Why they don't tell you about Hitler's "Shrinking Markets" problem 

*Sources* Can’t wait to get put on “Bad History” again on Reddit to be ‘refuted’ by an inter-Nazi using two sources, one of which is Wikipedia… or to be told to “read a book” by other Nazis... Aly, G. “Hitler’s Beneficiaries: How the Nazis Bought the German People.” Verso, 2016. (Original German 2005). Barkai, A. “Nazi Economics: Ideology, Theory, and Policy.” Yale University Press, 1990. Bel, G. "Against the mainstream: Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany." Universitat de Barcelona, PDF. Birchall, I. “The Spectre of Babeuf.” Haymarket Books, 2016. Bosworth, R. “Mussolini’s Italy: Life under the Dictatorship 1915-1945.” Penguin Books, Kindle 2006. Brown, A. "How 'socialist' was National Socialism?" Kindle, 2015. Engels, F “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.” Written, 1880. Progress Publishers, 1970. Evans, R. “The Coming of the Third Reich.” Penguin Books, Kindle 2004. Dilorenzo, T. “The Problem with Socialism.” Regnery Publishing, Kindle 2016. Farrell, N. "Mussolini: A New Life." Endeavour Press Ltd, Kinde 2015. Feder, G. "The Programme of the NSDAP: The National Socialist German Worker's Party and its General Conceptions." RJG Enterprises Inc, 2003. Feder, G. "The German State on a National and Socialist Foundation." Black House Publishing LTD, 2015. Friedman, M. “Capitalism and Freedom: Fortieth Anniversary Edition.” university of Chicago, Kindle 2002. (originally published in 1962) Grand, A. "Italian Fascism: It's Origins and & Development." University of Nebraska Press, 2000. Geyer, M. & Fitzpatrick, S. "Beyond Totalitarianism: Stalinism and Nazism Compared." Cambridge University Press, Kindle 2009. Hazlitt, H. “Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest & Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics.” Three Rivers Press, 1979. (originally published 1946) Hibbert, C. “Mussolini: The Rise and Fall of Il Duce.” St Martin’s Press Griffin, 2008. Joseph Goebbels and Mjölnir, Die verfluchten Hakenkreuzler. Etwas zum Nachdenken (Munich: Verlag Frz. Eher, 1932). (English translation) Hobsbawm, E. "The Age of Extremes: 1914-1991." Abacus, 1995. Hoppe, H. “A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism.” Kindle. Hitler. A. “Mein Kampf.” Jaico Books, 2017. Hitler, A. "Zweites Buch (Secret Book): Adolf Hitler's Sequel to Mein Kampf." Jaico Publishing House, 2017. Kershaw, I. “Hitler: 1936-1945 Nemesis.” Penguin Books, 2001. Kershaw, I. “Stalinism and Nazism: Dictatorships in Comparison.” Cambridge University Press, Kindle 2003. Keynes, J. "National Self-Sufficiency," The Yale Review, Vol. 22, no. 4 (June 1933), pp. 755-769. Marx, K. “Capital: A Critique of Political Economy: Volume I Book One: The Process of Production of Capital.” PDF of 1887 English edition, 2015. Marx, K. “Capital: A Critique of Political Economy: Volume III Book One.” PDF of 1894, English edition, 2010. Marx, K. “Capital: A Critique of Political Economy: Volume III Book One.” PDF, English edition, 2010. (Originally written 1894) Marx, K. “Capital: A Critique of Political Economy: Volume III Book One.” Penguin Classics, Kindle edition. (Originally written 1894) Mises, L. "Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis." Liberty Fund, 1981. 1969 edition (roots back to 1922). Moorhouse, R. "The Devil's Alliance: Hitler's Pact with Stalin, 1939-1941." Random House Group, Ebook (Google Play) 2014. Mosley, O. "Fascism: 100 Questions Asked and Answered." Black House Publishing, Kindle 2019. Muravchik, J. “Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism.” Encounter Books, Kindle. Mussolini, B. “The Doctrine of Fascism.” Kindle, Originally published in 1932. Newman, M. “Socialism: A Very Short Introduction.” Kindle. Luxemburg, R. “The Accumulation of Capital.” Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd, 1951. (Originally written in 1913.) Luxemburg, R. “The National Question” 1910. Reimann, G. “The Vampire Economy: Doing Business under Fascism.” Kindle, Mises Institute, 2007. Originally written in 1939. Siedentop, L. “Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism.” Penguin Books, Kindle. Smith, A. “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.” Kindle. Sowell, T. “Economic Facts and Fallacies: Second Edition.” Kindle. Sowell, T. “The Housing Boom and Bust.” Kindle. Spengler, O. “Prussianism and Socialism.” Isha Books, 2013. First Published 1920. Temin, P. “Soviet and Nazi Economic Planning in the 1930s.” From The Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 44, No. 4 (Nov., 1991), pp. 573-593 (21 pages). Jstor. Tooze, A. “Wages of Destruction: The Making & Breaking of The Nazi Economy.” Penguin Books, 2007. Young, Adam. "Nazism is Socialism." The Free Market 19, no. 9 (September 2001). Zitelmann, R. “Hitler: The Politics of Seduction.” London House, 1999. The American Economic Review, Vol. 1, No. 2, Papers and Discussions of the Twenty-third Annual Meeting (Apr., 1911), pp. 347-354 Hitler’s Confidential Memo on Autarky (August 1936) germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/pdf/eng/English61.pdf Deficit Spending in the Nazi Recovery, 1933-1938: A Critical Reassessment personal.lse.ac.uk/ritschl/pdf_files/ritschl_dec2000.pdf Sir Oswald Mosley | Interview | Thames Television | 1975 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-HNhF28fzN9I.html (Accessed 04/10/2018) de.wikisource.org/wiki/Reichstagsbrandverordnung home.wlu.edu/~patchw/His_214/_handouts/Weimar%20constitution.htm en.wikisource.org/wiki/Weimar_constitution www.zum.de/psm/weimar/weimar_vve.php www.marxists.org/archive/fromm/works/1961/man/ch06.htm wiki.mises.org/wiki/Inflation_in_Nazi_Germany “A nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.” en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/state Mises "Planned Chaos" (an excerpt from "Socialism: An Economic & Sociological Analysis) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-7EnHeZXLzTc.html For a list of all my books on WW2 and similar, please visit this link docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/114GiK85MPs0v4GKm0izPj3DL2CrlJUdAantx5GQUKn8/edit?usp=sharing

I'm getting the idea that TIK doesn't really like socialism.

"When two girls share one cup"?! Long forgotten images suddenly come back to mind while I'm having dinner. Thanks for nothing, mate.

Naming inflation as a "silent tax" is brilliant!

When I entered college I was a keen, and devoted Econ major. After two years of only being taught Keynes, and Marx I finally switched majors to data science and haven’t looked back since.

I was taught “shrinking markets theory” in my economic classes as well, but it wasn’t taught me by a Marxist. Honestly, I couldn’t tell you what the political leanings of my economics professor was because he kept it to himself. Instead the “shrinking markets theory” was a passing subject.

Not saying that your point is wrong, but I dont believe that you can just plot political idealogies on a 1D scale

"Propaganda ministry... also known as the BBC"

Did Tik just say “Two Girls One Cup”???

Hold on, why of all people is Keynes considered a MARXIST Socialist? Where did that come from? Keynes supported capitalism through his concepts of government interventionism and deficit spending to get out of an economic recession or depression rather than the reckless concept of laissez-faire. And never have I ever read that he supported the Shrinking Economy. Did you confuse the concept of Shrinking Economies with the concept of shrinking production during an economic downpour?

You just earned yourself a subscription. Finally a historian who doesn't just study the past out of obsessive curiosity, but who actually seek to make apply its lesson for today

I am not really on the same boat considering your rant on: socialism => Totalitarism => Marxism. Any state that is democratic in nature, will in some presence, have the tendency to distribute means over a its population: e.g. it be infrastructure, educational / medical support programs, subsidies, etc. Reasons for this can be very practical: Improving education, health, infrastructure and reducing severe poverty helps reducing crime, promote satisfaction of the populous and helps maximizing productivity of a population. This is not an artificial thing either, if a government would not do this on state level, than other social constructs like local municipalities, neighborhoods, family ties or clans would take their obligation to redistribute means to the extend they seem fit. The liberal mind-set would make this completely voluntary (alto social and/or family pressure still would impose some obligation) or you make it mandatory by means of jurisdictional means, which at least (should) make redistribution simpler to interpret and 'fairer', cause it will be mandatory for everyone. Might not be the best, but it is a practical solution an nation wide populations. (excuse me, if I make errors in this reasoning, I am not claiming to be an expert on state-craft, but I'm willing to discuss). The way how you want to promote it can be on the left side (with a tendency to make it state controlled) or right side (a tendency to promote private corporations to take up the distribution of means). In al practical senses, you still end up with some part of this redistribution mechanism to be state controlled, cause public outrage when faults (inevitably) occur demand action from politics. Your presentation goes into a way where 'socialism', as currently used modern political systems, is in essence and unavoidable on the path of totalitarians. Especially with the pictures you show at the end. (IMO teachers striking for more funds makes sense, as most social-democratic still promote private property / private income, where in a lot of countries the education system is (partially) state-funded. Striking makes sense, as it asks for another balance of state expenses). I don't know if this is really your point of view or maybe is is a way showing how you object to modern political systems to use the term socialism, while this is probably not the goal for the majority of their voters (or party) anymore. (And lets be honest, Marxism is a very radical way of creating something like an economic Endlösung, that in reality is probably not compatible with how human nature works. It is by all means a theoretical approach). My personal opinions are a bit conservative / technocratic: but making something purely private or purely state-owned does not at all guarantee at all that something works as intended or at all. Especially if you remove means to make people accountable (e.g. monopolies, political corruption, nepotism) even the nicest 'dressed up' ambitions risk ending up in the gutter. This is where totalitarian states, or nations with a heavy balance on state control, risk up ending into. But, if wealth is power (IMO wealth opens possibilities), an to much uneven distribution of means is also a way of control, as long as society does not raise possibilities to improve your social status if you don't have the wealth. How to balance this, is the challenge. IMO no extremist solution will suffice, as they always are based on the view that 'somebody is smarter, righteous, or strong enough' to decide how to govern, not humble enough to realize that they inevitably will end up creating organizations that are 'strong' and efficient, but also easily manipulated, mismanaged or abused from within because they are from the start created on a basis that excludes open discussion.

I was under the age of 10 when I started studying military history--I'm 55 now, so I don't remember exactly--and by the time I was a teenager I was faced with the problem of how these supposedly ideologically-opposite dictatorships managed to work out to be essentially the same thing. I finally decided that the political spectrum was a circle rather than a line, and that Hitler and Stalin were at the ends and standing back-to-back, being the same murderous things while screaming that the other one sucks. Your explanation makes a lot more sense.

This was exceptional. Not only is the research excellent, the injection of humor (into a very unpalatable topic) was welcomed. I actually laughed out loud a couple times, which I certainly didn’t expect. Keep your head up, and keep doing the incredibly important work that you do, good sir. Don’t let hateful socialists get you down, you’re on the path you belong.

Can you do a separate video explaining how Keynes is a socialist?

At this rate TIK will be an AnCap by the end of the years screeching on about anime and roads.

Hey TIK couple of things: I) I think you are mixing a wide range of view into one vague stereotype. For example All Academics are Marxists + Marxists deny the Holocaust would mean that the majority of published books deny the Holocaust which is not the case. It maybe that a lot of academics tend to be left, but there is no such thing as a big Marxist conspiracy. To underline my point: Im studying at maybe The most left Uni in Germany and the things you've said in the video were all mentioned in my introduction to Nationalsocialism. Although I admit they were not directly formed into a giant HITLER WAS SOCIALIST. But the facts are on the table for everyone and you can't explain the success of the Naziregime without its socialist policies. II) I think you are simplifying NS ideology to fit your argumentation. Because the disapproval of the liberal capitalist world market is heavily linked with a general disapproval of modernity. Especially modern culture as in art or architecture. III)Also were the Nazis less focused on the socialization of the economy in general. They were only a few great efforts to create large directly controlled companies, the question is whether the regime felt that it had the power to do so. Instead was the acquisition of resources the focus of the wars in the east. Because resources rather than trade were in the minds of Nazi ideology the key to wealth. IV) You really should get of you high horse when it comes to the supposed greatness of capitalism. I won't say that it's inherently bad, you should remember that most big bankers after the collapse of 2007 came to the central banks pleading for as much state intervention as they could get to save their asses. So much to the great ability of the markets to regulate themselves.

"Das Krapital" had me actually laugh out loud

TIK at 1:48 in the video you made me fall off my chair. You state that the theory about the rate of profit falling as a tendency has something to do with falling profit and population increase. Now I know that Smith Ricardo and Marx all had theories about the falling rate of profit. None to my knowledge thought that population increase was a function. Here's the Wikipedia explanation "Smith In Adam Smith's TRPF theory, the falling tendency resulted from increased competition which accompanied the growth of capital. Intensifying competition itself would drive down the average profit rate.[13] Ricardo Criticizing Adam Smith, David Ricardo argued that competition could only level out differences in profit rates on investments in production, but not lower the general profit rate (the grand-average profit rate) as a whole.[14] Apart from a few exceptional cases, Ricardo claimed, the average rate of profit could only fall if wages rose.[15] Marx In Capital, Karl Marx criticized Ricardo's idea. Marx argued that, instead, the tendency of the rate of profit to fall is "an expression peculiar to the capitalist mode of production of the progressive development of the social productivity of labor".[16] Marx never denied that profits could contingently fall for all kinds of reasons,[16] but he thought there was also a structural reason for the TRPF, regardless of conjunctural market fluctuations. Marx argued that technological innovation enabled more efficient means of production. Physical productivity would increase as a result, i.e. a greater output (of use values, i.e., physical output) would be produced, per unit of capital invested. Simultaneously, however, technological innovations would replace people with machinery, and the organic composition of capital would increase. Assuming only labor can produce new additional value, this greater physical output would embody a gradually decreasing value and surplus value, relative to the value of production capital invested. In response, the average rate of industrial profit would therefore tend to decline in the longer term. It declined in the long run, Marx argued, paradoxically not because productivity decreased, but instead because it increased, with the aid of a bigger investment in equipment and materials.[17] ..... The central idea that Marx had, was that overall technological progress has a long-term "labor-saving bias", and that the overall long-term effect of saving labor time in producing commodities with the aid of more and more machinery had to be a falling rate of profit on production capital, quite regardless of market fluctuations or financial constructions.[19]

Good points. And the strangest thing of it: all the information were in front of literally everyone in the whole time...

9:46 Goebbels's Propaganda Ministry, also known as the BBC. 😂😂😂

Could you do a video on the UK's economy post WW2? I'd like to see your ideas about the post war consensus, BBC, NHS and how the UK economy could be improved! Great vid by the way, it's worrying to see so many socialists still struggling to maintain faith despite the overwhelming arguments against their religion.

Your channel is the best thing I found on RU-vid in DECADES.

I'm disappointed TIK hasn't included 2 girls 1 cup in the reference list.

It’s entertaining watching capitalist accuse Fascism of being left wing socialism, and Marxists accuse Fascism of being capitalism. It’s almost like there was aspects of both capitalism and socialism in the ideology making it a third position if you will. But nah I'm sure lumping everything into 2 economic systems isn't a simplistic world view or anything...

What i hate about my government (can you guess which country) that it's too socialist with the economic policies and too fascist with social policies. How we are still a 'democracy' is beyond me.

Two girls, one cup - thats a very nice touch, mate 😎

A great discussion of the spectrum between Tyranny and Liberty is in the book "The Hobbit Party" by Witt and Richards - it talks about Tolkien's philosophy as a backdrop to a discussion of Tyranny and Liberty.

The information you present is both interesting and relevant and it could have been a good way to start an important discussion. However, you are pushing a certain picture based on your personal worldview, which undermines all the research you've done. First of all, socialism is not a binary ideology with the only "right way". There are various ideas under the same label and often enough the difference inside of a certain idelogy is more pronounced, than the differences between differently labeled political positions. Socialism is no exception to that rule: it is not only represented by the people, who see the government as a top-down structure - there are socialists, who call for the down-up system, dare I say, there even are socialists who are okay with the right to own property. I do not believe you didn't know about that, because you tend to have a really good preparation for your videos. Therefore, by mixing all the socialists together under the evil imagery you are being intellectually dishonest, which is very ironic, considering you are calling out (and rightfully so) left-wing historians for the exact same thing. Another thing you do, is that for some reason you are trying to assert that capitalism is good, by proving that socialism is bad. The problem is, that even if you prove that the socialism sucks, there is no way to jump from this conclusion to the idea, that something else is good, because it would be a formal fallacy - there is no dichotomy in the political landscape. I do not understand if you are purposefully using one of the demagogy techniques to push your personal bias, or if it is just an accidental mistake you've made. Regardless of your intentions, it comes out as the propaganda, even if you didn't mean it to be, and it is absolutely clear, that a lot of people are going to attack you only because of this, without even watching other parts of the video. Personally, I am very disappointed, not because you have a different point of view, but because after laying down facts, you have decided to impose your opinion in a fraudulent manner. Whenever a historian discredites himself ones, it discredites all of the work in the public eye. Whenever a historian starts to mix together facts and his personal opinion without a clear separation, there is no more trust. Just to point it out, I do not want to start a discussion if one ideology is superior to another, I do not question the sources that are being referenced. I am not arguing the opinion - I am pointing out a fallacy in the way this opinion has been presented.

So 1: I grew up in a commie, and soon after, an ex-commie country. Had to be a pioneer, had to learn Russian as mandatory language. I agree completely with the part of the video that Leninism-Stalinism/Soviet Socialism have striking resemblances and common practices with Naziism. I myself resorted to simply call them extremes, and it does not matter if they are 'left' or 'right', because, indeed, they pretty much came up with the same practical solutions to all their problems. 2: However, I do not agree with the insinuation that any kind of common good, state healthcare, pension, or unemployment payment is the door to Naziism and/or Stalinist oppression. I believe that these are neccessary elements and safeguards of a modern, competitive society. 3: I'd also point out that extreme individualism can manifest in similar fashion to said Leninism/Stalinism/Naziism. The leaders and acolytes of these systems proclaimed that they have been raised to power because they are the most capable individuals who understand the people's needs. (see Fuhrerprinzip) Both extremes cultivated very similar individuals as leaders, who were very political, extremely untrustworthy, disloyal, and opportunistic. The opulence of the Gauleiters of the Nazis were mirrored by the local party secretaries in Communism; both were de facto viceroys, both were highly individualistic and unaccountable. 4. Thus I think that extreme capitalism, where a person can do anything as long as they have the largest amount of money and wealth, is a similarly extremist ideology as Naziism/Stalinism. If I misunderstood the creator, then apologies; I really liked some of his prevous material. However, in this clip, there seems to be a tad too much liberal-bashing for my taste.

This is just disappointing. Political beliefs masquerading as fact.

Truth doesn't care about your feelings. Stay strong, TIK!

so the short summary is that he viewed resources as finite, and the more industrial nations in the game, aka players, meant less resources to go around.

So was FDR a socialist as well What about Lee Yuan You socialist as well as Singapore which has free healthcare and State schools So should we have private armies as well Was the US wrong to take control of the economy during the War like the take over of the car industry Was Eisenhower a Socialist for building the Interstate highway system

The Hitler quote at 7:40 says: "If the social programme of the movement consisted in eliminiating personality and putting the multitude in its place, then National Socialism would be corrupted with the poison of Marxism..." This sounds like a streak of individualism to me. How does this fit the claim of nazism being collectivist?

Horrible and extremely biased video - calling Keynes some type of revolutionary socialist is just absurd. I don’t think you have even the slightest grasp of economic theory.

Hey tik, i got a question for you. i heard you talked about in one of your videos that nazi germany had some food shortages before the war. how big of a impact had those food shortages?

Now I know why I watch you. Always well thought out and backed up with the receipts! Great job

Hitler was a "socialist" who believed in private enterprise, private ownership, and corporate power.

How do you explain the tyrannical authoritarian capitalist regimes like Pinochet and Batista

Always good videos even when I don't always agree. I don't really see what is wrong with having public police, firefighter, road, or railway services. Comparing public roads to Fritz Todd ( unsure of spelling) seems a bit too far. Keep on the good videos tik. I specially liked your oil crisis one.

Race or Class doesn't make any difference for the victims that belong to the wrong race or class.

Jesus!!! ... I didn't saw this ... ... How I do to un-saw this video?

You do realize Nazis were on the far-right? Oh, you missed that part.

13:40, lawyer here, this is just wrong, you are confusing the suspension of the weimars takings clause, with the inability to own any private property. Article 153 like our 5th amendment says you can’t take private property for public use without either just compensation or for public use. It doesn’t mean you can’t own private property buddy, an intrusive state does not amount to socialism tik. An intrusive state that attempts to give the means of production to all workers regardless of race is a socialist one. However, such a state could be decentralized like anarchists would prefer. You are making an elementary school level mistake of mixing up government intervention with socialism.

Again you fail to understand the complexity of economics, there is no such thing as capitalist country for the same reason there is no communist country, these theories only work in theory. According to your flawed logic we shouldn't teach the classic theories like the one in your book.

What is an inter-Nazi? Is it kust a euphemism for somebody who doesn't happen to agree with you?

Damn dude, if I had found that video before I would have subscribed earlier.

I explained to your video's a long time ago why nazism/fascism is still capitalism, as many others have done as well. Stop falsely claiming we don't have an explanation. You didn't fight our arguments, you just chose to ignore them and then claim we have none.

My understanding, probably originating from Shirer's "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", is that the Nazi economy was essentially a bubble. The German economy was on the brink of collapse by 1939. But war justified all sorts of economic controls and reallocations that prevented that collapse.

Long term viewer here. Just wanted to answer your question "which private companies marketed the holocaust?", I think that one could reasonably answer IG Farben to this as they benefited massively from the slave labour / extermination program in the east. Most obvious example being Auswitch. This lead them to steadfastly support the Hitler government to the last. I think likewise all big manufacturers of arms (like Rheinmetall) used slave labour to different degrees. This promise of unrestricted use of disposable labour was a big selling point of supporting the nazi government.

Ah yes, “Two Girls One Cup”, a piece of socialist literature that is just as important as Marx’s “Communist Manifesto”.

You cite biased experts though. Thomas sowell is a conservative economist. Yet you claim to be objective amateur historian. I think you suffer for from confirmation bias my friend

I watched your other video on explaining the shrinking markets. I didnt realise you were going to be so based.

-Market saturation is applied to both socialistic and capitalistic economies -Keynes was a capitalist and anti-marxist -The only system dominating in media is capitalism. All they do within last 30 years (while the only big socialistic power is dead) is saying that Soviets are worse than Nazism. You can hardly find something opposite, feminism left agenda and US left-retards don't count. 22:00 -Lager Kurtenhof 22:49 - because it is you who should not pay for your studies, not the teachers not getting paid for their job 17:49 - the explanation is that the merge of capital and power is an ultimate goal of capitalism and a fair result of a free market. If we say that left-Soviet socialism and Nazi-right socialism is the same thing, then a developed capitalism is the same thing either. It's people working, and there is a dominating class/race. The differences are in wealth distribution and consumption cultures.

why are you making those videos, are you trying to render us insane? :*(

There’s another video on another channel about Italy, Germany and Japan prior to WW2. Germany and Italy were too disorganized in the 19th century to expand their influence through colonization, but they still needed raw materials. Japan was a late arrival to the industrial revolution, thus faced with a similar dilemma. Their solution? Take over the colonies of the British, Dutch and French. But they were aware that the United States wouldn’t like that. However, the United States was mostly isolationist.

The nazis were socialist the same way the Venetian republic were republican. Ideas and thoughts are not belonging always to one group. Two people can have the same view point on an issue and come away with radically different solutions to that issue.

Love your channel mate, keep up the amazing work.

April Fools day is late this year

This is quite possibly the worst video I have ever seen on this platform, even worse than PragerU. Every single claim (or at least every single important/contentious claim) can be easily and comprehensively rebutted, and I am happy to oblige anyone who gives me specific things to rebut.

Viewing 5 years later and yes, demonetized.

Oh dear. I'm no socialist but this is so painfully wrong I've unsubscribed. What a shame.

TIK Your Quote """""History isn’t as boring as some people think, and my goal is to get people talking about it. """" Perfect, than get ready to be challenged.

Lindybeige told me that TIK's wasn't real British accent. Loved the video mate!

Great episode!!! Excellent knowledge and enlightening. This history needs to be taught because it helps explain Hitlers mindset. You are doing great work because you are pissing both sides by shattering their illusions. Keep up the great work.

Thank you so much for this - it is a timely explanation!

My history teacher in school told us the Communists were so far left, and the Nazis were so far right, that they sort of burst the scales and became the same kind of thing. At least he could see that they were exactly the same in practice, while he couldn't see through his own conditioning into accepting a stupid left/right view of history, where Nazis for some reason is the opposite of communism. This lecture stuck with me as the only one I remember, because in one way it made sense, but in another, it was completely irrational, and made no sense at all. And he taught it as if it were common sense. I couldn't figure out what he was saying. They are exactly the same, except which groups they happen to favor/disfavor. They are just mass moralization and psychosis. They are divide and conquer. Now, there is also the possible situation, that Hitler and his allies, were actually not socialists, but just playing the people. But that is equally true for Lenin and Stalin and that gang. The point is that it took socialist idiotic economical understanding and degradation of societal norms of compassion for ones enemies in order for sociopaths to take over and control the population through moralization, and get them to commit what ever heinous crimes against their neighbors, just for being labeled as "the enemy". Love your enemy, internalized, as the exact opposite to it being yet another moral to hit ones enemies with, is the only way to have a society of thinking individuals, who can have calm rational discussions, where people refrain from moralization and outrage. Destroying this, is the only way to erect a horrendous dystopic authoritarian system of control.

One of the clearest English accents I've heard. From where is it from?

Brilliant work, subbed.

:'( Why man, why...

Taking Hitler's words at face value is your problem right here

The burden is on TIK to explain how socialism results in the Holocaust, (see clip at 17:50, “how can Marxists explain how come the free markets cause the Holocaust?”) Capitalism has a history of casually engaging in mass organized murder, such as the Irish Famine and Belgian colonization of the Congo. Mass murder isn’t the monopoly of any one social organization. It’s a tool of control that can be used by any geopolitical system. The bottom line is that German industry under Hitler remained in private hands, while the same wasn’t the case in the USSR. Hitler’s Reich didn’t own the means of production. Therefore it wasn’t a socialist form of government according to the standard definition of socialism quoted near the beginning of the clip. It would be useful to change the format of a presentation such as this one and add another person capable of presenting a contrary view. That would help flesh out the issues more fully.

That was very interesting and I think, informative. However, I wouldn't be doing my due diligence if I didn't ask as to whether any credible videos have been made specifically against your argument?

Could OP do a vid on Georgism?

Thank you! The best explanation ive ever heard. Ive been trying to explain this for years. Americans have a difficult time with this. Also in modern America Hitler would be a leftist/progressive not a right wing conservative. Hitler is often refered to as a right wing conservative in his day. This causes confusion with many on this side of the pond.

You are confusing a lot of different economic concepts that are not the same.

Your videos should be what we watch in school

Ugh so many wrong points here. You do know the official name of the Nazi party was the National Socialist German Workers Party, right? Hitler believed in socialism completely. He had his own form which made a strong healthy state the center part of his economy. He was a staunch opponent of Bolshevik socialism not Marxist. Hitler believed in doing whatever was best for the state. Bolshevik’s “said” they wanted what was best for the people. They “said” the economy should be built by the needs of the people. Even though Stalin only cared about the state. Stalin and Hitler shared similar views on the economy. The difference between them was Germany was already an industrial nation. The wealthiest in Europe. The Soviet Union was an agrarian nation heading into an industrial revolution. Stalin just poured gasoline on what was going to happen slowly over the next 25 years. Hitler saw a strong healthy state with little debt would naturally be able to provide the people everything they need. The problem with all forms of socialism is they don’t take the two biggest flaws of man, greed and vanity into account. That is the simple reason capitalism will always triumph.

In the world of TIK, the complexity of political and economic realities can be simplified down to a single, 1-dimensional axis, where only he know what "real socialism" means -- screw the fact even the various branches of actual socialists can't agree. With jokes like these, who need economists or scholars who spend their whole life studying? Clearly you can understand the complexities of the market by just reading a few simple books.

2 girls 1 cup refrence is gold

Love these videos! May I ask you, what economic title would you give the current United States economy? We certainly can't call it true capitalism given the amount of hedging going on for the wealthy

I must say I'm impressed by your deep analysis of the WW2 historical events and your economic analysis behind them. But not all economics can be taught "in one lesson". So I have to disagree with some issues in this specific video. First the points which I agree. Yes your presentation of Socialism is pretty much correct in terms of its implementation throughout history and ideology. Also Yes again Nazis where Socialists and in fact very close to Marxism. This is something that we don't learn in school. You have to do your own research to learn about it. And your videos are a great contribution. You see when you start thinking about the economic backround of any war and more specifically WW2, being an economics student, they way I did in the past, you can very clearly understand why oil was the most important factor that the Nazis lost the war. BUT....not everything is OK with your video here. First. Marx did not leave a completed work when he died. So his believers fell under some competing "schools" of thought. Bhukharin and Luxemburg believed in "shrinking markets", but other Marxists didn't. I didn't know Hitler did believe and that's something that I learnt in this video series of yours. The "falling rate of profit" theory was a "school" different from "Luxemburg" and in fact in competition to it. So a clear misunderstanding from your part putting them together. Both "conflicting" ideas were from Marx....And most important Lenin and Stalin did not believe in the "the shrinking markets" argument for Capitalism. And it was not even an argument for the fall of capitalism it was an argument for the economic crises. Also Keynes was a believer of the "shrinking markets" in his early writings. But this has nothing to do with his older works and his "General Theory". So you really mixed everything in there to present as "Socialism" when they are not. I don't believe that when I pay taxes someone is stealing from me and I'm certainly not a Nazi believing so...

Man you've got to love hearing from a real historian who actually speaks truth instead of lies and propaganda. He even spoke on the depression of 1921 I'm astonished. No one ever does that.

Man you are nailing it today. Great work.

Shrinking markets was a real problem before the rise of the idea of consuming markets yes. Actually it's has made a comeback as of late as automation and aging workforces threaten global trade.

This channel is very interesting, In one hand it tries to be historical channel, where it provides decent information based on books and in that aspect is a decent valuable content. In other hand, it disguises himself as a political historical channel by trying to inseed ideas in your head about politics and what is good or right. and this is when i fully realize its a channel oriented characterized to attract people that: A: are interested in WW2 history, mainly the German campaigns and the charismatic figure of Adolf Hittler B: is a channel where without being direct into a point it sells you a negative idea about Marixism and Socialism in favor of Neo Capitalism Its also interesting how it tries to depict Hittlers polítical views and kinda forgive his own mentality by just saying "oh the man was not really crazy, he was just confused, he actually wanted to save the world (in its own way) and then he does a 360 spin and talk during hours of polítical ideals and business practics etc etc, convice you how Marxism and Socialism are terrible and by the end of the day you will regret not having blue eyes and you will want to hang your self on a tree or not having anymore childreen because your not a pure Aryan. I like WW2 contents, mainly the warfare history of it, thats how the RU-vid algorythm bring me here, but i seriously warn people to be being brain washed politically here. Truely, there isn't any good or wrong in Politics, only in people's mind... Currption, Propaganda, and any types o polítical manipulation are possible in every damn system... Marxism and Socialism are just polítical views, you should never EVER drink the idea that one way is absolute right and the other is wrong. End of story, and if you are reading this, would had 1920s be an advanced age, Hitler would had started as a RU-vidr, as he was also very inteligent and manipulative. So, jsut for your own warning.

When I was a young person say about 20 a friend invited me to join a political group so I said yeah OK and I quickly realised that it was a Stalinist group. I went to the library did some reading and in about 2 weeks said thanks for the invite but no thanks. I still am in contact with my friend (we were best friends at age 13) all we do at this stage is argue politics (its acrimonious) its been over 40 years and he holds to Stalin now more than ever. Now 2 interesting psychological phenomenon are in play one is mine, why do I repeatedly bang my head against this brick wall when all evidence says I should stop? The other is why does my friend continue with a belief when all evidence runs counter. Obviously it has become a religious belief where counter evidence just doesnt matter. My point here is that we should all ask ourselves will I change my view in the light of counter evidence and if not why not. As that great Socialist Lord Maynard Keynes supposedly said when accused of changing his view ' why I change my opinion in the light of new evidence why what do you do?' Just a thought

GREAT stuff. Nice to hear a real examination of the economics that motivated the Nazis. Always overlooked.

Socialist problems only happen in socialist economies. I LOVE IT

Right - "That's why they don't teach you about this, because they don't want you to know that Hitler was a socialist!"

"Instead of working hard and creating your own factory" - Is that how factories are "created"? Aren't most of them inherited?

Stick to military tactics, please Tik

I like how the beginning of this video comes full circle almost two years later with the Hitler Was a Communist in 1919 video.

I'd love for this guy's views to be submitted to real economists and historians for peer review, then maybe he'd stop doing these videos

Britain seems to float between capitalism and socialism. Alot of people support the semi-nationalisation of things like Utilities, important industries (Steel, Coal etc) and Transport. I feel it worked kinds well when we had British Rail, PTEs, NCB, British Steel etc etc.

The good news is that I don't disagree with the concepts in this video. The bad news is that I don't agree with them either, as I can't make any sense out of it whatsoever.

Your video seems to confirm a trend I see between societies that trend authoritarian and those that don't. In order to get absolute power an aspiring dictator will define some subset of the population (workers, real Germans, people of color, women, etc.) as inherently oppressed by some other subset (the rich, Jews, whites, men, etc.). This is most effective if their chosen victim group is far larger than their supposed oppressor (whether or not said oppression is actually occurring doesn't matter). They then promise that if they are given government power they will end the oppression, right the wrongs, and everything will be better. Once in office making it all better never happens quickly so they point out some reason why (preferably tied to selected oppressor group) that they will need more power to fix. Thus more power is given to the government, then when it's not all better another roadblock is identified, another request for power made and granted, and the cycle repeats. In some historical examples new groups would be identified as oppressors to increase the number of possible cycles. The identitarian component also need not be codified into law for it to be effective. To be clear I'm not saying oppression doesn't occur in societies that don't follow this pattern as oppression certainly does. What I am doing is pointing out a pattern among politicians historically that is repeating today and so we should be skeptical of them lest they actually make our lives worse the way Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Mao, and Maduro eventually did to their own countries.

Been seeing this for a few times, first time when it got out I still cant get nor understand how you get to the 1708 argument. Denying Hitler was a socialist is denying holocaust

National socialism and democratic socialism still aren't the same thing.