@@SoDakJason"you should give all your nukes to a farmer in Graubünden" "Why the hell would we-" "Less involvement on the continent" "YOU SON A B- I'M IN"
@@avataraarow That's easy to answer... Already during the war, in August 1944, a British intelligence study had identified Stalin's Soviet Union as a future enemy. The Western Allies' strategic air warfare was then cleverly adjusted so that maximum damage was inflicted on Stalin's future sphere of influence as inconspicuously as possible. The capital of East Prussia was the first victim and this also explains the massive attack on Dresden, when the Americans were already on the Rhine and the Russians on the Oder River, 100 km from Berlin. And when Stalin's friend FDR was scrapped and Truman took over the helm in Washington, the attitude of the Americans changed. And it would have happened much faster if the Nazis hadn't displayed this dimension of mass murder and brutality. Another building block was the blockade of West Berlin by the Stalinists. That was the final push to form a West German state. And then rebuilding the armed forces was just a matter of time. Because they had proven all too clearly that the Germans could fight...
Nonsense, we have always focused our attention on the continent. Multiple continents, even! North America, Australia, Africa, Asia… that little jaunt in Antarctica… Oh you mean Europe. Meh.
This quote has been attributed to so many different people, including François Mitterand and Margaret Thatcher. Which is the reason I highly doubt any of the people who are said to have said it actually coined it.
@@gerdforster883 I am sure it must be a Frenchman at least. Even Asterix made the point that its better that West and East Germans are more occupied with themselves, than uniting and dominating the rest of Europe... of course, today, that sentiment ends at the point, when the German wallet is needed, then Germany can't be united enough.
In 1919 Georges Clemenceau wanted the Rhineland to split off as its own country. One potential German leader for this proposed state was Konrad Adenauer. But the Americans and British refused to support this.
No not really, if you are a superpower of course The USSR did have an everything crisis from all the damage, but I don’t hear about any problems they had with running east Germany with their military garrison, and they’d do the same thing to Hungary and Czechoslovakia later on…
I appreciate the thumbnail and characters going the extra length of depicting a G1 style FAL rifle, the type of battle rifle newly rearmed West Germany used for a little while before the G3 came onto the scene.
Yeah I was surprised he got such a detail wrong...and then figured out he was right all along. The attention to detail on this channel is actually pretty top-tier.
You got to believe on some level, the leadership among the Allies were also, thinking: "After beating them twice, I highly doubt they'd want to get beaten a third time in a row."
Germany literally had the border between NATO and Warsaw Pact going down the center of their country. Especially after 1953, when the Soviets crushed East German protests, there was little doubt about how rotten it would be if the Soviets took over the rest of Western Europe, including Germany. West Germany knew that its future depended on continued presence of the US, UK and French garrisons in West Germany. Also, as a legal matter, Germany didn't have full sovereignty until reunification in 1990. Until then, West and East German sovereignty was contingent, although de-facto West Germany was a powerful economy, and certainly had its own foreign policy and so forth. But it was superaligned with the US and UK and France. I spent time as a child in West Germany, and was a bit of an odd place - fantastic (certainly cleaner and richer than e.g. UK) in many ways, but the foreign military presence was pretty pervasive. The jets went over all the time, the military bases were all over the place, you saw the soldiers pretty frequently, etc. You were aware you were on the front line.
@@napalmblaziken What with tough? Even if Germany wants to rearm more it does not has the population to fight a war. Germany, as most developed countries, is over aged and the young people are to valuable to actually work productive jobs to ensure wealth and social security. Germany can't afford to waste them in aggressive wars. And may I say so, this is a good thing.
Rearmament was actually pretty unpopular in Germany during this time. So much so that the German leadership came up with the idea of a "European army" that would consist of German and French troops and would allow Germany to do it's part without actually having a military of it's own. It fell through because the French parliament refused to sign the deal. Also at some point there was an offer from the USSR to join NATO and reunify Germany in exchange for them staying neutral. Afaik it's still not clear how serious this offer was
Lol what does unpopular mean in the German context? Was the wall popular, the loss of eastern territories and the loss of inventions? Both German states had to do what the masters wanted. And the Russians and communism were pretty feared by the German society back then.Germans
ifrc this was before the formation of the Warsaw pact, and on the Soviet side was more of a diplomatic ploy to see if NATO was a general defensive alliance or an anti-USSR alliance, in the end they got their answer so they formed the Warsaw Pact in response
Good points. Gustav Heinemann resigned from Adenauer's government over re-armament, specifically because he thought it would make German reunification less likely. There was something called the "Stalin Note", an offer from the USSR of a united, disarmed, neutral and capitalist Germany; Germany as a kind of giant Switzerland in the heart of Europe. Were the Soviets serious about this? I think they were. What they wanted was to be able to reduce their military spending while increasing trade with western countries such as Germany. That way they could improve Soviet standards of living and make their domestic hold on power more secure. If they'd pulled it off it would have been a bit like the reforms of Deng Xiaoping in China. It probably suited the USA to have the USSR stuck ruling the less prosperous eastern half of Europe in the teeth of local resentment and periodic rebellion. It forced the Soviets to keep funding a much bigger army, dragging down their economy.
@@georgesdelatour Lol „neutral“ Germany would have become in no time a battlefield. Every sane person was ofc insisting on declining this offer by old Stalin.
@@boerekable The Potsdam Agreement specifically stated that Germany was to be disarmed. It could have a police force but no army. And, before 1950, the USA abided by it quite strictly. Truman's sudden decision to rearm Germany in 1950 was a 180º reverse course. This is why Gustav Heinemann was shocked by it. It seemed to come out of the blue. As far as I know, Korea was what made him go for it.
Part of why France dropped their objection was that both them and West Germany were part of the European Community of Coal and Steel (the earliest step toward the European Union), that made impossible for Germany and France to go at war with each other and continue their feud that had been going on in some way for over a thousand years (that being why Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands came up with the idea to begin with, they were tired of being the eternal battlefield of the wars between France and Germany), thus annulling one of the reasons France had to object.
I think the USA was the real driver of policy. Marshall Aid was made conditional on countries accepting a degree of political unification. Jean Monnet's political influence came from the fact the USA put him in charge of administering Marshall Aid in France. He never held any elected office.
I appreciate the fact that the character's clothings have become much more detailed in recent videos. It's gorgeous in its own way, without compromising the silly and simplistic aesthetic of the channel. Way to go!
This makes me curious, how did the East and West German militaries cope with the Unification of Germany? There had to have been massive differences between the two sides, both in terms of equipment and doctrine Did they re-train thousands of soldiers to fit a new doctrine?
It coped very poorly. In fact there was a lot of injustice. Most NVA soldiers were kicked out of the military and were treated as soldiers of a "foreign army" (so no benefits or pensions from the government). Most of the gear was sold off, some got put into storage (eventually going to ukraine). Functionally speaking, the West German Bundeswehr changed almost nothing when it became the official military of the new unified Germany.
Some East German soldiers joined the Bundeswehr, but I believe a majority did not. And Germany ended up being a NATO country with a lot of Soviet equipment in the inventory to study.
@@pax6833 To be fair, Germany had to agree to a maximum limit of troops that was well below the size of the West German army pre-reunification. So if they had kept more former NVA soldiers they would've had to fire a lot more Bundeswehr soldiers in their place which doesn't make much sense. It was the allies fault most NVA soldiers were fired.
About 90.000 NVA (Nationale Volksarmee) soldiers were transferred to the Bundeswehr. The rest got laid off. They dismantled almost all of the equipment and replaced it with western counterparts.
Remember, also, the Cold War ended at the same time, so both the Bundswehr and the NVA personnel were heavily downsized and a lot of equipment was sold off to other countries in teh "Great German Fire Sale". (one of the reasons so many countries use leopard tanks is that they got them cheap second-hand, for example)
@@TIME12308 At this point, I'm more or less convinced that James Bissonette donates to this channel, just for the wonderful experience of commenters constantly bringing him up, simply for his name being mentioned. I know that would sure do MY ego a solid. 😆
Even at that size, West Germany still became the biggest economy in Europe (minus the USSR of course) even before reunification. Goes to show what a large industrial base can do for a nation.
West Germany's economy was probably larger than the USSR, too. By the 80's the soviets were already into building pipelines to get West Germany to import oil from the Soviet Union. Being an oil mass exporter doesn't screams "big strong developed economy" to me.
Well, our actual economic cheat code are the logistics... Germany always had one of, if not the best, geography for building large transportation networks.Thus, industry just comes easy here. That also made it hard in WW2 to destroy the industry, it can spread out more and not be so centered on major cities, that made the relatively small bombing campaigns in Japan so powerful. In Japan, only 300 bombers were needed to literally wipe old Tokio from the map and disrupt the heavy industry. The biggest bomber attacks in Germany were well over 1000 aircraft and their economic impacts were mostly short-term. When WW2 ended, our industry was mostly intact, what was lacking was workers.
Very good depiction of Altes Rathaus (old city hall) of Bonn. Fun fact: in the 50s, Bonn was a very small Town, so small that it was mocked at and was called "Bundesdorf" (Federal village).
Germany was allowed to arm it slef. It was just not allowed enough to be an issue. And France and BVritain letting it re arm was an issue that backfired.
Thank you for showing the german eastern territories when talking about the division after the war. I've seen this presented wrongly so often in the past, even in textbooks for advanced history classes
something that was also instrumental in making rearmament possible was the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) which basically was a common pool of all coal and steel among italy, germany, france and the benelux countries, mostly so germany and france would be kept from slaughtering each other again. Also, the ECSC no longer exists, it is no called the EU (sort of)
Interestingly enough Germany already started rearmament secretly in 1949, with the Schlez Truppe, built to be able to defend Germany in case of a Soviet attack.
OK, this one really could have used a mention of "and a LOT of Germans weren't keen either!". And the last bit with "become one of Europe's strongest" made me chuckle - when I look at the state of the German army today. They get the crap beaten out of them by your average Aussie footy cheerleader squad.
@@emberfist8347 The current German army could beat France or Poland? Pull the other one, it's got bells on! Germany can't even get proper working helicopters, most of its aircraft are struggling with maintenance, they have an "average" of 2 working frigates for their navy, they have been having problems with the latest generation of infantry weapon - *and* what stocks they do have is going to Ukraine. (that last one I don't have a problem with) Their parliament finally approved 100 billion Euros in budget, but Pistorius, though willing and competent, is finding it hard to actually a) get his hands on the money b) find out what fires to fight first and c) fight the hard-core "pacifists" in his own party. It says something when the *Greens* are more in favour of armament than the SPD, which never came to terms with their pro-Russian sympathies. Look at the CVs and speeches of people like Mützenich. Look at the pathetic affair of Taurus deliveries to Ukraine. My source, btw, are mostly the highly regarded Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Not counting my family and friends that I still have in Germany, as I don't think people would accept that as valid source
It also didn't help that the Soviet's immediately rearmed East Germany, so the US didn't feel at all comfortable having a hyperindustrial Germany bordered with a pacifist Germany.
not exactly. Stalin first tried to entice German minds still weary and jaded from the recent war with an offer of reunification with East-Germany in 1954. the price: *permanent neutrality* similar to the Austrian solution. imagine united Germany being neutral. a dream for any Putin type figure in Moscow.
Also, after the war, America wanted West-Germany to have Nukes (as in becoming the primary target in a WW3 scenario) but Germany declined. After a bit of back and forth, Germany was "unofficially" armed with nukes ("Nukleare Teilhabe") which Germany could only access when Nato gets involved in a nuclear war. German anti-nuclear sentiment stems from the fact that we were chosen as the tactical nukes battlefield in a possible invasion by the Warsaw pact.
'America wanted West-Germany to have nukes'? any sources for this claim? unless you name a source we can validate, this claim should be considered untrue. main reason: it would go against the basic principle of nuclear powers to limit the number of other powers having nuclear weapons.
That's not at all the reason... The US already opted to position all their own nuclear silos in a strategic 5 Midwest, relatively empty states in their own country, hoping that would make the Soviets target them target than populated areas. It makes no sense to add front line nuclear targets in Germany, especially when Germany was already the expected front line target anyway. Nukes or not, Germany would've already been the first place to be invaded, only if nukes were there, the USSR would risk damaging their own side of the border & make it harder on themselves to move through West Germany on their way to other locations (given that it would've been nuked).
@@embreis2257 his source: label on a Russian vodka bottle😹 also don’t b silly, don’t you kno by now that ‘Murica Bad, and even if they seemed to be the only ones trying to push for German autonomy, they’re still bad because that’s the bs we’ve been fed all our lives and it saves us the trouble of actually doing any research😅
I don't know about the actual German situation, but by the time it became firmly anti-nuclear, Western Germany should have already known we would never have allowed it to he foddered in the place our our other allies and there was a huge propaganda war between Soviet controlled Eastern Germany and American backed western Germany at that time we were talking about closing From a tactical standpoint, placing our nukes to he targeted to close to the borders at that time would have been a enormous risk and wouldn't have given enough time to try intercept in their defense or prepare to retaliate in the name of the alliance. From a humanitarian standpoint, we were also past the point where we could be as crass to as to be willing to accept a Hiroshima on our own side and the bitterness from the war was already tapering that we may have accepted it over back during FDRs time
Fun fact: The Japanese demilitarized after WW2 not because the Americans told them to, but in spite of what the American government actually wanted. The United States wanted a strong military power to help them against the Soviet Union, but Japan was just so depressed after losing the war they basically decided to give up.
@@TitanosaurusFan75 im pretty sure the japanese government hasnt even admitted to most of the warcrimes that happened especially in china such as Unit 731, even if you ask a japanese person today about ww2 its not really clear, and there are still japanese ww2 patriots in the country.
The Americans did tell them to, very explicitly I might add. The Japanese constitution that was written up in 1946-7 was supervised by US authorities. Additionally, the Potsdam conference had the big three unanimously agree that Japan should demilitarise once the war concluded. That is why article 9 is so harsh.
Fun fact: When the German military was re-established, many of the soldiers who enlisted into the new Bundeswehr were WW2 Wehrmacht veterans, with some still wielding the very same guns they used to fight the allies they now sided with 10 years back.
The Bundswehr was almost entirely re-armed with US gear at the start. It was partially so they WOULDN'T look like the same guys. Where are you getting your info?
Since most Germans of military age had served in the Wehrmacht or the SS, it would have been well-nigh impossible to staff the new Bundeswehr without that being the case. It was a matter of ensuring that the officer class was selected from the more acceptable members of the old Wehrmacht.
Only the East German army directly continued the German army traditions. The Ussr did not want the Germans to copy them, while the US insisted that on the West German army.
Similarly, when Germany was being rebuilt, many of the industrial families that worked for the success of the Reich were now working for a new democratic Germany, many of whom were wielding the same factories they had used previously. I wonder where they are now
Here's an idea for a future video, why didn't Italy face any War Crimes Trials post WW2? While the leaders of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan had post WW2 war crimes trials, the third Axis power, Fascist Italy, didn't
Between July 1945 and May 1947, there were 40 British trials conducted in Italy of Italians suspected of war crimes committed in the Second World War. Of the 40 British trials of suspected Italian war criminals documented the records of eight trials involving 12 defendants have been lost. Reconstruction of data from various sources leads to the conclusion that there were 8 1 Italian defen- dants in all of the cases and 29 (36 percent) were found not guilty. Of the 52 found guilty, 5 1 saw their convictions confirmed upon review. Eight of these were condemned to death; two were duly executed, but the sentences of four were com- muted to life imprisonment. The other two condemned saw their sentences com- muted to seven and 15 years' imprisonment, respectively. The trials were conducted in nine Italian locations, with British (or, rarely, Commonwealth) members of the court and prosecutors, and defense attorneys who were for the most part Italian civilian lawyers; occasionally, however, defen- dants were represented only by British military personnel, which included bar- risters, solicitors, and sometimes an officer "not legally qualified." Translators and interpreters were provided in all cases, a substantial number of whom were Italian civilians. The accused were arraigned immediately before the start of the trial. The average length of trial was two and half days, with the shortest one day and the longest about 12 days. The latter was especially complex, since it involved 11 defendants, nine Italians, and two Germans. That case, however, involved only one victim. The trials began with the highest ranking of the accused in custody: General Nicola Bellomo. Bellomo ironically was a non-Fascist, but he had been accused of killing a British prisoner of war and wounding his companion, both of whom had been recaptured after escaping from the prisoner of war camp within Bellomo's command. From the evidence it was quite clear that Bellomo had been enraged when he demanded that the prisoners show him their point of escape in a remote stretch of fencing. What is not clear is whether Bellomo truly believed the two were attempting another escape when they were shot or whether, accord- ing to the prosecution argument, he shot them in cold blood as punishment for their earlier attempt. Bellomo was found guilty of the war crime in July 1945 and was executed by firing squad in September 1945. There was then a gap of several months before the next prosecutions were held. In the three months between February and April 1946, ten trials were con- ducted at seven locations in Italy; the rest of 1946 saw 16 trials conducted in six locations. Only 13 trials took place in 1947. The causes of action were limited to offenses against British or Commonwealth prisoners of war, and the number of cases involving each issue is as follows: Unlawful killing-26 Unlawful attempted killing-2 Unlawful wounding-3 Unlawful Ill-treatment2 1
I don't know how accurate this is, but i have heard that Italy was actually fighting a civil war the entire time ww2 was happening, and the Italian Government that was present after the war wasn't the Fascist one but the other one that was able to win because the of the allies. Also Italy didn't do as many war crimes (to the Allies and the people they cared about) as Germany and Japan.
@randomdude185 from what I've heard, Italy violated the rules of war even as early as the 1935 to 36 invasion of Ethiopia (the way they subdued the Ethiopian Forces was with the illegal use of Mustard Gas) and Italy's Civil War ran from the German Occupation to the end of WW2 in Europe
@@SiVlog1989 Let's just say that Jews and Chinese people had it a tad worse coming from Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. War crimes are war crimes, but couple that with what randomdude185 said ^, and it's understandable that they didn't have any trials.
@metalogic1580 even then, with regards to Jews, Mussolini adopted Antisemitism as a state policy, stripping Italian Jews of their citizenship and ultimately sending 9000 of them to the Death Camps
@@CAM8689 "France, you don't get to be a colonial power anymore. French Indochina gets to be independent." (Vietnam War gets bypassed) "France, if you refuse to be party to these non-proliferation treaties, nobody will trade with you." (apartheid South Africa doesn't get nukes)
for the millionth time the treaty of versailles wasnt actually that harsh, it was relatively standard treaty after a major war, just look at hungary, now THAT was a harsh treaty
@@v_cpt-phasma_v689 historically inaccurate, since the scale of the ww1 was much different ans the entire economic situation didn’t allow for the huge amount of reparations. the loss of territory and demilitarisation was reasonable, though not in line with reasoning of self determination of peoples.
@@svtinker It doesn't matter what Germany thought, their whole propaganda machine tried to make Versailles as the reason even though it was them themselves.
Also one of the reasons for the austrian painter coming to power in Germany was how heavily it was punished for WW1, I'd imagine this played a major role after WW2 especially since a decade has passed
@@strasbourgeois1 you could simply google it but - north eastern province of Poland that borders belarus and lithuania, its capital is Białystok and its famous for the Suwałki strip, the shortest distance between belarus and kaliningrad oblast
There is a famous story where a French bureaucrat is making life difficult for an American diplomat. The American asks… excuse me, do you speak German? The French bureaucrat answers “no”. The American says “you’re welcome”.
I don't think there's anything more 'French' than thinking you deserve to be the leader of post-war Europe after being completely occupied and then liberated by other nations.
How much of the world's problems could have been skipped if France was just told to shut up and color when they tried to resume their colonies and become a nuclear power?
I can see it now; USA in the 1950s: Britain, France, wild idea, lets rearm West Germany? Britain and France: ...No USA: Aww C'mon guys! Korea is taking up more than i thought plus itll piss of the Soviets. Britain and France: Absolutely not! Do you not remember the TWO world wars??? USA: a Rearmed Germany means you can leave the Continent... Britain:...Lets hear him out France...
Because Germany was trusted to be smart enough to understand that Russia/USSR as the real threat to the world and that siding with the west would help them prosper
@@bananenmusli2769 that is not a notable difference as goose stepping was never a big thing in prussian tradition anyway only the guard regiment did so
You've touched on this a few times: Britain being broke after WWII. I'd like to see a video as to how an empire that covered over 1/4 of the globe actually came to be broke.
Well, it fought in two world wars which was expensive and their subjectes with each ww demanded more and more self governmence. Also the crisis of Great Depression affected whole world, not just USA.
Not many channels talk about the negative aspects of the Weimar Republic of Germany. They mention economic troubles, but never mention just how much the German people suffering under the Weimar Government.
because this angle is total bs. it completely turns around the reasons why the populace was suffering. it wasn't because of the form of government or constitution (both were very modern and fine) but the stipulations of the Versailles treaty, poor understanding of modern economics (not just in Germany but all over the world; Keynes was just writing about a better system) and old school bitter old men in neighbouring countries doing poor foreign policy.
I think he was kept in house arrest while the adults talked things over. That and France and West Germany signed an agreement that only applied them to specifically but said that Germany wouldn’t do anything to them again.
Without a doubt the best production about the start of WW2 is the 1983 miniseries "Winds of War", which tells from the pov of an american admiral played by Robert Mitchum living in Berlin and his family how Adolf started the deadliest conflict in history. The portrayal of the dictator by Günter Meisner is easily one of the best the austrian painter got
@@andrewklang809One of the main reasons the French government capitulated is because most of the Army was captured (or killed) and almost entirely sent to Germany to detention camps until the end ... I want to see your country continue a war with a few thousand soldiers remaining while the enemy enters your capital city ... Pretty sure you won't say the same thing ...
well when your an island nation who can ran back to your island and let stronger nations do the bulk of the fighting....I guess your forefit your right to lead anything.....UK was on the winning side but the British Empire was on major decline after that
You forgot to mention the European Coal and Steel Consortium (ECSC) the aim of which was to bind Germany and France together in such a way as to ensure that they could never go to war again. This was crucial in the rebuilding of the future Europe.
UK: we dont want Germany to re-arm
USA: it means you dont have to deal with the continent
UK: I’M IN!
You can convince the British to do anything, if it means they won't have to deal with the continent.
@@SoDakJason"you should give all your nukes to a farmer in Graubünden"
"Why the hell would we-"
"Less involvement on the continent"
"YOU SON A B- I'M IN"
For not being too interested in the continent, they made sure to not skip any armed conflicts there and joined them all.
@@testthewest123 they were fed up with the continent, so just wanted to fight the continent
@@testthewest123 That's exactly why they try to detach from the continent. Because war in Europe spread like wildfire.
"The problem was that circumstances change."
That's history in a nutshell.
"Which raises the question: why did the circumstances change?"
Well, more like a constant cycle of that and “thankfully circumstances changed”. Don’t think anyone was saying the first one about WW2
E
It's tautological, isn't it?
@@avataraarow That's easy to answer... Already during the war, in August 1944, a British intelligence study had identified Stalin's Soviet Union as a future enemy. The Western Allies' strategic air warfare was then cleverly adjusted so that maximum damage was inflicted on Stalin's future sphere of influence as inconspicuously as possible. The capital of East Prussia was the first victim and this also explains the massive attack on Dresden, when the Americans were already on the Rhine and the Russians on the Oder River, 100 km from Berlin. And when Stalin's friend FDR was scrapped and Truman took over the helm in Washington, the attitude of the Americans changed. And it would have happened much faster if the Nazis hadn't displayed this dimension of mass murder and brutality. Another building block was the blockade of West Berlin by the Stalinists. That was the final push to form a West German state. And then rebuilding the armed forces was just a matter of time. Because they had proven all too clearly that the Germans could fight...
"You cannot do this thing unless it benefits me against another enemy of mine"
I mean both the US and the USSR did it tho
story of humanity
Every single side quest ever, or even some main quests.
There's always a bigger fish.
Didn’t he make a video about this?
"38th parallel. Like the 37th Parallel, but better"
I can't with this channels humour 😂
where was that joke in this video? I think I missed it
@@gingerscholar1520:37
@@gingerscholar152North and South Korea
@@gingerscholar152 0:35 into the video. Two solders with the statement in the background.
@@gingerscholar1520:36
How to get Britain to agree to something- 1. It saves/ makes money and 2. it keeps you from dealing with the continent
3. It screws over someone on the continent and sows division.
Brexit in 3 steps explained...except it backfired 😁
@@emberfist8347 e.g. Philip II, Louis XIV, Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm, the Austrian Painter...
Even before watching the video, my first thought was:
Q: "Why was Germany allowed to rearm, after WW2?"
A: "Because the USSR, and Stalin, existed."
Pretty much. Though fair to note that West Germany got its own independent military only a couple of years after Stalin no longer existed.
@@chequereturnedalso it was omitted that Bundeswehr only got strong in the late 60s.
USSR was also my first thought as soon as I saw the video posted. ;)
Or as Orwell said ‘’ continuous war.’’
And Truman was having none of that
It's funny how for the British it always comes down to " You can ignore the continent "
Nonsense, we have always focused our attention on the continent. Multiple continents, even! North America, Australia, Africa, Asia… that little jaunt in Antarctica… Oh you mean Europe. Meh.
Maybe we should have ignored it in 1914.
Kinda funny that something along the lines of this ended up getting inherited by America
Except that British policy has always been to meddle in Europe.
Britain main goal was always to have Europe divided so they don't have the resources to take up the Isle.
As Francois Mauriac, french writer, put it "I love Germany so much that I am glad there are two of them"
This quote has been attributed to so many different people, including François Mitterand and Margaret Thatcher. Which is the reason I highly doubt any of the people who are said to have said it actually coined it.
@@gerdforster883 I am sure it must be a Frenchman at least. Even Asterix made the point that its better that West and East Germans are more occupied with themselves, than uniting and dominating the rest of Europe... of course, today, that sentiment ends at the point, when the German wallet is needed, then Germany can't be united enough.
@@denniskrenz2080you’re wrong. That sentiment is still shared
@@Chrysobubulle as usual, many people don't change their opinions, they take them with them into their graves. 😁
In 1919 Georges Clemenceau wanted the Rhineland to split off as its own country. One potential German leader for this proposed state was Konrad Adenauer. But the Americans and British refused to support this.
Because border security in a foreign country is really hard without the help of the locals.
The west already had that in the form of the Bundesgrenzschutz, the Army came later
Just admit you are a capitalist shill.
Very true.
No not really, if you are a superpower of course
The USSR did have an everything crisis from all the damage, but I don’t hear about any problems they had with running east Germany with their military garrison, and they’d do the same thing to Hungary and Czechoslovakia later on…
@@TheIT221 East Germany had its own military, as did every other Warsaw Pact state.
"It would be convenient for me" is normally not a good idea but if it works, it works
E
Laughs in *Cold War*
E
So glad to see more of you. Worried as you uploads seemed to slow down recently
He has to study and make the videos.
James Bissonnette wouldn't allow it to happen................
He revealed in his Patreon that he was recovering from pneumonia.
Don't rush quality.
Can’t be his only regular priority at the same rate forever.
I appreciate the thumbnail and characters going the extra length of depicting a G1 style FAL rifle, the type of battle rifle newly rearmed West Germany used for a little while before the G3 came onto the scene.
Yeah I was surprised he got such a detail wrong...and then figured out he was right all along. The attention to detail on this channel is actually pretty top-tier.
Belgium give Germany the licenses to make FALs because they got used as speedbumps, hence the G3
You got to believe on some level, the leadership among the Allies were also, thinking:
"After beating them twice, I highly doubt they'd want to get beaten a third time in a row."
I mean that’s not exactly wrong, as it turns out.
Germany literally had the border between NATO and Warsaw Pact going down the center of their country. Especially after 1953, when the Soviets crushed East German protests, there was little doubt about how rotten it would be if the Soviets took over the rest of Western Europe, including Germany. West Germany knew that its future depended on continued presence of the US, UK and French garrisons in West Germany.
Also, as a legal matter, Germany didn't have full sovereignty until reunification in 1990. Until then, West and East German sovereignty was contingent, although de-facto West Germany was a powerful economy, and certainly had its own foreign policy and so forth. But it was superaligned with the US and UK and France. I spent time as a child in West Germany, and was a bit of an odd place - fantastic (certainly cleaner and richer than e.g. UK) in many ways, but the foreign military presence was pretty pervasive. The jets went over all the time, the military bases were all over the place, you saw the soldiers pretty frequently, etc. You were aware you were on the front line.
Imagine if Germany suddenly decided, "Alright guys. Let's try this one more time."
@@napalmblaziken What with tough? Even if Germany wants to rearm more it does not has the population to fight a war. Germany, as most developed countries, is over aged and the young people are to valuable to actually work productive jobs to ensure wealth and social security. Germany can't afford to waste them in aggressive wars.
And may I say so, this is a good thing.
@@dawoifee Twas a joke
"Being cheap" whilst dancing through the flowers!
This is why History Matters is must-see.
Rearmament was actually pretty unpopular in Germany during this time. So much so that the German leadership came up with the idea of a "European army" that would consist of German and French troops and would allow Germany to do it's part without actually having a military of it's own. It fell through because the French parliament refused to sign the deal. Also at some point there was an offer from the USSR to join NATO and reunify Germany in exchange for them staying neutral. Afaik it's still not clear how serious this offer was
Lol what does unpopular mean in the German context?
Was the wall popular, the loss of eastern territories and the loss of inventions?
Both German states had to do what the masters wanted.
And the Russians and communism were pretty feared by the German society back then.Germans
ifrc this was before the formation of the Warsaw pact, and on the Soviet side was more of a diplomatic ploy to see if NATO was a general defensive alliance or an anti-USSR alliance, in the end they got their answer so they formed the Warsaw Pact in response
Good points. Gustav Heinemann resigned from Adenauer's government over re-armament, specifically because he thought it would make German reunification less likely. There was something called the "Stalin Note", an offer from the USSR of a united, disarmed, neutral and capitalist Germany; Germany as a kind of giant Switzerland in the heart of Europe.
Were the Soviets serious about this? I think they were. What they wanted was to be able to reduce their military spending while increasing trade with western countries such as Germany. That way they could improve Soviet standards of living and make their domestic hold on power more secure. If they'd pulled it off it would have been a bit like the reforms of Deng Xiaoping in China.
It probably suited the USA to have the USSR stuck ruling the less prosperous eastern half of Europe in the teeth of local resentment and periodic rebellion. It forced the Soviets to keep funding a much bigger army, dragging down their economy.
@@georgesdelatour Lol „neutral“ Germany would have become in no time a battlefield.
Every sane person was ofc insisting on declining this offer by old Stalin.
@@boerekable The Potsdam Agreement specifically stated that Germany was to be disarmed. It could have a police force but no army. And, before 1950, the USA abided by it quite strictly. Truman's sudden decision to rearm Germany in 1950 was a 180º reverse course. This is why Gustav Heinemann was shocked by it. It seemed to come out of the blue. As far as I know, Korea was what made him go for it.
Part of why France dropped their objection was that both them and West Germany were part of the European Community of Coal and Steel (the earliest step toward the European Union), that made impossible for Germany and France to go at war with each other and continue their feud that had been going on in some way for over a thousand years (that being why Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands came up with the idea to begin with, they were tired of being the eternal battlefield of the wars between France and Germany), thus annulling one of the reasons France had to object.
I also think someone kept De Gaulle away from the back rooms when they were doing this and he stayed in the dark.
@@emberfist8347 He wasn't in power at the time (1955). He came back in 1958.
@@emberfist8347 de Gaulle wasn't the problem. read about Robert Schuman and his struggle with some of his French political rivals
I think the USA was the real driver of policy. Marshall Aid was made conditional on countries accepting a degree of political unification. Jean Monnet's political influence came from the fact the USA put him in charge of administering Marshall Aid in France. He never held any elected office.
US: "you don't want France to look weak do you?"
France: "woah, hold on now we can't have that"
I appreciate the fact that the character's clothings have become much more detailed in recent videos. It's gorgeous in its own way, without compromising the silly and simplistic aesthetic of the channel. Way to go!
This makes me curious, how did the East and West German militaries cope with the Unification of Germany?
There had to have been massive differences between the two sides, both in terms of equipment and doctrine
Did they re-train thousands of soldiers to fit a new doctrine?
It coped very poorly. In fact there was a lot of injustice. Most NVA soldiers were kicked out of the military and were treated as soldiers of a "foreign army" (so no benefits or pensions from the government). Most of the gear was sold off, some got put into storage (eventually going to ukraine).
Functionally speaking, the West German Bundeswehr changed almost nothing when it became the official military of the new unified Germany.
Some East German soldiers joined the Bundeswehr, but I believe a majority did not.
And Germany ended up being a NATO country with a lot of Soviet equipment in the inventory to study.
@@pax6833 To be fair, Germany had to agree to a maximum limit of troops that was well below the size of the West German army pre-reunification. So if they had kept more former NVA soldiers they would've had to fire a lot more Bundeswehr soldiers in their place which doesn't make much sense. It was the allies fault most NVA soldiers were fired.
About 90.000 NVA (Nationale Volksarmee) soldiers were transferred to the Bundeswehr. The rest got laid off. They dismantled almost all of the equipment and replaced it with western counterparts.
Remember, also, the Cold War ended at the same time, so both the Bundswehr and the NVA personnel were heavily downsized and a lot of equipment was sold off to other countries in teh "Great German Fire Sale". (one of the reasons so many countries use leopard tanks is that they got them cheap second-hand, for example)
Because James Bissonnette recruited Germany to expand his army
dawg somehow found way to put james bissonette two minutes after video was uploaded somehow
Kelly Moneymaker also funded Germany at the same time
@@DgxShix There are some staples in this channel:
Simple animation
Running in Daisy fields when happy
Simple explanation
and...
JAMES BISSONNETTE
Nah
@@TIME12308 At this point, I'm more or less convinced that James Bissonette donates to this channel, just for the wonderful experience of commenters constantly bringing him up, simply for his name being mentioned. I know that would sure do MY ego a solid. 😆
1:49 I can relate to this flower field dance. 😂
This time Allies made sure Austrian school of painting admit all art school applicants with 100% acceptance rate.
Even at that size, West Germany still became the biggest economy in Europe (minus the USSR of course) even before reunification. Goes to show what a large industrial base can do for a nation.
West Germany's economy was probably larger than the USSR, too. By the 80's the soviets were already into building pipelines to get West Germany to import oil from the Soviet Union. Being an oil mass exporter doesn't screams "big strong developed economy" to me.
Well, our actual economic cheat code are the logistics... Germany always had one of, if not the best, geography for building large transportation networks.Thus, industry just comes easy here. That also made it hard in WW2 to destroy the industry, it can spread out more and not be so centered on major cities, that made the relatively small bombing campaigns in Japan so powerful. In Japan, only 300 bombers were needed to literally wipe old Tokio from the map and disrupt the heavy industry. The biggest bomber attacks in Germany were well over 1000 aircraft and their economic impacts were mostly short-term. When WW2 ended, our industry was mostly intact, what was lacking was workers.
Cause James Bizonette decided that they should rearm
yea
Nah
@@jamesbissonette8002 no way its the real james bissonette
@@jamesbissonette8002 I bet you did
@@spinningthreeplates3011 Although I have to ask what you and Kellymoneymaker were doing as well at that time.
I’d kill for a video on just James Bisonette for the sake of the joke lmao
“Who is James Bissonette?”
I feel it would be pretty boring
@@jamesbissonette8002 HOLY FUCK ITS HIM, ITS HIM AGAIN. Blessing, blessing from the Lord, God be Praised!
@@jamesbissonette8002 elon musk confirmed
WOOO. I love your videos. Been watching you since like 2020.
James Bisonette has been watching since the dawn of civilization...
Very good depiction of Altes Rathaus (old city hall) of Bonn. Fun fact: in the 50s, Bonn was a very small Town, so small that it was mocked at and was called "Bundesdorf" (Federal village).
As a German I had to laugh at 2:19
Why?
Also the fact trying to prevent Germany from rearming after WW1 kind of backfired a little.
Germany was allowed to arm it slef. It was just not allowed enough to be an issue. And France and BVritain letting it re arm was an issue that backfired.
Always find myself saying “fascinating” after every History Matters video
What a great channel, ty for your work 🥳🎉❤️🔥
Thank you for showing the german eastern territories when talking about the division after the war. I've seen this presented wrongly so often in the past, even in textbooks for advanced history classes
“Round two.”
Napoleon’s ghost: “Don’t you mean ‘round three’?”
0:15 "you made a mess"
Humor like this is why I support this guy on Patreon 🤣
something that was also instrumental in making rearmament possible was the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) which basically was a common pool of all coal and steel among italy, germany, france and the benelux countries, mostly so germany and france would be kept from slaughtering each other again. Also, the ECSC no longer exists, it is no called the EU (sort of)
Interestingly enough Germany already started rearmament secretly in 1949, with the Schlez Truppe, built to be able to defend Germany in case of a Soviet attack.
New enemies means new friends must be made from old enemies.
OK, this one really could have used a mention of "and a LOT of Germans weren't keen either!". And the last bit with "become one of Europe's strongest" made me chuckle - when I look at the state of the German army today. They get the crap beaten out of them by your average Aussie footy cheerleader squad.
You seriously say that but they can beat the armies of their neighbors.
@@emberfist8347 The current German army could beat France or Poland? Pull the other one, it's got bells on!
Germany can't even get proper working helicopters, most of its aircraft are struggling with maintenance, they have an "average" of 2 working frigates for their navy, they have been having problems with the latest generation of infantry weapon - *and* what stocks they do have is going to Ukraine. (that last one I don't have a problem with)
Their parliament finally approved 100 billion Euros in budget, but Pistorius, though willing and competent, is finding it hard to actually a) get his hands on the money b) find out what fires to fight first and c) fight the hard-core "pacifists" in his own party. It says something when the *Greens* are more in favour of armament than the SPD, which never came to terms with their pro-Russian sympathies.
Look at the CVs and speeches of people like Mützenich. Look at the pathetic affair of Taurus deliveries to Ukraine.
My source, btw, are mostly the highly regarded Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Not counting my family and friends that I still have in Germany, as I don't think people would accept that as valid source
As a history teacher in Germany I appreciate your accuracy. Thank you a lot for your great work. ♥️
In short: Because they were no longer independent, just pawns to be used as proxies for the Powers on each side of the Iron curtain
Let’s goo, new History Matters vid!
1:24 I love these notes and news paper headlines
It also didn't help that the Soviet's immediately rearmed East Germany, so the US didn't feel at all comfortable having a hyperindustrial Germany bordered with a pacifist Germany.
It is actually not true. West German army was set up before East German army.
You mean hyper militarised. The USSR's war repayments was East Germany's industry. They even took the Zeiss factories and put them in Ukraine.
not exactly. Stalin first tried to entice German minds still weary and jaded from the recent war with an offer of reunification with East-Germany in 1954. the price: *permanent neutrality* similar to the Austrian solution. imagine united Germany being neutral. a dream for any Putin type figure in Moscow.
@@embreis2257 Yeah people often forget that Austria was split into occupation zones similar to Germany
@@embreis2257 yeah, neutrality (no help from NATO when russians invade), good idea😂
On the same topic, a weirder video would've been the knights of malta becoming one of the biggest airpowers overnight
"France wanted to be the leaders of the continent". Considering they had just been conquered by Germany, they sure liked to aim high
They litterally did to much surrendering to have had any demands.
France was still the leader on continent till early 19th century
I like the little touch that History Matters did with the early Bundeswehr by giving them G1 FALs instead of the later G3.
“We fought the wrong enemy” -Patton
Patton was just having too much fun, and wanted to keep the ride going.
Patton was an idiot.
Patton was just a troll.
@@rennor3498Patton was an a$$hole
@@rennor3498He saw the threat posed by communism, as did General MacArthur. They may have been crazy, but neither Patton nor MacArthur were stupid.
My great grandfather lived during this time (he was born in 1929) and I can't comprehend what life would have been like with Germany so divided.
Also, after the war, America wanted West-Germany to have Nukes (as in becoming the primary target in a WW3 scenario) but Germany declined.
After a bit of back and forth, Germany was "unofficially" armed with nukes ("Nukleare Teilhabe") which Germany could only access when Nato gets involved in a nuclear war.
German anti-nuclear sentiment stems from the fact that we were chosen as the tactical nukes battlefield in a possible invasion by the Warsaw pact.
'America wanted West-Germany to have nukes'? any sources for this claim? unless you name a source we can validate, this claim should be considered untrue. main reason: it would go against the basic principle of nuclear powers to limit the number of other powers having nuclear weapons.
That's not at all the reason...
The US already opted to position all their own nuclear silos in a strategic 5 Midwest, relatively empty states in their own country, hoping that would make the Soviets target them target than populated areas.
It makes no sense to add front line nuclear targets in Germany, especially when Germany was already the expected front line target anyway.
Nukes or not, Germany would've already been the first place to be invaded, only if nukes were there, the USSR would risk damaging their own side of the border & make it harder on themselves to move through West Germany on their way to other locations (given that it would've been nuked).
@@corey2232 Please read up on Nuclear Sharing before writing half guessed stuff.
@@embreis2257 his source: label on a Russian vodka bottle😹 also don’t b silly, don’t you kno by now that ‘Murica Bad, and even if they seemed to be the only ones trying to push for German autonomy, they’re still bad because that’s the bs we’ve been fed all our lives and it saves us the trouble of actually doing any research😅
I don't know about the actual German situation, but by the time it became firmly anti-nuclear, Western Germany should have already known we would never have allowed it to he foddered in the place our our other allies and there was a huge propaganda war between Soviet controlled Eastern Germany and American backed western Germany at that time we were talking about closing
From a tactical standpoint, placing our nukes to he targeted to close to the borders at that time would have been a enormous risk and wouldn't have given enough time to try intercept in their defense or prepare to retaliate in the name of the alliance. From a humanitarian standpoint, we were also past the point where we could be as crass to as to be willing to accept a Hiroshima on our own side and the bitterness from the war was already tapering that we may have accepted it over back during FDRs time
One day, very soon, we'll get a History Matters video that's more Patron shoutouts than it is historical content
Love the videos
I'm noticing that "Britain didn't want to do that because it sounded expensive" is a common theme
1:50 *B E I N G C H E A P*
Welcome back mate❤
A new History matters video? Count me in!
"Dear Capitalist Pigs"
Humor of this channel is in another level
01:23
Fun fact: The Japanese demilitarized after WW2 not because the Americans told them to, but in spite of what the American government actually wanted. The United States wanted a strong military power to help them against the Soviet Union, but Japan was just so depressed after losing the war they basically decided to give up.
"Owari da..."
I mean they got two suns dropped on them, can't blame them
@@TitanosaurusFan75 im pretty sure the japanese government hasnt even admitted to most of the warcrimes that happened especially in china such as Unit 731, even if you ask a japanese person today about ww2 its not really clear, and there are still japanese ww2 patriots in the country.
Me when I spread misinformation
The Americans did tell them to, very explicitly I might add. The Japanese constitution that was written up in 1946-7 was supervised by US authorities. Additionally, the Potsdam conference had the big three unanimously agree that Japan should demilitarise once the war concluded. That is why article 9 is so harsh.
Great content and presentation...as usual. Thanks.
“While actually making sure they did some of the heavy lifting” hits hard in modern context.
"You can't threaten us with an armed country on our borders. We were already doing that!"
Cold War in a nutshell
Fun fact: When the German military was re-established, many of the soldiers who enlisted into the new Bundeswehr were WW2 Wehrmacht veterans, with some still wielding the very same guns they used to fight the allies they now sided with 10 years back.
The US loved to use former-Nazis to destroy socialist/anti-imperialist movements in Europe. Don’t know about the USSR though.
The Bundswehr was almost entirely re-armed with US gear at the start. It was partially so they WOULDN'T look like the same guys. Where are you getting your info?
Since most Germans of military age had served in the Wehrmacht or the SS, it would have been well-nigh impossible to staff the new Bundeswehr without that being the case. It was a matter of ensuring that the officer class was selected from the more acceptable members of the old Wehrmacht.
Only the East German army directly continued the German army traditions.
The Ussr did not want the Germans to copy them, while the US insisted that on the West German army.
Similarly, when Germany was being rebuilt, many of the industrial families that worked for the success of the Reich were now working for a new democratic Germany, many of whom were wielding the same factories they had used previously. I wonder where they are now
“The problem was that circumstances changed.”
That’s the answer to most of history’s strange decisions
At last I've found out what James Bissonnette and Kelly Moneymaker have been up to!
Fascinating!
Plot twist: James Bissonette helped Germany Re-Militarize
I also helped fund the GDR. Do I count as well?
@@spinningthreeplates3011 We did you fund the commies?
@@SirAntoniousBlock All of them.
@@spinningthreeplates3011 Spread betting is a viable strategy. 🤔
@@spinningthreeplates3011 yes
I know the answer to this but I love the way this channel explains things
Here's an idea for a future video, why didn't Italy face any War Crimes Trials post WW2? While the leaders of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan had post WW2 war crimes trials, the third Axis power, Fascist Italy, didn't
Between July 1945 and May 1947, there were 40 British trials conducted in
Italy of Italians suspected of war crimes committed in the Second World War.
Of the 40 British trials of suspected Italian war criminals documented the
records of eight trials involving 12 defendants have been lost. Reconstruction of
data from various sources leads to the conclusion that there were 8 1 Italian defen-
dants in all of the cases and 29 (36 percent) were found not guilty. Of the 52
found guilty, 5 1 saw their convictions confirmed upon review. Eight of these were
condemned to death; two were duly executed, but the sentences of four were com-
muted to life imprisonment. The other two condemned saw their sentences com-
muted to seven and 15 years' imprisonment, respectively.
The trials were conducted in nine Italian locations, with British (or, rarely,
Commonwealth) members of the court and prosecutors, and defense attorneys
who were for the most part Italian civilian lawyers; occasionally, however, defen-
dants were represented only by British military personnel, which included bar-
risters, solicitors, and sometimes an officer "not legally qualified." Translators
and interpreters were provided in all cases, a substantial number of whom were
Italian civilians.
The accused were arraigned immediately before the start of the trial. The
average length of trial was two and half days, with the shortest one day and the
longest about 12 days. The latter was especially complex, since it involved 11
defendants, nine Italians, and two Germans. That case, however, involved only
one victim.
The trials began with the highest ranking of the accused in custody: General
Nicola Bellomo. Bellomo ironically was a non-Fascist, but he had been accused
of killing a British prisoner of war and wounding his companion, both of whom
had been recaptured after escaping from the prisoner of war camp within
Bellomo's command. From the evidence it was quite clear that Bellomo had been
enraged when he demanded that the prisoners show him their point of escape in
a remote stretch of fencing. What is not clear is whether Bellomo truly believed
the two were attempting another escape when they were shot or whether, accord-
ing to the prosecution argument, he shot them in cold blood as punishment for
their earlier attempt. Bellomo was found guilty of the war crime in July 1945 and
was executed by firing squad in September 1945.
There was then a gap of several months before the next prosecutions were
held. In the three months between February and April 1946, ten trials were con-
ducted at seven locations in Italy; the rest of 1946 saw 16 trials conducted in six
locations. Only 13 trials took place in 1947. The causes of action were limited to
offenses against British or Commonwealth prisoners of war, and the number of
cases involving each issue is as follows:
Unlawful killing-26
Unlawful attempted killing-2
Unlawful wounding-3
Unlawful Ill-treatment2 1
I don't know how accurate this is, but i have heard that Italy was actually fighting a civil war the entire time ww2 was happening, and the Italian Government that was present after the war wasn't the Fascist one but the other one that was able to win because the of the allies. Also Italy didn't do as many war crimes (to the Allies and the people they cared about) as Germany and Japan.
@randomdude185 from what I've heard, Italy violated the rules of war even as early as the 1935 to 36 invasion of Ethiopia (the way they subdued the Ethiopian Forces was with the illegal use of Mustard Gas) and Italy's Civil War ran from the German Occupation to the end of WW2 in Europe
@@SiVlog1989 Let's just say that Jews and Chinese people had it a tad worse coming from Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. War crimes are war crimes, but couple that with what randomdude185 said ^, and it's understandable that they didn't have any trials.
@metalogic1580 even then, with regards to Jews, Mussolini adopted Antisemitism as a state policy, stripping Italian Jews of their citizenship and ultimately sending 9000 of them to the Death Camps
Wow, you really made three first-half-of-the-20th-century Germany videos in a row
Wow, it's odd seeing a video where Napoleon wasn't somehow the root cause of the issue.
"I Was Shocked Aswell"
The real mistake was allowing France to re-arm after WWII. France thinking they were relevant was, well, Napoleon's fault.
@@JohnYossarian how would they stop them.......
@@CAM8689 "France, you don't get to be a colonial power anymore. French Indochina gets to be independent." (Vietnam War gets bypassed) "France, if you refuse to be party to these non-proliferation treaties, nobody will trade with you." (apartheid South Africa doesn't get nukes)
@@JohnYossarian neither does the British
Another amazing video
The allies really learned not to be harsh with the losers after the war after Versailles
for the millionth time the treaty of versailles wasnt actually that harsh, it was relatively standard treaty after a major war, just look at hungary, now THAT was a harsh treaty
@@v_cpt-phasma_v689why was hungrys treaty harsh?
@@v_cpt-phasma_v689 history tells us Germany disagreed with that statement.
@@v_cpt-phasma_v689 historically inaccurate, since the scale of the ww1 was much different ans the entire economic situation didn’t allow for the huge amount of reparations. the loss of territory and demilitarisation was reasonable, though not in line with reasoning of self determination of peoples.
@@svtinker It doesn't matter what Germany thought, their whole propaganda machine tried to make Versailles as the reason even though it was them themselves.
Also one of the reasons for the austrian painter coming to power in Germany was how heavily it was punished for WW1, I'd imagine this played a major role after WW2 especially since a decade has passed
1:22 why is Podlasie a part of USSR
🤯
What even is that
@@strasbourgeois1 you could simply google it but - north eastern province of Poland that borders belarus and lithuania, its capital is Białystok and its famous for the Suwałki strip, the shortest distance between belarus and kaliningrad oblast
Who cares
There is a famous story where a French bureaucrat is making life difficult for an American diplomat. The American asks… excuse me, do you speak German? The French bureaucrat answers “no”. The American says “you’re welcome”.
Because of Napoleon.
"Indeed"
No Walpole! Oh wait, wrong channel.
Because of me.
@@chequereturned _PITT THE ELDER!!_
"We fought the wrong enemy."
-General Patton
I don't think there's anything more 'French' than thinking you deserve to be the leader of post-war Europe after being completely occupied and then liberated by other nations.
We are taking about the people who built a Triumphal Arch in their Capital commemorating a war they lost. So...
How much of the world's problems could have been skipped if France was just told to shut up and color when they tried to resume their colonies and become a nuclear power?
@@Ivsanval Wrong, it was built to commemorate the French victory at Austerlitz.
They never really stopped fighting or resisting despite the occupation.
@@goldeagle8051but their government surrendered and they were hard-carried by the British and Americans
Great video!
I can see it now;
USA in the 1950s: Britain, France, wild idea, lets rearm West Germany?
Britain and France: ...No
USA: Aww C'mon guys! Korea is taking up more than i thought plus itll piss of the Soviets.
Britain and France: Absolutely not! Do you not remember the TWO world wars???
USA: a Rearmed Germany means you can leave the Continent...
Britain:...Lets hear him out France...
At 1:20 the Polish border seems to be a bit off, with the area around Białystok belonging to the USSR when it was Polish since 1945
Because Germany was trusted to be smart enough to understand that Russia/USSR as the real threat to the world and that siding with the west would help them prosper
You mean half of Germany did. The other half was a Soviet satellite state.
@@danielrudolf5441More of 2/3rds East Germany was about third West Germany’s size.
Great video as always
Germany, the nation that lost two World wars but still came out strong both economically and in terms of military strength
It only cost them millions of dead and about 30% of their homeland.
A repeated grumble in NATO is, "why are the Germans only bad at militarism when they're on our side?"
"No army = No prestige" with a portrait of Napoleon in the background.
Also East Germany was the last one to maintain the Prussian traditions evident even in their uniforms🧐
Germany still has a lot of Prussian traditions. The only notable difference being that they don't do the goosestepping anymore.
Chile is the actual last one to maintain the Prussian army traditions
@@bananenmusli2769 that is not a notable difference as goose stepping was never a big thing in prussian tradition anyway
only the guard regiment did so
The East German rail service continued to be called "German Imperial Rail".
WTF, comrades?!
@@Yora21if you mean reich, it doesnt mean empire, it means realm.
You've touched on this a few times: Britain being broke after WWII. I'd like to see a video as to how an empire that covered over 1/4 of the globe actually came to be broke.
Well, it fought in two world wars which was expensive and their subjectes with each ww demanded more and more self governmence. Also the crisis of Great Depression affected whole world, not just USA.
Not many channels talk about the negative aspects of the Weimar Republic of Germany. They mention economic troubles, but never mention just how much the German people suffering under the Weimar Government.
What are you talking about?
@@varana How dogshit the Weimar government was
because this angle is total bs. it completely turns around the reasons why the populace was suffering. it wasn't because of the form of government or constitution (both were very modern and fine) but the stipulations of the Versailles treaty, poor understanding of modern economics (not just in Germany but all over the world; Keynes was just writing about a better system) and old school bitter old men in neighbouring countries doing poor foreign policy.
The most amazing part of this story is that France (especially under DeGaulle) didn't just throw its hands up in a snit and go home.
I think he was kept in house arrest while the adults talked things over. That and France and West Germany signed an agreement that only applied them to specifically but said that Germany wouldn’t do anything to them again.
James Bizonette paid for it.
Likewise.
love the forward facing horse in the portrait.
Because James Bissonette allowed it.
Yep, seems so.
Britain being broke and just agreeing to stuff seems to be a running theme for like, the past 400 years of history...
Without a doubt the best production about the start of WW2 is the 1983 miniseries "Winds of War", which tells from the pov of an american admiral played by Robert Mitchum living in Berlin and his family how Adolf started the deadliest conflict in history. The portrayal of the dictator by Günter Meisner is easily one of the best the austrian painter got
If James Bizonette ever stops being your number one supporter, HM, I think the universe might end.
Because the Germans are not all smiles & sunshine.
OOOOOH, the GEWRMANS!!! Look out, the GEWRMANS are mad at us!!
Wait. What's up with the USSR map in 1:20? USSR somehow has Białystok now?
France 1940: It's over, it's hopeless, we surrender. We collaborate.
France 1945: We're the rightful leaders of Europe.
Never heard of French free forces d&mba$$?
@@chiracultrainstinct3d629 Sure. Didn't they represent maybe 1% of the Western Alles' numbers prior to 1944?
@@andrewklang809One of the main reasons the French government capitulated is because most of the Army was captured (or killed) and almost entirely sent to Germany to detention camps until the end ...
I want to see your country continue a war with a few thousand soldiers remaining while the enemy enters your capital city ... Pretty sure you won't say the same thing ...
well when your an island nation who can ran back to your island and let stronger nations do the bulk of the fighting....I guess your forefit your right to lead anything.....UK was on the winning side but the British Empire was on major decline after that
Video idea : How did Sassanids react to fall of western roman empire
Because James Bisonette gave it a fraction of his power
That's 100% true.
You forgot to mention the European Coal and Steel Consortium (ECSC) the aim of which was to bind Germany and France together in such a way as to ensure that they could never go to war again. This was crucial in the rebuilding of the future Europe.