The wheelbarrow was probably worth more than the money in it

Was your great grandfather or grandfather a nazi?

​@@usedtoexist- Yes. I once heard a story where the barrow was stolen, leaving the money tipped onto the sidewalk

Yeah and the wheel barrows where not cheap

My grandfather would walk out of the shipyard ever week with a wheelbarrow full of dirt after a few months the security guard eventually asked him why are you stealing worthless dirt every week he replied I'm not stealing dirt I'm stealing wheelbarrows 😂

"The treaty clause 231 blamed the whole war on the Germans and no one else" Incorrect. The exact same clause appeared in every treaty decided upon at Paris. Clause 231 _was_ misinterpreted by Germany (deliberately?) when it was presented to German populace. I'm not even going to bother dismissing the rest of your article, since you haven't bothered responding to such dismissals on other channels where you have repeated your claims. Maybe you can respond to this one by quoting article 231 and 232 for us?

​@@bolivar2153The treaty was wrong,most people know this! The English economist John Maynard Keynes, who had attended the peace conference but then left in protest of the treaty, was one of the most outspoken critics of the punitive agreement.

Germany had intentionally shaken up the balance of power before WWI, figuring that it could win a major European war and come out as the dominant player. Let's see what they did to make war more likely: - Give Austria-Hungary a blank check. Basically, they lent Austria unconditional support for anything it did, even if this meant starting a war. - Hold onto Alsace-Lorraine, even though every second they did so made a war with France and its allies more likely. - Pick a naval arms race with the British. There's no better way to make the UK feel threatened than to challenge the one military advantage it had, and render it vulnerable to invasion at the same time. - Make enemies of Russia. This was especially stupid given that France and Russia were allies, and that Germany would be doomed to fight a two-front war if it had to fight both at once, but they did it anyway.

@@Nonamearisto No -There was no blank check, the Kaiser wrote that he thought something hads to be done about Franz Ferdinand's murder but that he couldn't get involved in Austria's wars, only if Russia attacked he would mobilize. Did you read the actual text? -In 1870 it is France who attacked Prussia, Alsace Lorraine was more German than French. To be fair the Kaiser should have taken only Lorraine but the French had lost a war they had begun, they had no reason to want revenge. -The German fleet was never powerful enough to represent any threat to the British, as the Kaiser built one ship, the British built two. -They didn't make enemies with Russia, because Germany was very advanced industrially and economically, the Kaiser thought it would be more advantageous to forge economic ties with a strong USA than with a backwards Russia. When France saw that she saw an opportunity to begin surrounding Germany and when Britain saw that alliance, she saw an opportunity to crush the competition, so she secretly associated with her traditional enemy, France, and by associating with Russia, she protected the north of India from a Russian invasion. The alliance with France was only revealed to the government two days before the war began, many ministers were so angry, half the government almost resigned but Edward Grey knew that this would never be accepted by the people, so he denied it 3 times and finally admitted it, taking all of Europe by surprise, too late for anyone to adjust properly. You have to remember that the Kaiser had never been at war in his whole life, he was not a war monger. What really bothered Britain were Germany's incredibly fast commercial growth, her growing empire and the Berlin - Baghdad Railway, that would have given Germany a direct access to huge oil reserves, and that was absolutely out of the question, so it was sabotaged and never finished.

@@rosesprog1722 The Kaiser wanted war, and he got it. You sound like you're an apologist for Germany. Let's clear a few things up. - Prussia manipulated France into attacking by modifying the Ems dispatch. France bought into the trap Bismarck had set, but it was ultimately Prussia which set it. Yes, Alsace-Lorraine is ethnically a Germanic area, but if that was justification enough for a war, Germany would have conquered Austria and most of Switzerland too. It was a naked grab for the region's iron and coal, as well as whatever manpower it could provide. - You didn't deny that Germany made enemies with the UK, you only said that they lost the naval arms race, which they did. Losers. - Germany also enabled Austria in the hopes that it would start a war and that Germany- which wanted a war but did not want to look like the aggressor- would get dragged into. - Germany clearly wanted to seize huge amounts of land, especially in the east. The treaty of Brest-Litovsk gave them control over much of the Russian Empires' previous supplies of grain, iron, and coal. The war was obviously a land grab on their part. - And yes, Germany made enemies of Russia in the late 1800s. It was bound to happen as long as they supported the Hapsburgs, who were rivals of the Russians and who kept many Slavs as unwilling subjects.

Most parties in Germany were offering austerity as a solution but the Nazis handed out beer and sausages. To starving people they were much more appealing.

@@kiwitrainguy I have pictures of my father. Skin and bones. Any change would look appealing. Can not imagine that world. I do not know how I survived. Mother dead, father prisioner of WW2. Things got better after 1950. Germany was no fun from 1930's to 1950's.

Yes, but that is always how this works. Included in that offer was violent antisemitism and hatred.

No - simple or sophisticated we all know when a politician offers hate as a ‘solution’ and are obliged by duty to eschew such evil. A bribe - a gold bar or sausage with beer - does not excuse abandoning that Duty.

Wait a year or two, we might be saying they were the happy days

It's gonna get worse too buckle up

​@mistermonsieur2924 totally. In the end 2024 is gonna be worse than 1968

​@@mistermonsieur29242024

But the future will be

The communist party of Germany tried to launch an armed overthrow of the government in 1918

Not really

@@thepedrothethethe6151 what does that even mean

@@thepedrothethethe6151 there was still a parliament but the entire cabinet was appointed by the President using emergency powers and was ruling using emergency powers under article 49. The state government of Prussia was deposed in I believe 1932.

It was a really interesting time when new technologies and the destruction from the war led to whole new ways of thinking. It's weird to say now but at the time movements like fascism and communism seemed to be the future, while democratic capitalism was dying.

@@usedtoexist Yes and if you take a map of Europe in the late 30's and try to see how many countries were turning to authoritarian regimes it makes your point very very solid

I started that show. It wasn't that I didn't enjoy it, but that something interfered with my watching of it and then I didn't back to it.

Agreed. If you're really interested I have a list of books to take you down a rabbit hole. Here are just a few. A novel by E Remarque, The Black Obelisk; V Ulrich, Germany 1923; A Fergusson, When Money Dies; A Tooze, The Wages of Destruction; R Gerwarth, Nov 1918...; R Gerwarth, The Vanquished; B Hett, The Death of Democracy; C Harmann, The Lost Revolution; E Weir, Weimar Germany.

They might disagree, but I have heard that the common perception of the Treaty of Versailles is wrong. As far as I know, the Treaty does not contain a War Guilt clause blaming Germany exclusively for the War (it instead says that Germany would take responsibility for the damage that it caused). I have heard that the text was deliberately mistranslated into German by the Weimar government in order to whip up outrage against the foreigners. I've also heard that the reparations payments were paid for through foreign loans which Germany eventually repudiated, effectively meaning that they didn't actually end up paying for them at all.

@@CantusTropus yes you are correct that there was no explicit 'war guilt' clause and that the reparations clause 231 was initially mistranslated, although depending how you read it, the blame for the war was implicit in the last sentence of clause: '.....as a consequence of the aggression of Germany and her allies'. Germany was also threatened with a continuation of hostilities unless she signed with no opportunity of negotiation. Germany used US loans to partly help pay reparations but also used the money to re-build its industry and politically stabilise the country, thereby avoiding a communist style revolution and further instability. You are also right that the payments were reduced, but this was by agreement; Germany did not default on these payments and did pay off these debts. Weimar Germany did eventually become more stable and a successful democratic regime up until the Great Depression (mostly caused by incompetent US politicians, financiers and greedy bankers) and when Hindenburg made the catastrophic mistake of appointing Hitler as chancellor, even though the NSDAP never got anywhere near a majority in any free election. V good video though and we need to learn from this period in history.

No one said the Treaty of Versailles was lenient. It's considered harsh, in fact, and played its part in the German dissatisfaction that eventually allowed a loon like Hitler to seize power.

@@joesterling4299 Interesting you say the treaty was harsh, some historians would say it was actually very lenient!

The Hundred Days Offensive resulted in the loss of 1.1 million German troops in three months, or those 400.000 were captured, and deep penetrations into the German strategic depth. The German army was broken and defeated. The only difference fighting on would make would be to increase the death-toll and to prolong the war a few months.

Thank you for saying so! The channel is just a hobby so the popularity doesn't matter too much. So long as a few people watch and enjoy I'm happy

@@usedtoexist I am certainly enjoying your videos! I'd love one day to host a channel like this, maybe do some alt history too. You've inspired me!

Thank you Skeen2284 for that earnest, slightly creepy assessment

​@@usedtoexistlol

They were a spent force, the only thing that saved them was the armistice. Make no mistake, if they did not sue for peace, there would have been a complete defeat. When you read about the conditions of the last few month, I think obliterated is a bit misleading, yet also justified.

It was the North Sea blockade imposed by the British Royal Navy that cut off supplies to Germany. It was a slow strangulation. The Allies just had to hold the Germans at the front and not bother with the Battle of the Somme and all their other offensives.@@d1g1tvl-0hretor1c

Firstly, good luck on your channel! I can't offer any advice on success because I don't really have any, but from a personal point of view I would focus on the areas that interest you. If you think it's interesting it probably is. Also the Internet Archive is great for resources. There's footage, and you can find pdfs of plenty of books for free that haven't always had their contents digitised.

Yeah - my advice is that we collaborate

Nowadays, most communists/progressives can't even handle online comments.

Compare it to Saint-Germain, Trianon and Sèvres, the other peace-treaties of ww1, and it won’t seem so devastating.

The reparation payments were paid for by foreign loans, which were later repudiated (aka not repaid). Was that really the cause of economic devastation? Or was it the reckless money printing to pay for big social programs?

Lol typical conservative talking point

Shut up ​@@m3gAnac0nda

@@jvelez5381 genius comment

There are numerous falsehoods in this video. Seems likenthe author is a far left lib who wants to oush a little propaganda. Sorry idiots but the national socialist party wasn’t “right wing.” Absolute horseshit.

Not really!

Tonnage of British merchant shipping sunk by Germany in WW1 = 8 million Ditto WW2 - 13 million (P.s. Britain is an island)

Aww poor Germany

Shouldn’t have bombed London

What about it? Germans didn't know how to farm?

Is your comment about Churchill an anachronism? When did the Weimar Republik end? When did Churchill become Prime Minister?

Thank you for watching. I'm writing a video on the Empire of Vietnam at the moment so you have that to look forward to.

Good luck on your paper! Interwar Germany is a fascinating period and I hope I have helped. I used a lot of sources from the internet that I'm sorry I haven't written down, but probably the single most useful single source was Ian Kershaw's "To Hell and Back: Europe 1914 to 1945". It provides a fairly broad overview of the whole continent during the time period. A lot of the quotes and information came from that book.

Thank you for saying so

Except it wasn't all hardship. Germany was in bad shape after the war, but got back on its feet and was doing ok until the Great Depression hit. That second economic collapse had nothing to do with Versailles, but rather causes outside of Europe.

What makes you think it was "hard right"?

@@mikeb5372 The Nazis became the main hard right party in Germany after the Great Depression affected Germany badly. That's pretty obvious. Prior to the Great Depression though they were a small party.

"[...] Germany did wage aggressive again in less than twenty years." "Again"? Care to explain your thought process on that one?

It was Germany that invaded Belgium, not the other way round.@@bolivar2153

Not really, the Kaiser wasn't a democrat

The communists were the reason of rise of hitler

@@thepedrothethethe6151 he was Better than the other WW1 leaders especially that a hole Wilson. Also Germany was a democracy under Kaisar, ruled by a chancellor and a legislature!

I'll bear that in mind for future videos. I'm still working out the sound mixing I'm sorry

Esp bcs the song choice is rather questionable :")

If you compare it to Germany's own Brest-Litovsk treaty it could be considered relatively easy. I don't think the problem was in how easy/harsh it was, but the indecisiveness of it seeing as the big 3 wanted vastly different things from the treaty.

Not really, the Weimar system was more unstable due to a constitution that didn't limit presidential powers

warum plapperst Du diesen Blodsinn nach. Frankreich, die US haben presidiale Macht und ihre Demokratie wackelt viel weniger als in derBRD. @@thepedrothethethe6151

The Freikorps paramilitary groups were fighting the Polish in land with German minorities, and that had been ruled by Germans for centuries. Despite the Polish majority they still considered the territory German. The Polish were certainly not aligned with communists and were actually fighting their own war with the Soviets at the time, but they weren't German and that was why they were fighting. The factions within Germany were fighting because there was no time to establish a proper democratic transition. The more conservative groups wished to keep the emperor in power, while the communist factions believed democracy was simply a means for capitalists to rule by proxy and so they were trying to overthrow it. And they were fighting one another because their views are inherently opposed

In the case of Czechoslovakia it is because Czechoslovakia seceded from the Austro-Hungarian Empire before the end of the war, and kept its internal borders from the empire (Think California seceding and keeping its current borders). Rather than try and redefine the borders of the new state the allies simply recognised the country as it was. At the time, the German and Austrian nationalities were considered the same, since language was the basis for national identity. As Czechoslovakia was surrounded by German speakers, there was a ring of Germans inside the borders of the country that had settled there in previous centuries. This was fine when it a multi-ethnic empire but difficult when nationality defined where borders should have been. Wilson believed that dividing Europe into nation states would prevent future wars as each country would have no excuse to expand anymore. He hoped to combine this with the League of Nations as a diplomatic forum to ensure future disagreements would be resolved peacefully. It's also worth bearing in mind that the US was far more homogenous at the time than today, and Wilson was supportive of racial segregation. Basically he did not believe in equality, but he did believe the world would be more peaceful if everyone stuck to their own areas.

@usedtoexist I knew Wilson was profoundly racist. I was wondering if that informed his beliefs about how each country should be defined or organized. I did not realize language was considered the defining feature of nationality. So Austria was considered the same country as Germany because they both spoke German? Maybe this backstory about language is why there have often been debates over how required english should be as an official language in the USA or why the importance of immigrants wanting to retain their language vs being accused of not assimilating or learning english fast enough. It never seemed very consequential to me whether other random people not talking to me were saying stuff I could understand or not.

Austria was recognised as a seperate country to Germany, but the Austrian people were considered Germans. Similar to North and South Korea. They are two countries with a shared ethnicity and language, and are all Koreans. This made integration between Germany and Austria very easy for Hitler

Communism wouldn't have been good for Germany either

A German revolution is one of the great historical "What-ifs". Germany just wasn't under the same strain that Russia was to allow the Bolsheviks to take power. Maybe if they had tried during the war, or after Versailles they would have had more luck.

Good riddance to that scum.

You say this like it would have been a good thing !!!

​@usedtoexist The primary reason why people didn't want a Bolshevik revolution was because the Bolshevik revolution was currently underway and the Germans could see its horror in full view. Even the SPD couldn't convince themselves that would be a good idea.

This emotive clip shows Adenauer giving a speech to Silesian exiles, who with other displaced eastern populations were a major force in West German politics, followed by scenes from the terrible period of the German evacuations and expulsions from the eastern third of Germany. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/etGCqNCC3t-qp58.htmlsi=aXt-ASCpCponnqBe

Many people seem to have been confused by my comments on it so I have made another video addressing the Treaty of Versailles and explaining my viewpoint on it if you're interested in that.

@@usedtoexist Well the comment that the treaty was "just fine" was a bit much. It's not that I'm '"confused". Your opinion is very clear. I disagree with it. So if you want to post a link tyo your explanation that's aceptable.

Yes the singing is too distracting. Really awful!!!!! The allies obviously neglected post-war Germany far too long, and diplomacy went into over-drive in late thirties in hope of resolving Hitler but in any case to ensure intervention would have support.

The narrator has made another video explaining those claims about the Treaty of Versailles kzfaq.info/get/bejne/hc1_bLKVzbK1nIU.html&ab_channel=UsedtoExist

Yes Germany does have a long history of democracy and I did not mean to suggest otherwise. The title was in reference to a saying at the time making fun of the large number of authoritarian political groups in Germany following the war

Indeed the German Empire had the most democratic votings system before WW1 (with exception of Prussia, as your wrote). Even more democratig than the Netherlands.

@@jettjones9889 Slight difference, in that actual crimes were committed more recently.

Generally modern art was associated with communism, as the communists encouraged modern art as a break with the old traditions. Abstract art like the Dadaist and Surrealist movements were the sort of thing conservative groups opposed. The conservatives and nazis did dislike one another, though they had a shared dislike of modern art and were willing to work together towards shared goals. Interestingly though, early Italian fascism was deeply associated with avant-garde art, which is something I'm going to talk about in a new video I'm making

@@usedtoexist So then the Nazis could be considered socially conservative? Is that where the common idea that they were right wing originates? Because their economic policies were pretty socialist, not quite as far left as communists but still pretty close in the de facto sense. It's well documented in this video. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/o7J4epd6y7-pYas.htmlsi=PWepWn_bRrKcy9Qj

Look the fact is that a left-right dichotomy doesn't really allow for the degree of nuance required to assess them. They were socially "conservative" in some senses, but Hitler hated the aristocracy and the emperor and quite likely the Christian religion. They certainly didn't fit with the progressives but that doesn't necessarily mean they align with the groups most would call conservative. Likewise, the Nazis considered capitalism a means of Jewish influence over the country, but despite their name they were certainly not socialist, even going so far as to ban trade unions. When it comes to Nazi economics there wasn't really a coherent ideology so much as there was different interests groups exerting control over their own areas

@usedtoexist that video from Tik points out it's a popular misconception Hitler banned trade unions. He prohibited existing trade unions so he could replace them with his own preferred trade unions. Kind of like how (I think it was) Henry the 8 disavowed the Catholic Church. Not because he hated religion or was atheist but so he could start his own Anglican churc.

One of the interesting parts about the First World War is that the fighting on the Western Front was so localised. It was difficult to convey any real sense of how the war was going to anyone that wasn't there. If you combine that with press censorship the public was completely isolated from accurate war information. Obviously once the truth was available the denial should have stopped, but the knee-jerk reaction was understandable

Arresting political opponents? Sounds familiar.

Yeah like Hilary Clinton for 4 years after 2016, before Biden won with more votes than any other President in history! Thanks to COVID and mail-in ballots!! Lmao Biden, the most popular presidential candidate in history, even more than Obama! Hahahaha yeaaaaaah.

Ok fascist 🐖

@@m3gAnac0nda OK ,Scumbag .

​@@m3gAnac0nda🤓

Hahaha nice try

Cringe

There are serious social problems. This is where the Nazis come in. This is where there are a lot of parallels. It is parallels like this that makes me think, "Oh my gosh! We are screwed!" The United States does have its own version of the Nazis. That is the alt-right. This group even has Neonazis. Donald Trump is the Orange Hitler of America. Here are parallels. The Nazis started out as a rink-a-dink group as radicals, and they eventually grew and took over. That reminds me of the alt-right now. This is a small radical group. Yet they seem to infiltrate mainstream politics with Trump. The Nazis had a coup attempt. That reminds me of the January 6 terrorist attack. Nazi ideology is both immoral and irrational. It is tough to figure out the appeal of Nazis at all. Even if there were no concentration camps yet, the rhetoric of Aryan supremacy would have been a turnoff to more PC people. The video acknowledges it. Yet it has the reason why Nazis won appeal. People were sick of the political bickering in leaders. So they like the Nazis for being simple and straightforward. What the heck?!! That is exactly why people like Trump. They like him for being a maverick to shake up a toxic status quo. The problem is that Trump is a liar, a bigot and a crooked businessman. Putting that guy in the presidency is a bad idea. I actually voted against Trump in both presidential elections so far. I voted for Hillary and Biden. Trump is called a "populist", but that is a fake label. The real American populist is Bernie Sanders I am a huge fan of him. Hitler got the same fake label. If anybody in Germany was populist, it would have been the true socialists. Sanders is a rare case of an American that is a self proclaimed socialist. So he would parallel the German socialists. The Nazis attacked the art industry. They call works they don't like as "degenerate". Modern conservatives attack art all the time, especially movies. They call it "woke" as if it were a bad thing. The movies being attacked are those with more prominent and respectful depictions of women, people of color and gays. The Nazis won't like that.

There are even more parallels. There are ones that the video didn't mention. Hitler had rhetoric about making Germany great again, and that he built a wall to protect against Allied forces. This is definitely Trump. Hitler attacked the press. Trump does the same thing. He called the press "fake news". Ugh, the hypocrite. The Nazis had a backlash in the anti fascist movement. It is like Antifa now. The Nazis believe in weird conspiracy theories about the Jews. That is like Qanon. The whole antisemitism is disturbing in ways I did not realize before. I thought the theory was that Jews were greedy, and they were trying to take over the world. The theory claims Jews were controlling financial institutions, like banks. Yet there is more to this. I recently learned that Nazis were really into capitalism. That would be very greedy and controlling. The Nazis definitely want to take over the world. They invaded other countries and started WWII. So it is the Nazis that are doing the bad stuff in the theory, and not the Jews. That is a severe case of psychological projection. I knew the theory was false. Jews have little to nothing to do with powerful financial institutions. They really are the innocent scapegoats I thought they were. Projection man. This situation is definitely a parallel in the United States. The Republicans are a party of both plutocracy and fascism. The two go hand in hand. Plutocracy is the best word I can think of for extreme capitalism. Trump may be a fascist former president now. Yet even he used to be a shady sleazy businessman in his early years. This video did bring up the theory that Marxism was a Jewish conspiracy. That doesn't make any sense. One can't be a greedy financial person and be a communist. Those two are complete opposites, and they are not compatible. If they go together in one person or group, they just won't work together. Either they cancel out or one of them becomes a fake label. The only way this conspiracy would make sense is if the Jews divided into separate capitalist and communist factions. I swear. These conservatives seem to have no critical thinking ability at all. They have no logic, reason or even common sense. The idiots. There was a major parallel. It is polarization. America has a polarization problem. The Republicans and Democrats are constantly bickering. It is hard to stay centrist or even moderate. The Republicans are so extreme and harmful. Then the Democrats struggle hard to pull America away from that. I changed over time from centrist to liberal. I even recently registered to vote and switched party to Democrat. I even find socialism and antifashism appealing, even if they are extreme and radical by American standards. I feel like it is to the point where every person is either a fascist or communist. Maybe that is a bit of an exaggeration. If I must pick a side, I am definitely going for communist. I even think Hitler was worse than Stalin. Now I see in this video. That situation actually happened in Germany. Yikes! I think polarization can happen in two ways. In the economic way, there is plutocracy vs. Communism. The biggest example of this is the Cold War, obviously. A similar situation happened in the revolutions of Russia and France. In the social way, there is fascism vs. antifashism. This happened in both Germany and Italy around WWII. In America this happens in fight if alt-right vs. Antifa. Extreme liberals can seem shocking and even scary at first. Yet they seem more reasonable when they are facing the threat of extreme conservatives. Negotiation and asking nicely won't always work. So sometimes liberals have to be radical and even violent to make conservative oppression stop. There are two edgy sayings for this. The economic saying is "Eat the rich." The social saying is "Bash the fash".

One shocking part in the video was the Great Depression. It was a major contributor to the rise of the Nazis. People turned to the Nazis to save them from the event. Yet it was misguided to put it lightly. The Great Depression started in the United States. It was due to crooked greedy businessman. A famous one is Ford. He is the car guy. He is mainly revered as a genius inventer of cars. Yet I did watch videos of his life. Ford was actually a complex guy with a mix of good and bad traits. The worst part of that he was a major antisemite. He wrote whole books on his conspiracy theories about the Jews. The books made it to Germany once they were published. A young Hitler read the book and got ideas. Between the Great Depression and Ford's antisemitism, I wonder if the United States corrupted Germany, and that caused the rise of the Nazis. Ugh! Do the bourgeoisie have to ruin everything? Learning history is a weird experience for an American like me. We Americans are brought up to be super patriotic. Then when I get into uncensored history, I learned about so much bad stuff America has done. There is bad stuff done to American people and to foreign countries. There are too many atrocities to mention. I get mixed feelings about this. I feel like Zuko from Avatar the Last Airbender. I thought the Fire Nation was too cartoonishly evil and that was a big flaw in an otherwise amazing series. Now I know more from history. The Fire Nation is a lot more realistic than I thought. There are nations like the United States and Nazis Germany that really are that extreme. Oh those poor poor Air Nomads. Poor Aang. I wonder if America is the bad guy at times. This has lead me to be suspicious. When I learned about the Soviet Union, there is something suspicious going on. Russia was one of the biggest enemies America ever had. The Cold War was a bad idea. The conflict could have been solved in a peaceful manner. A lot of bad stuff happened. Now Russia is in a very bad state. It is similar to America, and has the same problems. Even Putin is the Russian version of Trump. I wondered if America has corrupted Russia. It is suspicious. I do know that America has done corrupt things in Latin American countries, such as Chile and Bolivia. It would probably do the same thing to Russia if given the chance. I don't have hard evidence, but I do wonder. I think American interference contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union regime in Russia, but I am not exactly sure. With this video, I wonder if America has corrupted Germany too. It had some contribution to the rise of the Nazis. It is suspicious. Then Nazis try to control other countries. Germany was hit hard in the crossfire of the Cold War. This was the opposite problem. Then Germany was being controlled by other countries. This is the case of the division and the Berlin Wall . It takes some time for the video to sink in. I eventually feel sorry for the German people. They been through a lot of crap. I still hate the Nazis. Yet it is important to keep something in mind. Just because a nation has bad leadership, it doesn't mean all the people are bad. The common people are likely suffering from the bad leadership. Germans have it very difficult. They lost both World Wars. Then there is all the bad stuff in the Weimar Republic. Then there was the Oppression from the Nazis. Then there was the foreign oppression and division during the Cold War. That is a lot. This suffering is no excuse for the bad stuff the Nazis did. What the Nazis propose won't solve the problems. For example the video showed hobos on the street. I think that they are clearly victims of an oppressive plutocracy. Therefore the solution is to have socialism and help the people. Heck I think the same thing whenever I see hobos in person. Then the Nazis claim the hobos are inferior people and they should be purged. What the heck?! That would just make the problem worse. I can empathize with the German people in the most basic way. I know what it is like to be them because my own experience is so similar and uncanny. Living under an oppressive conservative regime is a Hell on Earth. It causes immense suffering. So for that reason I feel sorry for the regular Germans.

Yes, I think he got that the wrong way round.

@@kiwitrainguy like they say in Wales, "he got the whole thing arsewise around' 😂

What a disgusting and ill-informed take.

The German question?

Because you're a neurotic liberal

Whomp whomp