@Alicehasan95
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
First, I would like to point out that I do not fully agree with the author, as he believes Germany was socialist. He argued that Germany simply nationalized labor unions rather than destroying them, so they were socialist. That’s basically his argument, and it is true to some extent, but the question is: who was that national labor union working for? Was it working for the capitalists or for the workers? The truth is, it was working for capitalists, not for workers. Also, I don’t understand how it could be claimed that a state that is building slave labor camps next to private factories at the companies’ request would be socialist. Anyway, the author is wrong about Germany being socialist, but in this video, he does accurately describe the situation before WW2 and dispel some myths. I’d like to highlight one of the quotes he includes in his video, which refutes the notion of Germany being socialist:
“Stalin’s ultimate goal was to wait for the ‘capitalist’ Western Allies and the so-called ‘Fascists’ to exhaust themselves in the West, then swoop in to conquer Europe. Stalin himself spelled this out: ‘A war is on between two groups of capitalist countries for the redivision of the world, for the domination of the world! We see nothing wrong in their having a good hard fight and weakening each other. It would be fine if, at the hands of Germany, the position of the richest capitalist countries (especially England) were shaken. Hitler, without understanding it or desiring it, is shaking and undermining the capitalist system… We can maneuver, pit one side against the other, to set them fighting with each other as fiercely as possible.’”
Molotov confirmed this view: “We are more firmly convinced now than ever that our brilliant comrade, Lenin, was not mistaken when he assured us that the Second World War will help us to gain power throughout all of Europe as the First helped us to gain power in Russia.”
I earlier wrote that Lenin had planned to attack Poland around 1920 and spread communism throughout Europe. He knew there was significant support for communism in Germany and hoped he would be able to destroy Poland, connect with German communists, and conquer the rest of Europe. Poland was also ruled by socialists, but they were National Socialists who did not want to surrender their newly won nation to international communists. As I previously mentioned, Poland attacked Russia in the Polish–Soviet War. They had seen what Russia did to the Ukrainian population under its control and knew that if they didn’t act, they could be next. (A small historical fact: Stalin was responsible for ethnic cleansing in Russia.)
Anyway, Poland attacked, but calling Poland the aggressor in the Polish–Soviet War is the same as calling Russia the aggressor in Ukraine now. After 123 years of oppression and removal from the map, Poland defended Europe from communist expansion. Lenin had envisioned his army reaching London; he knew he had significant support in Germany and would have succeeded if he could only crush the Poles. But the Poles defeated the Russians at the Battle of Warsaw (1920), also known as the Miracle on the Vistula. Polish national socialism defeated the international socialism of the communists. (Another fact: while Poland defended Europe from international communism, Poland was attacked by Czechia, which seized Polish land. This explains why Poland took land when Hitler invaded Czechia.)
However, the West didn’t want to help the Poles liberate other nations oppressed by Russia, like the Ukrainians, so Poland was forced into the Peace of Riga. I don’t know why the West refused to help, despite fighting against the communists themselves. Were they afraid of Russian communism collapsing? I only know that Poland wanted a free Slavic nation and to create a commonwealth, so that the great powers could stop exploiting and oppressing the Slavs. Naturally, they didn’t like this idea; no one likes it when their “slaves” seek to free themselves.
Poland sought an Intermarium alliance to protect weaker Slavic states from oppressive powers. They didn’t want to conquer or fight anyone; they just wanted to unite to grow stronger and end oppression. As I previously mentioned, oppressors don’t like it when you try to liberate yourself. Anyway, after Poland defeated the international communists trying to take over Europe, Lenin realized he couldn’t accomplish his goals by force alone. He then concocted a plan to start WW2, with the idea of making the capitalists in Europe fight among themselves, after which his army would invade a ruined Europe. A similar plan existed in the U.S., which was still weaker than Europe but wanted another European war to weaken Europe and leave it open to subjugation. Both Stalin and Rockefeller supported Hitler because they needed someone stupid enough to start a war in Europe. The idea was to let France, Britain, Germany, and Italy bleed each other out for a few years, then allow U.S. and Russian communists to take over and dominate a weakened Europe.
So, while Poland’s national socialists fought to defend Europe from international communism, Fascist Hitler received support and shook hands with the communists and American Capitalist Oligarchs. He was used like a puppet by Russia and the U.S. to destroy Europe. It’s ironic: Prussia sent Lenin to destroy Russia from within, and then Lenin created a plan to find someone so stupid like Hitler to destroy Europe from within. Occasionally, people hear about Stalin’s involvement with Hitler, but rarely about U.S. elites like Rockefeller also supporting him. Because we can acknowledge Stalin, our enemy, supported Hitler, but we cannot acknowledge that the U.S., our “savior,” did as well. In the end, both the U.S. and Russia got what they wanted. Their puppet, Hitler, did as they wished, and they divided Europe as planned. Why do you think both Russia and the U.S. pretended to be neutral and stayed out of the fight initially? The purpose of the war was to destroy Europe and bleed it out from within. Russia supported Hitler with resources, while the U.S. supported Britain. Only after Hitler realized he was being used by Russia—who were preparing to attack Europe—did he launch a desperate attack, opening a second front. People often say Hitler was crazy to open a second front, Hitler was stupid but not crazy. It was desperation after he realized he had been used. Although yet not fully desperate, he still believed in German superiority, thinking he could win. To dispel another historical myth, the German offensive against Russia was not so effective because Germany was so superior but because Russia was preparing for attack, not defense. Stalin didn’t expect Hitler to attack, as he had played the role of their stupid puppet perfectly. Instead of defense bunkers and fortifications, Russians built roads, bridges, and mobile equipment to support an offensive. This lack of defenses and new infrastructure enabled the German offensive to be so effective.
In the end, Hitler was used by German capitalists to impose fascism on Europe while also serving as a puppet of Russia and the U.S. to destroy Europe. Russia and, most of all, the U.S. emerged as the real winners, just as they had planned when they supported Hitler. In the end, Hitler and Germany fought mostly against Russian communists rather than the U.S. because Germans were capitalists like the U.S. and since Fascism is the final form of capitalism when Capital takes over a state ultimately they aimed to turn the U.S. into the Fourth Reich, which they arguably succeeded in doing. The Third Reich was never about racial purity or socialism; it was merely an ideology that obscured the reality of what they did. Material conditions showed an oligarchy with a “solution” for the working class in creating a lower class of slaves to maintain a minimum standard of living for the working class, while it was still oppressed by capitalists.
I like Putin and tend to support him over the West, as I see him as a great leader and intelligent person. The only thing I dislike is Putin’s historical revisionism. I don’t know if he does this to protect Russia’s reputation, but it prevents him from admitting that Russia and the U.S. were responsible for Hitler’s rise and that they were truly the powers behind Germany starting the war in Europe. Russia and the U.S. being behind Hitler’s rise is logical, as they gained the most from the war in Europe.
In conclusion, I would say this to anyone who thinks Hitler was a socialist. I recently found out about a Fascist coup attempt in the U.S. backed by JP Morgan:
The Business Plot, also called the Wall Street Putsch and the White House Putsch, was a political conspiracy in 1933 in the United States to overthrow the government of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and install Smedley Butler as dictator.
Now, if JP Morgan supported fascism as Hitler did, ask yourself: do you think JP Morgan was a socialist or a capitalist? If JP Morgan supported Hitler, how could Hitler logically have been a socialist? Hitler was a fascist supporting oligarchy. He wanted the state to work for the true “Übermensch” — German capitalists — because, in his view, they were superior to the average German. For Nazi eugenics enthusiasts, keep in mind that eugenics was invented by Rockefeller and JP Morgan to justify, using evolution, why capitalist elites deserved more and why the state should serve them rather than ordinary people.
So, Hitler was supported by JP Morgan, who wanted to copy what Hitler had done in Germany within the U.S. Hitler promoted an ideology developed by Rockefeller, JP Morgan, and other American capitalist elites to justify the importance of oligarchy. Yet somehow, we’re supposed to believe Hitler was a socialist?
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Is there really a big difference between slave labor camps in Germany and Prison labor in US—besides, of course, the scale of atrocities—but the concept is similar. The U.S. has 334.9 million people, while China has 1.411 billion, and supposedly China is a horrible communist state, yet the U.S. has more prisoners than China—not more per citizen, more overall. So, China, a horrible communist authoritarian state with 1.411 billion people, has 1.7 million people in prison, while the U.S. (land of the free and home of the brave, lol) with a population of 334.9 million, has 1.8 million people in… Read more »
Poland was a pawn in the British game (trap) to start WWII and destroy Germany.
Hitler made what might be the biggest geopolitical blunder in Modern History by sending his military East. He should have been talking about peace.
If you want socialism, find someone who is willing to share incomes. Call yourselves the Common Income Group (CIG). Recruit new members. There is no need to have everyone live in the same area, although it can help.
See what you can do.
From the beginning, Russia planned to attack Germany, so Hitler had no choice. Russia was building infrastructure—roads and bridges—to supply their massive armored columns. Russia had no defenses built, as they were the ones supposed to attack after Hitler weakened Europe, just as they had planned. I find it interesting that people think the British were behind starting the war. Britain was the last country that wanted this war; just think for a second, they were the biggest losers in this war, having lost their influence to the U.S. The two biggest winners were Russia and the U.S., and both… Read more »
So Russia was getting ready to start WWII against a peaceful Europe? I don’t think so. WWII was the creation of the War Mongers and War Criminals Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt. You are talking about 1941-1942. I am talking about 1939. Hitler was not forced to invade Poland on Sep 1, 1939.
There never had to be a WWII.
Read the recollections of Wehrmacht soldiers who took part in Operation Barbarossa. They were also surprised not to find any defenses during the attack and encountered masses of mobile equipment, with entire armored columns preparing to attack. You can’t be prepared for both attack and defense at the same time; when you prepare for defense, you build fortifications and destroy bridges, while when you prepare for an attack, you build roads and bridges. Russia was preparing for an attack, so it built roads and bridges, which the Wehrmacht later used for its advance—this is why they were so successful. Peaceful… Read more »
I once was in a graduate seminar on Algebraic Topology and a student from MIT used this type of logic. I ended up explaining why Circular Reasoning is not the best way to construct a proof.
If we knew the outcomes (the future) of our actions, it would certainly help us decide what to do. As the saying goes, “Hindsight is 20/20”.
You have proof of U.S. oligarchs and Russia supporting Hitler’s rise to power, then Russia supporting his attempts to start a war in Europe. There is also evidence that Lenin planned to incite a war among the capitalist countries in Europe. Meanwhile, Britain was doing everything to prevent war and, in the end, was forced into war by Hitler. Yet, you still argue that the British were behind starting the war. The U.S. was growing stronger and beginning to have imperial ambitions, which the British didn’t like. The British faced the dual challenge of curbing U.S. ambitions and protecting their… Read more »
England (or should I say the War Momger and War Criminal Winston Churchill) declared war on Germany, not vice versa. Certainly Hitler did not want such a war. He was trying to resolve the Split Germany issue. If the English (and French) busybodies had kept their noses out of it, the Germans and Poles might have eventually settled these issues. Instead Germany (Hitler) dove head first into it. The Versailles Treaty might well be called the “How to start another war Treaty”. Like I say, you are using circular reasoning. You use outcomes to try to draw conclusions about the… Read more »
By “Germans and Poles might have eventually settled these issues,” do you mean through the subjugation and enslavement of Slavs (Poles), with the purpose of exploiting them to provide an average standard of living for the average German, while the average German could still be exploited by the German capitalist oligarchs? Because that was Hitler’s goal: to keep the capitalist oligarch class in power while still providing an acceptable standard of living for the German working class by creating another class beneath working class—a slave class made up of Slavs, the so-called Untermensch. I don’t understand how conquering other people… Read more »
“Warmongers and War Criminals: Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt.” The U.S. had imperial ambitions; yes, the U.S. and Britain collaborated, but while Britain had an empire, the U.S. wanted to create one. Do you think Winston Churchill and the British started the war with the intention of losing the British Empire to the Americans? America started the war in Europe with the purpose of weakening Britain and taking over their empire. The British were doing everything they could to prevent war because they knew that if they became too weak because of it, the U.S. would take advantage and seize… Read more »
I give up on that discussion. Incidentally, I had a Polish Professor for point set topology. Nice guy.
My favorite philosophers were Germans, like Kant and Schopenhauer; I do not hate Germans. I hate the ignorant Nazis who don’t understand anything and confuse ideology with logic.
You could say Germany was an Übermensch people, and because of it, they became Untermensch. You could argue that Germany was the most advanced in philosophy and psychology, and because of this, German oligarchs used these advances to dumb down and indoctrinate the German people. In that sense, Germany was a nation of Übermensch, but the oligarch class became too skilled at controlling people, dumbing them down and turning the rest of the nation into Untermensch—literal, indoctrinated machines devoid of logic, guided only by emotions and beliefs.
This is an article that requires quite a bit of time to digest, especially given that the video linked is an hour long. Admittedly, I have only skimmed that video, before reading your synopsis of it to arrive to your conclusion. My general takeaway supports my gradual understanding that we cannot believe ANYTHING we are fed about any historical accounts. There are always at least two sides to every event in history. You cannot (and should not) 100% believe anything you read or hear, and more and more, when you hear the same story everywhere, you should start to believe… Read more »
“Monopolist industry does NOT equal capitalism.” A monopoly is the final result of a free market. The purpose of a free market is to achieve economies of scale and reduce competition. So why do we need anti-monopoly laws? Because the natural result of a free market is a monopoly. I wrote before that Marx’s biggest contribution, for me, was showing that capital creates capital, which results in the accumulation of capital, and also the accumulation of markets, which leads to monopolies. Capitalism and the free market are like giving everyone one coin and having everyone play infinitely until the end,… Read more »
Wow, Grzegorz! What you right rings absolutely true to me. The big battle in the USA today are the open borders to bring in slave labor that benefit the Oligarchs, the UNIPARTY here. Thx for the follow-up.
Just like today, imagine the profits from 1.8 million people in U.S. prisons. I don’t know how many of them work, but those who do work for almost nothing. Of course, it’s optional (lol, they have a way of making your life a nightmare if you won’t work as a slave in U.S. prisons). And of course, if there aren’t enough criminals to put in prison, just bribe the court to make the state incarcerate more people for minor offenses, so there will be enough slave labor. There isn’t much difference between this and Krupp or IG Farben asking the… Read more »
I hate having reality shoved into my face 🙁
It’s the cancer of capitalism. You had a similar situation during COVID: the companies making vaccines were traded on the market, and they needed to have calls with investors. During one such call, an investor asked why they would make a vaccine that lasts forever, since they would only sell one to each person and then go out of business. A better solution, they suggested, would be one that requires repeating. Funny how we then got COVID boosters. After all, what’s the business in selling everyone one vaccine if, instead, you can turn it into a subscription? Hehe 😛