“But Hitler Crushed the Trade Unions!”

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.terriyoung...
- - - - -
📚 BIBLIOGRAPHY / SOURCES 📚
This video's source list docs.google.co...
The full list of all my sources docs.google.co...
- - - - -
⭐ SUPPORT TIK ⭐
This video isn't sponsored. My income comes purely from my Patreons and SubscribeStars, and from KZbin 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.subscribes...
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.

[@damian_cross]

"Nazi Germany was a capitalist society where the government froze everybody's wages." - Historians, unironically.

[@Shreendg]

They also capped the profits.

[@McHobotheBobo]

It's about who owns the means of production lol not if "goberment do things." State capitalism is still capitalism you clowns 🤡

[@NostalgicGamerRickOShay]

@@McHobotheBobo The government STILL owns YOU, Nazi or Communist.

[@Matt_History]

@@McHobotheBobo to quote most people who know anything about economics: state capitalism is just communism with a foreign market the government profits from

[@McHobotheBobo]

@user-ow9lp2gw3b Lmao, you are a clown named Dunning 🤡

[@gagamba9198]

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)

[@hzlh2254]

and trade union in fascistic regimens like Franco's were organs of the capitalist lords. ever heard of 'national-sindicalism'?

[@Olivia-bl8ez]

Great points!!

[@Reaper08]

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.

[@naamadossantossilva4736]

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.

[@yungtriexie6186]

Thats how shit lools like, with no imagine

[@TheAurgelmir]

"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

[@botodin6979]

Socialism has nothing to do with state control. Many socialists in Bolshevik-controlled Russia were disillusioned after the state took over the unions' structures.

[@antonijedjordjevic5545]

Its state capitalism

[@evan7391]

I am a socialist then 😂

[@evan7391]

@@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.

[@destubae3271]

​@@antonijedjordjevic5545 Nope

[@davegibson79]

"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.

[@placebojesus5652]

I feel like this is all stupid. Virtually all of us on the Western left and right against fascism, communism/Marxist socialism, national socialism of the Nazis, etc. - I think we’re all in favor of liberal democratic republics with relatively free but not unrestrained markets and with unions balancing capital power. It’s just a matter how of the details of how to build it properly in our current contexts. All this other stuff is just irrelevant clickbait. Trade unions isn’t socialism/communism, democratic socialism is kind of a confusing name because it’s not really Marxist socialism yet is so often conflated with it in ways that sabotages simple rational discussions. This TIKHistory is annoying because he focuses on this dumb stuff that’s not particularly relevant to common relevant left-right political discussions of today (I know there are tons of idiots out there but I’m talking about serious people) except as a warning about what to look out for. Even Ben Shapiro agrees with me about unions as a necessity to balance the otherwise complete lack of negotiating power (and increasingly even democratic power). Who the hell is arguing that Hitler was a capitalist? He was a racist tyrant without compassion, so in that sense he does have some superficial similarities with many capitalists lol but at the end of the day he was about his power and the state was his means of power, which modern capitalists understand hence their institution of a legalized bribery structure for the oligarchic wealthy class in the US in order to prevent pesky democracy from breaking out. Also co-opting movements, organizations, and individuals as Hitler did is a prime tactic for the aforementioned, and unfortunately few people have the will, intelligence, character, dignity, nor other resources to resist it. Stop cucking for these people, you’ll regret it. That said, I’ve been close friends with some of the richest people in the world, and they aren’t bad people. It’s not that simple. Again, I hate your tone and approach, and I get why because social science and humanities people are kind of jackasses generally but step it up Tikhead.

[@interm0l-p2u]

Socialism stands for workers owned means of production, and both Mao China and Soviet union had very demented meaning of that, because somehow they equated totalitarian state to workers. In libertarian leftist circles those regimes are called "state capitalism" because after totalitarian revolutions in those countries class society wasn't abolished, but capitalists were replaced by oligarchs, that in fact, still owned the means of production and still used worker as a mean for profit and as a fuel of the work machine. Doesn't make them socialist to me, even if they have socialism in their name.

[@davegibson79]

@@interm0l-p2u Socialism doesn't mean that workers own the means of production, that's Marxism. Communism has a socialist dictatorship as a transition phrase, which is what the murderous brutal regimes of the communists states got stuck in. The socialist regimes of national socialism and fascism are very similar to the socialist dictatorship advocated by Marx and practiced in communist states. Free trade unionism has only ever existed in liberal democratic, capitalist regimes as its an aspect of liberalism, not socialism. That's why many anarchists (who are extreme liberals) are syndicalist. The far left and far right have only ever brought in state-syndicalism because their ideologies are extremely statist and authoritarian.

[@interm0l-p2u]

@davegibson79 you're showing off your bad knowledge of communist theory. Marxism is an umbrella term for all the ideologies based on marx writings, and marx was first socialist writer. But ideologies like marxism-leninism are as Marxist as jeff bezos with how they fully abandon Marxist books and base their theory mainly base off their ideology from Engels and Lenins writing, that invented the totalitarian way towards socialism. Kropotkin in his writings said that marx didn't account for his ideology being exploited to only bring more harm to the workers, and it was written even before USSR became a thing. If for you, these regimes are socialists - that's your opinion and hey, they have socialism in their name! But if that's the argument you strive for, I'll remind you that official north Koreas name is "democratic peoples republic of korea"

[@davegibson79]

@@interm0l-p2u You're showing off your ignorance of political philosophy. Marx was the first writer to talk about capitalism. Socialism has existed as a concept since antiquity and as a word since the 18th century, long before Marx was born. Here's wikipedia to prove you wrong as you're clearly too lazy to learn about something before insulting people on the internet because you know best about everything, narcissist: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_socialism

[@dbassman27]

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.

[@michaelsalansky1367]

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…

[@F_ckAllTrumpVoters]

Servile people will volunteer over their rights & morals for a paycheck. It's sad.

[@lollypop333100]

and an eventual horrible death in the snow of Stalingrad or the bombs from the Ango-American justified air-offensive

[@thomasandrewo]

@@lollypop333100 Now that's a hell of a trade-off

[@pietrayday9915]

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....

[@kallistene40]

"Well done for Hitler combatting the Patriarchy !" Sir, that one was brillant !

[@SeasideDetective2]

So Hitler was a feminist? Is that the claim being attempted here? Because practically everything Hitler ever said or wrote about women indicates otherwise.

[@AngelicusEXperiment]

Perhaps "feminazi" is a more apt term than we realized XD

[@SergioKoolhaas]

​​@@AngelicusEXperimentwanna troll a feminist rally by blasting the Horst Wessel lied? 😂

[@gg_rider]

​@@AngelicusEXperiment Janice Fiamengo

[@strafe155]

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.

[@AFGuidesHD]

meanwhile the Indy Neidell team "trust us bro we're the experts - YOU VILL NOT KWESTION ZE SOURCE"

[@TheImperatorKnight]

This is the main reason why I don't watch other KZbinrs 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.

[@LucVNO]

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.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

@@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)

[@wtice4632]

@@LucVNO can i see a source for that statement?

[@greenkoopa]

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

[@samsonsoturian6013]

Username checks out

[@danbrown5736]

Don't listen to the propaganda people

[@EndOfSmallSanctuary97]

kek

[@xprincexofxsavagesx]

You're almost thinking a bit too much buddy. Stick to mastering your tank controls. The glorious utopia awaits.

[@SirBlacknoiseIII]

That's propaganda by the wario party mate don't fool yourself

[@LT.DocDiv]

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...

[@ad3l547]

Probably claims to be communist and just is state capitalism tbh

[@tylenolpainrelief6177]

Who could've guessed centralizing all authority would hurt the little guy?

[@asdasdasdasdasd8993]

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

[@AMultipolarWorldIsEmerging]

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.

[@jrton1366]

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?

[@lastmanstanding5423]

@@jrton1366 lol... cope

[@shangri-la-la-la]

@@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.

[@jrton1366]

@@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?

[@dannydacheedo1592]

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".

[@proeramoka9168]

Is socialism was feudalism than why was the word socialist created then?

[@dannydacheedo1592]

@@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.

[@Time_to_Believe_in_Yourself]

​@@proeramoka9168 re-branding so "masters" could trick "followers" (new slaves) into slavery under a new name

[@karloskarlinderstrom6943]

No its not. That the dumbest comment I've ever read.

[@karloskarlinderstrom6943]

​@@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.

[@cr7ckd0wn]

The Soviet and the communist China also crushed labor unions.

[@leveenntt]

China is doing very well right now though? China has a similar nation-wide Union

[@cr7ckd0wn]

@@leveenntt False, and false. Good job :-)

[@aleksazunjic9672]

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 .

[@jkotekvolnycz]

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.

[@aleksazunjic9672]

@@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.

[@EndOfSmallSanctuary97]

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.

[@aleksazunjic9672]

@@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 .

[@aleksazunjic9672]

@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.

[@MrCovi2955]

The primary reason that the Nazi's weren't considered socialists by historians is because it casts a bad light on socialism to be associated with the Nazis.

[@Choo_Choo_Oreo]

"But is this really the case" Best quote

[@ivanrenic4243]

Literally every TIK video ever in a nutshell

[@seanbeadles7421]

Oh yeah the affectation of his facial expression and voice totally isn’t annoying *raise eyebrow, squint*

[@wtice4632]

@@seanbeadles7421 and yet here you are

[@seanbeadles7421]

@@wtice4632 what’s that have to do with anything? Are you a sim?

[@wtice4632]

@@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?

[@mrmoofle]

I have now garnered TWO Facebook suspensions for pointing out that Hitler was a socialist.

[@MintyLime703]

KZbin deletes my comments all the time. I have to wait about a minute to be sure they stick.

[@weareeverywhere8851]

Same, I got an instagram strike for claiming that he was a socialist.

[@fcktherich6913]

You should look into what happened on the night of the long knives

[@Lonovavir]

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.

[@juanpaz5124]

@@fcktherich6913 Whar are you insinuating? It was about the sa, not socialsm.

[@angelofdeath188]

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

[@sbevexlr848]

He isn't a historian He is a youtuber he doesn't have a degree in history therefore he can't be a historian

[@Undead38055]

@@sbevexlr848 He does have a degree in history. He’s stated this multiple times.

[@sbevexlr848]

@@Undead38055 when?

[@bigvinnie3]

@@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.

[@Undead38055]

@@sbevexlr848 watch the Q&As 💀

[@jimcronin2043]

The Nazi regime was portrayed as "right-wing" only when the USSR became our war allies and the propaganda was meant to distinguish the two regimes. But in reality, there were many more similarities than differences. Left-wing academics and politicians continued this mantra after the war in an effort to place their conservative opposition closer to Nazism on the spectrum. Both regimes believed in the Marxist theory of Diminishing Markets. The Communists dissolved enterprises while the Nazis mandated that their Retained Earnings and Dividends be in the form of Government bonds, which is a back door of nationalizing them. The two systems pursued the same goals through different techniques. Two sides cut from the same bolt of cloth.

[@weareeverywhere8851]

They were socially and culturally right wing. Not economically.

[@jimcronin2043]

@@weareeverywhere8851 I, unfortunately, am unable to agree with you. First, divorcing economic from social/cultural aspects is tenuous. After all, what activity consumes more time and effort of adult lives than economic pursuits? Then I have to ask what 'right-wing' social/cultural tendencies were there? Family values? They promoted out of wedlock pregnancies by SS officers to expand population. Nationalism? I am reminded that the conflict (at least nominally) between Trotsky and Stalin was Trotsky's plan to set up Communist movements by individual country whereas Stalin wanted central of the movement control emanating from Moscow. Racism? They were racist but Ukrainians and others will tell you the Communists were/are racist, as well. For sure, they are both totalitarian regimes and those running them care little about left-right guidelines.

[@weareeverywhere8851]

@@jimcronin2043 There were family values and eugenics, ethno nationalism, pro religion, a will to conserve or even return to older traditions, patriarchy,... All things that are considered far right today. And ye the USSR was extremely racist and homophobic, which is a big contradiction to how the wannabe communists of today act.

[@Selrisitai]

@@weareeverywhere8851 Patriarchy is the natural order of the world, not a governmental ideology. You may as well be arguing against the rise to power of those who breathe oxygen.

[@DeadlyPlatypus]

TL;DW: Hitler didn't crush the trade unions, he collectivized them.

[@Beezard1977]

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.

[@wtfhah]

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

[@snaek2594]

You had ought to watch Razörfist's video on Abraham Lincoln as well. Illuminating.

[@wtfhah]

@@snaek2594 Lincoln was correct

[@snaek2594]

@@wtfhah in?

[@wtfhah]

@@snaek2594 in depriving Slaveocracy of its basis in human flesh

[@closetglobe.IRGUN.NW0]

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

[@yingyang1008]

Yet we allied with Stalin

[@closetglobe.IRGUN.NW0]

@@yingyang1008 what's ur point?

[@yingyang1008]

@@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

[@rickglorie]

@@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.

[@noob_donate_plz826]

@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.

[@SurrealKeenan]

But TIK! Creating a single massive labor union is at the very core of laissez faire capitalism! Don't you remember how Ayn Rand said that her dream was that all the workers of the world would join a single massive labor union?

[@Selrisitai]

This is an interesting point, because another comment said that eliminating the unions and creating one massive government-controlled one was evil and not socialism. On the one hand, labor unions are kind of socialist, but on the other hand, Hitler took them away which is not socialist, but on the other hand, he implemented another one, which is socialist. I'm not sure how to feel.

[@jemm113]

Tl;dw Hitler crushed the private trade unions because they needed to be socialized into one national union. This makes absolute, total sense to anyone who actually pays attention to the Nazi’s methods of operation, control, and socialization.

[@jonathanpersson1205]

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?

[@jonathanpersson1205]

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.

[@Cloud_Seeker]

@@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.

[@CB-vt3mx]

"commieservatives"....I'm so stealing that one. What a delightfully insightful term of art!

[@HontasFarmer80]

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.

[@jrton1366]

The DAF shares no similarities with any Union you have ever been a part of.

[@alexs_toy_barn]

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

[@boobah5643]

@@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.

[@HontasFarmer80]

@@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.

[@HontasFarmer80]

@@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.

[@EnclaveApex]

This proved very useful after coming across someone who claimed "Nazi Germany did not have worker Councils like the USSR did." Thanks TIK!

[@ad3l547]

They did not tho.

[@danielallan8061]

@@ad3l547 They did.

[@jakublulek3261]

Saying Hitler was a "liberal" means you don't understand what liberalism is.

[@samuelskinner7704]

The Jacobins (French Revolution liberals) were responsible for the Reign of Terror and in favor of democracy as long as their opponents didn't win. So in terms of liberalism, Hitler is in reasonably good company.

[@juliantheapostate8295]

No one says he was a liberal. Socialism is the opposite of liberalism

[@samuelskinner7704]

@@juliantheapostate8295 Socialism is the leftmost wing of liberalism, just like the Enragés were the leftmost wing of Jacobinism.

[@silverstar8868]

Socialism done by Marxist: :D Socialism done by anyone else : >:( This is bascislly most modern acedemic's perception of history.

[@gateway1600]

Another outstanding presentation on a difficult topic.

[@erskyscot]

Never can get over the amusing irony of it all. You almost seem to be defending the economic record of the Reich, but in actual fact are setting the record right against progressive types who must believe Germany was not socialist in order to maintain the perceived innocence of that ideology. Disappointing thing is, even if those sort of people were convinced by the argument, I think they'd declare it 'not real socialism!' just as the modern Trotskyist socialists do with the USSR. Ideology is blinding, and socialism is defined by its defiant resentment.

[@sonnyjim5268]

In the socialist utopia where all your needs are taken care of, why do you need wages anyway?

[@rafradeki]

Because its actually impossible to produce infinite amount of goods and satisfy all your needs?

[@sonnyjim5268]

@@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.

[@chadgaston8615]

They lived through hyperinflation. Hitler of course intended to bring them security at the expense of other Europeans and possibly the world.

[@samulikarjalainen6107]

@@sonnyjim5268 It sure seemed like it was about luxury to Willi Munzenberg.

[@rafradeki]

@@sonnyjim5268 that's why it's called utopia

[@michaelman957]

Funny how he only "crushed the unions" if you don't count the most powerful union in the country.

[@sjsupa]

the most powerful union that had no real power.

[@hailbane9633]

@@sjsupa It had immense power the issue was they were organs to the state.

[@sjsupa]

@@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.

[@mrsentencename7334]

@@sjsupawhy would you need to strike under socialism

[@karloskarlinderstrom6943]

​@@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.

[@RAWRManic]

Don't see how you can just use member numbers to counter historians' points about "lack of power". What powers did the DAF have in real terms? Seems like the DAF was a consolidation of power/labour to keep everything in line, rather than a "championing of workers rights" in general. Differing interpretation of the sources going on here, it makes a lot more sense that the DAF fought for the interests of the state rather than "the worker". It's very reductive to say that the labour front had "a lot of control over the factory owners" when in fact it was the state having power over both. There's also a serious case of conflating capitalism/facisim vs socialism/communism going one here: facist states stop workers protests just like communist states do, it's not just no strikes = socialism. Safe to say you're letting your personal views colour your conclusions here, which is a shame because you're obviously a well read bloke. I enjoyed your stalingrad series, perhaps stick to old school military history as you obviously know your stuff :)

[@AFGuidesHD]

They introduced many workers rights and improved workers living standards and happiness. That's what they did. The most fundamental point of a workers union.

[@RAWRManic]

@@AFGuidesHD You're not looking at the wider context. The DAF was not an independent organisation that, out of pure altruism, introduced these measures. It was a state run institution with motives far beyond general workers rights for the sake of workers rights. Also, the video makes mention about how trade unions don't do improve living standards, happiness etc, so which is it?

[@craighuddy5351]

@@AFGuidesHD Hitler decreed a law bringing an end to collective bargaining and providing that henceforth "labour trustees", appointed by him, would "regulate labour contracts" and maintain "labour peace". Since the decisions of the trustees were to be legally binding, the law, in effect, outlawed strikes. Ley promised "to restore absolute leadership to the natural leader of a factory - that is, the employer... Only the employer can decide. The DAF wasnt a Union...

[@AFGuidesHD]

@@RAWRManic "so which is it?" I'm not TIK

[@jrton1366]

@@AFGuidesHD The DAF wasn't a trade union. It was an arm of the state used to maintain direct party control over the labour force. It worked the opposite way to how a trade union work.

[@tomdolan9761]

Stalin crushed the trade unions also… they were Socialists

[@chromaticstorm787]

How did he crushed them?

[@naamadossantossilva4736]

If you showed Shirer and Tooze the protein intake of ukrainians during the 30s they would say Stalin is a capitalist.

[@Jameswantgaming]

he wasn't communist that's for sure, he talked shit about it all the time.

[@ad3l547]

State Capitalist to be more precise, which in fact a lot of socialists/communists says.

[@Losantiville]

Hitler that inconvenient person of history. Authors fear of sharing any similarities throws identity turmoil in the works.

[@Selrisitai]

Do you think that Hitler and Marx were actually convinced that their ideas of socialism would result in utopia, or do you think they were scammers?

[@512TexasRed]

Yes

[@timpietersen481]

Marx was a scammer hitler no

[@barsukascool]

Jordan Peterson talks about this in his lectures about H’tler

[@82dorrin]

"Hitler crushed the trade unions! Therefore he can't have been a socialist!" Lenin did the exact same thing...

[@samsonsoturian6013]

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.

[@maryfinnfan4140]

Like Ukraine

[@jimtomo9207]

In this case,the nazifaction of institutions is socialist because there the government.

[@juliantheapostate8295]

Just like all socialists

[@wtice4632]

Yes, the object of socialism is fooling people into giving you power over them.

[@tomfoolery333]

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.

[@dambigfoot6844]

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.

[@brucetucker4847]

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.

[@googleandsusansucks]

It is ironic that the unions lose their power when their ideology becomes the dominant power.

[@hailbane9633]

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.

[@eolleb9118]

As a pirate who identifies as a non binary gender lesbian straight homosexual furry, I agree with TIK that we shouldn't always believe the feminists and Argos catalogues

[@bernardedwards8461]

Hitler's theme was that it was better for everybody, including the workers, if all Germans pulled together and cooperated with the State, therefore strikes were forbidden but workers grievances were addressed so that there was no need for strikes. Most workers found their living standards did indeed improve, so they were quite satisfied with the German Labour Front. Communist agitators had to keep quiet or risk ending up in a concentration camp. Freedom of speech or the press was not a feature of the Third Reich, but neither is it a feature of today's Anglosphere.

[@Selrisitai]

I wouldn't say _that._ There's a lot of opposition to it, but generally speaking, you can still criticize the government all you wnat.

[@bernardedwards8461]

@@Selrisitai I can see tou haven't had much experience of the choob. Yes, you can sometimes get away with iit, it depnds on what you criticise and whether you criticise it in the main comment column or in the side comments. People posting vids are sometimes cancelled or demonetised, Russel Brand for instance, or Dr Campbell. The BBC has its own censorship dept, so has the government. First class, award winning journalists like Peter Oborne are blacklisted for refusing to lie to their readers. Many self-censor themselves so as not to fall foul of the thought police. You must be very young not to have noticed it.

[@billbolton]

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.

[@grim3897]

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?"

[@lucasqualls5086]

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.

[@billbolton]

@@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.

[@wtice4632]

@@lucasqualls5086 it has already been explained that the nazi term "privatization" was nationalization, which just like the USSR was socialist.

[@lucasqualls5086]

@@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.

[@heart4740]

Hey TIK, I usually enjoy your videos, and I did this time too. but I have a bit of an issue with this one. 1. It appears that you're taking the whole argument that you're arguing against in this video, disproving one part of it, mainly that the Germans were anti socialist (I agree that Nazi Germany was a socialist state). In this regard I agree with your video, but it seems you also dismiss the second part where your opposition argues that this was a power grab by the nazi regime, even though you also mention how the workers books was a state initiative. You brought up how both the factory owners and the workers was unhappy with this, yet at the start of the video you postured like Benz's statement about this being a nazi power grab was wrong, and that you had an issue with that statement. Can you comment on this 2. You mentioned yourself that wages fell by 25% and explain how this is not the case because this was compared with pre depression wage rates. This confuses me a bit because you showed a 25% decrease from 1933 to 1938. And yet this is after the great depression had already started, can you then elaborate on this further, because this does not seem to make sense since Germany was already in the depression in 1933. I myself can not find sources on price drops and inflation year by year. 3. Also this is a bit of a personal one, but I would love to hear more of your opinion on this. You said that trade unions are bad in this video. As someone who lives in Norway, where we do not have a minimum wage set by the state, but rather by collective bargaining by the trade unions. And yet we have one of the best wages in the world compared to purchasing power (by that I mean how much goods cost and how expensive it is to live here). This is much better than countries where there is a tiny amount of trade union membership compared to population, and where trade unions has very little power. The USA comes to mind here but also the UK which I believe you live in yourself has a very low amount of people in the trade unions. Roughly 20% of the population are members of a trade union by the way (statistics from 2020, check ssb if you want to know more). If trade unions are bad, how do you explain the success they have had in Norway I hope you will get around to making a reply as I quite frankly just didn't understand the first 2 questions I brought up (third one is just an opinion but I hope you can answer that one too)

[@lysenkotheory3400]

He's a free market propagandist. He's full of ideology, I wouldn't trust anything he says at this point. His videos have been debunked a bunch of times already yet he keeps trying to go at it.

[@heart4740]

@@lysenkotheory3400 Whether you trust what he says, Germany was indeed a socialist state as per definition. Of course where TIK falls short in his anti socialist views is that he only considers socialism to be a definition, and not a system with values, such as equality. What he likes to do with socialism is essentially the same as if I was to explain why capitalism is bad by defining it as what Britain did in it's colonies. He takes the definitions for socialism without taking into consideration how the term has changed to include and exclude other new things. But despite this he also has valid arguments. Germany had an economy that was controlled by the state, and although industries was still independent, you would get the sack if your views conflicted with the Nazi regime, and especially during war time, if you did not adjust your production with what the state told you to do. These are socialist policies and that can not be ignored even if you disagree with him. Denying his arguments here is essentially what American "socialists" do today, where they do not make up their own opinions on socialist beliefs, and what belongs in the modern era, and what doesn't. We all know today that nationalization of all the industries like they did in the soviet union is not a good thing. We also know that a completely free market without regulation is bad for the workers. We need to consider all of these ideas seperately, and see what is good and what is bad, rather than lumping them together in terms like "free market propagandist" or the way TIK uses "socialists".

[@gonwyte8534]

The more I watch your videos the more coherant I start to get understanding conflicting economic systems.

[@karloskarlinderstrom6943]

The more you watch his videos, the more one-sided your understanding gets.

[@gonwyte8534]

@@karloskarlinderstrom6943 most people are going to end up like that anyway, to be fair.

[@CarbonatedGravy]

Seriously, the story I was taught in school, mainstream american story and the secondary leftist story never made sense to me and had so many flaws, assumptions and inconsistencies it doesn’t seem possible. Knowing the details from this channel with actual sources and quotes in the most digestible format I have ever seen makes it seem very much realistic the way things unfolded, I was literally raised on “insane man who hates jews bc his moms doctor maybe idk becomes insanely popular leader for no reason and kills everyone because racism and trying to take over the world but virtuous allies stop him”

[@matthewnikitas8905]

He crushed the trade unions that were under PRIVATE ownership and put them under control of the state… Key word here is PRIVATE… Same thing Lenin did in the Soviet Union as you mentioned.

[@chriswarburtonbrown1566]

tik you don't understand what a trade union is. Its not an organisation set up by the government to support their agenda and party. It is a democratic worker-led organisation to increase employee power vs employer power, especially in pay negotiations. DAF is not a trade union, its a government organisation. And you need to look again at the literature on trade unions; unionised workers consistently have better pay and better conditions. Hilarious that you think Labour 'forced' the welfare state on the population. You clearly don't believe in democracy; there was an election in 1945! Finally if you want to see a society with minimal social support and low tax, go to American cities and observe the poverty and mental health collapse. I was horrified.

[@peterszeug308]

25:45 You are rocking my world. I am a poor man in Germany, yet have to pay for medicines completely myself (which is rare, but can happen even with an "insurance"). The more expensive my medicines, the higher the taxes - intense chronic pain without them. Lunacy. Why shouldn't I make it myself if it just a plant anyway?

[@DJ1573]

You are privately insured?

[@peterszeug308]

@@DJ1573 No, publicly.

[@DJ1573]

@@peterszeug308 And why do you need to pay for your medication which is possibly morphine ?

[@peterszeug308]

@@DJ1573 That is paid but my hemp flowers are not.

[@DJ1573]

@@peterszeug308 Luckily that Problem will be solved very soon.

[@veeli1106]

As a Canadian with universal “healthcare”, I don’t recommend it either…

[@Biggestfoo]

Feel free to visit our neighbours to the South then

[@toplak]

But it’s “free”😂

[@zackkilgore528]

@@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.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

@@toplak As free as the cheese on the trap!

[@toplak]

@@TheImperatorKnight Definitely. Keep up the great work🙌.

[@Aura_baby]

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.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

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.

[@kamilmatejka5299]

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!

[@TheImperatorKnight]

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

[@SonofTiamat]

@@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

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

@@TheImperatorKnight good on you👍

[@pietrayday9915]

'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!!"

[@Idekwtph]

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

[@pineapplefarmer7352]

The problem with that "that wasn't real socialism" crowd is that they define socialism not by the means it employs, but by the goals it aims to achieve. Anything that does not achieve the stated goal of socialism is therefore (in their minds), not socialism. The core issue here is idealism, and I use that term in its actual meaning.

[@BandytaCzasu]

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.

[@wtice4632]

Its almost as if they were both far leftists

[@brucetucker4847]

@@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.

[@Mr.Truxton]

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.

[@Undead38055]

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.

[@Joshua-fi4ji]

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

[@parlyramyar]

@@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.

[@Joshua-fi4ji]

@@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.

[@parlyramyar]

@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!!

[@Brosowski]

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.

[@AverageAlien]

The only modern history channel on youtube worth watching

[@readhistory2023]

Corporation's usually bribe/fund both left and right parties. It's called hedging your bet.

[@samulikarjalainen6107]

No man is an island. I mean even libertarians who claim to be free of this need an in-group to promote their agenda.

[@garywebb8086]

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. 😉

[@stevekern7235]

LOL, yeah, it`s a tough read. ..

[@TheImperatorKnight]

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!" 🤨

[@faeembrugh]

@@TheImperatorKnight What do you think of Joachim Fest's work like 'The Face of the Third Reich' for instance?

[@stefanlaskowski6660]

@@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.

[@Lonovavir]

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".

[@tvbopc5416]

Love the DAF insignia - the Reich had a way with graphic art.

[@JK-rv9tp]

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.

[@Nationalfrontdisco71]

Funnily enough, George Galloway's Workers Party has a similar insignia, minus the swastika

[@mikedicewrites]

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.

[@brucetucker4847]

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.

[@larrypage2793]

@@brucetucker4847 maybe, but if so what difference does it make if it operates in the workers best interest against capitalists?

[@brucetucker4847]

@@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.

[@destubae3271]

@@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.

[@ericpreston8877]

@Larry Page Spoiler alert: it operated in favor of the capitalists against the workers.

[@Mitzoplick]

It was not real socialism because the unions were run by the state. So is the claim that real socialism requires small government?

[@anonymousAJ]

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?

[@TheGerogero]

B is for "business" and "bad". G is for "government" and "good". Simple.

[@orpheusP]

You aren't allowed to ask these questions.

[@useodyseeorbitchute9450]

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.

[@stevewatson6839]

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.

[@Pangora2]

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.

[@wayneorellana2549]

Love your work TIK, always setting a gold standard..

[@kevincrawford7943]

Europa the last battle

[@weareeverywhere8851]

This.

[@ricardokowalski1579]

The german socialists lost the war they waged against rusian socialists, french socialists and british socialists Socialists eat their own, the wage war among themselves. But that does not mean they hold different ideas from each other. The worst tragedy for a socialist is to live in a socialist country where the socialists leaders are not in his *SAME* socialist party.

[@wtice4632]

Based

[@QuizmasterLaw]

the free market tends toward monopolies. these tend to be vertical rather than horizontal.

[@colebehnke7767]

Every system tends towards monopolies, the free market is just the best at slowing it.

[@kaiserreich2980]

TIK is doing what all the historians should do. Thank you TIK.

[@lovemypug5077]

Really enjoyed the Stalingrad series but this is also very good, nice to have your perspective on other battles and parts of WW2

[@tancreddehauteville764]

It's right wing propaganda.

[@Pavlos_Charalambous]

Well if you put everyone in a union - including employers and high ups of corporations, basically you have no union anymore That's actually a method used to this day create an alternative " controllable" union Make it the only legitimate one that happens to support whatever is the line of the day.. I know, I used to work for the British g4s Supervisors and managers was always at every meeting since they were part of the union When elections was coming it was the same managers and supervisors getting " elected"

[@ddjay1363]

"Socialism is a moral philosophy dressed up as an economic system" - Carl Benjamin

[@TheGerogero]

Pretty poor for a philosophy... Deranged ideology?

[@Undead38055]

@@TheGerogero a plot for control at the end of the day.

[@nateo6806]

That McDonald's price comparison didn't age well 😅 Another outstanding vid Tik

[@theenigmaticgamer]

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.

[@bandit6272]

Can't expect socialists to be honest about anything. Otherwise, they wouldn't be socialists 👍

[@SonofTiamat]

Not just socialists, but third-positionist types like The Distributist

[@bandit6272]

@Son of Tiamat Not familiar with "third-positionists", but I thought the distributists was like a traditional catholic or something?

[@SonofTiamat]

@@bandit6272 Third-positionism is just a way to describe economic systems that are supposedly in the middle of capitalism and socialism, though they're usually very socialist anyway Distributism is based on Catholic corporatism, but I've heard at least one Catholic describe it as "Catholic socialism"

[@bandit6272]

@@SonofTiamat Well, socialism is a hard no for me, "moderate" or not, so I'll keep.an eye out for that

[@SonofTiamat]

@@bandit6272 A lot of third-positionist types (distributists and self described fascists) are just temporarily embarrassed rightwingers with far-left economic beliefs

[@keithstevens5614]

So according to all the mainstream historians National Socialism did not taint Socialism by even one degree of shade in a single pixel? They must all be getting their talking points from a single source. Seems like the industrialists/capitalists and the socialists were working towards a common goal in the Reich.

[@greggcal4583]

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.

[@michaeldean1289]

Interesting piece of history that nobody knows about and is often overlooked by most people. Thanks for sharing your work with us again mate ❤😊

[@michaelmccabe3079]

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 KZbin anymore, and it feels like a loose thread that would be satisfying to tie off...

[@TheImperatorKnight]

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.

[@michaelmccabe3079]

@@TheImperatorKnight Not even as a joke? ;) I mean, you still have your guitar videos on the channel...

[@backalleycqc4790]

@@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 🌞

[@billbolton]

@@TheImperatorKnight I think it's a good decision not to have gaming videos here; you can always release them elsewhere KZbin or otherwise and plug them here. Any gaming here would be ammunition for your detractors.

[@SNOOPY_-]

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

[@MrThePsychologist]

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

[@orclover2353]

I am so confused. So the nazis provided resources to improve conditions for workers, which makes them socialist, while doing what is best for workers which is bad? You sound like a champion of socialism when it supports the worker? But isn't that the worst part of socialism as it leads to inefficiency.

[@michaelkovacic2608]

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.

[@michaelkovacic2608]

@@Edax_Royeaux as far as I know, the USA has taxes as well, so your argument isn't particularly convincing

[@matthiuskoenig3378]

I think he means the % tax. But I still think this isn't a reliable method.

[@laisphinto6372]

the nazis did a trick called push all the negative aspects on to the undesirables because they feared a revolting german population

[@MichaelCollins1922]

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.

[@Boz196]

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.

[@Tkeist890]

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.

[@milanaleksic7678]

​@@Tkeist890 but no one said that

[@Biggiiful]

@CheneyChamp01. Absolute denialist cope drivel.

[@joaoeigen]

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.

[@mikem.s.1183]

As I was growing up I read books and saw movies (especially German) which portrayed the National Socialists organisations (aka, the Naz1 offspring) as all knowing, all powerful, all menacing. Anyone who opposed them was subject to effective cancellation reason why factory owners stopped complaining and obeyed every whim of those in power. It's also noteworthy that political commissars were everywhere, either in full Naz1 uniform or not. The modus operandi was similar to that of the tentacles of East Germany's Stasi (born a few years later). Factory owners were in fear of being sent to combat fronts and their family possessions destroyed or distributed. Not all, true, but most. Everyone had an eye on everyone and swore allegiance to The State, to the Reich. That's what I remember from those books and movies. In all the many, many movies by the Naz1 propaganda machine, we see tens to hundreds of thousands of people not looking oppressed by capitalist "monsters" but rather proud of aligning with the Collective, the State, the National Socialists. It was, for all intents and purposes, akin to members of a cult religiously following their leaders (and equals). Curiously, we saw the same phenomenon in East Germany. We saw the same phenomenon in the USSR. The same menace, the same everyone has eyes and ears on everyone else, the same hierarchies (political commissars, workers representatives with immense power, the same tendency to remove anyone who workers dance to their music. In short, the same mentality and feverish control that Stalin and Mao and Co. exerted on everyone.

[@holysquire8989]

We know Hitler was a revolutionary rather than a reactionary. Horst Wessel Song lyric "Comrades shot by the red front and reactionaries. March in spirit with us in our ranks" The enemies are the Soviets and the reactionaries.

[@TheBigheadValley]

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.

[@TheImperatorKnight]

I've actually tackled Tooze before as part of another video (link kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y6iUmo1th9aNorc ) although maybe I need to do a specific video on him at some point

[@maryfinnfan4140]

Toozes grandfather was a recruiter of Soviet spies according to Wikipaedia

[@johnwolf2829]

@@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

[@Biggiiful]

@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

[@groovymckraut7179]

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

[@jacksandone7244]

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!

[@od1452]

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.

[@eddiemilne4989]

There is a contradiction in your argument..You argue that workers are worse off with trade unions without giving any evidence,quoting Sowell of all people whose roots and experience couldn't be further removed from the trade union experience !.. ALL wealthy,highly developed economies have powerful private unions..You also point out that the powerful DAF was able to give workers more of the pie than the private unions in Weimar..So it would appear that National Socialism and Marxism are fundamentally different and that your averade Aryan like you and me would be better off if the Nazis had won the war..At least our women would still be willing to reproduce !..National Socialism and its offshoots like Peronism from what you say benefit the indigenous workers and peasants primarily,Marxism only seems to benefit the bureaucrat and managers..Please give me ANY example of a country where an unrestricted free market has benefitted the worker..They all appear to be in the Third World and benefit only those with the biggest bribes and most dangerous threats rather than the best ideas..Without a strong state you end up with feudal banditry and wholesale corruption..Your Libertarian view is as utopian as the Marxist one..

[@kevincook1618]

How dare you contradict the experts and confront viewers with facts. Really!

[@GeorgeThompson-j1p]

This man called a capitalist consultant "radical left wing" Radical left-wing capitalist is an oxymoron. He is terribly dishonest.

[@dr69_420]

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.

[@mpbomber1491]

You should make a video about "Europe - The Last Battle" and "The Greatest Story Never Told" and show how "true" those documentaries are.

[@Nichtzukennen]

They would use that as an excuse to yeet his channel.

[@destubae3271]

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...

[@FortuneZer0]

TIK: Battlestorm Stalingrad was a huge undertaking. Me: Yes, and I enjoyed it. TIK: Im pretty exhausted from making it. Me: Rightly so, you had a titanic effort. You deserve rest and relaxation. TIK: Sooo Im going to dive into german socialist run enterprises and economics. Me: ....... You poor fool. I will always be behind you.

[@rosbif4960]

I am convinced that Nazi Germany was not a Socialist state. The state did not represent 32 million workers - it respresented the Nazi party. And it did not even represent all members of the Nazi party, as they had no way of influencing Nazi policy. The state represented the wishes of a small number of the Nazi elite, and their objectives were not primarily socialist - they were above all rearmament and expansionism. Everything else in Nazi Germany was subordinate to those goals. That some socialist policies were used to achieve rearmament and expansion in no way makes the state socialist. The primary aim of the DAF was ensure that nothing interfered with rearmament - that was the only thing it was designed to protect.

[@s0ulwind]

You're always doing real history work, its fantastic.

[@arildborgen4586]

I have enjoyed TIKs videoes about the battle for Stalingrad, but here he shows poor understanding about the political system in Nazi-Germany. These German unions under Hitler might be called unions, but they were there to portray Hitlers party as "worker-friendly" while instead controlling the workers. The concept , a core concept of 1930s fascism can be read about here: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

[@colebehnke7767]

And your sourcing Wikipedia. We have evidence of Hitler toning down his antisemitism around those industrialists to not put them off, so is it really hard to believe that he actually was actually worker friendly but had to pretend not to to get the support of the industrialists?

[@arildborgen4586]

@@colebehnke7767 : So by your logic Hitler was not a antisemitt because he toned down his antisemitism at times.... That doesn't make much sense.

[@colebehnke7767]

@@arildborgen4586 What are you talking about, my example was about how he had to put on a face in front of the industrialists, we all know he is an antisemite, but why put up a face in front of the people he actually aligned with?

[@SonofTiamat]

"...they were there to portray [the party] as 'worker-friendly' while instead controlling the workers." So essentially socialism as usual

[@arildborgen4586]

@@colebehnke7767 : So what you mean is that Hitler actually supported the workers? (I trying to understand what you want to tell me here)