you knew that already. All you do is consistently try to misrepresent TIK's arguments and positions. You're as bad faith as they come
what is more intresting than the war in ww2 is how those regimes were organised and their financial policies and their social changes along with it
When listening to this, I need to keep reminding myself that it's the history of Nazi Germany, not of People's Republic of Poland, because the parallels are uncanny.
Its almost as if they were both far leftists
@@wtice4632 Or perhaps the Bolsheviks and their puppet governments were also not really leftists in practice by 1945, but solely concerned with their own power as Orwell described.
TIK is doing what all the historians should do. Thank you TIK.
You're always doing real history work, its fantastic.
Another fantastic video TIK, thank you!
Some aspects of the trade unions were “crushed” but they still existed. Banning of other political parties meant much of their power was stripped. “We will vote for Communists next election if you don’t do this” was no longer a thing the Unions could do.
Disagreeing with the Party on anything was no longer a thing that unions could do. That means DAF was a sham and a means of state control over both workers and employers, not a union.
It is ironic that the unions lose their power when their ideology becomes the dominant power.
Saying unions got crushed implies they banned all unions and employers had free reign to exploit workers which is the narrative leftists try to paint and its a complete fabrication of history. Unions were centralized or nationalized into DAF which was the state union. Every socialist regime nation in history has gotten rid of private unions and centralized them into organs of the state. When you read history books about those regimes suddenly historians give context and do not claim at all that these regimes crushed unions just that they centralized them. Yet when the Third Reich does the same exact thing they try to paint this stupid narrative for some reason. TIK is correct in saying many historians are biased and liars.
Interesting piece of history that nobody knows about and is often overlooked by most people. Thanks for sharing your work with us again mate ❤😊
Another thing almost all historians of the German State ignore is this: how did the DDR stand up and succeed so quickly? How did the Eastern part of Germany so seamlessly integrate from a Capitalist state to a Soviet style socialist state so fast? Well, as one DDR veteran told me after the reunification (I was stationed in Germany at the time), "the DDR was simply a continuation of NAZI Germany under new central management--a socialist state became a socialist state. There was no transition at all, simply a rebranding of the old system. In fact, the people in charge rarely changed at all". Mr. Brandt was a man wise beyond his education and I have never forgotten his insights into how what we mistakenly call "fascism" is nothing but a branding of socialism for marketing reasons.
Well said xx
Completely idiotic and absurd. West Germany was full of nazis , the stated policy of the DDR was to expel nazis. You know nothing about the DDR but what some idiot told you about it. Yeah one veteran says something that’s all you need to hear right. Never mind that the DDR nationalized the economy , capitalism to you is just when ??? What do you think socialism and capitalism even are ? You want to understand the ddr look up hopper the Marxist, or look up socialist swan, or badmouseproductions video on the ddr.
Hitler privatized huge swaths of the economy, even the word “privatization” was coined for what hitler did in Germany - hitler also EXPELLED the only actually economically socialist wing of the Nazi party, aka the strasser faction and killed the strasser brothers. It is WELL known that hitler got his support and funding from wealthy German industrialists. The very reason hitler even became the premiere / head of the reichstag was because far right wing leaders plotted to put him into power, along with the backing of Bon Hindenburg and schlecter , in order to destroy the German communist and socialist parties. These are historical FACTS. To say hitler was a socialist is just a crazy absurdity. It’s the act of someone who desperately wants to believe hitler was a socialist facts do not support this ridiculous notion. And yes,, he DID crush trade unions and replace them with a Nazi version. If hitler was a socialist major parts of the economy would have been nationalized. Hitler spoke endlessly about how socialism and Marxism were evil. Stick to talking about how battle groups attack eachother on fancy maps that’s your speciality you clearly do not understand the actual history of the Nazi party or what socialism actually is or means. He literally set nazi brown shirt into the streets to attack and kill socialists.
@@maryfinnfan4140 horribly and stupidly said that makes zero sense read a book idiott
I would argue that "fascism" is socialism for a narrowly-defined ethnic or national group, with the out-group being either enslaved or exploited. Theoretically, "true socialism" would be socialism for all members of the society. In practice, "true socialism" tends to lead to the leadership of the "socialist" state living in luxury while everyone below them lives in poverty and misery. Whether that is a consequence of "true socialism" as a concept, or the states where it is implemented, is a debate for another time.
@@bludfyre ALL socialism has an ingroup and an outgroup. Most open proponents of "true socialism" today would classify it as "oppressor" v. "oppressed" as a development from "proletariat" v. "bourgeois". There will always be a managerial class in a managed society, and socialists merely argue with each other over who that class should be. Hierarchy is inescapable because it either forms naturally under lassiez-faire meritocracy (with a healthy rotation of membership) or it is created artificially to impose the managerial controls that socialism inherently requires. You MIGHT be able to circumvent hierarchy by isolating your group to a micro scale, but I would argue even then it is an unstable state.
TL;DW: Hitler didn't crush the trade unions, he collectivized them.
This was glorious, hats off to you. I needed to cleanse my soul after watching an abhorrent video here on youtube from a socialist activist (Second Thought) denying the socialist part of national socialism. Keep up the good work!
Yeah, people have asked me to respond to him in the past, but it's pointless because he just restated all the regular arguments I've already refuted in my "Hitler's Socialism" video. There's not point repeating myself
@@TheImperatorKnight Breadtubers treat debate like a war of attrition: they repeat their lies over and over until you give up, then they declare themselves the winner
@@TheImperatorKnight good on you👍
'That wasn't True Socialism, True Socialism has never been tried!" It's what they always say to us, while at the same time telling us "Now, let's try all of the exact same things those 'fake socialists' already tried over and over and failed at, as if it's never been tried before, because that's what we need to do to achieve True Socialism!!"
I was absolutely horrified to see on their channel a video saying you shouldn’t hear both sides of an argument, when he is patently wrong about his own statements. It’s dangerous what he’s doing
As a Canadian with universal “healthcare”, I don’t recommend it either…
Feel free to visit our neighbours to the South then
But it’s “free”😂
@@Biggestfoo I’d prefer to have to pay thousands of pounds out of pocket then to be told to just kys when I have a back problem.
@@toplak As free as the cheese on the trap!
@@TheImperatorKnight Definitely. Keep up the great work🙌.
Come on, we all know it didn't matter to the Nazis if an institution was socialist, what mattered is if it was under the control of Nazis.
Like Ukraine
In this case,the nazifaction of institutions is socialist because there the government.
Just like all socialists
Yes, the object of socialism is fooling people into giving you power over them.
It does not appear that you understand the implications of confronting the accepted narrative that not sees were right wing. Or maybe you do and are just trying to deceive.
Another great video as always.
You're doing phenomenal work tik. Keep it up, please.
How come it's "evil" for businesses to take part of the worker's product, but not for unions or government to take part of the product?
B is for "business" and "bad". G is for "government" and "good". Simple.
You aren't allowed to ask these questions.
2 problems:
-assuming that business would be taking part of value (instead of creating it), then cooperatives would flourish as simply offering higher income
-you are free to choose employer, while you are not free to choose to which government to pay tax without changing the place you live (setting aside any philosophical debate, even some flawed competition is reigning a bit the other side of contract)
There are a few places where TIKs views are quite dogmatic, while you somehow were able to actually challenge the stronger part.
The Nazi workers were treated like feudal peasants, but Nazi Germany was socialist.
This is because socialism is a rebranding of feudalism. It just renames "peasants" to "workers", "knights" to "commissars", "nobles" to "party members", and "king" to "dear leader".
Is socialism was feudalism than why was the word socialist created then?
@@proeramoka9168 because Marx thought that he made a new system without realizing that he just copied medieval Europe's homework.
Authoritarian regimes may use different propaganda, but they all run the same. Marxist propaganda appeals to envy, Fascist propaganda appeals to pride, Nazi propaganda appeals to disgust, Feudalist propaganda appeals to self righteousness. The propaganda is different, the uniforms look different, but they are all functionally the same.
@@proeramoka9168 re-branding so "masters" could trick "followers" (new slaves) into slavery under a new name
No its not. That the dumbest comment I've ever read.
@@dannydacheedo1592yes in one dimension they function the same. The dimension of "government does stuff". What is more important is WHY government does stuff, and what they do specifically. What you are trying to say is that both the USSR and Nazi Germany were totalitarian. dictatorships.
These videos are so important! Thank you!
That was a very fascinating video, and I enjoyed every second of it. Thank you
Thanks TIK; I always thought the Nazis were socialists; it boggles my mind that people put forward the narrative that they weren't and you have to make videos like this. Reading material on the Nazis from before the war make it clear they were and were seen as socialist.
I too thought they were hard right wingers until I opened my eyes (thanks Tik), too bad my very leftist friends group is adamant on this matter. I have a theory, it's not that people are dumb, it's just when presented with the facts, they can't cope with the notion of nazis and fascist being socialist leftists as well, which might prompt the question in their closed minds: "Are we the baddies?"
Yes, Hitler certain upheld the socialist ideals of divulging ownership of the workplace to the workers and revoking private ownership of capital. That is also why the unions became owned by the state, corporate entities continued to exist, and the concept of ‘privatization’ was a term literally invented in the 1930s to describe the Nazi economic model.
.
Tik is a great historian, but he’s an absolute knob when it comes to politics. Don’t let one person telling you what you want to hear be the confirmation of a belief so obviously absurd.
@@lucasqualls5086 no, the creation of Lebensraum for (German) society is a social goal. It might have been a racist genocidal form of socialism but they were clearly socialist.
@@lucasqualls5086 it has already been explained that the nazi term "privatization" was nationalization, which just like the USSR was socialist.
@@billbolton bro what. You didn’t respond with any rebuttal of them not being socialist. Like, give me one, a SINGLE example of the Nazis divulging ownership of an industry to the workers, or in anyway increase the democratic power of laborers.
.
Simply forcing all workers to join the DAP and forcing policies for them isn’t a union, and it isn’t socialist. It’s a dictatorial government operating through a sham institution. Did the Nazis pass workers right reforms and wage increases? Yes. But so did FDR. Is FDR a socialist now? Not to mention many of the rights conveniently disappeared as they drew closer to war and ramped up the arms industry.
In the socialist utopia where all your needs are taken care of, why do you need wages anyway?
Because its actually impossible to produce infinite amount of goods and satisfy all your needs?
@@rafradeki Yes society can. In the socialist utopia where everything is provided you don't need hundreds of items to choose from. The state can produce one style of pants, one make of car, one model of coffee maker, on and on. Socialism is not about luxury or what the people want, it's what the people need to survive and that is all you get comrade.
They lived through hyperinflation. Hitler of course intended to bring them security at the expense of other Europeans and possibly the world.
@@sonnyjim5268 It sure seemed like it was about luxury to Willi Munzenberg.
@@sonnyjim5268 that's why it's called utopia
This really opened my eyes. As someone who finds Fascism and Nazism FACINATING to study, this guy really brings the historical aspects no one talks about, or misunderstands, to light. Great vid. Thanks for your (ENDLESS) research and content.
Would love if you could cover operation overcast aka operation paperclip because some of the high level scientists were from IG Farben. Keep up the great work.
Outstanding video, TIK. Thank you for continuing to share the products of your dedicated efforts for all these years since you started creating history videos.
Hey TIK, have you had a chance to read Overy’s new book “Blood and Ruins”?
I found it very interesting, he offers the interpretation that imperialism was the primary driver for the war, and how the world war was the both the natural outcome of 19th/20th century empire building, and how the war both caused imperialism to reach its high water mark but also led to its rapid destruction as a institution.
You should definitely give it a reaD if you have a chance
I was lucky enough to have this book assigned for a class on WW2. It was so good I read past the assigned chapters and finished the book!
Excellent work, TIK
Thanks for this video. It was enlightening !
Hitler that inconvenient person of history. Authors fear of sharing any similarities throws identity turmoil in the works.
32:50 so the « Nazi Socialism » benefited the workers or not? You change your mind 20 times in the video 😂😂😂
Great video~ keep up the good work.
Great vid as usual.
Thanks TIK.
I don't really understand how trade unions could be bad for the workers. They can be a community who supports the workers rights if the government and employers keep f*cking up. Like what many nurses are doing right now here in Finland. I think trade unions are for the most part good, as long as they are not too influenced by the state. Also, I would love to know what is your alternative to state healthcare etc. I personally think it's good to have both public and private sectors. I get the point that taxes suck, but what is your alternative to help people who are poor and can't afford healthcare in private hospitals that seek a profit. I like your videos a lot, but at some points you sound more like a politician than a historian, like you have all the answers how the world should be run. I'd like to hear more of those answers then, and in greater detail. Just some contructive criticism here, i still like your channel a lot.
He wants to be challenged and proven wrong but people just haven’t had convincing arguments. Trade unions aren’t always bad…nor are they always good. Power corrupts absolutely. And if that’s not the case, then others take advantage of the system meant to help those in need. The problem isn’t necessarily the trade unions. It’s those in charge. The people at some cases become the problem too. For example, Coca Cola where I’m from has a trade Union in place. Great right? Protect workers rights and all. Unfortunately people decided that they’d rather pretend to be sick to get out of it and get sick pay. Forcing others to pick up the slack. I have a friend there who works 6 to 7 days a week because it’s that or he loses his job. The trade Union does nothing to help him.
I agree. I also agree with most of what TIK says, but he seems quite tunnel visioned sometimes.
I don't see an alternative form of healthcare funding which would be more efficient and avoid massive exploitation of people.
Car insurance is already awful to deal with and vets bills can get massive. Dentistry is pretty much private in the UK already and its a pain if you get a problem.
Travel insurance is a pain to buy, reading the small print on policies and all that.
The union's in the UK are getting nurses a pay rise too. The government would not do that otherwise, which sucks.
I work for a large company and would not get a pay rise anywhere near in line with inflation if not for out trade unions. In my company the structure is very rigid and the only way I'd get a pay rise otherwise would be to switch jobs.
I agree sometimes unions can be bad, but they are the only tool to effectively combat companies and government from taking advantage of and abusing workers. They give the workers leverage they otherwise wouldn't have.
Look at when the Invergordon Mutiny in 1931 where the government tries to slash RN sailors pay massively to make cuts. The strike (which most officers unofficially supported basically) forced the government to accept a much more reasonable pay cut. The sailors effectively formed a trade union to organise the strike.
There are countless examples where trade unions have stopped or at least limited the abuse of workers and negotiated proper compensation and better workers rights. Some unions do get very militant and idealistic though and cause too much disruption to regularly, without a clear goal
@@Joshua-fi4ji maybe don't have the government print endless amount of money for proxy wars and wellfare so you don't have inflation in the first place. The government fucks up the economy, the Private companies adjust to the reality and then the worker gets mad at the company and through unions asks the government which caused the inflation to begin with for more state enforced regulations on the company which makes the company adjust and cut corners even more to stay well in the green and the cycle continues. It's insane how no one learns and does the same thing again and again. I'd wager If the unions historically went after the government for it's spending habits instead of the companies and businesses, the workers would have a much better living standards.
@@parlyramyar
I know the causes of inflation, but the average person has 0 control over that. Especially when the masses are stupid and you live in a 2 party state where both options are bad.
Government is not good, but neither are corporations. Unions are a tool for fighting back against corporations, even if sometimes they go too far.
Large corporations care about the share price above all else. They will take advantage of any opportunities to abuse and underpay their workforce if they think they can get away with it. They will also natural attain monopolies, which is good for no one, without government interference.
The reasons for the printing of so much money are tied to political ideology and vanity projects. Unfortunately the average person has no control over either.
The housing market being broken doesn't help either. It forces people on minimum wage (which is a lot of jobs) to claim benefits just to get by.
Governments can and will continue to cause inflation as they have for decades and they'll always find a scapegoat. The most you can do is try to manage the consequences.
@Joshua the governments do what the people allow and they can get away with it just as you say the corporations do. It's interesting you think governments prevent monopolization when in reality government interference is the main driver of companies becoming monopolized. The harder you make it on businesses the easier it is for the already established business to crush any competition and become a large corporation with monopoly over a particular market. The corporations will abuse the worker because the government gives them that privilege, like you said it wouldn't if it affected their profits and the best way for a business to lose profits is to have competition in the market from other businesses which don't exist thanks to the government interference on behalf of the trade unions. The trade union doesn't make things better. It only plays the game set by the government and the corporations. You wouldn't have to use a trade union and beg for pay raises if your work was valued, the company would have to beg you to work for them instead at a good wage cause of the high value of your work . And the best way to increase the value of anything including work is to increase the demand for it and/or decrease its availability making it rare. With trade unions and the government and corporations continuing to raise wages through state enforcement instead of free market forces, smaller businesses run out of money, and so can't compete for your work, which decreases the demand for your work which makes your works value drop which gives the corporation more business and you begging them for a work and a pay raise because your works value has dropped. And your solution to this is to do this even more and use more government intervention for more state enforced regulations instead of market forces and repeat the same cycle because somehow going against the government for causing the situation in which corporations take advantage of isn't as good going against the corporation? Do you not see how your trade union solution is adding to the problem you are complaining of? As long as your works value is dropped thanks to government interference, you are simply gonna be begging for another pay raise after a while through the trade union in just a couple of years in order to keep up with inflation which itself is againcaused by the government. Essentially the government has caused your wage stagnation problem through interference which it pretends to "fix" through more interference on behalf of trade unions, a fix which it then proceeds to destroys through more interference by causing inflation and the cycle continues. Man aren't the trade unions great at managing consequences!! Helping the government by kicking the ball down the line and keeping workers on a cycle of poverty and handouts! So great!!
Hitlers credentials as a socialist
Hitler referred to himself and his policies as socialist he railed against Capitalism as well as Communism. Nazism and fascism were a form of socialism that used state control of the means of production without necessarily having state ownership of the means of production. The third Reich was one of the most heavily regulated economies ever!
A Business owner in Nazi Germany would find.
-Wage rates were set by the state,
-the prices he could sell consumer goods for were set by the state price Kommissar.
-a permit would be needed to buy most raw materials he needed.
-the interest rates he could borrow money at would be set by the state. Banking was highly regulated.
-He might be forced to produce for the military, if so the return on investment he was allowed to make was set by regulation, this removed all incentive to be efficient.
-and of course the corporate tax rate was doubled by Hitler within the first five years of his power.
Hitlers view on workers unions was basically that there should be Nazi party Unions to represent workers interests. They shouldn’t use strikes once a Nazi State was established but there should be a higher authority that would consider employers and worker interests before setting wages and working conditions, ie the state should set wages.
Hitler extended pensions, he set up state subsidised holidays for workers that belonged to the nazi workers union, he ran massive work provision schemes that built things like the autobahns.
Does that sound National SOCIALIST to you?
The Nazi regulation got so bad that a farmer wanting to kill his own pig to eat had to get permission from a Nazi party official to do this.
@@jonathanpersson1205 Well to be fair here. It was no longer the farmers pig he wanted to kill. It belonged to the party, which is why he needed a permission.
I do not always follow your points of view. But I always listen to you for you are a good one. Thanks for this spotlight.
Very interesting video. Good job TIK.
Hey TIK, one question: is there a possibility of looking into taxation policy in the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany era? I don't mean just quotes from books, I mean the hard numbers? Probably the best way to determine whether a state is capitalist or socialist - or a mixture of those - must be a comparison of its taxation policy (and the governmental use of this money) with other states of the same era.
@@Edax_Royeaux as far as I know, the USA has taxes as well, so your argument isn't particularly convincing
I think he means the % tax. But I still think this isn't a reliable method.
the nazis did a trick called push all the negative aspects on to the undesirables because they feared a revolting german population
Corporation's usually bribe/fund both left and right parties. It's called hedging your bet.
No man is an island. I mean even libertarians who claim to be free of this need an in-group to promote their agenda.
Thank you for your work!
Great episode!
A good film TIK subjects like this need to be explored as does any narrative, which in some cases date from just after the war ended and have gone on being quoted without any attempt to investigate all the new sources and data that has become available in the last 78 years.
For anyone who'd still say the national socialists were fascists, or capitalists, this is only a fraction of the mountain of evidence across 5 other videos, and a 4 hour documentary in this channel.
I don't envy your quest to take on a topic that shouldn't be so diffiicult to debate after 80 years, Tik.
Wonderful video, as usual.
It's odd how difficult this debate is. I've got people straight up denying everything - all the evidence, both primary and secondary sources - just to defend the idea that Hitler was a capitalist. It's insanity.
Feels good to be able to watch some good ol fashioned tik
Thanks again brother
Thanks TIK, more things I didn't know, as I'd been educated on the old viewpoint! 🙏🙏
You should make a video about "Europe - The Last Battle" and "The Greatest Story Never Told" and show how "true" those documentaries are.
They would use that as an excuse to yeet his channel.
I think he was watching Greatest Story and thought of it as laughable. I'm sure if more people asked he'd do it. I think I recall a dude with a face tat being interviewed near the beginning in Europa lol...
Without notes and bibliography one cant check on authors.... I don't know why history books are published without them. But even if they are present one has to check the sources. I have often found these sources to be wrong or misunderstood. A common tactic is to list multiple sources but when checked out .. the are all based on the same source. I've been reading about WW 2 and Germany for over 50 years. This doesn't make me an expert but it has made me aware of trends in historical interpretation that one has to consider. ( I relay on books as I can't practically view original sources.) I was impressed with Speer's and Guderian's books but now am more skeptical as I have read more that makes it clear to me they are not always honest or were correct in their memories . One has to read a broad range of books on a subject if you are trying to understand any subject. Most authors on WW 2 Germany clearly don't understand Nazi dogma. and don't know that they don't know. That leads to misunderstandings .
Thanks TIK.
Thanks TIK for another great video
Thank you, TIKhistory.
One huge issue as well that i see is the differing definition of the term "Corporation" between Capitalist and Fascist systems. Fascist Corporatism is collectivist system.
TIK i love your content. Please be well. You stress a lot to give us the content you do. It shows, we appreciate it please dont stop.
Thanks for the great video! Keep up the great work, and continue to rest and recharge.
Brilliant work Tik !
A historian willing and brave enough to question the general narrative... Hooray!!
You have my attention.
@nicholastime1513 you are right... he is a HONEST historian.
TIK has introduced forgotten but crucial pieces of history on very niche topics that provide context for the topics all the main history youtubers discuss but never dive into this deep.
Thanks for the video Tik
I know you're probably most well known for your "BattleStorm" series, but I find your economic videos to be my favorite. It's one thing to just dispel the myths about the Nazi economy, but to explain what socialism is, does, and aims to do is an important task in this day and age of people demanding for something they don't fully comprehend.
It’s actually insane to me how almost everything I was taught about WWII is a complete fabrication of the truth. I can’t thank you enough for these videos as they provide excellent points backed up with credible sources and have really made me start questioning things. I really wish I had the time to further study history.
National Socialism preserved private property, while also putting the entire resources of society at the service of an expansionist and racist national vision, which included the conquest and murderous subjugation of other peoples. It makes no sense to think that the sole, or even the primary, negative aspect of this regime was the fact that it used state power to allocate financial resources. It makes as little sense to suggest that using state power to allocate some financial resources today will automatically result in the same dire consequences.
@@Tkeist890 but no one said that
@CheneyChamp01. Absolute denialist cope drivel.
"But Hitler crushed the trade union" - so did the communists. Are these people who think Hitler was a capitalist saying Stalin and Mao were capitalists too? Independent trade unions only exist in capitalist liberal democracies, not in socialist dictatorships.
Excellent video
This really is "It didn't work, and it had an appointed hierarchy, so it must have been capitalist!". 😮
Tiks rant on taxes and social security and the NHS makes sense for him now when he is young and healthy. He is indeed paying for other peoples health care. But at some point in all our lives we will get sick or injured or get old and then we will need someone else to pay for us.
Otherwise you have the American situation where medical cost are so high and so few can afford private insurance, unless it’s paid for by you employer lowering wages, that for many of you get sick it can drive you to bankruptcy and homelessness.
As for the tax on petrol that funds road construction and maintenance, without that then a toll would have to be placed on every road. Roads are a service that we pay for with taxes.
His argument is as dumb as saying “My house has never caught fire so why should I pay for a Fire department. I have never been robbed so why should I pay for a police force. My nation has never been invaded so why should I pay for a military.”
Why is it necessary to make the most corrupt institution in man’s history a middle man in caring for each other communally?
So what you're saying is that he doesn't have principles.
thank you for this video, and for speaking so clearly the idiom; for we not english speakers is easy to follow, I think. In Spain with Franco, the authorities finished with Labour Unions and created the Sindicato Vertical, according to Wikipedia ;) a way of guaranteeing state control of Labour world.
"And I'm not referring to Goring"
Nice 😂
Thank you TIK!