WW2 -  

More oversimplified reactions! But do it with your buddies

YEAAAAAA

Technically, it is absolutely inaccurate to refer the Soviet Union as Russia because the USSR was not only Russia. The USSR consisted of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, parts of Uzbekistan, & various parts of Central Asian countries. However, the main reason people from the west referred to the the Soviet Union as Russia is only because the main country that was apart of the USSR was Russia.

That bit at 6:55 is sadly controversial to say.

React to Potential History's Germany Couldn't Win World War 2

Agreed

Ditto. Oversimplified has awesome videos

Yes

I think they would find the Henry VIII video hilarious.

Respect for clearing that up, history can get a little fuzzy to us over the Atlantic

Thank you as a fellow Czech. I wanted to write something similar, but couldn't be bothered. I think Nate got us confused with Austro-Hungarian Empire...

*Bouchne dlaní do stolu* DÍKY! (*Slams desk* THANK YOU)

@@adamrousek2200 Or Yugoslavia

@@jonttul Yugoslavia is basically a dysfunctional family where everyone hates each other, but are still able to exist with each other (some more than others)

I understand where you are coming from. But I disagree. Hitler didn't like the communists because they were taking their orders from Moscow. The fascist movement had it's origins in the crisis of Marx. Marx predicted that a workers uprising would take place throughout the west to overthrow the wealthy class but that obviously never happened literally anywhere even up until today. Marx was clearly wrong and socialists throughout Europe didn't understand why. Hitler and Mussolini both were avid socialists and both came to the same conclusion. Hitler and Mussolini noticed that the socialists in France fought for France in WW1 as did the British socialists. They both realized that class divisions weren't the way to go. National divisions were the way to go. One important thing to note is that sister ideologies fight all the time. The Shia and the Sunni have been brutally fighting for centuries, yet they are both under the house of Islam and agree on 99 percent of theology. Hitler didn't hate communists because they were socialists at all, he liked that, he hated them because they took their orders from someone else and he was a powerhungry dictator like almost any socialist leader. Also he hated the ethnic people of the Soviet union and believed his "people" were superior.

You had eleven months to type that out and you still somehow managed to be as wrong as possible every step of the way. He especially hated the communists because he subscribed to the loony idea of "Judeo-Bolshevism" and believed socialism, communism, and everything in between were all part of a secret Jewish plot. The idea that Hitler was an "avid socialist" is also patently laughable on its face, for reasons I'll get to in a moment. Hell, Hitler only stumbled across the Nazi party because he was being paid to spy on them by the government, and he quickly realized they'd make for a convenient path to power and took control. The Nazis were also predominantly funded by wealthy industrialists, allied with demonstrably far-right wing parties, even considered *themselves* right wing in everything from their priorities to where they sat in the Reichstag, drove out (or killed) the members of their own party they considered too left-wing (or, as Hitler put it, guilty of unforgivably advocating for the sins of “democracy and liberalism”), outlawed all unions but their own (which conveniently didn't allow for collective bargaining or try to do any of the things you'd expect a union to do), sent union leaders to the concentration camps, seized the workers' pension funds to fill their own pockets, outlawed labor strikes, embarked on a campaign of pointless privatization (including with what had previously been public welfare projects), and went out of their way to both heavily restrict who could benefit from existing German welfare programs *and* scale back the scope of those programs. That last one includes national healthcare, which for some reason gets brought up a lot in every right-wing shill's lazy "the nazis were socialist" tangents, something made even more absurd by the fact it wasn't even something the Nazis created in the first place. That was one of Bismarck's projects, and it continued to expand after his death (the Nazis were in fact the first to make any kind of major cutbacks with it). The Nazis were demonstrably not socialists, they were the extreme right, and pretending otherwise is misguided at best and deliberately dishonest at worst. It also ignores the fact that Hitler himself was largely ignorant when it came to political ideologies in general, but *ESPECIALLY* so when it came to socialism. Which is why whoever told you he was an "avid socialist" was a fucking liar and was counting on you never once questioning it. Hitler couldn't even define or describe what socialism was! At different times he tried to describe "socialism" as generic feelings of patriotism, militant nationalism, and at one point he went with whatever the hell this is: "Socialism! What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism." So there you go, if you have anything you enjoy and aren't currently starving, you're an avid socialist too. Or maybe, just maybe, Hitler had no fucking clue what he was talking about and just knew that throwing the word "socialism" around might get the party more popular support and poach a few recruits from the actual left-wing parties in Germany.

i second this

I seconder this

Yeah...he definitely needs to watch those. 💯

Exactly.

Had to scroll so far to find a comment replying to the absurdity of equating the ideology of Hitler with socialism. Fascists and socialists utterly hate each other. Thank you.

The camera I use is a Sony FS100 Mark V. It's a bit on the expensive side, but the quality and features are great. Starting out I recommend logitech c920 webcam. It's setup is quick and clean, plus the quality is good for a webcam.

@@RenegadesReact Thanks for helping out the new guy. Renegades rock.

Well, it was an Aryan symbol to be particular, which is why Hitler chose it because _insert incoherent nineteenth century racial science gibberish here._

This is complete propaganda, absolutely false. The "swastika" symbol and it's many variations are seen in ancient cultures worldwide as a symbol for the sun, with some of the oldest findings being in modern day Ukraine.

@btamamura Maybe it came from there, I haven't read/watched it so I wouldn't know, I just remember seeing it on a random youtube comment

As a Japanese my only comment for this is “OOF”

Reminds me of this one dude arguing that anything involving the Nazis or swastikas and the Holocaust should be heavily censored or removed entirely because cHiLdReN MiGhT sEe iT aNd it CoUlD TrAumAtIze ThEm. So stupid.

@@DisorientedWanderer but children wouldnt know what it means and also you cant just ignore history

@@Person-cv9dj exactly. People are just stupid and think the next generation needs to be coddled and protected from anything and everything that was bad from our past. Either that or it's the history repeating itself thing and they actually want us to forget so they can repeat it. I don't know but these people set me off so much when they want to ignore and hide people's suffering.

He also loved Charlie Chaplin until Chaplin found that out and responded by mocking Hitler.

No, Fascism is an explicitly Socialist experiment, which is why there are so many explicit comparisons between them. It’s not “horseshoe theory,” it’s that they have the same ideological roots. They persecuted Socialists who tended towards the Communist strain of thought and sought unity through class rather than unity through nation, but the idea that this means they were anti-socialist flies in the face of everything they did in power.

Ethnic/nationalist socialists killing class socialists. There, I summed it up. Can we agree to move on. Anytime someone talks about socialism and communism the discussion always devolves into "it's not the right/accepted socialism definition or communism definition used" and then becomes just definition semantics. All that matters is that we can agree that nazis' and stalinists are bad. Even that seems to be a hard sell nowadays.

@@johnnyboeck8952 fully agree.

@@Longshanks1690 No, fascism isn't fucking socialist. It's a reaction to socialism. Fascism in Italy developed out of national syndicalism sure, but in power they abandoned almost their entire manifesto and swung toward capitalists and conservatives. You cannot redefine socialism away from class warfare to the struggle of nations and if you try, you're basically just saying that any form of populist, collectivist, and authoritarian ideology is socialism. I know that defining fascism is a fools errand, but anti-socialism is one of the few traits you can nail down, alongside anti-liberalism and anti-conservatism. Put in simple terms, fascism comes from disgruntled socialists losing faith in their old ideology and swinging toward ultranationalism. Their main resemblance to socialism is their willingness to replicate its mass politics and its shared hatred of liberalism, but the egalitarianism and internationalism of Marxism was untenable and their core historical theses are in direct contradiction, the class struggle leading inexorably to the communist utopia versus the endless struggle between nations/races and the fixation on past utopia and cycles of decay and renew. I'm not even saying that socialism must be inherently internationalist, but I am saying that it's nationalist rhetoric MUST be framed with a class war framework. You can't have socialism without the fixation on the class struggle in some form. Fascism did not accept class struggle, and in fact supported class collaborationism *because it viewed class divisions as divisive and weakening the nation.* Again, fascism in EVERY country where it actually took power adopted a reconcilitary stance towards the businessmen and industrialists and preached that people of all classes worked together for the good of the nation, with the state acting to resolve disputes. This distinction wouldn't even matter so much if it weren't for the fact that just about every time someone says fascism is socialism, it's some Prager U level shitslinging attempt to lump the crimes of men like Hitler onto the already mighty pile of atrocities actual socialists have committed, all so they can lump all enemies of their own almost definitely liberal libertarian capitalist beliefs into one monolithic enemy. It's no different in practice from the Nazis equating Jews with Communists and liberals.

What about replacing the H with CL

You say that like it's easy

You were doing so well on the first sentence and then it all fell apart. The Nazis were not “far right,” in any coherent sense precisely because they were Socialists, they were a revolutionary, all-encompassing, revolutionary, anti-conservative movement. They did not advocate for “certain groups,” they advocated for the unity of the whole of the German people to root out all foreign and international elements. And no, Socialism and Communism are not different from one another except in the sense that a teenager is not an adult. Socialism is supposed to proceed Communism but because Socialism can’t be implemented without failing catastrophically, Communism can never be reached, so while there is a distinction between Communism and Fascism as goals, there is no distinction between Socialism and Fascism as methods. And the political aspects of Socialism depend entirely upon what era you’re talking about. French Jacobin revolutionaries were expressly social and political but while Marx and the majority of Socialist thinkers until Gramsci were concerned with economics, the problems in wealth inequality and workers exploitation they were trying to deal with were expressly social and indeed political ones. You can’t have a coherent view of Socialism without a view of what you wish society to become because Socialism is, by its very definition, an all encompassing ideology.

Politics man by day, Batwoman EFAPer by night.

I’m not even going to bother refuting you dude because you clearly don’t care about facts.

@@Longshanks1690 You talk about others not being coherent while not being coherent yourself, why should I ever take you seriously over the 80 years historical consensus. I would personally recommend you read up on Nazism and Economics of fascism, before spitting nonsense.

@@xpasza1775 Thank you for that thorough rebuttal. 😂

@btamamura Saying that the "German people loved" the NSFAP is factually incorrect in the context Oversimplified says it. I am well aware that Oversimplified did other videos on Hitler, but that does not relieve him of the need to get his even more Oversimplified version in this video correct. In fact, he made his Hitler series before he made the WW2 series, and he got it pretty much correct in his Hitler series, so he should have been able to get it correct in this video. 💯

@btamamura And in the section where Oversimplified literally says "the German people loved him", he was referring to the election of the NSDAP/Adolf...and that was absolutely not true. There definitely seems to be no question that what you said is true, and that any "love" the Germans had for NSDAP/Adolf after they took power was mythological, or purchased, or coerced, or brainwashed. But I was talking about how Oversimplified depicts the NSDAP/Adolf's rise to power that is wrong in this video...and the fact that he got it more correct in his prior videos about Adolf just makes it more puzzling why he got it wrong in this video. 💯✌

you could say he OVERSIMPLIFIED things

@@neoxperson7858 He Oversimplified them in a way that made them wrong.

The actual definition of socialism is the ownership of the means of production by the workers, rather than having, for example, factory owners that will hire those workers and give them a salary, and can fire them whenever they want. The thing is, it's a very vague definition that has been up to interpretation throughout history. A lot of famous socialists understood it as having a central government representing the people which owns the means of production. And you can guess that the "representing the people" part was up to interpretation as well. Let's just say that the way people like Lenin and Stalin did things has been criticized by a lot of socialists, both at the time and after. In other words, historically, you're not wrong, because most if not all so-called socialist societies that lasted more than a year had a very centralized economy and government system. But socialism as an idea covers way more possibilities than just that. And of course, if socialism, at its heart, is supposed to give more power to the people, Hitler's socialism was more like "We need to give the power back to the German people". Socialism is normally very open to the idea of different peoples working together, even in certain cases abolishing borders and all that jazz. Which, of course, is the antithesis of what Hitler wanted. That's why it's called National-socialism : "Yeah, we are totally in favor of socialism... But we want nothing to do with that international cooperation thing, thank you very much." (Let's not forget he sent many German socialists in camps, because they supported the kind of socialism he didn't like) I'm not entirely sure about Mussolini's side of things, but I'm guessing his rationale wasn't too different. Again, though, they both went with the approach of "We represent the people, therefore it's socialism", which a lot of socialists criticized even without the nationalistic elements.