- Builds an army with clear and massive offensive capabilities. - Builds a navy as an interdiction force rather than a costal defense one. - Builds an air force that favored ground attack training pipelines rather than fighters. No no no the nazis clearly had no business in being the aggressive force.
@Alien Alien degeneracy was forbidden? What do you call raping and killing people whose only crime was having the wrong ethnicity or lived in the wrong place. Irving in particular has been shown to be a liar. You can't excuse Nazi war crimes by saying someone else did bad things. Btw, there were a lot of degenerates in the Nazi party.
@@ЛучшийТанк-ю5т Indeed. Germany was surrounded by potential (and real) enemies. The Reichswehr was not a credible defense force. If Germany was attacked, they could only survive by having a highly attack-capable force that could knock out separate enemies one at the time. The doctrine of the Luftwaffe was to win the air war by knocking out the opposition early on, and not be engaged in a defensive war of attrition.
What do you mean Hitler waged a war of aggression? The Poles started the war by attacking a radio station, luckily the entire German army was there to defend it
Let's see. The Poles had a huge military power on their western border & a huge military power on their eastern border. Both military powers had recently signed some agreement in Moscow (that at least was public knowledge). Plus anti-Polish hate campaigns in the public speeches of both neighbouring dictators & their media mouthpieces. So what should the Poles do? Orchestrate a strategically insignificant attack on a small radio station of their numerically stronger neighbour? Yesssss.... that checks out... About as much as the Soviet-reported shelling of Mainila by the "aggressive" Finns.
Did I really just watch a 50 minute long Video that explains why Hitler was aggressively trying to expand even though I did agree to this 100% before even watching the whole thing. Thats a good statement to TIK making stuff interesting!
Meta: It is a copy of a copy of the unauthorized and unauthenticated Memorandum, which was supposedly drafted from memory five days after the meeting itself took place. Hossbach was a bitter enemy of Hitler and the claimed memorandum may have been originally intended to discredit the NS government had the 1944 assassination attempt and coup succeeded. TIK: let's see if it matches the events as they took place, because it totally could not have been written after the fact to match those events and throw all the blame for the invasion on Hitler to let the generals and corporations involved in the east campaign (including Royal Shell) off the hook.
According to Mr Hoggan in "The Forced War" - “Yet, in 1938, Hitler liberated ten million Germans who had been denied self-determination by the peacemakers of 1919.” (page 53) Because apparently Austrian Germans were living under the oppressive Austrian-German regime of Austria... HOW DREADFUL!?!?! ... It's literally impossible to make this stuff up!
Then you didn't think about what he actually said. France had declared war against germany, therefore literally by definition any invasion of france at that point by germany is defensive by its very concept. They might not have liked the german attack on poland but declaring war against germany gives the germans every right to defend themselves
@@keithsledger6282 except that France declared war after the German invasion of Poland, complete with a false flag incident that was ludicrously obvious. And France basically sat on their hands until Germany invaded.
I want a 4x game like civilization to add Belgium to their game and just have them basically never allow open borders with anyone, but they also get uniquely high border growth rates.
It is sad how many people just blindly follow the leader on this channel. Btw: WW2 began when France & Uk declared war on Germany. Thus turning a continental conflict into an international war.
@@mattkierkegaard9403 who is blindly following the leader? TIK posts a 50 minute video explaining in great detail with sources and explanations why the "Hitler was a victim" position is faulty at best. People watch it and agree with his conclusions because TIK is both logical, skeptical, and focuses on details. Your argument seems to boil down to who declared war. If that is the entire basis of your conclusion I'd encourage you to think a bit more.
It's not sad. The history we're fed should be questioned and original sources should be continually examined so we can get closer to the truth no matter where it may lead us.
@@themaskedmenace314 thats a valid point. I suppose my language missed the mark. What I meant to imply was that its unfortunate that despite all the evidence to the contrary people still argue that the Nazis were not the aggressors.
I'm glad you like it. Sadly, some don't like this type of content (analysing sources and discussing historical debates or theories). There's been a bit of opposition to this sort of content in the comments. And I'm not referring to the Nazi comments, I mean people not liking the analysis style videos
@@TheImperatorKnight . What analysis Tik? You do not analyse Soviet pro-actions, such as Soviet aggressions against Poland, aggressions against the Baltic’s, aggressions against the Ukraine or the soviet aggressions against Finland. All of which bought Soviet threats closer to Germany. FFS you don’t even highlight the fact France and Uk declared war on Germany. Thus, it was France and Uk who turned what was a continental conflict into an international war. Also you fail to analyse, and, fail to articulate where in Nazi doctrine Hitler ever stated that he wanted to export Nazism beyond Europe. Certainly in the Goebbels diaries, it is stated that Nazism was not suitable for international export. Consequently, the Nazi doctrine was not seeking international conflict. But hey, you spent your Stalingrad monologue talking BS, so what else should we expect from you now?
@The Colonel yes, Germany, which had been dismembered, impoverished, stripped of arms, occupied and exploited, and hemmed in on all sides by alliance systems aimed specifically at preventing it from becoming a power again, was clearly the aggressor. After all, they were solely responsible for the first war, the treaty we made them sign says so! How dare they put their country right in the middle of our military alliance?
I have no problem believing the legitimacy of the Hossbach Memorandum for two reasons not stated in the video. First, the Germans had a mania for writing everything down, which is why there was so much evidence that could be presented during the Nuremburg trials. The fact that even the Wannsee Protocol (notes on the infamous meeting about the Final Solution) was recorded and kept illustrates this. Second, the small number of individuals present during the meeting that Hossbach attended supports the validity of the memorandum. Hitler is discussing invading other countries, so he would want the fewest possible number of people to know about his future plans. More attendees would mean more possibilities of a leak of the meeting's purpose. After all, forewarned is forearmed.
@The Colonel I would have to dispute this interpretation of the memorandum, based on what Hitler did in the 1920s (e.g. Beerhall putsch), Mein Kampf and his other book, as well as ramping up training of the Wehrmacht, concentration camps, etc. The Hossbach Memorandum is but one piece in a larger puzzle that, as a whole, shows that Hitler was planning aggressive war from the very start. From my perspective, it doesn't matter that Hitler was trying to do an end run around Schacht, what matters is the motive. Why was arms production so important? Why did he spend so much time talking about invading Austria and Czechoslovakia? As with many things like this, I look at patterns of behavior, not just individual pieces.
@The Colonel Agreed. I don't think anyone doubts that the text we have gives a generally accurate account of what Hitler said but the participants were never given an opportunity to authenticate or query its accuracy (with the exception of Hitler himself, who declined to do so).
First off, "trials" material was fake. Second off, if you believe the mainstream media narrative we are told that the Nutzies both burned all documents as the Soviets neared and yet preserved all documents, so which one is it? Third, the major corporations in IG FARBEN were the ones who wanted the industries in the east, regardless whether those wishes came to fruition or not. So the idea was not secret - IG FARBEN was included in certain Nutzi positions. And then 70 million people had read about "the east" in H-tlers book. Oh but gotta keep that secret. There was more secrecy when corporations wanted in on the Iraq pie (Halliburton, etc.), yet most of the population believes that there was no plan to do any of that until it just magically happened one day (oh no -two towers collapsed). For all we know, H-tler's rants could have been simply to get the wealth support of Russian expatriates (which he did), including the likely Czar-to-be. These figures were key early financiers of the Nutzi party. The idea of a Red-White Civil War 2.0 sponsored by the Nutzies was quite palatable. Of course, to what degree that actually became policy, we are going to listen to the side that talked about the Germans bayonetting babies, that misquoted everything for propaganda, that lied about lampshades, lied about their slaughter of Germans at Dachau and lied about the prisoners in Buchenwald who they overfed and effectively destroyed in time for Eisenhower to walk in for a photo shoot with very freshly deceased (gee I wonder why). Then, after the war, they allowed people from the Middle East to sneak in and poison German soldiers. Of course, nobody ever talks about this. Now let's jump to the grand finale, which just shows how clearly up is down and black is white. This is basically what you wrote: "I agree with the Hossbach memorandum, not because of data, but principally because of my hunches, my intuition about the stereotypical behavior an entire people" Let me guess: just another anti-racist who doesn't believe in stereotypes, who fights any OTHER presentation of the war that might reinforce stereotypes - except for when it fits the missing pieces of the prevailing narrative.
@@larryhats4320 First, since people like Halder corroborated the orders that people like Hitler and Goering signed, not to mention Goering himself, they could hardly be fake. Second, the Nazis tried to burn incriminating evidence, but there was so much of it they couldn't. Besides, if you watch Time Ghost War Against Humanity series you would see that there is TONS of other documentation. And before you say it was all faked, MY MOTHER visited Bergen Belsen right after the war ended and SAW IT ALL WITH HER OWN EYES. You cannot fake thousands of people recovering from starvation or mass graves that are STILL being filled with bodies of the HUNDREDS WHO WERE STILL DYING. So stop trying to rewrite history just to suit pro-Nazi racist platforms.
When Eisenhower toured a newly liberated concentration camp, he is reputed to have said “Take plenty of pictures, the time will come when people will say this didn’t happen.” And here we are.
@Ralph's Place Danzig voted majority Nazi in 1933 and 1935, despite their founding Poland denied self determination to their German and Ukrainian minorities. It is argued that was Poland's fatal mistake.
@@empowl1607 There is difference between handing over something you have power over, and being unable to expel someone from what they possess, especially after all the death and suffering for mostly common cause.
Stalin studied Hitler’s writings obsessively. He convinced himself that Hitler would not invade. Even when Churchill and his own military told him the Germans were massing on the border, he thought they were lying. When Germany did invade, he was shocked and despondent. All of which sort of highlights you can’t really make the best decisions from books and maps. Tik’s insights are brilliant.
Stalin did not think the nazis were ready and he was essentially right. The only reason the nazis had the upper hand in the beginning was that the soviet army was even less ready than them.
Fascinating video. Honestly I wasn’t actually interested in the question of if Germany was on an aggressive path or not because it was so evident they were that any honest understanding of history makes this question unnecessary. What I found fascinating in this video is how logical the memorandum was. If you put aside nazism for a moment and look at the larger German worldview from the 1800’s onward to the 1930’s it is evident that Germans saw themselves as one of the “great peoples” of their time like the British, the Americans and to a lesser degree the French and Russians. Therefore they saw that they had the misfortune of poor location. Unlike the Russians and the Americans who could conquer open continents to their rear or the British or the French who could conquer by sea other undefended territories German had the misfortune of being surrounded by strong neighbors on all sides. This frustration was made real by the Great War, while Germany was clearly the strongest single participant in the war it was blocked in on all sides by its enemies who all had both access to greater resources and the ability to blockade Germany into submission. While Hitler and his cronies had seen this hard reality through a racial lens (with catastrophic result) I’m sure the bulk of more rational German thinkers did share this concern about the poor strategic German situation. The memorandum shines light on German (not just nazi) thinking about their poor position. Yes it was an aggressive view of solving their problem through war but at its core was a fear of eventual defeat if they didn’t address their weak situation. So the memorandum made sense in that context; first step was to address immediate threats to their defensive weakness by “rationalizing” their border with absorbing Czech and Austrian territory to shorten the border for defense while increasing their national strength with more population and industrial capacity. While this was aggressive defense it was also the necessary prelude for Germany to position itself for actual aggressive expansion to the East. But again while to outsiders these actions appear (and are aggressive) to the German mind they were necessary for long term survival and therefore justified and inherently defensive. Bear in mind that they had just suffered a war in which they had been crushed by enemies on all sides. Also they realized that they had been beaten by nations who because of their own massive aggressive colonial conquests (Britain and France) had the resources to win a war of attrition. So in many German minds even the latter invasions of Poland and the Soviet Union were justified as ultimately self defense because without these large resource rich territories they would eventually be starved out by those competing empires. None of my arguments are to justify German aggression in WW2 or especially the horrific crimes of the nazis but simply to understand perhaps why even otherwise civilized men who didn’t believe in the hateful philosophies of the nazis still chose to align themselves with them for what they saw was fundamental and legitimate national aims for Germany. Furthermore I think that the horrific battle conditions of the Great War produced a generation of young men who could more easily act in an inhumane way in the next war. Also, the memory of the first war in the general population with its huge sacrifices, starvation and deprivations and then the defeat bringing an ultimate sense of humiliation and powerlessness made them ripe for exploitation and false redemption.
It's not just that Wikipedia needs resources and is controversial, but that Hossbach's memorandum itself has its own issues. At first Hossbach did not get permission from superiors to write the memorandum nor did he record it on the same day as the meeting (as was usually the case with all military meetings, eg Obersalzberg on 22 August 1939). In addition, no military was aware of the existence of this file.But this is not the most amazing thing. Hossbach was transferred to another location a few months later and his file was archived and forgotten. In 1943, General Count Kirchbach found the file by chance while searching for and producing a copy and gave it to his brother-in-law, Victor Von Martin, to keep. After the end of the war, the latter handed it over to the allied occupying authorities, who used it to produce their own version of the archive, so that it could be used against the Germans as "proof" that they were guilty in Nuremberg. Coincidentally, the original Hossbach archive and Kirchbach's copy have disappeared ... Gering in Nuremberg testified that Hitler did not call on them to talk about foreign policy but to "put pressure on General Fritsch, as Hitler was not satisfied with the rearmament of the army at that time." Admiral Raeder present confirms Gering's statement As for Hossbach himself, as an aristocrat, he was an opponent of Hitler and the National Socialist Party. In fact, he was a close friend of Ludwig Beck who was executed in 1944, as he had tried to assassinate Hitler, participating in the attempt of July 20, 1944. He was also friends with Wilhelm Canaris, the leader of Abwehr, who is known to have sabotaged conversations with leaders (eg Franco), operations (Sea Lion), exported fake files to allies to spread propaganda against Germany, etc. . but he was eventually executed for treason in 1944. Hossbach himself testified in Nuremberg that the archive is not in its original form and in fact in his memoirs he admits that at the meeting Hitler did not suggest any war plan! Von Martin, who handed over the copy of the archive, said in 1968 that: "The document presented in Nuremberg was constructed in such a way as to change the meaning of the original and can only be described as obscene." The British historian A.J.P. Taylor, in his book The Origins of the Second World War, in the chapter Second Thoughts, writes that he was initially captivated by this "legend of the archive"Taylor writes that the file: "contains no directives for action beyond a wish for increased armaments." And he observes that: "those who believe in political trials may go on quoting the Hossbach memorandum." The latter is rather an attack on people like TIK Haha H.W. Koch, who was a professor at York University, also demolished the file's authenticity in a 1968 article.(soryy for bad english but it was translated from google translate)
sources: And to put sources, do not say things in the air. Origins of the Second World War p. 7 It may be objected that these figures are irrelevant. Whatever the deficiencies of German armament on paper, Hitler won a war against two European Great Powers when the test came. This is to go against Maitland’s advice and to judge by what happened, not by what was expected to happen. Though Hitler won, he won by mistake - a mistake which he shared. Of course the Germans were confident that they could defeat Poland if they were left undisturbed in the west. Here Hitler’s political judgment that the French would do nothing proved more accurate than the apprehensions of the German generals. But he had no idea that he would knock France out of the war when he invaded Belgium and Holland on 10 May 1940. This was a defensive move: to secure the Ruhr from Allied invasion. The conquest of France was an unforeseen bonus. Even after this Hitler did not prepare for a great war. He imagined that he could defeat Soviet Russia without serious effort as he had defeated France. German production of armaments was not reduced merely during the winter of 1940-41; it was reduced still more in the autumn of 1941 when the war against Russia had already begun. No serious change took place after the initial setback in Russia nor even after the catastrophe at Stalingrad. Germany remained with "a peace like war economy". Only the British bombing attacks on German cities stimulated Hitler and the Germans to take war seriously. German war production reached its height just when Allied bombing did: in July 1944. Even in March 1945 Germany was producing substantially more military material than when she attacked Russia in 1941. From first to last, ingenuity, not military strength, was Hitler’s secret of success. He was done for when military strength became decisive, as he had always known he would be. Thus I feel justified in regarding political calculations as more important than mere strength in the period before the war. There was some change of emphasis in the summer of 1936. Then all the Powers, not merely Hitler, began to take war and preparations for war seriously into account. I erred in not stressing this change of 1936 more clearly, and perhaps in finding too much change in the autumn of 1937. This shows how difficult it is to shake off legends even when trying to do so. I was taken in by the Hossbach Memorandum. Though I doubted whether it was as important as most writers made out, I still thought that it must have some importance for every writer to make so much of it. I was wrong; and the critics were right who pointed back to 1936, though they did not apparently realize that, by doing this, they were discrediting the Hossbach memorandum. I had better discredit this "official record", as one historian has called it, a little further. The points are technical and may seem trivial to the general reader. Nevertheless scholars usually and rightly attach importance to such technicalities. In fact, according to Nuremberg, it was said that this file was his will! Hitler's last wishes in case he died. In modern practice, an official record demands three things. First, a secretary must attend to take notes which he writes up afterwards in orderly form. Then his draft must be submitted to the participants for correction and approval. Finally, the record must be placed in the official files. None of this took place in regard to the meeting on 5 November 1937, except that Hossbach attended. He took no notes. Five days later he wrote an account of the meeting from memory in longhand. He twice offered to show the manuscript to Hitler, who replied that he was too busy to read it. This was curiously casual treatment for what is supposed to be his “last will and testament” Hossbach’s original and Kirchbach’s copy have both disappeared. All that survives is a copy, perhaps shortened, perhaps “edited”, of a copy of an unauthenticated draft. It contains themes which Hitler also used in his public speeches: the need for Lebensraum, and his conviction that other countries would oppose the restoration of Germany as an independent Great Power. It contains no directives for action beyond a wish for increased armaments. Even at Nuremberg the Hossbach memorandum was not produced in order to prove Hitler’s war guilt. That was taken for granted. What it "Proved", in its final concocted form, was that those accused at Nuremberg - Goering, Raeder, and Neurath - had sat by and approved of Hitler’s aggressive plans. It had to be assumed that the plans were aggressive in order to prove the guilt of the accused. Those who believe the evidence in political trials may go on quoting the Hossbach memorandum. They should also warn their readers (as the editors of the Documents on German Foreign Policy for example do not) that the memorandum, far from being an “official
To a considerable extent, World War II had its genesis in the Franco Prussian war. That in itself was the culmination of years of tension between the two states, which finally came to head over the issue of a Holhenzollern candidate for the vacant Spanish throne. France believed it was being surrounded by Prussian Hohenzollerns and declared war on Prussia to prevent it. Prussia, under Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck, won the war. The victory made it possible for Bismarck to unite all the various German states, principalities and states into one unified German confederation. Included in the new German confederation were two provinces, Alsace and Lorraine, taken from France as war booty and annexed to Germany. There was of course historical justification for Germany’s annexation of the two provinces as France had previously taken them from Germany. moreover, the populations of these two regions were still majority, German speaking, ethnic Germans. The German annexation of Alsace- Lorraine left France humiliated and seething with anger over their loss. France had grown accustomed during her 400 years of making aggression to humiliating others-Germany in particular. France’s determination to have a war of revenge against Germany was a factor in all the diplomatic maneuvers that ultimately led to war in 1914. On April 8, 1904, Britain entered into a “Entante Cordiale” with France, followed by an Anglo Russian Entante. France and Russia then formed the Franco Russian alliance, thus the triple Entante was formed for the purpose of containing the growing power of Germany. To ameliorate this developing hostility, Germany made various vigorous efforts in the years before World War II to arrive at an understanding with Russia and France and particularly with Britain, but got nowhere. Each country had interests of their own as a growing superpower. Russia wanted control of the Turkish straits controlled by Germany through her alliance with the Ottoman Empire leading out of the black Sea . Next, Britain saw Germany as a threat to her economic dominance, and only wanted to reduce Germany’s power. Then France wanted revenge for the loss of the oppression war and wanted Alsace and Lorraine back. All three powers wanted to reduce Germany’s economic power, and the only way they saw to achieve that was by military force. Between 1912 and 1914 Russian ambassador to France Alexander Izolvsky and French president Raymond Poincaré entered into an agreement to go to war against Germany in event of any diplomatic crisis that would bring Britain in on their side. Such a crisis soon erupted with the assassination of the Austrian archduke France, Ferdinand in June 1914. Hitler made several peace offers to UK, all of which were rejected. He wanted to reclaimed Alsace and Lorraine territories from France; not io invade Britain.
I grew up with AJP Taylors' lectures, when I was first beginning to read and research history for myself I shall forever be grateful for his accessible approach to the subjects, bringing me both context and critical thinking
@@davethompson3326 It's sad that Sorel is so little known in England. There's an interesting discussion of him in, Napoleon, For and Against, by the honorary Englishman Pieter Geyl.
Don't feel bad. I was recently attacked online by a Pakistani Muslim - living in Germany - who was hating on the West and claimed that the People's Republic of China had never waged a war, never killed anyone, and never created refugees like the evil U.S.A. When I posted scholarly links that showed all the wars the PRC had started since 1949 (they were the aggressor in every single conflict), the approximately 45 million dead that the regime had murdered, the numerous massacres, and the 10s of millions of refugees fleeing death or oppression, his only response was to call it "biased propaganda". Which was the intellectual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "La, La, La, La, La".
@@aidankerrigan7117 The Korean War was not on the list of wars that the PRC started, because they didn't start it. The North Korean regime initiated the war. You did know that, right?
What I find a bit startling is that Austria was being regarded as an enemy. Well, from a political point of view Austria had a Christian conservative dictatorship which opposed hitler, but just half a year later, in March 1938, Austria joined Germany with overwhelming support of the population. Being Austrian myself, I think that it was highly unlikely that the Austrian army would go into action against the wehrmacht. They were loyal during the 1934 coup, but that is hardly a comparable situation. By this time, Austrians regarded themselves as Germans.
@@mattkierkegaard9403 was it Bismarck’s fault or the Austrian hapsburg empires refusal? I know Bismarck and the Kaiser 1 were both proud Prussians and this didn’t help anything vs the Klein Deutschland or gross Deutschland efforts
Accepting Austria would've meant its non-germanic territories, which Bismarck knew were culturally incompatable & irreconcilable with the concept of a unified pan-german state. He also predicted that a major war would be started by "some damned foolish thing in the balkans", as well as the Kaiser's fall from power.
@@harshbansal7982 that is what the Austrians told everyone after the war to absolve themselves of any blame, but the truth is that the vast majority of the Austrian population was in favor of the unification with Germany. The economic situation of Austria in the interwar period was quite Dire, and the Christian conservative regime was quite unpopular because it failed to solve them. Austria also had much more NSDAP party members than Germany relative to the absolute population
If Hitler didn't want to wage a war of aggression he could not get the Lebensraum that he needed to achieve his goals, it doesn't make any sense! Good video TIK
Ahhh but the Nazi historians say that Hitler's views in 1923 had changed by 1938-9 and that there's no evidence that Hitler wanted to be aggressive in the 1930s... except that Hitler rearmed the military from 1933, marched into the Rhineland, made it clear in the the Hossbach Memorandum of 1937 that he wanted to invade other countries, he Anschluss'd Austria, and took over Czechoslovakia... but there's no evidence of course!
@@TheImperatorKnight Hey TIK I have many quotes from Hitler, Goebbels, Göring and Mussolini that can be useful to you.. with regards to their economic ideology, How can I send them to you?
@@TheImperatorKnight A military is required to maintain a sovereign state, and quite necessary to through out the foreign occupation. "marched into the rhineland" if a state doesn't even sovereignty over its own territory its clearly in a state of war already.
@@Edax_Royeaux Even the current germany is a puppet state under foreign occupation. It's policies are to it dictated on the basis military force. Funny how the occupation of iraq and afghanistan are only 'wars' because there is still resistance. In europe if you even speak out against it you'll be arrested by police.
It's very strange- I would expect Nazis to support the idea that Hitler was aggressively expanding, since it's the natural conclusion of his philosophy, and in their view, he should have had "good reasons" to do so. It is true that Eastern Europe has been underpopulated (relative to arable land) for centuries, and it is also true that Germany has a high population density and low access to natural resources relative to Eastern Europe or France. The reactionary view just makes him out to be a wimp and a poor politician.
@Jesus Christ I'm no Socialist but are you trolling? The internet was created by public universities and department of defense. The infrastructure was paid for by tax payer subsidies. It's perhaps the only good thing to come from socialism.
Hitler had breached 13 assurances, 8 treaties, 6 conventions, 3 solemn assurances, 2 agreements and one declaration against 12 different countries by 11 December, 1941. (The list is not comprehensive even then, as it doesn't, for example, include the Reichskonkordat with the Vatican, or other breaches after that date, often against fellow Axis countries.)
Who were the "aggressors" Hitler was supposed to be reacting to in 1939? Britain, France, and the USSR were all eager to buy time to build up their military strength. Also, I've always been a fan of A.J.P. Taylor (as memory serves, I don't seem to own any of his books at the moment) because in his book about The First World War he included maps that showed the rail lines. You can't understand any war from the American Civil War on without knowing where the rail lines are and so many books don't include them. Or at least this was the case back in the '70s when I was at university.
Sadly I once met a guy that thought that Britain started the war and that Germany was just an inocent victim minding its own business. He was also defending Quisling and painting him as a hero while criticizing King Haakon of Norway and calling the Norwegian government traitors for refusing to cooperate with the Germans. He also said that since Czechoslovakia didn't put up a fight when the germans anexed it meant that they didn't mind it happening and actually wanted it to happen. He also said that if Britain had not started the war, we don't know if Germany would ever have gone to the Soviet Union (even after I told him many times that the German main goal was in the East). One of the most frustrating conversations I have ever had.
TIK your method of history to review things that seem off to you has inspired me to look further into a topic I think people currently have wrong. That topic being "The US lost the Vietnam war". If you or anyone want to see why I think that is wrong I'll explain below. Feel free to reply and question my thinking on this. I have argued that "The US lost the Vietnam war" as being incorrect a few times now and I think I have gotten the argument against this thought down pretty good now. So the first thing we need to talk about is the American goal in Vietnam to determine if the US completed those goals in the war or not. The American goal in Vietnam was to keep South Vietnam as a independent country and stop the spread of communism in South East Asia. At the point the war ended the US completed those goals. It wasn't until 2 years later when a new war started up that what was fought for in the Vietnam war was lost. Now you may question that thinking that those are separate wars. But according to even historians, military officers and the public in Vietnam they consider the war America fought in and the war that took place 2 years later to be separate wars. In Vietnam they actually are taught their country fought in 4 wars between WW2 and unification. Those 4 wars in order being first against the Japanese, second against the French, third against the Americans and then the 4th war is called the unification war (they then had a short war with China after unification as well). Lumping all these wars together is like lumping all of the Napoleonic wars together and then saying that France lost ever war in the Napoleonic wars because they lost the last 2 wars of the period. In addition to the above point in can be argued that the US forced the North Vietnamese into the peace deal that was signed in Paris. I'll explain this below. To first get the North to attend the Paris Peace accords the Nixon administration had to start a massive bombing campaign in the North that significantly destroyed the North's army divisions and air defenses build up and provided by the USSR. The USSR upset with the amount of money they were spending on the war in Vietnam pushed for the North to go to the accords (people often forget the USSR spent a larger percent of their yearly GDP on the Vietnam war then the US did). The US said it would stop the bombings of the North if the North attended the Paris Peace accords which the US did stop when the North attended. The North though left the accords before a deal could be agreed to. This caused the Nixon administration to start the bombings of the North up again and said they would continue until the North came back to the negotiation table. The USSR again told the North to go back to the peace table or they would cut the North off from getting new military supplies (since everything was getting destroyed). The North under this threat agreed to go back to Paris and work out a peace deal which they did. The North did this because they knew they needed the USSR's equipment to have a chance to unify the country later on since the North was already at that point on bad terms with China. The US in turn was able to get further concessions out of the North when the North returned to Paris such as the North agreeing to recognize South Vietnam as a independent country. So when people say the US lost the Vietnam war I say that is incorrect. The US lost the peace after the Vietnam war. That happened largely because of the Watergate scandal and Nixon being forced to resign his office. The peace deal signed in Paris said that the US would replace the North's military equipment in a one for one basis for everything lost or used. But when the North started launching border raids they found the US was not replacing the equipment they destroyed. This was because the Democrats had taken control of Congress in the US because of the Watergate scandal and most of them were anti-Vietnam war. So when the new President Ford went to Congress and asked them to keep the word of the US and support their ally in Vietnam with replacement military equipment they refused and even walked out of Congress on him while he gave a speech begging them to give Vietnam the military equipment it needed to stay independent. They thought doing so would lead the US back down the same road back into sending troops into Vietnam and that the defense equipment wouldn't matter either way. Which I don't think is correct. People forget the last 2 years the US was still in the Vietnam war US troops saw little combat because by that point the South's military had been built up to a strong enough level that it could defend itself given the proper equipment. Back to the North though, when the North saw the US was not supporting the South anymore like it agreed to in the Paris Peace accords the North decided to plan a full invasion of the South in breech of the Paris Peace accords. The North had to wait to rebuild it's military but once it was ready they did launch that full invasion and the US still didn't give the South the equipment it needed to defend itself causing it to be overrun and for the President of Vietnam at the time to say the US had betrayed them. Which was a pretty accurate thing to say. Thank you anyone for reading and please feel free to reply agreeing or disagreeing with me and why.
I honestly don't know a lot about the Vietnam War as I haven't looked into it. I've seen a couple of documentaries, but that hardly qualifies me to comment. But I'm certain other viewers know more on this than me, so hopefully they can chime in one way or another.
@@TheImperatorKnight Thanks TIK I hope so. Something else I didn't mention is newspaper articles in America and internationally between the period of the Paris peace accords and the start of the new war between the North and South believed the US had won* the war. *won in that the US did complete it's goals in joining the war in the peace deal, not that the war was actually worth what it cost though long term. In that sense it was a loss for the US since the US didn't get anything out of it long term.
The US lost about 50k troops and the total Vietnamese casualties range in estimate from 1 to 3 million. I think America developed a lot of military equipment and strategies in the war which it has used and improved upon since. I have a hard time understanding how the US can be considered the 'defeated' of the war, since they seem to have gained a lot more than they lost.
The problem with using the HM as a source is that it is a copy of a copy of an unauthenticated draft - this is how it arrived at Nuremberg after the war.
It should be said that not all Nazi writers reject The Hossbach Memorandum. David Irving accepts it and gives an interesting brief account of it in pages 62 - 65 of, The War Path (1978) noting that French Intelligence was well informed about the meeting.
Have you ever considered covering the war in China and the early days of the Pacific Theater? There's a number of interesting stories surrounding that, and I'd love to hear your take on things such as the Fall of Singapore, the Panay Incident, the Burma Campaign, and more.
He's said that he wants to focus on the eastern front for the foreseeable future because it would take so much time to get up to speed on the Pacific theater. He also recommended a channel that does Pacific stuff, but I can't remember their name.
Montemayor has done some good videos on battles, but if you really want a great WW2 channel, check out the World War Two channel with Indy Neidell - he does a week-by-week review of everything that happened 79 years ago that week in every theater of the war, and most of his focus for the last few months has been on Asia and the Pacific.
the only thing i find a bit weird about the hossbach memorandum is all them high ranking guys at this meeting and then just a colonel who was just a liaison officer actually having the clearance for such a meeting is questionable
From what I understand he was just a note keeper. So to use a colonel for that just shows how high you can move up the ranks being a purely desk job officer.
The reason Hitler got away with so much amazing villainy was that no one wanted another great war. So when Hitler repeatedly violated the Treaty of Versailles, the Allies restrained themselves. The bottom line is "no one wanted a war, but Hitler." The German people did not want a war. The German generals knew they could not win a war of attrition. Goering, the second in command of the Third Reich after Hitler, thought war was a terrible idea. The French and English wanted to avoid war so much they dishonored themselves by flushing Czechoslovakia down the toilet in an effort to mollify Hitler and avoid war. Even after the Allies declared war on Germany, they sat idol in the Phoney War, hoping to negotiate a deal. Hitler was so miraculously successful because of the Allies resistance to go to war that the Germans started to think, "He could do anything." Hitler wanted war, so there was war. World War II would not have happened if not for the machinations of ONE psychopath.
@gamez Britain bombed Germany first, but held off for a very long time after Hitler's repeated aggression. Hitler violated the treaty of Paris, invaded the Rhineland, invaded Austria, and then after Hitler signed a treaty with England to only occupy the most German populated areas of Czechoslovakia, Hitler took it all. The Allies restrained taking action for an unduly long time. After that Britain and France made it very clear that if Hitler invaded Poland they would declare war on Germany. Then Hitler invaded Poland. Who started WWII? Hitler started WWII.
@Leads If you delete England and France from the equation, there would still be a war because Hitler would still invade Poland and then Russia and, of course, he would invent justifications for that. He created justifications for all of his wars. That doesn't mean you have to accept his rationalizations. Eliminate Hitler from the equation and there is no war. By June 1941 Hitler had invaded seventeen countries: Poland, Norway, Holland, Austria, Belgium, France, Yugoslavia, Greece, Libya, Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Russia. In Mine Kampf, Hitler stated his love for war and his ambition to CONQUER "Living Space (Libensraum). War was always Hitler's intent. Is it your position that nothing should have been done to stop Hitler's aggression? Hitler didn't have to invade the Rhineland, Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. The Allies didn't declare war on him then because they hoped to avoid a conflict, but it was clear, there was no stopping Hitler short of war. Hitler did not want peace. He was furious when Chamberlin manipulated him into signing the Munich Agreement that stalled his invasion of Czechoslovakia. Hitler is by no means a "Good Guy" nor is he a victim.
@@patbrumph6769 "Invaded the Rhineland" LMAO WTF are you on about? The Rhineland was rightful German territory. And as for Czechoslovakia? There were more ethnic Germans than Czechs living there, and the Czech minority ruled over the German majority. The Austrian people actually begged to be annexed by Germany too.
No. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact has been disputed. Germany reached out to Russia but claims Russia had reached out to them in secret prior. As far as i know, no actual evidence exists of this, only that Germany reached out to Russia, whether first or not, unknown.
@@seanadler918 The Nazis couldn't have an alliance with both Japan and The Soviet Union. It was when they gave up on The Japanese (late July) that they began serious approaches to The Soviets.
Only if alternative defensive strategies existed. If your only defense is to strike first then that is what you do. It doesn't mean you suddenly have wanton aggressive intent.
While Germany was planning aggression what were Britain, France, USA, and Soviet Russia doing. Did they not have contingency (different word meaning the same thing) of their own.
A very realistic description of Germany's strategic situation, again showing that Hitler was more far-sighted than the German establishment, especially the military.
yeah romans loved to claim their wars where "defensive" all their wars where pre-emptive. But even then we have sources saying it was just for conquest offensively. But we all know Rome by the time after taking over Italy had long gone past being only defensive. what they did in the third Punic war for example was to just finish off a old enemy who was no longer a real threat to them at all. Gaul was just for glory and gold, Britain for Tin and to give Claudius a military victory for his PR. i could go on.
its the same thing as chemtrails and lizard people. A certain percentage of people is just retarded and will believe whatever they need to keep their worldview, thats the unfortunate truth.
To a considerable extent, World War II had its genesis in the Franco Prussian war. That in itself was the culmination of years of tension between the two states, which finally came to head over the issue of a Holhenzollern candidate for the vacant Spanish throne. France believed it was being surrounded by Prussian Hohenzollerns and declared war on Prussia to prevent it. Prussia, under Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck, won the war. The victory made it possible for Bismarck to unite all the various German states, principalities and states into one unified German confederation. Included in the new German confederation were two provinces, Alsace and Lorraine, taken from France as war booty and annexed to Germany. There was of course historical justification for Germany’s annexation of the two provinces as France had previously taken them from Germany. moreover, the populations of these two regions were still majority, German speaking, ethnic Germans. The German annexation of Alsace- Lorraine left France humiliated and seething with anger over their loss. France had grown accustomed during her 400 years of making aggression to humiliating others-Germany in particular. France’s determination to have a war of revenge against Germany was a factor in all the diplomatic maneuvers that ultimately led to war in 1914. On April 8, 1904, Britain entered into a “Entante Cordiale” with France, followed by an Anglo Russian Entante. France and Russia then formed the Franco Russian alliance, thus the triple Entante was formed for the purpose of containing the growing power of Germany. To ameliorate this developing hostility, Germany made various vigorous efforts in the years before World War II to arrive at an understanding with Russia and France and particularly with Britain, but got nowhere. Each country had interests of their own as a growing superpower. Russia wanted control of the Turkish straits controlled by Germany through her alliance with the Ottoman Empire leading out of the black Sea . Next, Britain saw Germany as a threat to her economic dominance, and only wanted to reduce Germany’s power. Then France wanted revenge for the loss of the oppression war and wanted Alsace and Lorraine back. All three powers wanted to reduce Germany’s economic power, and the only way they saw to achieve that was by military force. Between 1912 and 1914 Russian ambassador to France Alexander Izolvsky and French president Raymond Poincaré entered into an agreement to go to war against Germany in event of any diplomatic crisis that would bring Britain in on their side. Such a crisis soon erupted with the assassination of the Austrian archduke France, Ferdinand in June 1914. Hitler made several peace offers to UK, all of which were rejected. He wanted to reclaimed Alsace and Lorraine territories from France; not io invade Britain.
Well, TECHNICALLY the Allies declared war on Germany after their invasion of Poland, However, they (the allies) did warn him that they would if he attacked Poland.....
keep in mind Poland had a mutual defensive alliance with e and f....FOR ALL DANCE LOVERS FIGHT FOR EUROPEAN/ POLISH SOCIAL BALLROOM DANCES: POLONAISE AND MAZURKA ESSAYS, VIDEOS AND INSTRUCTIONS: GO TO THE INTERNET AND SEARCH FOR: ACADEMIA.EDU………..RAYMOND CWIEKA TO VIEW THE VIDEOS PASTE THE VIDEO - WORD - ESSAY TO A WORD DOCUMENT AND THEN CLICK & PRESS THE CTRL KEY ON THE VIDEO.
England colonized 40,000,000 sq km for living space and resources and the French built a similar Empire. We should also focus on what motivated the Nazis and what they aspired to build, an American-style manifest destiny in Eurasia. The European people have a sordid history of aggressive war, WWII thankfully was the turning point that brought it down.
hi tik. I am happy about this video from you. Somehow, I found strange that (until now) you hadn't ever mentioned the Hossbach memorandum. I consider it THE milestone about the start of the WW II
@39:24 "they were trying to invade Austria and Czechoslovakia; that is confirmation that Hitler was seeking war with those two countries at the very least." You are doing this again and again: every time an issue is under debate, you distort it with your bias that Hitler allegedly wanted war, no matter what. This example reveals it. Hitler may have discussed the possibility of conflict, as tensions were rising in those years of the advent of WWII. Austria was practically a protectorate of Italy, a country that was not friendly to Germany then. Czechoslovakia was a powder keg in its own right. It was allied to the Soviet-Union and France, so that it really amounted to a military threat to Germany, as its territory is wedged against the German borders. So, it is only natural for someone like Hitler to deliberate on the possible conflicts and the possible preparations for that. Every country did and does do it. These are the obligations of leaders in general. But no, in this particular case, we have to perceive it all as aggressive intent, to wage war in order to extent Lebensraum, right? It cannot be any other way, so, let's focus on that presumption and examine every potential piece of evidence from that perspective.
A war of aggression is the most disgusting term used in history. Wars are by definition aggressive. In the modern era, Vietnam was a war of aggression, the Afghanistan war was a war of aggression, any time two or more nations are involved in a war, it's a war of aggression. The ridiculous distinction between both nations wanting war at the same time or not, is irrelevant. No one talks about Genghis khan's war of aggression, or Alexander's war of aggression. The term war of aggression is just a feeble modern justification of righteous cause, that the victorious use over the defeated to justify any actions they committed to win said war. Using this term insults all of human history as a whole.
Allies were occupying countries all over the world...Poland was occupying German territory...and Communists had already attempted a takeover of Germany.
he probably just dismisses it as "nazi propaganda" like every other historical fact that contradicts the highly selective "hitler started ww2" narrative
The German military faced a lot of issue when the war broke out. It wasnt fully equipped with the necessary weapons, it still relied mostly on horses for transport, the inter-service rivalry plagued the rearmament process, resources were wasted , Germany lacked oil and other raw materials.
@Mark12Strang "It wasnt fully equipped with the necessary weapons, it still relied mostly on horses for transport"... Your asshole... following your mindset no one was to blame for WW1 as well, since the armies are mostly horse-drawn and were not 100% mechanized with trucks and armor and fully equipped with all the cutting edge weapons, and no wars could have ever happened in the history of mankind because no army in the world was ever fully perfect and equipped with the cutting edge necessary weapons they needed No army inWW2 was fully equipped with the necessary weapons and relied mostly on horses for transport... The very blitzkrieg strategy consisted exactly of achieving breakthroughs and encircling the enemy with the mobile forces while the less-mobile forces (the infantry which relied in horses for transport, which was most of the army) attacks the encircled bulges of the enemy
@Mark12Strang " resources were wasted , Germany lacked oil and other raw materials." Okay, so wars never happened in the world and mankind always lived peacefully because no country in the world was ever self-suficient in all the resources they needed (that's why importations and commerce were invented) and countries can never wage wars when they are not absolutely self-sufficient in all resources existent on earth, right?
If Germany didn't want a war of agression since they weren't fully equipped with the necessary weapons and lacked resources so why the allies waged war on Germany since they also lacked the necessary weapons and lacked resources and were much more unprepared for war?
Good video once more, Lewis! Can I point out, though it is not relevant to this video in particular, that the word 'quay' is pronounced 'key'. This is a minor error compared to the massive amount of research and reasoned arguments that you provide across the gamut of the sum total of your videos. I appreciate the hours and hours that it takes you to provide this content. All the best!
To be honest, anyone who says Hitler didn't Start WWII is nuts. Most of the arguments I've come across are generally loony. For example: "Well if Poland just gave Germany Danzig none of this would of happened." My reply would be, "Well that still means Hitler waged a war of aggression against Poland, at the VERY LEAST for the Danzig Corridor." Though I honestly believe giving Poland the Danzig Corridor was a huge political mistake by the Western Powers after WWI, as it did give someone like Hitler a major political excuse for war which helped greatly at convincing the masses to fight said war, but even the Danzig Corridor wasn't enough, but it did give him fuel to burn. However that does not mask the fact that Hitler shot first, and I don't care what some of the pro Nazi Wehraboos say when they say "No the Poles shot first." All the examples they often bring up are idiotic, even if the Polish Nationalist wanted a war with Germany, they were still not the ones to start that war. But in my Opinion, even if the Polish Government caved to German demands for Danzig, Hitler would of likely just found another excuse later on for a conflict, it was not beneath the Nazis to conduct False flag operations, we know they did prior to September 1st and they would of likely done so anyways.
"as E. H. Carr has argued, 'the use or threatened use of force to maintain the status quo may be morally more culpable than the use or threatened use of force to alter it"
The conditions for ww2 were setup before hitIer was even in power, it doesn't even matter where the fighting started. The bankers wanted germans eIiminated, either through quick means or slow means as we are seeing used today. To make their slow repIacement work though they could not starve out germany, which awoke the people to who their enemles were. In fact germany is still under wartime occupation, and have no nation.
To a considerable extent, World War II had its genesis in the Franco Prussian war. That in itself was the culmination of years of tension between the two states, which finally came to head over the issue of a Holhenzollern candidate for the vacant Spanish throne. France believed it was being surrounded by Prussian Hohenzollerns and declared war on Prussia to prevent it. Prussia, under Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck, won the war. The victory made it possible for Bismarck to unite all the various German states, principalities and states into one unified German confederation. Included in the new German confederation were two provinces, Alsace and Lorraine, taken from France as war booty and annexed to Germany. There was of course historical justification for Germany’s annexation of the two provinces as France had previously taken them from Germany. moreover, the populations of these two regions were still majority, German speaking, ethnic Germans. The German annexation of Alsace- Lorraine left France humiliated and seething with anger over their loss. France had grown accustomed during her 400 years of making aggression to humiliating others-Germany in particular. France’s determination to have a war of revenge against Germany was a factor in all the diplomatic maneuvers that ultimately led to war in 1914. On April 8, 1904, Britain entered into a “Entante Cordiale” with France, followed by an Anglo Russian Entante. France and Russia then formed the Franco Russian alliance, thus the triple Entante was formed for the purpose of containing the growing power of Germany. To ameliorate this developing hostility, Germany made various vigorous efforts in the years before World War II to arrive at an understanding with Russia and France and particularly with Britain, but got nowhere. Each country had interests of their own as a growing superpower. Russia wanted control of the Turkish straits controlled by Germany through her alliance with the Ottoman Empire leading out of the black Sea . Next, Britain saw Germany as a threat to her economic dominance, and only wanted to reduce Germany’s power. Then France wanted revenge for the loss of the oppression war and wanted Alsace and Lorraine back. All three powers wanted to reduce Germany’s economic power, and the only way they saw to achieve that was by military force. Between 1912 and 1914 Russian ambassador to France Alexander Izolvsky and French president Raymond Poincaré entered into an agreement to go to war against Germany in event of any diplomatic crisis that would bring Britain in on their side. Such a crisis soon erupted with the assassination of the Austrian archduke France, Ferdinand in June 1914. Hitler made several peace offers to UK, all of which were rejected. He wanted to reclaimed Alsace and Lorraine territories from France; not io invade Britain.
Given Hitler was insane and a monster, would he have known the difference between aggression and defence? Would he have cared? Isn't it a fact that his crimes and those crimes committed by those striving to please/serve him are vast and hellish too the point that no claims of defense can justify them? The point may be important but it is still overshadowed by the vastness of Nazi warcrimes.
I like how deep you dig. Thanks. BTW One would assume that Mein Kampf was explicit enough about Lebensraum. Another thing: In private Hitler spoke with a very normal voice. The shouting was always the climax of a speech which also started normal and then build up and build up. It was a very effective technique for speeches.
because demanding the self determination of people, at least for America when it goes to war, is not "aggressive" yet Germany was aggressive for demanding the self determination of Danziger's ? Heck, pretty sure every time the British Empire colonised a country it was for "liberty and freedom"
@@AFGuidesHD Plenty of countries will experience the Reich definition of "self determination". Seem that results depends of your germanic race scale ...
@@alexandredelneste270 yeah and Poland would experience the British guarantee lol (I'm sure you know that the British gave Poland away to the Soviets) after using them as a trojan horse against Germany.
@@AFGuidesHD It would be a Trojan horse if Germany didn't know that invading Poland would lead to war with France amd Uk. 20 years after Versailles, Germany would be bigger than pre WW1. They pushed Poles to negotiate after German ultimatum of late August, and offered one last chance of withdrawal to Hitler after invasion. You claim it was about self determination of Dantziger. Splitting of Poland with new "friend" Stalin tells another story ... As for Brits offering Poland to Soviets. Did Brits were in any position of opposing Stalin wishes after ww2 over Eastern-Europe ? Any reason to continue after biggest conflict in European History. With a huge Red Army against US nukes. In the end we will have the "cold" war, exporting US imperialism against communism all around the world. Resulting in open conflict once again.
Thank You for another well thought out video. Keep up the excellent work. It is greatly appreciated. On another note, it seems that the news concerning COVID and England is very grim. Stay safe !
We appreciate the facts but arguing with Nazi apologists, historical "revisionists," is wasted breath. A person who thinks Nazi Germany had war thrust upon it or that Hitler didn't want war is impossible to convince because it's an ideologically-driven delusion. In a similar vein, Germany in WW1 did not blunder into war or have it thrust upon them either. They made a calculated decision to exploit a local issue in the Balkans and they pushed Austria Hungary to make outrageous demands to Serbia, thereby guaranteeing a European-wide conflagration. Primary sources prove this.
True, but this also goes with an upcoming Patreon Q&A video asking whether Poland's aggressive foreign policy caused her own destruction, so I thought it best to show how Hitler wanted to wage war first before we got to that. The source I take on in this video (Mr Hoggan's "The Forced War") is still being used by the Nazis to argue that Poland (and Britain) started WW2
@@Edax_Royeaux the problem is geopolitics, it would have been idiocy of the highest magnitude for Germany to just hope france doesn't invade Germany whilst Germany fights a war against France's ally in Russia.
@@TheImperatorKnight It's pretty pathetic to call anyone who disagrees with a specific idea a "Nazi", it's a transparent discrediting tactic. Also if you're trying to imply that Hitler's wanting to go on the offensive means that therefore the Germans must have started World War 2 you're engaging in an obvious logical fallacy. Hitler could logically have wanted a war but also not have been the one that started it.
@@TheImperatorKnight If you think poland having an aggressive foreign policy wasn't a big part of why it got attacked you really, really don't understand the political climate of the time. You do realize that the very existence of the polish state was despised by both the germans and the russians from its inception right? Both had territorial claims on what became poland after the first world war for different reasons. Polands actions and foreign policy weren't doing it any favors in the post ww1 years at all. Sooner or later somebody was going to go at them, whether hitler had come to power or not
@@Edax_Royeaux except Italy still might have not come to germany's aid like it didn't in 1939, despite having an alliance with Germany. Alliances and pacts are merely scraps of paper, as has been stated by world leaders many times throughout history
I find it highly ironic that a bunch of late 20th and 21st century anarcho-libertarians have adopted as their symbol a man who plotted to assassinate an entire democratically elected legislature and replace them with a foreign-imposed theocracy.
I also heard a former ss soldat from DK that said the war against USSR/kommunisme that Nazis regime where an early version of UN and NATO... WTF.......
Ummm yeah...they were. Finland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Italy, Spain, Romania and Germany were all aligned against the Soviet Union with a common goal of disbanding it before the SU blasted into Eastern/Central Europe. That was a “European Union” consolidating forces and resources to protect its continent. Hell Hitler wanted England to join and displayed that goal up to late 1940...even allowing the British Expeditionary force to leave the continent when the tanks could have rolled through Dunkirk or the luftwaffe could have carpet bombed the beaches to rubble. The anti-Comintern pact was the front line or bulwark against an S.U invasion...and guess what...when that “E.U” was disbanded/defeated...the Soviet Union rolled through Europe and took the eastern half of the continent...until the “league of nations” or NATO put them in check by ensuing a Cold War of nuclear deterrence. The pre-war League of Nations was a pact of various worldwide countries with special interests...they were not a pro-Europe faction.
@@black-uh1df The USSR invaded Poland at the same time - yet we allied with them and helped them enslave half of Europe Britain itself had taken over much of the entire world via conquest If you think WWII had something to do with protecting Poland I think you need to step away from the History Channel
@@yingyang1008 An alliance of convenience at best, that collapsed nearly 5 minutes after the war ended. And yes, it did have everything to do with protecting poland. Had the Nazis not been stopped then EVERYONE was at risk. Russians, britians, Scandinavians, even americans. It's cute that you support the horrific SOB h!tler, when you *WOULD BE THE FIRST ONES HE PUT IN HIS DEATH CAMPS*
@@black-uh1df To a considerable extent, World War II had its genesis in the Franco Prussian war. That in itself was the culmination of years of tension between the two states, which finally came to head over the issue of a Holhenzollern candidate for the vacant Spanish throne. France believed it was being surrounded by Prussian Hohenzollerns and declared war on Prussia to prevent it. Prussia, under Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck, won the war. The victory made it possible for Bismarck to unite all the various German states, principalities and states into one unified German confederation. Included in the new German confederation were two provinces, Alsace and Lorraine, taken from France as war booty and annexed to Germany. There was of course historical justification for Germany’s annexation of the two provinces as France had previously taken them from Germany. moreover, the populations of these two regions were still majority, German speaking, ethnic Germans. The German annexation of Alsace- Lorraine left France humiliated and seething with anger over their loss. France had grown accustomed during her 400 years of making aggression to humiliating others-Germany in particular. France’s determination to have a war of revenge against Germany was a factor in all the diplomatic maneuvers that ultimately led to war in 1914. On April 8, 1904, Britain entered into a “Entante Cordiale” with France, followed by an Anglo Russian Entante. France and Russia then formed the Franco Russian alliance, thus the triple Entante was formed for the purpose of containing the growing power of Germany. To ameliorate this developing hostility, Germany made various vigorous efforts in the years before World War II to arrive at an understanding with Russia and France and particularly with Britain, but got nowhere. Each country had interests of their own as a growing superpower. Russia wanted control of the Turkish straits controlled by Germany through her alliance with the Ottoman Empire leading out of the black Sea . Next, Britain saw Germany as a threat to her economic dominance, and only wanted to reduce Germany’s power. Then France wanted revenge for the loss of the oppression war and wanted Alsace and Lorraine back. All three powers wanted to reduce Germany’s economic power, and the only way they saw to achieve that was by military force. Between 1912 and 1914 Russian ambassador to France Alexander Izolvsky and French president Raymond Poincaré entered into an agreement to go to war against Germany in event of any diplomatic crisis that would bring Britain in on their side. Such a crisis soon erupted with the assassination of the Austrian archduke France, Ferdinand in June 1914. Hitler made several peace offers to UK, all of which were rejected. He wanted to reclaimed Alsace and Lorraine territories from France; not io invade Britain.
Poland was an expansionist power with a standing army of 3 million. Their long term goal was to wait for Germany to be exhausted by a long war with France and Britain, then join the Allies late in the war in order to seize control of East Prussia. Germany was an aggressive, expansionist state, but so was Poland. Both can be true at the same time.
Given the internal strife in France in 1937 i.e. French internal politics, Popular Front, Spanish civil war effects on internal French politics, it could have been the driving force for calling this meeting.
I am sorry, I still do not see how there can be NO doubt about the authenticity. But it is also immaterial. All the empires were deliberating over supply chains, expansion and war.
Yea it was ironic that Great Britain and France criticized Mussolini for conquering territory in Africa when they had conquered and presently owned huge tracts of Africa !! For me but not for thee !! Same as it’s always been.
@@llllib I am not sure the Hossbach memo is out of the ordinary, though WannSee 1942 was an outlier, I would venture. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history
@@nkristianschmidt I don't see Great Britain or France preparing program of systematic extermination of nations there. If you do, please point me to the specific one.
Yeah these people tend to think everything they've been told is wrong, so if the mainstream is telling them bad things about Nazi Germany, it's all a big brain wash. And instead of doing their own research, analyzing the events and making some logical conclusions, they stick to the idea that everything they've been told is a lie by the "small hats".
Well, the reason they glorify Germany and ignore the crimes is because they believe that all narratives that go against the Aryans are made up or written/funded by a "racial" minority, despite the scientific fact that race doesn't exist www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-science-africa/ And they dismiss evidence that says that Germany committed horrible crimes because they also think it's made up by the same group. This is despite the fact that basic history theory says you cannot dismiss inconvenient evidence just because it goes against your argument (you must either argue successfully why it doesn't work, or change your narrative) th-cam.com/video/PvpJEc-NxVc/w-d-xo.html
@@TheImperatorKnight Scientific fact! That word has truly become magical. Just call something science and people will EAT IT UP. Religion is what this really is. A modern religion for modern minds. Actual science is of course immune to political dogma, which is why it is verboten and real scientists are jailed when they go against the narrative.
Interesting that Hitler regarded Czechoslovakia and Poland as such prominent enemies and focused his attention to them rather than the Soviet Union. Sounds to me that he wanted to conquer the immediate neighbors but then things went out of hand, or?
@B A Yes, and that's what TIK has argued before. But isn't this memorandum is stark contrast to that? Or is it that this is just an excerpt of the memorandum, and they also talked about invading the Soviet Union?
@@EdgarStyles1234 No, do tell me why America isn't "the greatest evil of all time" despite murdering millions of native americans in order to gain their own living space ?
Tik, a 50 minute video dissecting the Hossbach Memo isn't necessary to prove Hitler wanted to wage a war of aggression. If Mein Kampf didn't prove that alone, simply pointing to his massive scale of rearmament should do it. He didn't build battleships like the Bismarck just to create jobs. Germany went from a military that would have serious trouble taking on Belgium, to one that crushed France in barely over half a decade. Everyone knew what he was planning they just chose to close their eyes to it. All they had to do was send a few troops over when he reoccupied the Rhineland and he would have been stopped in his tracks allowing France, Britain, Poland and even the Soviet Union to catch up. His troops did have secret sealed orders to high tail it back to Germany proper if France made any sort of move to oppose his retaking the Rhineland. He was bluffing and no where near ready for war and could have been stopped very early. Too bad they were still suffering from shellshock from the Great War. Any sort of move today would have been immediately rebuffed. Great video though. I have never gotten around to studying Hossbach and I am glad you did it for me and explained it nicely. Well done!!
The warning of incoming comments is unnecessary and annoying, so I won't bother. I have to admit that I had forgotten the Hossbach Memorandum spelled out so much. The Wannsee Conference notes and The Order of the Death's Head by Heinz Höhne ( very underrated book looking inside the SS and rise of the Nazi party ), have so much information that is similar and concurrent as Tik shows here, have been my go to sources for years. Thanks for the video Tik. (:
Fact is that WW2 could have been stopped in 1939 if the French and the British would have done their allied duties regarding Poland. When the National socialist army of Germany attacked Poland the French and the British could have easily occupied great parts of Western Germany thus putting an end to the Second World War and honoring their allied duties.... The Germans barely had troops in the West. But it seems that the British and French were more interested in the destruction of the Soviet Union. How does this beautiful British proverb go ??..."A friend in need is a friend indeed "...Shame on the French and British for not saving Poland an Europe !
Dear@CommandoDude , Poland fought alone for 3 weeks...if the allies would have occupied a big part of western Germany and would have entrenched themselves, then the national socialist army of Germany had to fight on German territory. Unfortunately there was no Napoleon around leading the French army, he would not have waited and would have forced Germany to fight on two fronts.....
Dear@CommandoDude , the French were not forced by the Versailles treaty to reduce their army, it was known that national socialist Germany was a dictatorship and they occupied Austria and Czechoslovakia before, the French could have entered Germany through Belgium thus making the invasion of France difficult because they would have had to face the Maginot line....and if you say that the French army would have been on an open plain, then the same would apply for the German soldiers who had to fight them. If the French together with the British would have occupied some positions in the northern part of Germany, the invasion of France would not have been possible. By the way the allies never declared war to the Soviet Union. As I said a strong leading figure like Napoleon Bonaparte was missing on the French side,...he would have conquered Germany.. a second time.
@CommandoDude if Napoleon would have been around, I doubt he would have been of your opinion. The French could have arranged their passing through Belgium... By the way Belgium was a long time a part of France. The French could at last have tried, giving the British a better starting position, after all if Hitler would have not stopped his troops for two days in front of Dunkirk then a big part of the British expeditionary corps would have been taken prisoner and Britain would have perhaps been forced to make peace with the Third Reich...which again is not the best outcome...At last the French and British could have tried to do more, which in my eyes would have been better, even if they would have failed.... Because fail they did anyway. In my opinion it is better to fail doing your duties, like helping your allies, then doing nothing at all, even if France would have failed then the French and British would have failed with honour !
Dear@CommandoDude , we have on this subject a different opinion. In my view, if we two would be allied, which implies to help one another in case of attack on one of us and I see you being attacked by a crowd of 100 goons, I would come to your help, even if it seems foolish and stupid. For me it is better do die honorably by trying to defend us and honoring my commitment than not helping you at all, I guess I could not live with that...Besides it is God who grants victory, or defeat. Do you remember David ? Goliath was two times as tall, very powerful, had an armour, a casket, a speer, a sword an was a warrior. It seemed impossible for David a fifteen year old boy to defeat Goliath. In spite of the fact that the entire army of Israel was hiding in the woods behind some trees, he was the only one to challenge Goliath and God gave him victory... In my view life is full of commitments which must be honored, one of them is for example marriage. God bless you CommandoDude and all the best wishes to All of you.
No no no. Hitler definitely just wanted to wage a defensive war. Why else would he build thousands of t̶a̶n̶k̶s̶ tractors for farm work? (Joke question fyi)
@@EdgarStyles1234 You only have to look at the 1931 Weimar attempt at a customs union with Austria to sympathise with the idea of having a military. Germany and Austria wanted to form a customs union, France said no and that was the end of it. Without an army, Germany could not pursue even a peaceful foreign policy.
To a considerable extent, World War II had its genesis in the Franco Prussian war. That in itself was the culmination of years of tension between the two states, which finally came to head over the issue of a Holhenzollern candidate for the vacant Spanish throne. France believed it was being surrounded by Prussian Hohenzollerns and declared war on Prussia to prevent it. Prussia, under Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck, won the war. The victory made it possible for Bismarck to unite all the various German states, principalities and states into one unified German confederation. Included in the new German confederation were two provinces, Alsace and Lorraine, taken from France as war booty and annexed to Germany. There was of course historical justification for Germany’s annexation of the two provinces as France had previously taken them from Germany. moreover, the populations of these two regions were still majority, German speaking, ethnic Germans. The German annexation of Alsace- Lorraine left France humiliated and seething with anger over their loss. France had grown accustomed during her 400 years of making aggression to humiliating others-Germany in particular. France’s determination to have a war of revenge against Germany was a factor in all the diplomatic maneuvers that ultimately led to war in 1914. On April 8, 1904, Britain entered into a “Entante Cordiale” with France, followed by an Anglo Russian Entante. France and Russia then formed the Franco Russian alliance, thus the triple Entante was formed for the purpose of containing the growing power of Germany. To ameliorate this developing hostility, Germany made various vigorous efforts in the years before World War II to arrive at an understanding with Russia and France and particularly with Britain, but got nowhere. Each country had interests of their own as a growing superpower. Russia wanted control of the Turkish straits controlled by Germany through her alliance with the Ottoman Empire leading out of the black Sea . Next, Britain saw Germany as a threat to her economic dominance, and only wanted to reduce Germany’s power. Then France wanted revenge for the loss of the oppression war and wanted Alsace and Lorraine back. All three powers wanted to reduce Germany’s economic power, and the only way they saw to achieve that was by military force. Between 1912 and 1914 Russian ambassador to France Alexander Izolvsky and French president Raymond Poincaré entered into an agreement to go to war against Germany in event of any diplomatic crisis that would bring Britain in on their side. Such a crisis soon erupted with the assassination of the Austrian archduke France, Ferdinand in June 1914. Hitler made several peace offers to UK, all of which were rejected. He wanted to reclaimed Alsace and Lorraine territories from France; not io invade Britain.
By annexing Austria and Czechoslovakia which belonged to Austria for 300 years, the 1930s Germans were resurrecting the old Roman Reich. The American needed Lebensraum too- the push to American West, 19th Century American leaders needed expansion space aka Lebensraum.
France & Uk declared war on Germany. Thus, France & Uk turned a continental conflict into an international war. But sure, this video doesn’t need to focus on that primary fact when there are so many other secondary facts he can cherry pick to fit his argument. Hmm C grade at best
@@mattkierkegaard9403 Germany attacked Poland. France and the UK guaranteed its independence so they declared war upon Germany. So Germany is the aggresor.
30:50 Your image of the American Nazi is historically inaccurate, because the KKK was anti-Catholic at the time. Also, most of Afrikaners were Protestants. They were British allies (cannon fodder). Italy, Austria, Slovakia and Croatia are mostly Catholic.
Actually, Nazi ideology is fundamentally anti-Christian. But morons who have only read Mein Kampf and don't really understand the full ideology don't realize that Hitler was lying to get support from Christians in the bit he said he was a Christian. There's loads of quotes and other evidence that Hitler despised Christianity as well as other religions
@@TheImperatorKnight However, it is certain that the evangelical influence is strongest in the Southern United States. I’m just trying to understand why they didn’t switch sides. At the first free elections held in Austria (1945), the Christian Democrats won with 49.8 percent of the vote and an absolute majority of seats in the legislature. Btw. The Devil All the Time (2020) is an interesting movie, at times a bit gloomy. m.imdb.com/title/tt7395114/
Weird you should post this now TIK. I just this last week ran across the name "Institute for Historical Review" for the first time. A guy commenting on a TH-cam video suggested I watch a half hour video produced by this organization. It didnt take me a half hour to figure out what it was up to. When it validated itself by quoting hilter I just had to laugh. Like he was a reliable character! Wow. -- BTW, I dont understand why anyone would destroy an original of a document but make a copy of it first. Any idea why somebody would do that?
resistance -a public servant may get an order to destroy stuff and copies some to keep a record , like a whistleblower; the copier was a count, the nobility was quite in opposition to the Nazis, like on the 20th July 1944
Putin is not supporting that narrative, my friend. The Polish regime is. Get informed on that a little bit. On the contrary, Putin has shown documents from the russian archives fro m the time showing how Germany was all about aggression
I also don't understand why everyone always has the that Stalin is a murderer who killed everyone and wanted to attack for the sake of attacking while he signed the molotov ribbontrop pact to buy the soviet union time
To a considerable extent, World War II had its genesis in the Franco Prussian war. That in itself was the culmination of years of tension between the two states, which finally came to head over the issue of a Holhenzollern candidate for the vacant Spanish throne. France believed it was being surrounded by Prussian Hohenzollerns and declared war on Prussia to prevent it. Prussia, under Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck, won the war. The victory made it possible for Bismarck to unite all the various German states, principalities and states into one unified German confederation. Included in the new German confederation were two provinces, Alsace and Lorraine, taken from France as war booty and annexed to Germany. There was of course historical justification for Germany’s annexation of the two provinces as France had previously taken them from Germany. moreover, the populations of these two regions were still majority, German speaking, ethnic Germans. The German annexation of Alsace- Lorraine left France humiliated and seething with anger over their loss. France had grown accustomed during her 400 years of making aggression to humiliating others-Germany in particular. France’s determination to have a war of revenge against Germany was a factor in all the diplomatic maneuvers that ultimately led to war in 1914. On April 8, 1904, Britain entered into a “Entante Cordiale” with France, followed by an Anglo Russian Entante. France and Russia then formed the Franco Russian alliance, thus the triple Entante was formed for the purpose of containing the growing power of Germany. To ameliorate this developing hostility, Germany made various vigorous efforts in the years before World War II to arrive at an understanding with Russia and France and particularly with Britain, but got nowhere. Each country had interests of their own as a growing superpower. Russia wanted control of the Turkish straits controlled by Germany through her alliance with the Ottoman Empire leading out of the black Sea . Next, Britain saw Germany as a threat to her economic dominance, and only wanted to reduce Germany’s power. Then France wanted revenge for the loss of the oppression war and wanted Alsace and Lorraine back. All three powers wanted to reduce Germany’s economic power, and the only way they saw to achieve that was by military force. Between 1912 and 1914 Russian ambassador to France Alexander Izolvsky and French president Raymond Poincaré entered into an agreement to go to war against Germany in event of any diplomatic crisis that would bring Britain in on their side. Such a crisis soon erupted with the assassination of the Austrian archduke France, Ferdinand in June 1914. Hitler made several peace offers to UK, all of which were rejected. He wanted to reclaimed Alsace and Lorraine territories from France; not io invade Britain.
I always thought that the very idea of liebensraum could only be gained through agression i mean really checkoslovakia Austria were bullied into aquiesance no matter what this proves Old Adolf said it himself in his Bestselling book so everyone knew what he was wanting!!
Please check your spelling, or I'll be forced to invade. - Sincerely, a Grammar Nazi. PS: Liebensraum would be more apt to be translated as the "space of loved ones" instead of "living space (Lebensraum)".
He only wanted to go East...the west got involved. Should they have?...yes, considering what Hitlers government had planned in General Plan OST. Was East the best direction for territorial expansion...definitely.
TIK a very interesting presentation I have some comments 15:00 Case 2 France was in Political chaos in the early 1930s. 17:00 the Siegfried line was along way form being finished in 1939. 22:00 Czech defenses were fairly good. 28:00 It could be Hossbach took shorthand notes like Halder for the Memorandum
Allies were occupying countries all over the world...Poland was occupying German territory...and Communists had already attempted a takeover of Germany.
@@dragosstanciu9866 Hitler was no more racist than any other people around the world in the 1930's...certain Arab countries still have racist marriage laws.
@Sin Collector That's where you are wrong and don't understand occupation and forced treaties...The nationalists who fought in WW1 didn't sign any treaty.
@Sin Collector There are many historical examples of people ignoring or rebelling against corrupt, unfair and immoral laws and treaties. The people absolutely decide. Danzig was 98% ethnic German and occupied.
Dear me, did not the peace treaty of 1919, itself a mockery of the armistice of 1918 that was based on President Wilson’s 14 points, oblige all parties to disarm. The allies did not, thus Hitler re armed( after seeking a disarmament agreement with the Allies), and from a bunch lower base line ie, inferiority by far to the Allies military positions. The Hossbach meno, was one of many theoretical scenarios that were possible, and ALL governments do it - we, the UK had plans to fight America shortly after WW1. Is that planing aggressive war? I have no doubt Hitler was going East, but the sanctimonious drivel I hear condemning his aggressive actions, from countries that had huge empires of conquered territory is laughable. No, not a nazi, just interested in having a reasonable perspective.
Well, two things I would like to say. First, Germany always had plans to re-arm. von Seeckt and the German General Staff were secretly rearming and training the Wehrmacht during the 1920's and early 1930s in contravention of the Treaty of Versailles. They wanted another war to prove how great Germany was (also one of the reasons Germany went to war in 1914). Second, the Hossbach Memo is more of a rough outline for aggressive expansion rather than a discussion of what to do if Germany is attacked. Indeed, Hitler was upset about the results of Munich - he wanted war in 1938. And let's face it, the Czechs weren't planning an aggressive war against Germany, nor was Poland, or Yugoslavia, or Greece, or Belgium, or Holland, and the list goes on. I do agree that Britain, France, Belgium and Holland (and even the US) had overseas empires. However, some people inside those countries were starting to seriously talk about the cost of empire, and seeking to divest themselves of their empires. Britain had already given independence to Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa by this time. So these countries were finally, and extremely slowly, starting to realize that imperial conquest was wrong. Japan, Italy and Germany did not have those developing scruples, which is one reason they were condemned for their actions. However, it should never be forgotten that the primary reason they are vilified is their excessive barbarism towards everyone nation and people they fought or occupied. Finally, these three nations attempted to create empires at a time when people's views on self-determination were changing. I do agree (and have often thought) that in any era prior to the mid-1900s their actions would have been taken in stride. However, their brutality and avarice during an age of mass communication turned the entire world against them.
Nicholas Conder Of course they wished to re arm , as they felt their position unjust. Add to that revolution in the air ( Marx thought that Germany as the country to revolt first due to its industrial Base). Most observers thought the Versailles unjust - as it was, a guarantee for future conflict. Of. Course Germany wanted an empire. Their objective was Autarky, where as our us was money. Too the conquered pretty much the same treatment ( of course we killed millions). The H memo was a potential plan, subject to political developments . It could easily be superceeded by black swan events. Hitler did want war, but not in the West. He made strenuous efforts to avoid it. WE declared war, not him. WE gave the poles the ability to decide if war was coming. Had we not unilaterally given them this guarantee they would have continued with their negotiations with regards to Danzig and the proposed land corridor. Bye the bye, we were not protecting Poland as such, only against Germany, hence the Soviet invasion without sanction. We, as an ancient nation may have been questioning out morals on empire. Maybe Germany would have too in a few hundred years. Empires may have been questioned , but wee didn’t hesitate, ney contrived to add 1,000,0000 Square miles to our own after ww1. Has to wether or not a war was being planed. Against Germany is a matter of debate. We surly did contrive the First World War via Lord Grey, without government approval tied us to the french in 1906/7. We agreed to go with them, and Belgium was the excuse( we had now obligation to help them). Fingers ache now😂
@@neilkenny4585 Well, Britain has always been sensitive about the Low Countries for some reason or other since Elizabethan times. The Germans in their arrogance brought about British intervention on WW1, by invading Belgium (a neutral country). It was Germany that built a fleet specifically to defeat the Royal Navy. For what? Unlike Britain they didn't have that much overseas trade to protect. It was pure arrogance. That same militaristic arrogance was there during the 1920s and 1930s when Germany secretly armed and trained an army. Not to mention lie about how they lost WW1. The German High Command wanted a rematch, and gave Hitler the tools to do so. The whole Danzig Corridor thing was an excuse, a causa belli. Given German troop dispositions I doubt very much that even if the Poles had acquiesced that Germany would have accepted it. It would have been Serbia/Austria 1914 all over again, and for much less cause. I'm sorry, but trying to say that Germany was misunderstood and Britain and France are responsible for the war is like saying that the Soviet Union was a worker's paradise and the Mayans were peaceful agrarian philosopher astronomers. It is, in my opinion, pro-Nazi revisionist history at its worst.
Nicholas Conder Belgium did not have a treaty with us to declare war if they were invaded. We used it as an excuse to fulfill lord Greys commitment to the French.germany did start to build the High Seas fleet, but ceased way before it was anyway near the RN. ( how come we could have one, not them?). As for military arrogance , who since 1871, their year of unification did they enslave, where as we went around the world collecting peoples! Hitler wanted to conquer the Slavic eastern lands for sure, but not war with the west. We fought Hitler to prevent a powerful potential enemy.!it broke us, destroyed the empire and left the USA in ascendancy , and that was something the USA helped along the way. Britain was responsible. We guaranteed a nation we knew we could never help. And, the polish region wad a military dictatorship who had a price of the Czechs when Hitler went in - Teschen I think. Why did we not declare war on Russia when they invaded Poland. People who label others as Nazis, are people who cannot argue and establish their positions properly. So, call me what you want, but do read up on things.
@@neilkenny4585 You obviously have not been watching Time Ghost's week by week recounting of WW2. Britain was actively trying to help the Finns against the Soviets during the Winter War of 1939-1940, and even managed to send some aircraft to Finland to fight the Soviets. Unfortunately, access to Finland was extremely limited. Britain also had plans to launch air raids against Baku and the Caucuses oil fields in 1940. The only reason they didn't was because they didn't feel that they would be able to stop a Russian offensive into Iran and on into Iraq, where the bombers would be stationed (not to mention Britain's Middle East oil fields). It was better to sit and bide ones time, and not fight too many foes at once. With regards to a Navy in WW1, why did Germany even need one? The US, Japan, France and Britain were all invested in international maritime trade, unlike Germany. And again, why was their navy built specifically to take out the Royal Navy? That was its expressed purpose, not protection of trade, but destroying the Royal Navy. That is why their ships were mostly designed with the minimum of crew comforts, and why the sailors lived in barracks on shore most of the time. You can say what you want, but Germany had no reason or business invading Belgium. IT WAS WRONG! You can make all the excuses you like, but the point of fact is that Germany wanted a war in 1914 to defeat the Russians before they industrialized, and wanted to impose their will on the then order of Europe. They were itching for a fight. I agree that in 1939 the British government made promises to Poland it could not keep. I think they thought that by doing so they might cause the Germans to pause and rethink what they were doing. Like many miscalculations before and after, they were wrong. Hitler wanted a war, and he got it. Britain ended up paying the price, although I think the war merely hastened what was already happening, that is, the breakup of the empire. But if you think WW2 was not a justified war, you should watch the Time Ghost series "War on Humanity" or the Nazi's plans for the occupation of Britain and, believe it or not, the United States. Hitler and his cohorts were monsters who had to be stopped, and were. By the way, two things. One, I do research stuff. I actually have a fairly extensive home library, and my parents served in WW2. Two, I have never once called you or anyone else corresponding on this site a Nazi.
To the to this length to show that there was planning, contingencies, brainstorming, debates about the potential political and social climate in the coming years...that does nothing to show what actually happened. It doesn't address the actions taken by Poland that we're almost designed to provoke a conflict they felt would be beneficial for them as England and France would ride to their rescue, what would they get from Germany then?
All deaths matter and Poland suffered as much as Russia and yugoslavia. Read The Other Holocaust by Lukas and this from wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ia%C8%99i_pogrom Also the books listed at the end of the article. I resent your sneering remarks about the Jews. Nobody who knows what Poland went through ignores it. You have some reading to catch up on.
Yep, way more Slavs die in WW2 than anyone else, but a certain other group gets all of the attention in the West, well it's no surprise, look at Hollywood, the MSM, universities. They're just looking out for their own though, it doesn't help them to shed more light on the war crimes committed in even higher numbers against Slavs, so they don't do it.
@@postumus77 There are plenty of books on what the Nazis did in the USSR and in Yugoslavia (also Slavs) there is a movie Russian called Come and See. Make some effort on your such as reading wikipedia and exploring the bibliography instead of crying you don't get enough attention.
- Builds an army with clear and massive offensive capabilities.
- Builds a navy as an interdiction force rather than a costal defense one.
- Builds an air force that favored ground attack training pipelines rather than fighters.
No no no the nazis clearly had no business in being the aggressive force.
The best defence is an attack though
With that logic you're saying anyone that has a big army is instantly an aggressor
@Alien Alien
>invades poland
>gets himself to a 2-front war
>loses the war
>country gets deindustrialized and destroyed
>name becomes a swear word
@Alien Alien degeneracy was forbidden? What do you call raping and killing people whose only crime was having the wrong ethnicity or lived in the wrong place. Irving in particular has been shown to be a liar. You can't excuse Nazi war crimes by saying someone else did bad things. Btw, there were a lot of degenerates in the Nazi party.
@@ЛучшийТанк-ю5т Indeed. Germany was surrounded by potential (and real) enemies. The Reichswehr was not a credible defense force. If Germany was attacked, they could only survive by having a highly attack-capable force that could knock out separate enemies one at the time. The doctrine of the Luftwaffe was to win the air war by knocking out the opposition early on, and not be engaged in a defensive war of attrition.
29:40
Therapist: “Pirate TIK doesn’t exist, he can’t refute your work”
Pirate TIK:
Yar scurvy dogs🤺
What do you mean Hitler waged a war of aggression? The Poles started the war by attacking a radio station, luckily the entire German army was there to defend it
7,5 / 10
Let's see. The Poles had a huge military power on their western border & a huge military power on their eastern border. Both military powers had recently signed some agreement in Moscow (that at least was public knowledge). Plus anti-Polish hate campaigns in the public speeches of both neighbouring dictators & their media mouthpieces.
So what should the Poles do? Orchestrate a strategically insignificant attack on a small radio station of their numerically stronger neighbour? Yesssss.... that checks out... About as much as the Soviet-reported shelling of Mainila by the "aggressive" Finns.
Rdiculous it is known that it was staged by the SS as an excuse to attack Poland
@@caryblack5985 you clearly never heard of such thing like Sarcasm.
@@dickesbrot5724 Ah, could be. I must check the batteries on my sarcasm detector.
Did I really just watch a 50 minute long Video that explains why Hitler was aggressively trying to expand even though I did agree to this 100% before even watching the whole thing. Thats a good statement to TIK making stuff interesting!
nice
Meta: It is a copy of a copy of the unauthorized and unauthenticated Memorandum, which was supposedly drafted from memory five days after the meeting itself took place. Hossbach was a bitter enemy of Hitler and the claimed memorandum may have been originally intended to discredit the NS government had the 1944 assassination attempt and coup succeeded.
TIK: let's see if it matches the events as they took place, because it totally could not have been written after the fact to match those events and throw all the blame for the invasion on Hitler to let the generals and corporations involved in the east campaign (including Royal Shell) off the hook.
@@larryhats4320 alright, so one document being wrong would suddenly make Hitler a victim of circumstance and not an expansionist megalomaniac?
@@larryhats4320 if you still think poor little H is innocent, proof at 1:15
As if you needed an excuse 👍
I once debated with a guy who actually used the term : "The defensive Invasion of France..", I needed to get very drunk after that.
According to Mr Hoggan in "The Forced War" -
“Yet, in 1938, Hitler liberated ten million Germans who had been denied self-determination by the peacemakers of 1919.” (page 53)
Because apparently Austrian Germans were living under the oppressive Austrian-German regime of Austria... HOW DREADFUL!?!?!
... It's literally impossible to make this stuff up!
Then you didn't think about what he actually said. France had declared war against germany, therefore literally by definition any invasion of france at that point by germany is defensive by its very concept. They might not have liked the german attack on poland but declaring war against germany gives the germans every right to defend themselves
@@keithsledger6282 except that France declared war after the German invasion of Poland, complete with a false flag incident that was ludicrously obvious. And France basically sat on their hands until Germany invaded.
well it was france who declared war in the first place.
@@keithsledger6282 yes.
Everybody knows that ww1 and ww2 were started by Belgium because they didn't let Germans to go trought their teritory...
I want a 4x game like civilization to add Belgium to their game and just have them basically never allow open borders with anyone, but they also get uniquely high border growth rates.
Do you even know about history?
@@matthamilton5317 do you even know about irony?
@@radektruhlar3247 so sad you kids today need to learn history instead of playing video games
@@matthamilton5317do you even know what a joke is?
The fact that this argument even needs to be made is sad, but I'm glad you did the work of making it so convincingly. Well done as always TIK
It is sad how many people just blindly follow the leader on this channel.
Btw: WW2 began when France & Uk declared war on Germany. Thus turning a continental conflict into an international war.
@@mattkierkegaard9403 who is blindly following the leader? TIK posts a 50 minute video explaining in great detail with sources and explanations why the "Hitler was a victim" position is faulty at best. People watch it and agree with his conclusions because TIK is both logical, skeptical, and focuses on details. Your argument seems to boil down to who declared war. If that is the entire basis of your conclusion I'd encourage you to think a bit more.
It's not sad. The history we're fed should be questioned and original sources should be continually examined so we can get closer to the truth no matter where it may lead us.
@@themaskedmenace314 thats a valid point. I suppose my language missed the mark. What I meant to imply was that its unfortunate that despite all the evidence to the contrary people still argue that the Nazis were not the aggressors.
It's sad that people like you are out there, trying to brainwash people to hate NS Germany with constant lies and deceit
This is the gems of this channel: checking original documents and put them into context.
I'm glad you like it. Sadly, some don't like this type of content (analysing sources and discussing historical debates or theories). There's been a bit of opposition to this sort of content in the comments. And I'm not referring to the Nazi comments, I mean people not liking the analysis style videos
@@TheImperatorKnight . What analysis Tik? You do not analyse Soviet pro-actions, such as Soviet aggressions against Poland, aggressions against the Baltic’s, aggressions against the Ukraine or the soviet aggressions against Finland. All of which bought Soviet threats closer to Germany.
FFS you don’t even highlight the fact France and Uk declared war on Germany. Thus, it was France and Uk who turned what was a continental conflict into an international war.
Also you fail to analyse, and, fail to articulate where in Nazi doctrine Hitler ever stated that he wanted to export Nazism beyond Europe. Certainly in the Goebbels diaries, it is stated that Nazism was not suitable for international export. Consequently, the Nazi doctrine was not seeking international conflict.
But hey, you spent your Stalingrad monologue talking BS, so what else should we expect from you now?
@The Colonel yes, Germany, which had been dismembered, impoverished, stripped of arms, occupied and exploited, and hemmed in on all sides by alliance systems aimed specifically at preventing it from becoming a power again, was clearly the aggressor. After all, they were solely responsible for the first war, the treaty we made them sign says so! How dare they put their country right in the middle of our military alliance?
I have no problem believing the legitimacy of the Hossbach Memorandum for two reasons not stated in the video. First, the Germans had a mania for writing everything down, which is why there was so much evidence that could be presented during the Nuremburg trials. The fact that even the Wannsee Protocol (notes on the infamous meeting about the Final Solution) was recorded and kept illustrates this. Second, the small number of individuals present during the meeting that Hossbach attended supports the validity of the memorandum. Hitler is discussing invading other countries, so he would want the fewest possible number of people to know about his future plans. More attendees would mean more possibilities of a leak of the meeting's purpose. After all, forewarned is forearmed.
@The Colonel I would have to dispute this interpretation of the memorandum, based on what Hitler did in the 1920s (e.g. Beerhall putsch), Mein Kampf and his other book, as well as ramping up training of the Wehrmacht, concentration camps, etc. The Hossbach Memorandum is but one piece in a larger puzzle that, as a whole, shows that Hitler was planning aggressive war from the very start. From my perspective, it doesn't matter that Hitler was trying to do an end run around Schacht, what matters is the motive. Why was arms production so important? Why did he spend so much time talking about invading Austria and Czechoslovakia? As with many things like this, I look at patterns of behavior, not just individual pieces.
@The Colonel
Agreed.
I don't think anyone doubts that the text we have gives a generally accurate account of what Hitler said but the participants were never given an opportunity to authenticate or query its accuracy (with the exception of Hitler himself, who declined to do so).
@Paul Revere they never saw Eisenhower and the holocaust movie
First off, "trials" material was fake. Second off, if you believe the mainstream media narrative we are told that the Nutzies both burned all documents as the Soviets neared and yet preserved all documents, so which one is it? Third, the major corporations in IG FARBEN were the ones who wanted the industries in the east, regardless whether those wishes came to fruition or not. So the idea was not secret - IG FARBEN was included in certain Nutzi positions. And then 70 million people had read about "the east" in H-tlers book. Oh but gotta keep that secret. There was more secrecy when corporations wanted in on the Iraq pie (Halliburton, etc.), yet most of the population believes that there was no plan to do any of that until it just magically happened one day (oh no -two towers collapsed). For all we know, H-tler's rants could have been simply to get the wealth support of Russian expatriates (which he did), including the likely Czar-to-be. These figures were key early financiers of the Nutzi party. The idea of a Red-White Civil War 2.0 sponsored by the Nutzies was quite palatable. Of course, to what degree that actually became policy, we are going to listen to the side that talked about the Germans bayonetting babies, that misquoted everything for propaganda, that lied about lampshades, lied about their slaughter of Germans at Dachau and lied about the prisoners in Buchenwald who they overfed and effectively destroyed in time for Eisenhower to walk in for a photo shoot with very freshly deceased (gee I wonder why). Then, after the war, they allowed people from the Middle East to sneak in and poison German soldiers. Of course, nobody ever talks about this. Now let's jump to the grand finale, which just shows how clearly up is down and black is white. This is basically what you wrote: "I agree with the Hossbach memorandum, not because of data, but principally because of my hunches, my intuition about the stereotypical behavior an entire people"
Let me guess: just another anti-racist who doesn't believe in stereotypes, who fights any OTHER presentation of the war that might reinforce stereotypes - except for when it fits the missing pieces of the prevailing narrative.
@@larryhats4320 First, since people like Halder corroborated the orders that people like Hitler and Goering signed, not to mention Goering himself, they could hardly be fake. Second, the Nazis tried to burn incriminating evidence, but there was so much of it they couldn't. Besides, if you watch Time Ghost War Against Humanity series you would see that there is TONS of other documentation. And before you say it was all faked, MY MOTHER visited Bergen Belsen right after the war ended and SAW IT ALL WITH HER OWN EYES. You cannot fake thousands of people recovering from starvation or mass graves that are STILL being filled with bodies of the HUNDREDS WHO WERE STILL DYING. So stop trying to rewrite history just to suit pro-Nazi racist platforms.
When Eisenhower toured a newly liberated concentration camp, he is reputed to have said “Take plenty of pictures, the time will come when people will say this didn’t happen.” And here we are.
my sweet summer child. clearly you haven't seen eisenhower and the holocaust movie
@@larryhats4320 Monsieur Lawrence des nombreux chapeaux, you are likely correct.
That's why they sent Billy Wilder, so they could get "good pictures"...
And James Hoggan has a good book;
"I’m Right and You’re an Idiot: The Toxic State of Public Discourse and How to Clean it Up
"
Tik you’d be the guy who’d lose jeopardy...not because of your lack of knowledge, but because the show would be looking for the wrong answers 😂👍
But is this really the case Alex?
@Ralph's Place Danzig voted majority Nazi in 1933 and 1935, despite their founding Poland denied self determination to their German and Ukrainian minorities. It is argued that was Poland's fatal mistake.
@michael boultinghouse Churchill handed Poland over to Stalin after the war, is that a joke?
@@empowl1607 Pretty sure that was sarcasm, yes.
@@empowl1607 There is difference between handing over something you have power over, and being unable to expel someone from what they possess, especially after all the death and suffering for mostly common cause.
Don't just stick to tanks
Oh but I don't know anything else about anything other than "tanks", apparently... even though I hardly ever talk about tanks
@@TheImperatorKnight some would actually claim that you don't know about tanks either. Keep up the great work
@@TheImperatorKnight stick to your combined arms approach, its working.
Yes, a discussion on the merits of 30 gallon versus 50 gallon tanks can get rather boring.
@@dixztube ...and Lindybeige's, and David Fletcher's, and...
Stalin studied Hitler’s writings obsessively. He convinced himself that Hitler would not invade. Even when Churchill and his own military told him the Germans were massing on the border, he thought they were lying. When Germany did invade, he was shocked and despondent.
All of which sort of highlights you can’t really make the best decisions from books and maps.
Tik’s insights are brilliant.
Stalin did not think the nazis were ready and he was essentially right. The only reason the nazis had the upper hand in the beginning was that the soviet army was even less ready than them.
Well, yes. They were essentially of the same roots. Ideologically speaking.
Stalin was completely convinced Hitler would invade, he just guessed wrong about the timing.
TIK, the pirate voice you putting on. Slow clap of applause and very amused smile on my face, well done, great context, great work.
Pirate TIK, best TIK.
Fascinating video. Honestly I wasn’t actually interested in the question of if Germany was on an aggressive path or not because it was so evident they were that any honest understanding of history makes this question unnecessary. What I found fascinating in this video is how logical the memorandum was.
If you put aside nazism for a moment and look at the larger German worldview from the 1800’s onward to the 1930’s it is evident that Germans saw themselves as one of the “great peoples” of their time like the British, the Americans and to a lesser degree the French and Russians. Therefore they saw that they had the misfortune of poor location. Unlike the Russians and the Americans who could conquer open continents to their rear or the British or the French who could conquer by sea other undefended territories German had the misfortune of being surrounded by strong neighbors on all sides.
This frustration was made real by the Great War, while Germany was clearly the strongest single participant in the war it was blocked in on all sides by its enemies who all had both access to greater resources and the ability to blockade Germany into submission. While Hitler and his cronies had seen this hard reality through a racial lens (with catastrophic result) I’m sure the bulk of more rational German thinkers did share this concern about the poor strategic German situation.
The memorandum shines light on German (not just nazi) thinking about their poor position. Yes it was an aggressive view of solving their problem through war but at its core was a fear of eventual defeat if they didn’t address their weak situation. So the memorandum made sense in that context; first step was to address immediate threats to their defensive weakness by “rationalizing” their border with absorbing Czech and Austrian territory to shorten the border for defense while increasing their national strength with more population and industrial capacity.
While this was aggressive defense it was also the necessary prelude for Germany to position itself for actual aggressive expansion to the East. But again while to outsiders these actions appear (and are aggressive) to the German mind they were necessary for long term survival and therefore justified and inherently defensive. Bear in mind that they had just suffered a war in which they had been crushed by enemies on all sides. Also they realized that they had been beaten by nations who because of their own massive aggressive colonial conquests (Britain and France) had the resources to win a war of attrition.
So in many German minds even the latter invasions of Poland and the Soviet Union were justified as ultimately self defense because without these large resource rich territories they would eventually be starved out by those competing empires.
None of my arguments are to justify German aggression in WW2 or especially the horrific crimes of the nazis but simply to understand perhaps why even otherwise civilized men who didn’t believe in the hateful philosophies of the nazis still chose to align themselves with them for what they saw was fundamental and legitimate national aims for Germany. Furthermore I think that the horrific battle conditions of the Great War produced a generation of young men who could more easily act in an inhumane way in the next war. Also, the memory of the first war in the general population with its huge sacrifices, starvation and deprivations and then the defeat bringing an ultimate sense of humiliation and powerlessness made them ripe for exploitation and false redemption.
Capitalism had a hand in it. Look at the US backers of the Nazis. Competitive colonial aggression from all parties, just as today.
Germans historically always worked to destroy every bit of civilization in the world
It's not just that Wikipedia needs resources and is controversial, but that Hossbach's memorandum itself has its own issues. At first Hossbach did not get permission from superiors to write the memorandum nor did he record it on the same day as the meeting (as was usually the case with all military meetings, eg Obersalzberg on 22 August 1939). In addition, no military was aware of the existence of this file.But this is not the most amazing thing. Hossbach was transferred to another location a few months later and his file was archived and forgotten. In 1943, General Count Kirchbach found the file by chance while searching for and producing a copy and gave it to his brother-in-law, Victor Von Martin, to keep. After the end of the war, the latter handed it over to the allied occupying authorities, who used it to produce their own version of the archive, so that it could be used against the Germans as "proof" that they were guilty in Nuremberg.
Coincidentally, the original Hossbach archive and Kirchbach's copy have disappeared ...
Gering in Nuremberg testified that Hitler did not call on them to talk about foreign policy but to "put pressure on General Fritsch, as Hitler was not satisfied with the rearmament of the army at that time."
Admiral Raeder present confirms Gering's statement
As for Hossbach himself, as an aristocrat, he was an opponent of Hitler and the National Socialist Party.
In fact, he was a close friend of Ludwig Beck who was executed in 1944, as he had tried to assassinate Hitler, participating in the attempt of July 20, 1944.
He was also friends with Wilhelm Canaris, the leader of Abwehr, who is known to have sabotaged conversations with leaders (eg Franco), operations (Sea Lion), exported fake files to allies to spread propaganda against Germany, etc. . but he was eventually executed for treason in 1944.
Hossbach himself testified in Nuremberg that the archive is not in its original form and in fact in his memoirs he admits that at the meeting Hitler did not suggest any war plan!
Von Martin, who handed over the copy of the archive, said in 1968 that: "The document presented in Nuremberg was constructed in such a way as to change the meaning of the original and can only be described as obscene."
The British historian A.J.P. Taylor, in his book The Origins of the Second World War, in the chapter Second Thoughts, writes that he was initially captivated by this "legend of the archive"Taylor writes that the file: "contains no directives for action beyond a wish for increased armaments."
And he observes that: "those who believe in political trials may go on quoting the Hossbach memorandum."
The latter is rather an attack on people like TIK
Haha
H.W. Koch, who was a professor at York University, also demolished the file's authenticity in a 1968 article.(soryy for bad english but it was translated from google translate)
sources: And to put sources, do not say things in the air.
Origins of the Second World War p. 7
It may be objected that these figures are irrelevant. Whatever the deficiencies of German
armament on paper, Hitler won a war against two European Great Powers when the test
came. This is to go against Maitland’s advice and to judge by what happened, not by what
was expected to happen. Though Hitler won, he won by mistake - a mistake which he
shared. Of course the Germans were confident that they could defeat Poland if they
were left undisturbed in the west. Here Hitler’s political judgment that the French
would do nothing proved more accurate than the apprehensions of the German
generals. But he had no idea that he would knock France out of the war when he
invaded Belgium and Holland on 10 May 1940. This was a defensive move: to secure
the Ruhr from Allied invasion. The conquest of France was an unforeseen bonus.
Even after this Hitler did not prepare for a great war. He imagined that he could defeat
Soviet Russia without serious effort as he had defeated France. German production of
armaments was not reduced merely during the winter of 1940-41; it was reduced still
more in the autumn of 1941 when the war against Russia had already begun. No
serious change took place after the initial setback in Russia nor even after the
catastrophe at Stalingrad. Germany remained with "a peace like war economy". Only
the British bombing attacks on German cities stimulated Hitler and the Germans to
take war seriously. German war production reached its height just when Allied
bombing did: in July 1944.
Even in March 1945 Germany was producing substantially more military material than
when she attacked Russia in 1941. From first to last, ingenuity, not military strength,
was Hitler’s secret of success. He was done for when military strength became
decisive, as he had always known he would be.
Thus I feel justified in regarding political calculations as more important than mere strength in
the period before the war. There was some change of emphasis in the summer of 1936.
Then all the Powers, not merely Hitler, began to take war and preparations for war
seriously into account. I erred in not stressing this change of 1936 more clearly, and
perhaps in finding too much change in the autumn of 1937. This shows how difficult it is to
shake off legends even when trying to do so.
I was taken in by the Hossbach Memorandum. Though I doubted whether it was as
important as most writers made out, I still thought that it must have some importance for
every writer to make so much of it. I was wrong; and the critics were right who pointed back
to 1936, though they did not apparently realize that, by doing this, they were
discrediting the Hossbach memorandum. I had better discredit this "official record", as one
historian has called it, a little further. The points are technical and may seem trivial to the
general reader. Nevertheless scholars usually and rightly attach importance to such
technicalities.
In fact, according to Nuremberg, it was said that this file was his will! Hitler's last wishes in case he died.
In modern practice, an official record demands three things. First, a secretary must
attend to take notes which he writes up afterwards in orderly form. Then his draft must
be submitted to the participants for correction and approval. Finally, the record must
be placed in the official files. None of this took place in regard to the meeting on 5
November 1937, except that Hossbach attended. He took no notes. Five days later he
wrote an account of the meeting from memory in longhand. He twice offered to show the
manuscript to Hitler, who replied that he was too busy to read it. This was curiously casual
treatment for what is supposed to be his “last will and testament”
Hossbach’s original and Kirchbach’s copy have both disappeared. All that survives is a
copy, perhaps shortened, perhaps “edited”, of a copy of an unauthenticated draft. It
contains themes which Hitler also used in his public speeches: the need for
Lebensraum, and his conviction that other countries would oppose the restoration of
Germany as an independent Great Power. It contains no directives for action beyond a
wish for increased armaments. Even at Nuremberg the Hossbach memorandum was
not produced in order to prove Hitler’s war guilt. That was taken for granted. What it
"Proved", in its final concocted form, was that those accused at Nuremberg - Goering,
Raeder, and Neurath - had sat by and approved of Hitler’s aggressive plans. It had to
be assumed that the plans were aggressive in order to prove the guilt of the accused.
Those who believe the evidence in political trials may go on quoting the Hossbach
memorandum. They should also warn their readers (as the editors of the Documents on
German Foreign Policy for example do not) that the memorandum, far from being an “official
very interesting thank you.
"the myth of the great war" john mosier"
"the myth of german villainy" by brenton l bradberry
Thank you for this well written comment as well as providing sources, such professionalism is not expected on TH-cam.
To a considerable extent, World War II had its genesis in the Franco Prussian war. That in itself was the culmination of years of tension between the two states, which finally came to head over the issue of a Holhenzollern candidate for the vacant Spanish throne. France believed it was being surrounded by Prussian Hohenzollerns and declared war on Prussia to prevent it. Prussia, under Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck, won the war. The victory made it possible for Bismarck to unite all the various German states, principalities and states into one unified German confederation. Included in the new German confederation were two provinces, Alsace and Lorraine, taken from France as war booty and annexed to Germany. There was of course historical justification for Germany’s annexation of the two provinces as France had previously taken them from Germany. moreover, the populations of these two regions were still majority, German speaking, ethnic Germans.
The German annexation of Alsace- Lorraine left France humiliated and seething with anger over their loss. France had grown accustomed during her 400 years of making aggression to humiliating others-Germany in particular. France’s determination to have a war of revenge against Germany was a factor in all the diplomatic maneuvers that ultimately led to war in 1914.
On April 8, 1904, Britain entered into a “Entante Cordiale” with France, followed by an Anglo Russian Entante. France and Russia then formed the Franco Russian alliance, thus the triple Entante was formed for the purpose of containing the growing power of Germany.
To ameliorate this developing hostility, Germany made various vigorous efforts in the years before World War II to arrive at an understanding with Russia and France and particularly with Britain, but got nowhere. Each country had interests of their own as a growing superpower.
Russia wanted control of the Turkish straits controlled by Germany through her alliance with the Ottoman Empire leading out of the black Sea .
Next, Britain saw Germany as a threat to her economic dominance, and only wanted to reduce Germany’s power. Then France wanted revenge for the loss of the oppression war and wanted Alsace and Lorraine back. All three powers wanted to reduce Germany’s economic power, and the only way they saw to achieve that was by military force.
Between 1912 and 1914 Russian ambassador to France Alexander Izolvsky and French president Raymond Poincaré entered into an agreement to go to war against Germany in event of any diplomatic crisis that would bring Britain in on their side. Such a crisis soon erupted with the assassination of the Austrian archduke France, Ferdinand in June 1914.
Hitler made several peace offers to UK, all of which were rejected.
He wanted to reclaimed Alsace and Lorraine territories from France; not io invade Britain.
I grew up with AJP Taylors' lectures, when I was first beginning to read and research history for myself
I shall forever be grateful for his accessible approach to the subjects, bringing me both context and critical thinking
He's a most engaging writer.
I believe he modelled his aphoristic style on Albert Sorel, the historian of the French Revolutionary Wars.
@@alanpennie8013 I didn't know that, I'll have to look him out
@@davethompson3326
It's sad that Sorel is so little known in England.
There's an interesting discussion of him in,
Napoleon, For and Against,
by the honorary Englishman Pieter Geyl.
Don't feel bad. I was recently attacked online by a Pakistani Muslim - living in Germany - who was hating on the West and claimed that the People's Republic of China had never waged a war, never killed anyone, and never created refugees like the evil U.S.A. When I posted scholarly links that showed all the wars the PRC had started since 1949 (they were the aggressor in every single conflict), the approximately 45 million dead that the regime had murdered, the numerous massacres, and the 10s of millions of refugees fleeing death or oppression, his only response was to call it "biased propaganda". Which was the intellectual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "La, La, La, La, La".
So we have Korean War deniers too. Deniers seem to multiplying by the day unfortunately.
@@aidankerrigan7117 The Korean War was not on the list of wars that the PRC started, because they didn't start it. The North Korean regime initiated the war. You did know that, right?
"Islamonazism is like rabies in a man". Churchill Aug. 5 1902.
30:10 not since my high school years had a Nazi joke made me facepalm so hard and still hurt more.
Glad I could be of service!
What I find a bit startling is that Austria was being regarded as an enemy. Well, from a political point of view Austria had a Christian conservative dictatorship which opposed hitler, but just half a year later, in March 1938, Austria joined Germany with overwhelming support of the population. Being Austrian myself, I think that it was highly unlikely that the Austrian army would go into action against the wehrmacht. They were loyal during the 1934 coup, but that is hardly a comparable situation. By this time, Austrians regarded themselves as Germans.
And so they should. It was Bismark’s huge mistake not to include Austria (the Habsburgs) into the original German unification.
@@mattkierkegaard9403 was it Bismarck’s fault or the Austrian hapsburg empires refusal? I know Bismarck and the Kaiser 1 were both proud Prussians and this didn’t help anything vs the Klein Deutschland or gross Deutschland efforts
Accepting Austria would've meant its non-germanic territories, which Bismarck knew were culturally incompatable & irreconcilable with the concept of a unified pan-german state.
He also predicted that a major war would be started by "some damned foolish thing in the balkans", as well as the Kaiser's fall from power.
I thought the anshluss was rigged ?
@@harshbansal7982 that is what the Austrians told everyone after the war to absolve themselves of any blame, but the truth is that the vast majority of the Austrian population was in favor of the unification with Germany. The economic situation of Austria in the interwar period was quite Dire, and the Christian conservative regime was quite unpopular because it failed to solve them. Austria also had much more NSDAP party members than Germany relative to the absolute population
If Hitler didn't want to wage a war of aggression he could not get the Lebensraum that he needed to achieve his goals, it doesn't make any sense! Good video TIK
Ahhh but the Nazi historians say that Hitler's views in 1923 had changed by 1938-9 and that there's no evidence that Hitler wanted to be aggressive in the 1930s... except that Hitler rearmed the military from 1933, marched into the Rhineland, made it clear in the the Hossbach Memorandum of 1937 that he wanted to invade other countries, he Anschluss'd Austria, and took over Czechoslovakia... but there's no evidence of course!
@@TheImperatorKnight Hey TIK I have many quotes from Hitler, Goebbels, Göring and Mussolini that can be useful to you.. with regards to their economic ideology, How can I send them to you?
@@TheImperatorKnight A military is required to maintain a sovereign state, and quite necessary to through out the foreign occupation. "marched into the rhineland" if a state doesn't even sovereignty over its own territory its clearly in a state of war already.
@@Edax_Royeaux Even the current germany is a puppet state under foreign occupation. It's policies are to it dictated on the basis military force. Funny how the occupation of iraq and afghanistan are only 'wars' because there is still resistance. In europe if you even speak out against it you'll be arrested by police.
@@Botzorz There are a few countries that have no military and are quite happy. Your argument does not really hold water.
It appears that the Nazis are waging a war of aggression on this video's comments section.
It's very strange- I would expect Nazis to support the idea that Hitler was aggressively expanding, since it's the natural conclusion of his philosophy, and in their view, he should have had "good reasons" to do so. It is true that Eastern Europe has been underpopulated (relative to arable land) for centuries, and it is also true that Germany has a high population density and low access to natural resources relative to Eastern Europe or France. The reactionary view just makes him out to be a wimp and a poor politician.
I don't see any Neo-Nazis, did their comments get deleted? I wish TH-cam would allow them to get proven wrong.
@Jesus Christ I'm no Socialist but are you trolling? The internet was created by public universities and department of defense. The infrastructure was paid for by tax payer subsidies. It's perhaps the only good thing to come from socialism.
@@empowl1607 but you still have to pay a company to access it.
@Jesus Christ Amen to that Jesus
Hitler had breached 13 assurances, 8 treaties, 6 conventions, 3 solemn assurances, 2 agreements and one declaration against 12 different countries by 11 December, 1941. (The list is not comprehensive even then, as it doesn't, for example, include the Reichskonkordat with the Vatican, or other breaches after that date, often against fellow Axis countries.)
Who were the "aggressors" Hitler was supposed to be reacting to in 1939? Britain, France, and the USSR were all eager to buy time to build up their military strength.
Also, I've always been a fan of A.J.P. Taylor (as memory serves, I don't seem to own any of his books at the moment) because in his book about The First World War he included maps that showed the rail lines. You can't understand any war from the American Civil War on without knowing where the rail lines are and so many books don't include them. Or at least this was the case back in the '70s when I was at university.
Hi TiK - you may or may not be a great historian but you are world class at sarcasm - keep it up :-)
Yep ... scrapping the bottom of the barrel for viewership numbers. Hurrah!
@@mattkierkegaard9403 That's a hell of a thing for a Nazi or Nazi-sympathizer to say. Don't throw stones from glass houses.
For once, i am happy with my notifications. Your my favorite history youtuber TIK!
Sadly I once met a guy that thought that Britain started the war and that Germany was just an inocent victim minding its own business. He was also defending Quisling and painting him as a hero while criticizing King Haakon of Norway and calling the Norwegian government traitors for refusing to cooperate with the Germans. He also said that since Czechoslovakia didn't put up a fight when the germans anexed it meant that they didn't mind it happening and actually wanted it to happen. He also said that if Britain had not started the war, we don't know if Germany would ever have gone to the Soviet Union (even after I told him many times that the German main goal was in the East). One of the most frustrating conversations I have ever had.
The more interesting scenario would be: What if Germany had been completely passive and instead, Stalin had taken over all of Europe by 1950 or so?
TIK your method of history to review things that seem off to you has inspired me to look further into a topic I think people currently have wrong. That topic being "The US lost the Vietnam war". If you or anyone want to see why I think that is wrong I'll explain below. Feel free to reply and question my thinking on this. I have argued that "The US lost the Vietnam war" as being incorrect a few times now and I think I have gotten the argument against this thought down pretty good now.
So the first thing we need to talk about is the American goal in Vietnam to determine if the US completed those goals in the war or not. The American goal in Vietnam was to keep South Vietnam as a independent country and stop the spread of communism in South East Asia. At the point the war ended the US completed those goals. It wasn't until 2 years later when a new war started up that what was fought for in the Vietnam war was lost. Now you may question that thinking that those are separate wars. But according to even historians, military officers and the public in Vietnam they consider the war America fought in and the war that took place 2 years later to be separate wars. In Vietnam they actually are taught their country fought in 4 wars between WW2 and unification. Those 4 wars in order being first against the Japanese, second against the French, third against the Americans and then the 4th war is called the unification war (they then had a short war with China after unification as well). Lumping all these wars together is like lumping all of the Napoleonic wars together and then saying that France lost ever war in the Napoleonic wars because they lost the last 2 wars of the period.
In addition to the above point in can be argued that the US forced the North Vietnamese into the peace deal that was signed in Paris. I'll explain this below. To first get the North to attend the Paris Peace accords the Nixon administration had to start a massive bombing campaign in the North that significantly destroyed the North's army divisions and air defenses build up and provided by the USSR. The USSR upset with the amount of money they were spending on the war in Vietnam pushed for the North to go to the accords (people often forget the USSR spent a larger percent of their yearly GDP on the Vietnam war then the US did). The US said it would stop the bombings of the North if the North attended the Paris Peace accords which the US did stop when the North attended. The North though left the accords before a deal could be agreed to. This caused the Nixon administration to start the bombings of the North up again and said they would continue until the North came back to the negotiation table. The USSR again told the North to go back to the peace table or they would cut the North off from getting new military supplies (since everything was getting destroyed). The North under this threat agreed to go back to Paris and work out a peace deal which they did. The North did this because they knew they needed the USSR's equipment to have a chance to unify the country later on since the North was already at that point on bad terms with China. The US in turn was able to get further concessions out of the North when the North returned to Paris such as the North agreeing to recognize South Vietnam as a independent country.
So when people say the US lost the Vietnam war I say that is incorrect. The US lost the peace after the Vietnam war. That happened largely because of the Watergate scandal and Nixon being forced to resign his office. The peace deal signed in Paris said that the US would replace the North's military equipment in a one for one basis for everything lost or used. But when the North started launching border raids they found the US was not replacing the equipment they destroyed. This was because the Democrats had taken control of Congress in the US because of the Watergate scandal and most of them were anti-Vietnam war. So when the new President Ford went to Congress and asked them to keep the word of the US and support their ally in Vietnam with replacement military equipment they refused and even walked out of Congress on him while he gave a speech begging them to give Vietnam the military equipment it needed to stay independent. They thought doing so would lead the US back down the same road back into sending troops into Vietnam and that the defense equipment wouldn't matter either way. Which I don't think is correct. People forget the last 2 years the US was still in the Vietnam war US troops saw little combat because by that point the South's military had been built up to a strong enough level that it could defend itself given the proper equipment. Back to the North though, when the North saw the US was not supporting the South anymore like it agreed to in the Paris Peace accords the North decided to plan a full invasion of the South in breech of the Paris Peace accords. The North had to wait to rebuild it's military but once it was ready they did launch that full invasion and the US still didn't give the South the equipment it needed to defend itself causing it to be overrun and for the President of Vietnam at the time to say the US had betrayed them. Which was a pretty accurate thing to say.
Thank you anyone for reading and please feel free to reply agreeing or disagreeing with me and why.
I honestly don't know a lot about the Vietnam War as I haven't looked into it. I've seen a couple of documentaries, but that hardly qualifies me to comment. But I'm certain other viewers know more on this than me, so hopefully they can chime in one way or another.
@@TheImperatorKnight Thanks TIK I hope so. Something else I didn't mention is newspaper articles in America and internationally between the period of the Paris peace accords and the start of the new war between the North and South believed the US had won* the war.
*won in that the US did complete it's goals in joining the war in the peace deal, not that the war was actually worth what it cost though long term. In that sense it was a loss for the US since the US didn't get anything out of it long term.
The US lost about 50k troops and the total Vietnamese casualties range in estimate from 1 to 3 million. I think America developed a lot of military equipment and strategies in the war which it has used and improved upon since. I have a hard time understanding how the US can be considered the 'defeated' of the war, since they seem to have gained a lot more than they lost.
Cope harder
@@Zen-rw2fz send a actual counter argument
Please narrate the next Stalingrad episode in Pirate Voice :D
Yo-ho and arghhh to that, Cap'n.
The problem with using the HM as a source is that it is a copy of a copy of an unauthenticated draft - this is how it arrived at Nuremberg after the war.
It should be said that not all Nazi writers reject The Hossbach Memorandum.
David Irving accepts it and gives an interesting brief account of it in pages 62 - 65 of,
The War Path (1978) noting that French Intelligence was well informed about the meeting.
Have you ever considered covering the war in China and the early days of the Pacific Theater? There's a number of interesting stories surrounding that, and I'd love to hear your take on things such as the Fall of Singapore, the Panay Incident, the Burma Campaign, and more.
He's said that he wants to focus on the eastern front for the foreseeable future because it would take so much time to get up to speed on the Pacific theater. He also recommended a channel that does Pacific stuff, but I can't remember their name.
@@OldHickory1828 Didn't know about that, but thanks for informing me.
Montemayor has done some good videos on battles, but if you really want a great WW2 channel, check out the World War Two channel with Indy Neidell - he does a week-by-week review of everything that happened 79 years ago that week in every theater of the war, and most of his focus for the last few months has been on Asia and the Pacific.
the only thing i find a bit weird about the hossbach memorandum is all them high ranking guys at this meeting and then just a colonel who was just a liaison officer actually having the clearance for such a meeting is questionable
From what I understand he was just a note keeper. So to use a colonel for that just shows how high you can move up the ranks being a purely desk job officer.
The reason Hitler got away with so much amazing villainy was that no one wanted another great war. So when Hitler repeatedly violated the Treaty of Versailles, the Allies restrained themselves. The bottom line is "no one wanted a war, but Hitler." The German people did not want a war. The German generals knew they could not win a war of attrition. Goering, the second in command of the Third Reich after Hitler, thought war was a terrible idea. The French and English wanted to avoid war so much they dishonored themselves by flushing Czechoslovakia down the toilet in an effort to mollify Hitler and avoid war. Even after the Allies declared war on Germany, they sat idol in the Phoney War, hoping to negotiate a deal. Hitler was so miraculously successful because of the Allies resistance to go to war that the Germans started to think, "He could do anything." Hitler wanted war, so there was war. World War II would not have happened if not for the machinations of ONE psychopath.
"no one wanted a war, but Hitler."
apart from the majority of the British military leadership and British politicians such as the Eden Group
@gamez Britain bombed Germany first, but held off for a very long time after Hitler's repeated aggression. Hitler violated the treaty of Paris, invaded the Rhineland, invaded Austria, and then after Hitler signed a treaty with England to only occupy the most German populated areas of Czechoslovakia, Hitler took it all. The Allies restrained taking action for an unduly long time. After that Britain and France made it very clear that if Hitler invaded Poland they would declare war on Germany. Then Hitler invaded Poland. Who started WWII? Hitler started WWII.
ok
@Leads If you delete England and France from the equation, there would still be a war because Hitler would still invade Poland and then Russia and, of course, he would invent justifications for that. He created justifications for all of his wars. That doesn't mean you have to accept his rationalizations. Eliminate Hitler from the equation and there is no war. By June 1941 Hitler had invaded seventeen countries: Poland, Norway, Holland, Austria, Belgium, France, Yugoslavia, Greece, Libya, Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Russia. In Mine Kampf, Hitler stated his love for war and his ambition to CONQUER "Living Space (Libensraum). War was always Hitler's intent. Is it your position that nothing should have been done to stop Hitler's aggression? Hitler didn't have to invade the Rhineland, Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. The Allies didn't declare war on him then because they hoped to avoid a conflict, but it was clear, there was no stopping Hitler short of war. Hitler did not want peace. He was furious when Chamberlin manipulated him into signing the Munich Agreement that stalled his invasion of Czechoslovakia. Hitler is by no means a "Good Guy" nor is he a victim.
@@patbrumph6769 "Invaded the Rhineland" LMAO WTF are you on about? The Rhineland was rightful German territory. And as for Czechoslovakia? There were more ethnic Germans than Czechs living there, and the Czech minority ruled over the German majority. The Austrian people actually begged to be annexed by Germany too.
Does anyone know who first approached who regarding the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact?
The Soviets negotiated with the British and French. Thus they had enough pressure against Germany to get a better deal.
No. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact has been disputed. Germany reached out to Russia but claims Russia had reached out to them in secret prior. As far as i know, no actual evidence exists of this, only that Germany reached out to Russia, whether first or not, unknown.
@@seanadler918
The Nazis couldn't have an alliance with both Japan and The Soviet Union.
It was when they gave up on The Japanese (late July) that they began serious approaches to The Soviets.
Wouldn't the fact that it was Germany who went Blitzing across borders kind of be a clue as to the kind of war they wanted to wage.
"Blitzkrieg" was a term coined by the UK yellow press.
@@conveyor2 true, but the point still stands.
Only if alternative defensive strategies existed. If your only defense is to strike first then that is what you do. It doesn't mean you suddenly have wanton aggressive intent.
While Germany was planning aggression what were Britain, France, USA, and Soviet Russia doing. Did they not have contingency (different word meaning the same thing) of their own.
Haha. 'Why does England not realize that everything i do is directed against Russia?'
Russia: "We are the international we are all nations"
Germany: "Alright then I guess we go to war with the entire world then"
Hmm.
I don't think the British failed to realise.
They didn't want Hitler to conquer The USSR, or anywhere else in Europe.
Which sea did Hitler sail across? I laughed so hard. Yes, I Do need to get out more.
Certainly the best pirate voice of any TH-cam World War II military historian (29:40)!
A very realistic description of Germany's strategic situation, again showing that Hitler was more far-sighted than the German establishment, especially the military.
Is not new, some historians say than Roman Empire was "Pushed" to war and conquest..........a "Defensive" force.
Crazy that July is named in honor of Gaius Julius Caesar. In Finnish, it is literally hay-moon, because it is not an Indo-European language.
yeah romans loved to claim their wars where "defensive" all their wars where pre-emptive. But even then we have sources saying it was just for conquest offensively. But we all know Rome by the time after taking over Italy had long gone past being only defensive. what they did in the third Punic war for example was to just finish off a old enemy who was no longer a real threat to them at all.
Gaul was just for glory and gold, Britain for Tin and to give Claudius a military victory for his PR. i could go on.
I was ignorant that there where some people that genuinely believed that he was not an expansionist. Thanks for the enlightening!
Sad, isn't it
its the same thing as chemtrails and lizard people. A certain percentage of people is just retarded and will believe whatever they need to keep their worldview, thats the unfortunate truth.
To a considerable extent, World War II had its genesis in the Franco Prussian war. That in itself was the culmination of years of tension between the two states, which finally came to head over the issue of a Holhenzollern candidate for the vacant Spanish throne. France believed it was being surrounded by Prussian Hohenzollerns and declared war on Prussia to prevent it. Prussia, under Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck, won the war. The victory made it possible for Bismarck to unite all the various German states, principalities and states into one unified German confederation. Included in the new German confederation were two provinces, Alsace and Lorraine, taken from France as war booty and annexed to Germany. There was of course historical justification for Germany’s annexation of the two provinces as France had previously taken them from Germany. moreover, the populations of these two regions were still majority, German speaking, ethnic Germans.
The German annexation of Alsace- Lorraine left France humiliated and seething with anger over their loss. France had grown accustomed during her 400 years of making aggression to humiliating others-Germany in particular. France’s determination to have a war of revenge against Germany was a factor in all the diplomatic maneuvers that ultimately led to war in 1914.
On April 8, 1904, Britain entered into a “Entante Cordiale” with France, followed by an Anglo Russian Entante. France and Russia then formed the Franco Russian alliance, thus the triple Entante was formed for the purpose of containing the growing power of Germany.
To ameliorate this developing hostility, Germany made various vigorous efforts in the years before World War II to arrive at an understanding with Russia and France and particularly with Britain, but got nowhere. Each country had interests of their own as a growing superpower.
Russia wanted control of the Turkish straits controlled by Germany through her alliance with the Ottoman Empire leading out of the black Sea .
Next, Britain saw Germany as a threat to her economic dominance, and only wanted to reduce Germany’s power. Then France wanted revenge for the loss of the oppression war and wanted Alsace and Lorraine back. All three powers wanted to reduce Germany’s economic power, and the only way they saw to achieve that was by military force.
Between 1912 and 1914 Russian ambassador to France Alexander Izolvsky and French president Raymond Poincaré entered into an agreement to go to war against Germany in event of any diplomatic crisis that would bring Britain in on their side. Such a crisis soon erupted with the assassination of the Austrian archduke France, Ferdinand in June 1914.
Hitler made several peace offers to UK, all of which were rejected.
He wanted to reclaimed Alsace and Lorraine territories from France; not io invade Britain.
Well, TECHNICALLY the Allies declared war on Germany after their invasion of Poland, However, they (the allies) did warn him that they would if he attacked Poland.....
keep in mind Poland had a mutual defensive alliance with e and f....FOR ALL DANCE LOVERS FIGHT FOR EUROPEAN/ POLISH SOCIAL BALLROOM DANCES: POLONAISE AND MAZURKA ESSAYS, VIDEOS AND INSTRUCTIONS: GO TO THE INTERNET AND SEARCH FOR: ACADEMIA.EDU………..RAYMOND CWIEKA TO VIEW THE VIDEOS PASTE THE VIDEO - WORD - ESSAY TO A WORD DOCUMENT AND THEN CLICK & PRESS THE CTRL KEY ON THE VIDEO.
@Justin 12O16E26 So do you think the Germans or the Russians are the "good guys" :D
@Justin 12O16E26 Fair point, I don´t agree but still a valid and fair point
0:35 what is the name of this person?
England colonized 40,000,000 sq km for living space and resources and the French built a similar Empire. We should also focus on what motivated the Nazis and what they aspired to build, an American-style manifest destiny in Eurasia.
The European people have a sordid history of aggressive war, WWII thankfully was the turning point that brought it down.
the Germans had an empire too but they lost that after losing ww1, another war of aggression
@@planet_69 Yeah but entente agression.
The boycott of German goods built up resentment and devalued the currency.
hi tik. I am happy about this video from you. Somehow, I found strange that (until now) you hadn't ever mentioned the Hossbach memorandum. I consider it THE milestone about the start of the WW II
Fabio, Ive never understood why TIK (or anyone else) never mentions the Ribbentrop - Churchill meeting
@39:24 "they were trying to invade Austria and Czechoslovakia; that is confirmation that Hitler was seeking war with those two countries at the very least."
You are doing this again and again: every time an issue is under debate, you distort it with your bias that Hitler allegedly wanted war, no matter what. This example reveals it. Hitler may have discussed the possibility of conflict, as tensions were rising in those years of the advent of WWII. Austria was practically a protectorate of Italy, a country that was not friendly to Germany then. Czechoslovakia was a powder keg in its own right. It was allied to the Soviet-Union and France, so that it really amounted to a military threat to Germany, as its territory is wedged against the German borders.
So, it is only natural for someone like Hitler to deliberate on the possible conflicts and the possible preparations for that. Every country did and does do it. These are the obligations of leaders in general. But no, in this particular case, we have to perceive it all as aggressive intent, to wage war in order to extent Lebensraum, right? It cannot be any other way, so, let's focus on that presumption and examine every potential piece of evidence from that perspective.
A war of aggression is the most disgusting term used in history.
Wars are by definition aggressive.
In the modern era, Vietnam was a war of aggression, the Afghanistan war was a war of aggression, any time two or more nations are involved in a war, it's a war of aggression.
The ridiculous distinction between both nations wanting war at the same time or not, is irrelevant.
No one talks about Genghis khan's war of aggression, or Alexander's war of aggression.
The term war of aggression is just a feeble modern justification of righteous cause, that the victorious use over the defeated to justify any actions they committed to win said war.
Using this term insults all of human history as a whole.
Allies were occupying countries all over the world...Poland was
occupying German territory...and Communists had already attempted a
takeover of Germany.
Did the colonists wage a war of aggression against the native americans?
yeah but we don't talk about how evil america is do we.
@@AFGuidesHD hey, fancy seeing you here
@@AFGuidesHDsure we do
What do you make of Patrick Buchanan's "Churchill, Hitler and The Unnecessary War"?
he probably just dismisses it as "nazi propaganda" like every other historical fact that contradicts the highly selective "hitler started ww2" narrative
@@AFGuidesHD I highly doubt that
@@choppacast I don't, you should ask him on patreon or email
The German military faced a lot of issue when the war broke out. It wasnt fully equipped with the necessary weapons, it still relied mostly on horses for transport, the inter-service rivalry plagued the rearmament process, resources were wasted , Germany lacked oil and other raw materials.
Actually Germany was better prepared in 1914.
Everyone faced a lot of issues - it was only Germany that wasn't forced to choose.
@Mark12Strang "It wasnt fully equipped with the necessary weapons, it still relied mostly on horses for transport"...
Your asshole... following your mindset no one was to blame for WW1 as well, since the armies are mostly horse-drawn and were not 100% mechanized with trucks and armor and fully equipped with all the cutting edge weapons, and no wars could have ever happened in the history of mankind because no army in the world was ever fully perfect and equipped with the cutting edge necessary weapons they needed
No army inWW2 was fully equipped with the necessary weapons and relied mostly on horses for transport... The very blitzkrieg strategy consisted exactly of achieving breakthroughs and encircling the enemy with the mobile forces while the less-mobile forces (the infantry which relied in horses for transport, which was most of the army) attacks the encircled bulges of the enemy
@Mark12Strang " resources were wasted , Germany lacked oil and other raw materials."
Okay, so wars never happened in the world and mankind always lived peacefully because no country in the world was ever self-suficient in all the resources they needed (that's why importations and commerce were invented) and countries can never wage wars when they are not absolutely self-sufficient in all resources existent on earth, right?
If Germany didn't want a war of agression since they weren't fully equipped with the necessary weapons and lacked resources so why the allies waged war on Germany since they also lacked the necessary weapons and lacked resources and were much more unprepared for war?
Good video once more, Lewis! Can I point out, though it is not relevant to this video in particular, that the word 'quay' is pronounced 'key'. This is a minor error compared to the massive amount of research and reasoned arguments that you provide across the gamut of the sum total of your videos. I appreciate the hours and hours that it takes you to provide this content. All the best!
Great historical analysis, as always
Cherry picked documents and strawman arguments. No wonder Tik is popular with the masses 😆
@@mattkierkegaard9403 then which documents do you consider legit?
@@mattkierkegaard9403 #EuropaTheLastBattleDocumentary
Thank you. You did an amazing work
To be honest, anyone who says Hitler didn't Start WWII is nuts. Most of the arguments I've come across are generally loony. For example: "Well if Poland just gave Germany Danzig none of this would of happened." My reply would be, "Well that still means Hitler waged a war of aggression against Poland, at the VERY LEAST for the Danzig Corridor." Though I honestly believe giving Poland the Danzig Corridor was a huge political mistake by the Western Powers after WWI, as it did give someone like Hitler a major political excuse for war which helped greatly at convincing the masses to fight said war, but even the Danzig Corridor wasn't enough, but it did give him fuel to burn. However that does not mask the fact that Hitler shot first, and I don't care what some of the pro Nazi Wehraboos say when they say "No the Poles shot first." All the examples they often bring up are idiotic, even if the Polish Nationalist wanted a war with Germany, they were still not the ones to start that war. But in my Opinion, even if the Polish Government caved to German demands for Danzig, Hitler would of likely just found another excuse later on for a conflict, it was not beneath the Nazis to conduct False flag operations, we know they did prior to September 1st and they would of likely done so anyways.
"as E. H. Carr has argued, 'the use or threatened use of force to maintain the status quo may be morally more culpable than the use or threatened use of force to alter it"
The conditions for ww2 were setup before hitIer was even in power, it doesn't even matter where the fighting started. The bankers wanted germans eIiminated, either through quick means or slow means as we are seeing used today. To make their slow repIacement work though they could not starve out germany, which awoke the people to who their enemles were. In fact germany is still under wartime occupation, and have no nation.
@ that quote does refute his entire fundamental argument
The Poles were massacring tens of thousands of ethnic Germans. You would advocate for a military intervention if that were any other country.
To a considerable extent, World War II had its genesis in the Franco Prussian war. That in itself was the culmination of years of tension between the two states, which finally came to head over the issue of a Holhenzollern candidate for the vacant Spanish throne. France believed it was being surrounded by Prussian Hohenzollerns and declared war on Prussia to prevent it. Prussia, under Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck, won the war. The victory made it possible for Bismarck to unite all the various German states, principalities and states into one unified German confederation. Included in the new German confederation were two provinces, Alsace and Lorraine, taken from France as war booty and annexed to Germany. There was of course historical justification for Germany’s annexation of the two provinces as France had previously taken them from Germany. moreover, the populations of these two regions were still majority, German speaking, ethnic Germans.
The German annexation of Alsace- Lorraine left France humiliated and seething with anger over their loss. France had grown accustomed during her 400 years of making aggression to humiliating others-Germany in particular. France’s determination to have a war of revenge against Germany was a factor in all the diplomatic maneuvers that ultimately led to war in 1914.
On April 8, 1904, Britain entered into a “Entante Cordiale” with France, followed by an Anglo Russian Entante. France and Russia then formed the Franco Russian alliance, thus the triple Entante was formed for the purpose of containing the growing power of Germany.
To ameliorate this developing hostility, Germany made various vigorous efforts in the years before World War II to arrive at an understanding with Russia and France and particularly with Britain, but got nowhere. Each country had interests of their own as a growing superpower.
Russia wanted control of the Turkish straits controlled by Germany through her alliance with the Ottoman Empire leading out of the black Sea .
Next, Britain saw Germany as a threat to her economic dominance, and only wanted to reduce Germany’s power. Then France wanted revenge for the loss of the oppression war and wanted Alsace and Lorraine back. All three powers wanted to reduce Germany’s economic power, and the only way they saw to achieve that was by military force.
Between 1912 and 1914 Russian ambassador to France Alexander Izolvsky and French president Raymond Poincaré entered into an agreement to go to war against Germany in event of any diplomatic crisis that would bring Britain in on their side. Such a crisis soon erupted with the assassination of the Austrian archduke France, Ferdinand in June 1914.
Hitler made several peace offers to UK, all of which were rejected.
He wanted to reclaimed Alsace and Lorraine territories from France; not io invade Britain.
"You should start a discord" said by the thousandth person for the millionth time
Given Hitler was insane and a monster, would he have known the difference between aggression and defence? Would he have cared? Isn't it a fact that his crimes and those crimes committed by those striving to please/serve him are vast and hellish too the point that no claims of defense can justify them?
The point may be important but it is still overshadowed by the vastness of Nazi warcrimes.
He was a monster, but he wasn’t insane. It’s better to judge him by his beliefs than a disability, as TIK says in his video about the idea.
I like how deep you dig. Thanks.
BTW One would assume that Mein Kampf was explicit enough about Lebensraum.
Another thing: In private Hitler spoke with a very normal voice. The shouting was always the climax of a speech which also started normal and then build up and build up. It was a very effective technique for speeches.
Incredibly sad that there is even a debate if the Nazi's were waging a war of aggression
because demanding the self determination of people, at least for America when it goes to war, is not "aggressive" yet Germany was aggressive for demanding the self determination of Danziger's ?
Heck, pretty sure every time the British Empire colonised a country it was for "liberty and freedom"
@@AFGuidesHD Plenty of countries will experience the Reich definition of "self determination".
Seem that results depends of your germanic race scale ...
@@alexandredelneste270 yeah and Poland would experience the British guarantee lol
(I'm sure you know that the British gave Poland away to the Soviets) after using them as a trojan horse against Germany.
@@AFGuidesHD It would be a Trojan horse if Germany didn't know that invading Poland would lead to war with France amd Uk.
20 years after Versailles, Germany would be bigger than pre WW1.
They pushed Poles to negotiate after German ultimatum of late August, and offered one last chance of withdrawal to Hitler after invasion.
You claim it was about self determination of Dantziger. Splitting of Poland with new "friend" Stalin tells another story ...
As for Brits offering Poland to Soviets. Did Brits were in any position of opposing Stalin wishes after ww2 over Eastern-Europe ?
Any reason to continue after biggest conflict in European History. With a huge Red Army against US nukes.
In the end we will have the "cold" war, exporting US imperialism against communism all around the world. Resulting in open conflict once again.
Thank You for another well thought out video. Keep up the excellent work. It is greatly appreciated. On another note, it seems that the news concerning COVID and England is very grim. Stay safe !
We appreciate the facts but arguing with Nazi apologists, historical "revisionists," is wasted breath. A person who thinks Nazi Germany had war thrust upon it or that Hitler didn't want war is impossible to convince because it's an ideologically-driven delusion.
In a similar vein, Germany in WW1 did not blunder into war or have it thrust upon them either. They made a calculated decision to exploit a local issue in the Balkans and they pushed Austria Hungary to make outrageous demands to Serbia, thereby guaranteeing a European-wide conflagration. Primary sources prove this.
True, but this also goes with an upcoming Patreon Q&A video asking whether Poland's aggressive foreign policy caused her own destruction, so I thought it best to show how Hitler wanted to wage war first before we got to that. The source I take on in this video (Mr Hoggan's "The Forced War") is still being used by the Nazis to argue that Poland (and Britain) started WW2
@@Edax_Royeaux the problem is geopolitics, it would have been idiocy of the highest magnitude for Germany to just hope france doesn't invade Germany whilst Germany fights a war against France's ally in Russia.
@@TheImperatorKnight It's pretty pathetic to call anyone who disagrees with a specific idea a "Nazi", it's a transparent discrediting tactic. Also if you're trying to imply that Hitler's wanting to go on the offensive means that therefore the Germans must have started World War 2 you're engaging in an obvious logical fallacy. Hitler could logically have wanted a war but also not have been the one that started it.
@@TheImperatorKnight If you think poland having an aggressive foreign policy wasn't a big part of why it got attacked you really, really don't understand the political climate of the time. You do realize that the very existence of the polish state was despised by both the germans and the russians from its inception right? Both had territorial claims on what became poland after the first world war for different reasons. Polands actions and foreign policy weren't doing it any favors in the post ww1 years at all. Sooner or later somebody was going to go at them, whether hitler had come to power or not
@@Edax_Royeaux except Italy still might have not come to germany's aid like it didn't in 1939, despite having an alliance with Germany. Alliances and pacts are merely scraps of paper, as has been stated by world leaders many times throughout history
"Remember remember the 5th of November...
I can think of no reason the gunpowder treason should ever be forgot."
I find it highly ironic that a bunch of late 20th and 21st century anarcho-libertarians have adopted as their symbol a man who plotted to assassinate an entire democratically elected legislature and replace them with a foreign-imposed theocracy.
Debate David Irving.
I wasn't even aware that there was a debate on whether or not he did. If he didn't, then what does one call a "war of aggression?"
" what does one call a "war of aggression?""
any war involving america
I also heard a former ss soldat from DK that said the war against USSR/kommunisme that Nazis regime where an early version of UN and NATO...
WTF.......
Ummm yeah...they were. Finland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Italy, Spain, Romania and Germany were all aligned against the Soviet Union with a common goal of disbanding it before the SU blasted into Eastern/Central Europe. That was a “European Union” consolidating forces and resources to protect its continent. Hell Hitler wanted England to join and displayed that goal up to late 1940...even allowing the British Expeditionary force to leave the continent when the tanks could have rolled through Dunkirk or the luftwaffe could have carpet bombed the beaches to rubble. The anti-Comintern pact was the front line or bulwark against an S.U invasion...and guess what...when that “E.U” was disbanded/defeated...the Soviet Union rolled through Europe and took the eastern half of the continent...until the “league of nations” or NATO put them in check by ensuing a Cold War of nuclear deterrence. The pre-war League of Nations was a pact of various worldwide countries with special interests...they were not a pro-Europe faction.
This is one of the best ww2 in depth channels (this is why I'm single as well) *hey any anothern ww2 video*
It was the UK and France that declared war on Germany
3 days after Germany declared war, invaded, and bombed Poland. Germany was still the aggressor
@@black-uh1df The USSR invaded Poland at the same time - yet we allied with them and helped them enslave half of Europe
Britain itself had taken over much of the entire world via conquest
If you think WWII had something to do with protecting Poland I think you need to step away from the History Channel
@@yingyang1008 An alliance of convenience at best, that collapsed nearly 5 minutes after the war ended. And yes, it did have everything to do with protecting poland. Had the Nazis not been stopped then EVERYONE was at risk. Russians, britians, Scandinavians, even americans.
It's cute that you support the horrific SOB h!tler, when you *WOULD BE THE FIRST ONES HE PUT IN HIS DEATH CAMPS*
@@black-uh1df To a considerable extent, World War II had its genesis in the Franco Prussian war. That in itself was the culmination of years of tension between the two states, which finally came to head over the issue of a Holhenzollern candidate for the vacant Spanish throne. France believed it was being surrounded by Prussian Hohenzollerns and declared war on Prussia to prevent it. Prussia, under Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck, won the war. The victory made it possible for Bismarck to unite all the various German states, principalities and states into one unified German confederation. Included in the new German confederation were two provinces, Alsace and Lorraine, taken from France as war booty and annexed to Germany. There was of course historical justification for Germany’s annexation of the two provinces as France had previously taken them from Germany. moreover, the populations of these two regions were still majority, German speaking, ethnic Germans.
The German annexation of Alsace- Lorraine left France humiliated and seething with anger over their loss. France had grown accustomed during her 400 years of making aggression to humiliating others-Germany in particular. France’s determination to have a war of revenge against Germany was a factor in all the diplomatic maneuvers that ultimately led to war in 1914.
On April 8, 1904, Britain entered into a “Entante Cordiale” with France, followed by an Anglo Russian Entante. France and Russia then formed the Franco Russian alliance, thus the triple Entante was formed for the purpose of containing the growing power of Germany.
To ameliorate this developing hostility, Germany made various vigorous efforts in the years before World War II to arrive at an understanding with Russia and France and particularly with Britain, but got nowhere. Each country had interests of their own as a growing superpower.
Russia wanted control of the Turkish straits controlled by Germany through her alliance with the Ottoman Empire leading out of the black Sea .
Next, Britain saw Germany as a threat to her economic dominance, and only wanted to reduce Germany’s power. Then France wanted revenge for the loss of the oppression war and wanted Alsace and Lorraine back. All three powers wanted to reduce Germany’s economic power, and the only way they saw to achieve that was by military force.
Between 1912 and 1914 Russian ambassador to France Alexander Izolvsky and French president Raymond Poincaré entered into an agreement to go to war against Germany in event of any diplomatic crisis that would bring Britain in on their side. Such a crisis soon erupted with the assassination of the Austrian archduke France, Ferdinand in June 1914.
Hitler made several peace offers to UK, all of which were rejected.
He wanted to reclaimed Alsace and Lorraine territories from France; not io invade Britain.
Great video!
Poland was an expansionist power with a standing army of 3 million. Their long term goal was to wait for Germany to be exhausted by a long war with France and Britain, then join the Allies late in the war in order to seize control of East Prussia. Germany was an aggressive, expansionist state, but so was Poland. Both can be true at the same time.
Poland provoked ww2, and intended to conquer more provinces than just Eastern Prussia.
Given the internal strife in France in 1937 i.e. French internal politics, Popular Front, Spanish civil war effects on internal French politics, it could have been the driving force for calling this meeting.
I am sorry, I still do not see how there can be NO doubt about the authenticity. But it is also immaterial. All the empires were deliberating over supply chains, expansion and war.
Yea it was ironic that Great Britain and France criticized Mussolini for conquering territory in Africa when they had conquered and presently owned huge tracts of Africa !! For me but not for thee !! Same as it’s always been.
But not extermination of nations.
@@llllib I am not sure the Hossbach memo is out of the ordinary, though WannSee 1942 was an outlier, I would venture. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history
@@nkristianschmidt I don't see Great Britain or France preparing program of systematic extermination of nations there. If you do, please point me to the specific one.
@@llllib The Hossbach 1937 memo does not concern what Wannsee 1942 did.
0:33 Who? I didn't get the reference. Also looked around and wasn't able to find a comment about it
Putin.
WiFi radiation th-cam.com/video/z99_SzoXZdY/w-d-xo.html
The amount of peopel defending german war crimes and glorifying the Nazis is actually disturbing at this point.
Yeah these people tend to think everything they've been told is wrong, so if the mainstream is telling them bad things about Nazi Germany, it's all a big brain wash. And instead of doing their own research, analyzing the events and making some logical conclusions, they stick to the idea that everything they've been told is a lie by the "small hats".
Well, the reason they glorify Germany and ignore the crimes is because they believe that all narratives that go against the Aryans are made up or written/funded by a "racial" minority, despite the scientific fact that race doesn't exist www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-science-africa/
And they dismiss evidence that says that Germany committed horrible crimes because they also think it's made up by the same group. This is despite the fact that basic history theory says you cannot dismiss inconvenient evidence just because it goes against your argument (you must either argue successfully why it doesn't work, or change your narrative) th-cam.com/video/PvpJEc-NxVc/w-d-xo.html
@@TheImperatorKnight Scientific fact! That word has truly become magical. Just call something science and people will EAT IT UP.
Religion is what this really is. A modern religion for modern minds.
Actual science is of course immune to political dogma, which is why it is verboten and real scientists are jailed when they go against the narrative.
Interesting that Hitler regarded Czechoslovakia and Poland as such prominent enemies and focused his attention to them rather than the Soviet Union. Sounds to me that he wanted to conquer the immediate neighbors but then things went out of hand, or?
@B A Yes, and that's what TIK has argued before. But isn't this memorandum is stark contrast to that? Or is it that this is just an excerpt of the memorandum, and they also talked about invading the Soviet Union?
Liebensraum was Germany's version of Manifest Destiny.
yeah and one of them was pure unthinkable evil whilst the other was "The epic story of America" on History channel.
@@AFGuidesHD a million subs and you're a nazi lol
@@EdgarStyles1234 No, do tell me why America isn't "the greatest evil of all time" despite murdering millions of native americans in order to gain their own living space ?
@@AFGuidesHD Because as bad as the native genocides were, they weren't nearly as organized and as intentional as things like the holocaust were
Tik, a 50 minute video dissecting the Hossbach Memo isn't necessary to prove Hitler wanted to wage a war of aggression. If Mein Kampf didn't prove that alone, simply pointing to his massive scale of rearmament should do it. He didn't build battleships like the Bismarck just to create jobs. Germany went from a military that would have serious trouble taking on Belgium, to one that crushed France in barely over half a decade. Everyone knew what he was planning they just chose to close their eyes to it. All they had to do was send a few troops over when he reoccupied the Rhineland and he would have been stopped in his tracks allowing France, Britain, Poland and even the Soviet Union to catch up. His troops did have secret sealed orders to high tail it back to Germany proper if France made any sort of move to oppose his retaking the Rhineland. He was bluffing and no where near ready for war and could have been stopped very early. Too bad they were still suffering from shellshock from the Great War. Any sort of move today would have been immediately rebuffed. Great video though. I have never gotten around to studying Hossbach and I am glad you did it for me and explained it nicely. Well done!!
Jewish population of Germany in 1939 was 500,000. Not saying it didn’t happen. But definitely exaggerated
Closer to 250,000. Most of the victims were foreigners.
The warning of incoming comments is unnecessary and annoying, so I won't bother. I have to admit that I had forgotten the Hossbach Memorandum spelled out so much. The Wannsee Conference notes and The Order of the Death's Head by Heinz Höhne ( very underrated book looking inside the SS and rise of the Nazi party ), have so much information that is similar and concurrent as Tik shows here, have been my go to sources for years.
Thanks for the video Tik. (:
You are not the world. Some of us appreciate the warning.
Well I think the first hint might have been when he STARTED A WAR OF AGGRESSION...
Yeah, it's funny how they miss that clue.
@@hermitoldguy6312 The English colonized 40,000,000 sq km for living space, don't think you're off the hook either Hermit.
@@empowl1607 40,000,000 sq km? Sounds like your mom.
Fact is that WW2 could have been stopped in 1939 if the French and the British would have done their allied duties regarding Poland. When the National socialist army of Germany attacked Poland the French and the British could have easily occupied great parts of Western Germany thus putting an end to the Second World War and honoring their allied duties.... The Germans barely had troops in the West. But it seems that the British and French were more interested in the destruction of the Soviet Union. How does this beautiful British proverb go ??..."A friend in need is a friend indeed "...Shame on the French and British for not saving Poland an Europe !
Dear@CommandoDude , Poland fought alone for 3 weeks...if the allies would have occupied a big part of western Germany and would have entrenched themselves, then the national socialist army of Germany had to fight on German territory. Unfortunately there was no Napoleon around leading the French army, he would not have waited and would have forced Germany to fight on two fronts.....
Dear@CommandoDude , the French were not forced by the Versailles treaty to reduce their army, it was known that national socialist Germany was a dictatorship and they occupied Austria and Czechoslovakia before, the French could have entered Germany through Belgium thus making the invasion of France difficult because they would have had to face the Maginot line....and if you say that the French army would have been on an open plain, then the same would apply for the German soldiers who had to fight them. If the French together with the British would have occupied some positions in the northern part of Germany, the invasion of France would not have been possible. By the way the allies never declared war to the Soviet Union. As I said a strong leading figure like Napoleon Bonaparte was missing on the French side,...he would have conquered Germany.. a second time.
@CommandoDude if Napoleon would have been around, I doubt he would have been of your opinion. The French could have arranged their passing through Belgium... By the way Belgium was a long time a part of France. The French could at last have tried, giving the British a better starting position, after all if Hitler would have not stopped his troops for two days in front of Dunkirk then a big part of the British expeditionary corps would have been taken prisoner and Britain would have perhaps been forced to make peace with the Third Reich...which again is not the best outcome...At last the French and British could have tried to do more, which in my eyes would have been better, even if they would have failed.... Because fail they did anyway. In my opinion it is better to fail doing your duties, like helping your allies, then doing nothing at all, even if France would have failed then the French and British would have failed with honour !
Dear@CommandoDude , we have on this subject a different opinion. In my view, if we two would be allied, which implies to help one another in case of attack on one of us and I see you being attacked by a crowd of 100 goons, I would come to your help, even if it seems foolish and stupid. For me it is better do die honorably by trying to defend us and honoring my commitment than not helping you at all, I guess I could not live with that...Besides it is God who grants victory, or defeat. Do you remember David ? Goliath was two times as tall, very powerful, had an armour, a casket, a speer, a sword an was a warrior. It seemed impossible for David a fifteen year old boy to defeat Goliath. In spite of the fact that the entire army of Israel was hiding in the woods behind some trees, he was the only one to challenge Goliath and God gave him victory... In my view life is full of commitments which must be honored, one of them is for example marriage. God bless you CommandoDude and all the best wishes to All of you.
No no no. Hitler definitely just wanted to wage a defensive war. Why else would he build thousands of t̶a̶n̶k̶s̶ tractors for farm work?
(Joke question fyi)
because they didn't have any tractors for farm work ?
@@AFGuidesHD wow you're really going ham defending nazis eh? Interesting
@@EdgarStyles1234 You only have to look at the 1931 Weimar attempt at a customs union with Austria to sympathise with the idea of having a military.
Germany and Austria wanted to form a customs union, France said no and that was the end of it. Without an army, Germany could not pursue even a peaceful foreign policy.
@@AFGuidesHD Such a shame.
To a considerable extent, World War II had its genesis in the Franco Prussian war. That in itself was the culmination of years of tension between the two states, which finally came to head over the issue of a Holhenzollern candidate for the vacant Spanish throne. France believed it was being surrounded by Prussian Hohenzollerns and declared war on Prussia to prevent it. Prussia, under Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck, won the war. The victory made it possible for Bismarck to unite all the various German states, principalities and states into one unified German confederation. Included in the new German confederation were two provinces, Alsace and Lorraine, taken from France as war booty and annexed to Germany. There was of course historical justification for Germany’s annexation of the two provinces as France had previously taken them from Germany. moreover, the populations of these two regions were still majority, German speaking, ethnic Germans.
The German annexation of Alsace- Lorraine left France humiliated and seething with anger over their loss. France had grown accustomed during her 400 years of making aggression to humiliating others-Germany in particular. France’s determination to have a war of revenge against Germany was a factor in all the diplomatic maneuvers that ultimately led to war in 1914.
On April 8, 1904, Britain entered into a “Entante Cordiale” with France, followed by an Anglo Russian Entante. France and Russia then formed the Franco Russian alliance, thus the triple Entante was formed for the purpose of containing the growing power of Germany.
To ameliorate this developing hostility, Germany made various vigorous efforts in the years before World War II to arrive at an understanding with Russia and France and particularly with Britain, but got nowhere. Each country had interests of their own as a growing superpower.
Russia wanted control of the Turkish straits controlled by Germany through her alliance with the Ottoman Empire leading out of the black Sea .
Next, Britain saw Germany as a threat to her economic dominance, and only wanted to reduce Germany’s power. Then France wanted revenge for the loss of the oppression war and wanted Alsace and Lorraine back. All three powers wanted to reduce Germany’s economic power, and the only way they saw to achieve that was by military force.
Between 1912 and 1914 Russian ambassador to France Alexander Izolvsky and French president Raymond Poincaré entered into an agreement to go to war against Germany in event of any diplomatic crisis that would bring Britain in on their side. Such a crisis soon erupted with the assassination of the Austrian archduke France, Ferdinand in June 1914.
Hitler made several peace offers to UK, all of which were rejected.
He wanted to reclaimed Alsace and Lorraine territories from France; not io invade Britain.
By annexing Austria and Czechoslovakia which belonged to Austria for 300 years, the 1930s Germans were resurrecting the old Roman Reich. The American needed Lebensraum too- the push to American West, 19th Century American leaders needed expansion space aka Lebensraum.
Great demonstration as usual, irrefutable arguments against revisionist BS. Hats down!
Thanks Anton! I need to reply to your emails, and I'll make it a priority tomorrow!
France & Uk declared war on Germany. Thus, France & Uk turned a continental conflict into an international war. But sure, this video doesn’t need to focus on that primary fact when there are so many other secondary facts he can cherry pick to fit his argument. Hmm C grade at best
@@mattkierkegaard9403
Germany attacked Poland. France and the UK guaranteed its independence so they declared war upon Germany.
So Germany is the aggresor.
@@mattkierkegaard9403 Bullshit.
30:50 Your image of the American Nazi is historically inaccurate, because the KKK was anti-Catholic at the time. Also, most of Afrikaners were Protestants. They were British allies (cannon fodder). Italy, Austria, Slovakia and Croatia are mostly Catholic.
Actually, Nazi ideology is fundamentally anti-Christian. But morons who have only read Mein Kampf and don't really understand the full ideology don't realize that Hitler was lying to get support from Christians in the bit he said he was a Christian. There's loads of quotes and other evidence that Hitler despised Christianity as well as other religions
@@TheImperatorKnight However, it is certain that the evangelical influence is strongest in the Southern United States. I’m just trying to understand why they didn’t switch sides.
At the first free elections held in Austria (1945), the Christian Democrats won with 49.8 percent of the vote and an absolute majority of seats in the legislature.
Btw. The Devil All the Time (2020) is an interesting movie, at times a bit gloomy.
m.imdb.com/title/tt7395114/
Weird you should post this now TIK. I just this last week ran across the name "Institute for Historical Review" for the first time. A guy commenting on a TH-cam video suggested I watch a half hour video produced by this organization. It didnt take me a half hour to figure out what it was up to. When it validated itself by quoting hilter I just had to laugh. Like he was a reliable character! Wow. -- BTW, I dont understand why anyone would destroy an original of a document but make a copy of it first. Any idea why somebody would do that?
resistance -a public servant may get an order to destroy stuff and copies some to keep a record , like a whistleblower; the copier was a count, the nobility was quite in opposition to the Nazis, like on the 20th July 1944
@@aasphaltmueller5178 Ok. yeah that makes sense. Thanx.
Hey Tik, this question is unrelated to the video but are you planning on doing any future battle storm series?
Of course! I mentioned this in last week's video, so go back and watch that
Putin is not supporting that narrative, my friend. The Polish regime is. Get informed on that a little bit. On the contrary, Putin has shown documents from the russian archives fro m the time showing how Germany was all about aggression
I also don't understand why everyone always has the that Stalin is a murderer who killed everyone and wanted to attack for the sake of attacking while he signed the molotov ribbontrop pact to buy the soviet union time
What Polish regime you moron. PiS is shit but they constantly remind od German and Soviet agression.
To a considerable extent, World War II had its genesis in the Franco Prussian war. That in itself was the culmination of years of tension between the two states, which finally came to head over the issue of a Holhenzollern candidate for the vacant Spanish throne. France believed it was being surrounded by Prussian Hohenzollerns and declared war on Prussia to prevent it. Prussia, under Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck, won the war. The victory made it possible for Bismarck to unite all the various German states, principalities and states into one unified German confederation. Included in the new German confederation were two provinces, Alsace and Lorraine, taken from France as war booty and annexed to Germany. There was of course historical justification for Germany’s annexation of the two provinces as France had previously taken them from Germany. moreover, the populations of these two regions were still majority, German speaking, ethnic Germans.
The German annexation of Alsace- Lorraine left France humiliated and seething with anger over their loss. France had grown accustomed during her 400 years of making aggression to humiliating others-Germany in particular. France’s determination to have a war of revenge against Germany was a factor in all the diplomatic maneuvers that ultimately led to war in 1914.
On April 8, 1904, Britain entered into a “Entante Cordiale” with France, followed by an Anglo Russian Entante. France and Russia then formed the Franco Russian alliance, thus the triple Entante was formed for the purpose of containing the growing power of Germany.
To ameliorate this developing hostility, Germany made various vigorous efforts in the years before World War II to arrive at an understanding with Russia and France and particularly with Britain, but got nowhere. Each country had interests of their own as a growing superpower.
Russia wanted control of the Turkish straits controlled by Germany through her alliance with the Ottoman Empire leading out of the black Sea .
Next, Britain saw Germany as a threat to her economic dominance, and only wanted to reduce Germany’s power. Then France wanted revenge for the loss of the oppression war and wanted Alsace and Lorraine back. All three powers wanted to reduce Germany’s economic power, and the only way they saw to achieve that was by military force.
Between 1912 and 1914 Russian ambassador to France Alexander Izolvsky and French president Raymond Poincaré entered into an agreement to go to war against Germany in event of any diplomatic crisis that would bring Britain in on their side. Such a crisis soon erupted with the assassination of the Austrian archduke France, Ferdinand in June 1914.
Hitler made several peace offers to UK, all of which were rejected.
He wanted to reclaimed Alsace and Lorraine territories from France; not io invade Britain.
I always thought that the very idea of liebensraum could only be gained through agression i mean really checkoslovakia Austria were bullied into aquiesance no matter what this proves Old Adolf said it himself in his Bestselling book so everyone knew what he was wanting!!
Liebensraum? Sounds endearing 🥰
Please check your spelling, or I'll be forced to invade. - Sincerely, a Grammar Nazi.
PS: Liebensraum would be more apt to be translated as the "space of loved ones" instead of "living space (Lebensraum)".
@@Runenschuppe in some different, better timeline, a hippie Adolf is struggling to create Liebensraum for all people 🥺😂
He only wanted to go East...the west got involved. Should they have?...yes, considering what Hitlers government had planned in General Plan OST. Was East the best direction for territorial expansion...definitely.
TIK a very interesting presentation I have some comments 15:00 Case 2 France was in Political chaos in the early 1930s. 17:00 the Siegfried line was along way form being finished in 1939. 22:00 Czech defenses were fairly good. 28:00 It could be Hossbach took shorthand notes like Halder for the Memorandum
Allies were occupying countries all over the world...Poland was
occupying German territory...and Communists had already attempted a
takeover of Germany.
✅
@ Cyber Hermit Yes, you are right, but that is not a justification for Hitler's racist agenda.
@@dragosstanciu9866 Hitler was no more racist than any other people around the world in the 1930's...certain Arab countries still have racist marriage laws.
@Sin Collector That's where you are wrong and don't understand occupation and forced treaties...The nationalists who fought in WW1 didn't sign any treaty.
@Sin Collector There are many historical examples of people ignoring or rebelling against corrupt, unfair and immoral laws and treaties. The people absolutely decide. Danzig was 98% ethnic German and occupied.
Thank you for another great video.
Dear me, did not the peace treaty of 1919, itself a mockery of the armistice of 1918 that was based on President Wilson’s 14 points, oblige all parties to disarm. The allies did not, thus Hitler re armed( after seeking a disarmament agreement with the Allies), and from a bunch lower base line ie, inferiority by far to the Allies military positions.
The Hossbach meno, was one of many theoretical scenarios that were possible, and ALL governments do it - we, the UK had plans to fight America shortly after WW1. Is that planing aggressive war?
I have no doubt Hitler was going East, but the sanctimonious drivel I hear condemning his aggressive actions, from countries that had huge empires of conquered territory is laughable.
No, not a nazi, just interested in having a reasonable perspective.
Well, two things I would like to say. First, Germany always had plans to re-arm. von Seeckt and the German General Staff were secretly rearming and training the Wehrmacht during the 1920's and early 1930s in contravention of the Treaty of Versailles. They wanted another war to prove how great Germany was (also one of the reasons Germany went to war in 1914). Second, the Hossbach Memo is more of a rough outline for aggressive expansion rather than a discussion of what to do if Germany is attacked. Indeed, Hitler was upset about the results of Munich - he wanted war in 1938. And let's face it, the Czechs weren't planning an aggressive war against Germany, nor was Poland, or Yugoslavia, or Greece, or Belgium, or Holland, and the list goes on.
I do agree that Britain, France, Belgium and Holland (and even the US) had overseas empires. However, some people inside those countries were starting to seriously talk about the cost of empire, and seeking to divest themselves of their empires. Britain had already given independence to Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa by this time. So these countries were finally, and extremely slowly, starting to realize that imperial conquest was wrong. Japan, Italy and Germany did not have those developing scruples, which is one reason they were condemned for their actions. However, it should never be forgotten that the primary reason they are vilified is their excessive barbarism towards everyone nation and people they fought or occupied.
Finally, these three nations attempted to create empires at a time when people's views on self-determination were changing. I do agree (and have often thought) that in any era prior to the mid-1900s their actions would have been taken in stride. However, their brutality and avarice during an age of mass communication turned the entire world against them.
Nicholas Conder
Of course they wished to re arm , as they felt their position unjust. Add to that revolution in the air ( Marx thought that Germany as the country to revolt first due to its industrial Base). Most observers thought the Versailles unjust - as it was, a guarantee for future conflict.
Of. Course Germany wanted an empire. Their objective was Autarky, where as our us was money. Too the conquered pretty much the same treatment ( of course we killed millions). The H memo was a potential plan, subject to political developments . It could easily be superceeded by black swan events.
Hitler did want war, but not in the West. He made strenuous efforts to avoid it. WE declared war, not him. WE gave the poles the ability to decide if war was coming. Had we not unilaterally given them this guarantee they would have continued with their negotiations with regards to Danzig and the proposed land corridor. Bye the bye, we were not protecting Poland as such, only against Germany, hence the Soviet invasion without sanction.
We, as an ancient nation may have been questioning out morals on empire. Maybe Germany would have too in a few hundred years.
Empires may have been questioned , but wee didn’t hesitate, ney contrived to add 1,000,0000
Square miles to our own after ww1.
Has to wether or not a war was being planed. Against Germany is a matter of debate. We surly did contrive the First World War via Lord Grey, without government approval tied us to the french in 1906/7.
We agreed to go with them, and Belgium was the excuse( we had now obligation to help them).
Fingers ache now😂
@@neilkenny4585 Well, Britain has always been sensitive about the Low Countries for some reason or other since Elizabethan times. The Germans in their arrogance brought about British intervention on WW1, by invading Belgium (a neutral country). It was Germany that built a fleet specifically to defeat the Royal Navy. For what? Unlike Britain they didn't have that much overseas trade to protect. It was pure arrogance. That same militaristic arrogance was there during the 1920s and 1930s when Germany secretly armed and trained an army. Not to mention lie about how they lost WW1. The German High Command wanted a rematch, and gave Hitler the tools to do so. The whole Danzig Corridor thing was an excuse, a causa belli. Given German troop dispositions I doubt very much that even if the Poles had acquiesced that Germany would have accepted it. It would have been Serbia/Austria 1914 all over again, and for much less cause. I'm sorry, but trying to say that Germany was misunderstood and Britain and France are responsible for the war is like saying that the Soviet Union was a worker's paradise and the Mayans were peaceful agrarian philosopher astronomers. It is, in my opinion, pro-Nazi revisionist history at its worst.
Nicholas Conder Belgium did not have a treaty with us to declare war if they were invaded. We used it as an excuse to fulfill lord Greys commitment to the French.germany did start to build the High Seas fleet, but ceased way before it was anyway near the RN. ( how come we could have one, not them?).
As for military arrogance , who since 1871, their year of unification did they enslave, where as we went around the world collecting peoples!
Hitler wanted to conquer the Slavic eastern lands for sure, but not war with the west. We fought Hitler to prevent a powerful potential enemy.!it broke us, destroyed the empire and left the USA in ascendancy , and that was something the USA helped along the way.
Britain was responsible. We guaranteed a nation we knew we could never help. And, the polish region wad a military dictatorship who had a price of the Czechs when Hitler went in - Teschen I think. Why did we not declare war on Russia when they invaded Poland.
People who label others as Nazis, are people who cannot argue and establish their positions properly. So, call me what you want, but do read up on things.
@@neilkenny4585 You obviously have not been watching Time Ghost's week by week recounting of WW2. Britain was actively trying to help the Finns against the Soviets during the Winter War of 1939-1940, and even managed to send some aircraft to Finland to fight the Soviets. Unfortunately, access to Finland was extremely limited. Britain also had plans to launch air raids against Baku and the Caucuses oil fields in 1940. The only reason they didn't was because they didn't feel that they would be able to stop a Russian offensive into Iran and on into Iraq, where the bombers would be stationed (not to mention Britain's Middle East oil fields). It was better to sit and bide ones time, and not fight too many foes at once.
With regards to a Navy in WW1, why did Germany even need one? The US, Japan, France and Britain were all invested in international maritime trade, unlike Germany. And again, why was their navy built specifically to take out the Royal Navy? That was its expressed purpose, not protection of trade, but destroying the Royal Navy. That is why their ships were mostly designed with the minimum of crew comforts, and why the sailors lived in barracks on shore most of the time.
You can say what you want, but Germany had no reason or business invading Belgium. IT WAS WRONG! You can make all the excuses you like, but the point of fact is that Germany wanted a war in 1914 to defeat the Russians before they industrialized, and wanted to impose their will on the then order of Europe. They were itching for a fight. I agree that in 1939 the British government made promises to Poland it could not keep. I think they thought that by doing so they might cause the Germans to pause and rethink what they were doing. Like many miscalculations before and after, they were wrong. Hitler wanted a war, and he got it. Britain ended up paying the price, although I think the war merely hastened what was already happening, that is, the breakup of the empire. But if you think WW2 was not a justified war, you should watch the Time Ghost series "War on Humanity" or the Nazi's plans for the occupation of Britain and, believe it or not, the United States. Hitler and his cohorts were monsters who had to be stopped, and were.
By the way, two things. One, I do research stuff. I actually have a fairly extensive home library, and my parents served in WW2. Two, I have never once called you or anyone else corresponding on this site a Nazi.
To the to this length to show that there was planning, contingencies, brainstorming, debates about the potential political and social climate in the coming years...that does nothing to show what actually happened. It doesn't address the actions taken by Poland that we're almost designed to provoke a conflict they felt would be beneficial for them as England and France would ride to their rescue, what would they get from Germany then?
My Grandmother's family who stayed in Poland were never heard from again. They were not of a certain religion so their deaths do not matter.
All deaths matter and Poland suffered as much as Russia and yugoslavia. Read The Other Holocaust by Lukas and this from wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ia%C8%99i_pogrom Also the books listed at the end of the article. I resent your sneering remarks about the Jews. Nobody who knows what Poland went through ignores it. You have some reading to catch up on.
Yep, way more Slavs die in WW2 than anyone else, but a certain other group gets all of the attention in the West, well it's no surprise, look at Hollywood, the MSM, universities. They're just looking out for their own though, it doesn't help them to shed more light on the war crimes committed in even higher numbers against Slavs, so they don't do it.
@@postumus77 There are plenty of books on what the Nazis did in the USSR and in Yugoslavia (also Slavs) there is a movie Russian called Come and See. Make some effort on your such as reading wikipedia and exploring the bibliography instead of crying you don't get enough attention.
TIK: What sea did Pirate Hitler sail across?
Me: The South Atlantic?
TIK: The "Nat-sea"!
Like before watching!
First!
@@TheImperatorKnight no...Only TIK himself can be first your highness .
I didn't know that there were so many people who deny Hitler's actions in starting ww2.
Because wars are very difficult to start unilaterally