@@iuliuslovin37 if I recall she perpetuates myths, and hides major statistics, glossing over events like the massive loss of life of Natives during colonialsm, or glossing over black oppression. At least those were what I saw in the youtube short comments. Despite all of that I'm not educated enough to know if she's lying, misinformed, or if the comments were wrong. After all the shorts aren't in context so she could have spoken at length on the topics but just not in the clip.
This chick is just wrong. If Germany had stopped after Czechoslovakia, like this guy's question implies, it absolutely would have been better than the war exploding like it did IRL. In fact, we have a bunch of examples of more moderate ring-wing dictators during the actual historical war that turned out great. Franco led Spain to the "Spanish economic Miracle" and had a peaceful transition to democracy after his death. This chick is clueless and shouldn't be teaching this subject.
The German's tried to negotiate with Great Britain the placement of the Jews in British Palestine. Then in Madagascar and even allowed the Jews to leave Germany and go to America on a steam ship. All were rebuffed by the "Allies". Resulting in Hitler's promise of riding the Jews from Germany and Europe. No matter what the cost to the Jew. Churchill didn't want them. Roosevelt didn't want them.
@@samuelspiel8855 As a historian, I concur with what you say in part, I'm not sure where this woman is getting her answers from.... but I disagree with her full assessment.
These interviews would be perfect if Patel's rambling, stream-of-consciousness inquiries were ruthlessly edited down into single questions that didn't require more than 5-7 seconds each. Better yet, just have him read from a prepared script...off camera, if necessary. We know he means well, and his interest in the subject is admirable, but...just put him on a verbal diet. Please. Prof. Paine's replies, on the other hand, shouldn't be touched. Every sentence, every thought, every suggestion...they can all stand on their own.
Patel is absolutely terrible; he struggles to fully pronounce words and often swallows them as he rushes to speak, cramming too much into just a few seconds. As a result, his questions are frequently unintelligible.
@@fikretpajalic1224Patel's questions are better than her replies. Sarah Paine might be ignorant of the actual details of World War 2 history : How does Sarah Paine explain the fact that the commander of Hitler's SS bodyguard unit, Erich Kempka is a Slavic ethnic Polish person with 4 Slavic grandparents from Poland? What does Sarah Paine say about Bandera and the Banderites or Konstantin Voskoboinik or Vlasov or Pyotr Krasnov or Bronislav Kaminski? There are more than a hundred thousand Polish and Czechoslovakian soldiers in the German Wehrmacht in World War 2 and there are more than a million Soviet Union citizens (including Russians and Ukrainians) who collaborated with Germany in WW2 (as Hiwis or soldiers) and yet Sarah Paine believes that Hitler wanted to murder all Slavic people, when in reality Hitler was an anti-Jewish anti-Semite and not an anti-Czech or anti-Poleite or anti-Ukrainian
She had a good point about Britain being a maritime power rather than a Continental power. In many of Continental wars including the Napoleonic Wars her role in the land battles was secondary to her maritime roles ,even in the Peninsular wars she had the somewhat ineffectual Spanish allies both regular army and Guerrilla forces tying down many French troops and winning some battles. In the seven years wars her main contribution was monetary to the hard pressed Prussia but she reaped huge rewards in India and America by virtue of her naval strength. The First world War changed all that.
Don't forget that Napoleon invaded Spain with a JUGGERNAUT military. The most powerful army in the world, by far, that Napoleon used and abused. So it was not so much that the Spanish were ineffectual, especially since they won the Peninsular War together with Britain, they were facing vast military resources which Napoleon was willing to us up all of it. So give the Spanish a little more credit in victory.
@@stxfdt1240 Talk about being "ineffective", who was the one who ran a once juggernaut French military into the ground in total defeat? Who left a generation's worth of French boys in mass graves as enemy troops marched down the streets of Paris, leaving France under military occupation? If you want to talk about "ineffective", no one beats the incompetent wasteful Napoleon and how he wasted away the juggernaut military that he seized from a lost and confused France. But of course that is not the way 19th Century European history framed it. So to the speaker's point, the British were so delusional in thinking that they had fought so great on the Continent during the Napoleonic Wars and won it for Europe, when it was Napoleon's massive blunders and lack of foresight in military incompetence that led to Napoleon's defeat, way before Waterloo. That is why the British thought they were such a great continental army, but got punished in both WW1 and WW2 continental campaigns, delusional and dishonest storytelling to themselves about how they won the Napoleonic Wars.
@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators britain is nothing but just another fraud power whose days disappeared just like that....Roman Empire is the real deal and perhaps the ottomans a 2nd....
The time difference was about 21 years ? ! The worldly Universe changed countless times between those two non connected events ? World War One should never have happened .
I took a class in college in ww1 history and this reason alone was enough to ruin the central powers. With the except of u boat raids and a couple small successes in Indian Ocean piracy, Germany never could level with the uk in ww1 when they had a navy and even less so in ww2. Also (more so in ww2), Germany had less resources and poor mismanagement of the stuff they had (which was almost nothing). Even if Germany won ww2, Germany would’ve run fry on supplies because their policies were isolating comparatively to the countries they were fighting.
Very true that WW1 is the pivot point and not WW2. Further more WW2 showcased how to actually fire with firearms effectively. WW1 only showed how little we actually understood about the tactical use of firearms in modern warfare.
If WW1 never started the world would be radically different from the one we know today. However given the situation Europe found itself in by the 1910s a major global conflict was inevitable.
Literally every educated European, at least outside the UK, knows this. What's really interesting is that it was African colonialism that largely caused WW1. The European rush to divide the continent led to military treaties to assure peace between the competing nations. These treaties were then instrumental in drawing every country into war once some of them started fighting in Europe. So in a way everything from African colonisation to the end of the cold war is just one continuous link of events in European history. WW1 was the first time the white man's hubris really bit him in the ass, leading to the systematic death of his own kind; but the seeds were laid 30 years earlier, and the devastation only ended 75 years later.
but WW1 was a accumulation of napoleon wars, war of 1870, even the american revolution had a part of it. So many different things led up to and built up to WW1 and 2. You cant put it all on one event as history ignorant people tend to do.
@@planderlinde1969 if WW1 never started a majority of the world would have been stuck in dictatorships for a very long time. WW1 and 2 got rid of european dictatorships once and for all.
Germany's economic philosophy of autarky was not sustainable. Autarky demanded that the Germans conquest the Slavic lands to the east to maintain self-sufficiency. Stopping with the annexation of adjacent German-speaking lands would have led to the collapse of the German economy.
You’re outta your mind. You obviously took the main stream narrative without looking into it yourself. The economy was back by the German worker (aka cars, technology, etc….). It was the strongest economy in the world and did so during the Great Depression. And if you take that “war manufacturing” narrative is what got them out of it, then you’ve been caught in their trap twice. Hell the American economy is built on the 3rd Reich model. What we produce determines our dollars value. Exports…….
They would have changed to a different policy if the economy stagnates. Every country does this. No one is foolish enough to just follow the same path until the end.
It could be replaced with national capitalism as one they either lose war and receive mounting losses or run out of countries to conquer, and have to rely on a market economy to sustain itself. Similar to Maoist and Post-Maoist China throughout the early 60s to mid 80s.
They did survive ww2. Many escaped to Brazil and Argentina and other places. There is a town of twins in Brazil that are more than anywhere in the world. A certain doctor rumored to live there for a while
There were Russian and Ukrainian Hiwi soldiers who worked as Trawniki concentration camp guards living in the USA after World War 2 was over : en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiwi_(volunteer)
While WW1 undoubtedly held a catalyst for WW2, the prime directive for Britain's policy toward the Continent has always been living in fear of a continental superpower, no matter the nation, nor the ideology. Britain has played the role of agitator on the continent for centuries in order to keep the various nations in check. They simply cannot afford to live in the shadow of unified continent, no matter how tenuous.
Britain didn't want to get involved in a war with Germany, chamberlain repeated fought against that. It was only because Churchill and various other politicians were bribed by the usual suspects to push for a war with Germany at all costs
Patton was wrong in that in WWII in Europe we were fighting an ideology not a people. Patton was even more wrong about the ideology he wanted to fight next since he saw Communism as a future threat but he didn't see the bigger picture of what an attack on a now prepared and united USSR that had grown from the German invasion. As she says in another clip, prior to the German invasion Russia and the USSR itself were not really a united or coherent "nation". After the invasion and occupation they were much more united and ready for a war. Nobody really wanted to start that "next" war and hence we got the Cold War.
This is also the fundamental reason why the British insistence on actively blaming the Germans for WW1 is erroneous. The problem with WW1 was not that it happened, but HOW it happened; and all sides have equal fault in that. WW2 had a far greater death toll, but it didn't murder an entire generation of young men as senselessly as WW1. The fact that eminent historians like Max Hasings have gone back to aggressively calling for re-blaming the Germans is quite shocking.
Nah your just incorrect, germany had multiple opportunities to stop the intensifying of ww1. 1) they gave the Austrians full support when the triple alliance pact didn’t force them to do so. 2) they invaded a neutral country in belgium which calls for others to enter the war. 3) it kept going and invaded france. A small scale conflict could of carried out between serbia and austria but german aggression prevented that.
@@johnpederson5873what about french aggression? The french, after getting humiliated in a war they started in 1871, went on a 40 year smear campaign on Germany ensuring that they’ll be diplomatically isolated except for Austria, how is Germany standing up for his only ally any different from today’s US and Israel? What about russian aggression? They were the first to escalate the conflict by mobilizing their army and threatening war with Austria, if anything they turn the regional conflict between Austria and Serbia into a major european conflict. And also Belgium was only neutral on paper, they operated in tandem with Britain and France since the beginning violating the spirit of their permanent neutrality (unlike the Netherlands or Spain who were genuinely neutral), and Britain also had the opportunity to mediate the conflict but Lloyd George (a known germaphobe) wanted an excuse to get into the war. Now although in my opinion Austria is the real culprit of this horrific conflict, Germany had plenty to do with it’s escalation, however trying to blame the germans for the whole thing is both ludicrous and bias towards the entente
I agree entirely with her viewpoint. WW1 was the absolute catalyst for the consequences of what followed. In essence, a part one, then a pause, then a part two to really finalise things….awful.
Well would be interesting to see different outcome scenarios... Because in our time line human civilization has completely doomed itself and ti's too late now to escape collapse
Brilliant woman. A family anecdote that supports her point about the cultural differences between Germans and Russians: A branch of my extended family are Jews whose ancestors were in Poland until World War Two. In 1939, Poland, of course, was JOINTLY invaded by Germans from the west and Soviets from the east. The family members who were in western Poland were mostly wiped out by the Nazis, with only a few surviving. The family members who were in eastern Poland were deported to Soviet forced-labor camps in Russia. Plenty of hardships, but most of them survived. At least for them, Stalin was the lesser of two evils.
Don't forget that other Jews who were in the Soviet-occupied part of Poland joined the Soviet Red Army, as well. I have a friend whose father -- a Polish Jew -- made it to the Soviet lines and eventually became a tank commander in the Red Army. He immigrated to the US after the war. Many Polish and Russian Jews served with distinction in the Red Army, many highly decorated, many even reaching high rank. In Netanya, Israel, just north of Tel Aviv, a war memorial was erected honoring the Red Army for its role in defeating Nazi Germany during WWII. It is the only war memorial to the Red Army to be erected in any country not either a present or former Soviet bloc/Russian aligned country. Putin even traveled to Israel to attend the unveiling in 2012. A number of surviving Jewish Israeli Red Army veterans were there to attend, as well, some wearing their old uniforms and medals.
@@TheTimdoyle I have read it, great book, should be on everyone shelf. However, if you think about it, it really showed in Spade just how truly inefficient Russians were. Yeah not caring, and millions died, but at the same time, zero care about function.
@@MarekDohojda Whilst the war effort at the start of the conflict was extremely inefficient and ineffective (probably the same for most countries) the Soviets did rally and out produced the Germans. It was known that they captured German tanks and copied elements of them. However whilst the Germans were manufacturing their armaments to precise measurements in underground factories the Soviets understood (as they always fought) that this is another war of attrition and their armaments were crude but effective. The war in Ukraine is another war of attrition. The Russians are not suffering. They have prepared for this war for over a decade. The west is now ill prepared and suffering because of it. Now with a new front in Israel the majority of munitions are leaving the US for Ukraine and Israel. The US are leaving themselves at serious disadvantage.
@@TheTimdoyle Not quite sure your response in terms of OP. That said, it's all good. Russians are exceptionally inefficient and horrible at producing things. Back in the old country Russian made products were always a joke, and today is no different. Russia did outproduce Germany but it is important to note that they had Land Lease which was incredibly useful, especially because it allowed them to focus on weapons; and Germans were bombed, and attacked on all sides; while having inefficient economy themselves. Bottom line is that Ukraine showed just how bad Russia is, and how bad it's manufacture process is; the corruption, the failure , the great deal of waste, is all visible and in spotlight. That said, Ukraine was a corrupt nation before hand, was hardly a nation before hand, primarily due to what Soviet's have done to it. It is also far smaller nation in terms of people, with very weak manufacturing base. Therefore it is possible that Russia may pull this off, as Russians never cared about their own losses. Their people die? OK, So? They sure don't care. SO while it's possible that Russia may win the war of attrition they will loose the war, and will not get back their Empire, that much is certain.
If all those soldiers of WWI & WWII could have gotten a glimpse of this "Twilight Zone" insane betrayal we have today...they would have pointed their guns at their leaders..to protect a common Europa brotherhood.
@@sevatar5762 because everyone would be dead or because everyone would look like an inbred family from “The Hills Have Eyes”- but with more blonde hair?
What I find ironic is both the parties she mentioned run rampant undetected currently.... And essentially, id say, this is the actual reality of what happened without it having to happen.
The Great War was so influential to today's geopolitics and economic powerhouses. The gunshot that killed Franz Ferdinand began a chain reaction that we still see today.
I could theoretically envision a scenario where Hitler sticks it to Stalin and the Allies develop the bomb and then win with that. In that scenario both would lose, but conventionally? Yeah, 2/3 of Wehrmacht faces the Red Army so Normandy would be pretty tough if Germans not busy on Eastern Front.
@@weirdshibainu no, not really. Without Germany facing the Russians they might frankly lose even quicker than they did historically because they were utterly reliant on conquering Soviet territory to fuel their war effort.
@@DominionSorcerer That's my point. Stalin detested the West..to the point he trusted Hitler and was legitimately shocked (reports of him locking himself in his room for days after the invasion) and would have supplied Hitler with everything he needed, in fact, Germany and Russia had robust trade under the Trade and Credit agreement in August of 1939
In Rwanda? We know they could have tried. In Paraguay, Chile, Argentina? Well if you speak of the fuehrer, he could have survived there (argentina) protected by the german house of Lippenburg (berhard zu lippe, german king of holland).
The usual assumption for decades was a trajectory much like that of the USSR. I still tend to that, though I can entertain arguments for why it would decline slower, or much, much faster, than that. The strategic picture of the ensuing Cold War would of course have been much, much worse for the US and UK, with no continental allies to speak of.
based on the title and "uploaded 7 months ago" I was CERTAIN that this had been in the context of discussions about a ceasefire to allow Hamas to survive... but then I saw that it came out before October 7th
You can understand that she even rooted for the tsar and his incredibly corrupt regime with unimaginably cruel treatment but she doesn’t talk about Ottoman Empire. The irony is, the Ottoman Empire was the only peaceful country among all of them.
There are two important points about the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany: 1) If Stalin had not chosen to be a de-facto ally of Nazi Germany from August of 1939 to June of of 1941, Germany would not have been able to initiate World War Two. 2) Once Germany invaded the Soviet Union in Operation Barbarossa in June of 1941, it was the Soviet Union that suffered the most from Nazi Germany and that inflicted most of the damage on Nazi Germany. Without the Soviet Union inflicting massive destruction on the German military, D Day would never have succeeded and might never have been attempted. So, in effect, Stalin caused the Second World War but then insured Germany's defeat in that war. By the way -- it is the opinion of some historians that it was the August, 1945 Soviet invasion of Manchuria -- more than the atomic bombs-- that convinced Japan to surrender.
The soviets couldn't even put boots on their soldiers feet. They provided bodies. A necessary thing, but not the deciding factor. And no intelligent historian believes that the Soviet invasion of a Japanese puppet caused them to surrender. Japan was preparing for a literal fight to the death. Look up "the glorious death of the 100 million"
Yes. The USSR is the most important country regarding WW2, they also benefitted the most. With that huge, incredibly powerful army they dominated all of Eastern Europe, and along with the USA replaced the British Empire in "Superpower" role. In 1938, the British Empire is huge and literally "SUPERPOWERFUL", in 1946, permanently weakened, unable to maintain control over the vast lands and peoples of the Empire, as the USA and USSR aren't going to help and instead increase their influence and hegemony over the entire World. Here's a truth no one seems to put forth, there was a moment when Humanity could have been united, but instead, the USSR on one side, and USA/Britain on the other chose to be adversaries. Together, just as they overpowered the Axis, they could have overpowered and united the world as the Axis had desired. Literally they had the forces mobilized, no one could have stood against the same troops that had just pulverized Germany and intimidated Japan into surrender. Not Civil War China, not any South America, nor any other places not still under colonial rule. Nope, they wanted enemies so became each other's enemy, since their enemies were crushed.
If they didn’t invade Russia, and called it quits, they could have negotiated trade with Soviet Union and built defences in east Poland and Romania instead of taking on the largest country on earth.
it was kill or be killed. Soviets plan to invade at some point! plus part of the German objective was to reunify all German speaking people of which Soviet union had 4 mil!
it was originally thought that the Soviet Union grew at 4-5% in the 30s. This has now been downgraded to 3.5% a year. However it appears that the real issues for the Soviet Union started to occur in the early sixties. If we look at Germany in the 30s it's growth rate was similar to the Soviets but it's rearmament program distorted the economy causing a foreign exchange crisis. This is one of the main reasons they started the war.
Patel is absolutely terrible; he struggles to fully pronounce words and often swallows them as he rushes to speak, cramming too much into just a few seconds. As a result, his questions are frequently unintelligible.
No we didn’t. Patton was anti-Semitic douche bag! Any cheated on his wife all the time which means he lacks character. I lost a lot of respect for him when I found that out. I also read his personal diaries. He was blaming the Jews for the concentration camps like it was their fault for letting it happen so yeah yeah that’s the type of “great” man that Patton was
@@shkodranalbi well, ...whats the context?.....1.help the Germans and continue the "right" path .......2. "Patton said this, he was wrong in thinking this"....these types of comments are just titillating to those who have fascist , dictatorial tendencies or dreams....your "dumb" comment at least is honest ans direct. ...
If that were true, you would have already been shocked for your comment. Very fortunate for you. How wrong you are because it's going to keep your family safe Because if We really had a totalitarian fascist state ate a comment like yours would have put your entire family at risk. I hope you never have to understand what that feels like. I really do
Fascism did survive till 1970 in Spain but it was more like Italian fascism without the overtly racial component. Yes, i do believe nazism would have crumbled. Likely by first weakening and watering it down first.
Funny how the EU and the one currency was what Hitler wanted.. Seen the communist threat for what is was, we backed USSR for Ww2 and then spent the next 80 years in a Cold War… like Patton said, we fought the wrong side
Wrong, he's one of the people ze Germans wanted rid of. Best do some digging, they pop up quite often in over reaching government control. Not quite the victims you've been told!
Its more complicated than that, you consider how the world has transcended into the chaos we live in today, The Reich committed atrocities as many governments did but the German people under the Reich especially pre WW2 lived lives of high morality and plentifulness, Versailles was the problem as Germany was eviscerated and humiliated
They didn't really live lives of high morality and that plentifulness was reliant on first the possessions of Jewish people and later on foreign conquests. Versailles, for the record, wasn't even that harsh. The idea that it was is Nazi propaganda.
If Third Reich survived Patel wouldn't be asking this question. Patel is absolutely terrible; he struggles to fully pronounce words and often swallows them as he rushes to speak, cramming too much into just a few seconds. As a result, his questions are frequently unintelligible.
AH blamed his generals because they acted against him. Especially franz halder acting against him during operation barbarossa, prioritising moscow over the caucuses and its oil fields
Did he? Those claiming so probably were in one way or another. They made up the clean whermacht myth to cope with this. And also cause they kinda solidified this myth at Nuremberg when they deemed the waffen SS a “criminal organization” Even though the Whermacht did more crimes and around the same or more percent adjusted for size. So they leaned into it despite being die hard NS themselves. It should be interesting to see how this is all viewed once the political propaganda is gone.
It's kind of a silly question, my respect to her for her patience. "What if" questions are typically implausible, and this one is not unique in that respect. The survival of Nazism would have meant the total destruction of the Soviet Union, the surrender or annihilation of the English. Much of Europe would have been exterminated, too...including the Spanish and Italians. Ten's of millions more would have died. Entire nations would have been...liquidated. Nazi Germany was *_doomed to fail_* because it was a totalitarian dictatorship led by a genocidal maniac. Believe it or not, at any given time, there are more people who *_love_* than *_hate._* This fact dooms the "them-or-us" ideas - like Nazism - to failure. The Soviet Union was doomed to failure because it was a totalitarian dictatorship led by homicidal and suicidal maniacs. Believe it or not, at any given time, there are more people who respect *_reason_* than those who respect *_irrationality._* This fact dooms the "do-gooder" Socialists from convincing enough young people to accept their logical absurdities. It prevents a lot of really, really dumb things from happening.
the Germans requested a peace treaty over 15 x with the British (and other European powers), before the war, during the war, when they were winning the war and when they were losing the war, their objective was never to destroy England. also Spain and Italy were German allies. not sure where you are getting your perceptive from? BTW most European countries were allies with germany!
Field marshal Haig,or"butcher Haig" as my grandparents called him took much of the blame for the slaughter of the British and imperial forces.Fair call.Haig kept his opinions to himself after the war,as a soldier should.The politicians could have replaced him but hadn't the guts.Lloyd George the pm who could have done that trashed haigs reputation after haigs de ath to salve his own legacy. That's politicians for you
The interviewer was missing the inherent full on genocidal nature of Nazism vs Soviet Communism. Yes stalinism mirrored many aspects of the Nazi regime but it didn't have the grand visions and well thought out doctrine of racialized scientific antisemitism, racialized socities, and genocidal imperialism like with Nazism. Keep in mind the USSR wasn't just Stalin. The post-Stalin Soviet leaders, while corrupt and dictatorial, were not totalitarian like Stalin as communism, unlike Nazism, is not inherently totalitarian and genocidal. Communism can be genocidal ie Pol Pot (although many of Pol Pot's racial ideas went well beyond Communism) but it doesn't have the same automatic disposition towards racial conquest and genocide like Nazism. This is why I'm always a little cautious when I see Communism and Nazism brought up in the same breath and especially so when discussing WWII. I find Eastern Europeans given their harsh experiences with Communism understandably have a difficult time grasping this and often lend themselves to clumsy historical equivocations between Nazism and Communism. It's also absurd to imagine defeating Hitler and Stalin at the same time when Hitler had been primary enemy of the allies for years by that point and had now made himself an enemy of a mighty country like the USSR. What attack the enemy of your enemy as opposed to teaming up with them? That's ridiculous. They didn't even have the means for that. Besides Nazism's longterm plans were so horrific they went well beyond any evil dictator like Stalin.
They were on borrowed time and borrowed money. The amount of financial shenanigans the Nazi’s accountants worked up to hide the massive unserviceable debt in order to deflate the interest forced the Germans to look beyond their borders.
@@johnhoney657 and it’s a bit easier when they confiscate all businesses, money, and houses from their own citizens just bc they happen to be a Jew, a Gypsy, gay, from an opposition political party, or writing truth to power.
I guess everyone can understand how the populaces of countries being at their lowest low can turn to radical ideologies such as communism and fascism. What I really wonder though is how fascism could rise to its success in a country that actually won in WW1 - Italy.
The Third Reich did continue a little on after the May 8 surrendered. They continued until they were dissolved on May 23 de facto and then on June 5 de jure.
I wonder how many nazis with faked passports & documents later infiltrated corporations, banks and companies..everywhere.. Remember the movie, 'The Odessa File'. Fiction with some truth?
@allananderson949 I can't criticize multiculturalism, immigration, pride, feminism without fearing for my job, gf. We don't have leaders in the west, we have puppets. You would have been able to critize german policy after the war.
wait what is her point here? The Brits shouldn’t have sent soldier to fight on the continent? The key to British grand strategy is to never let one power dominate the continent. How does she square that?
She's saying they didn't commit to a large army until Much later and struggled to do it as a result of their policies. Their policy was to be a small force that tipped the scales, when they flat didn't have the numbers in WWI
I think she is pointing to Fishers "Baltic Strategy" to cut off the Germans from Swedish Iron Ore. Very little of this was ever implemented, but the few submarines that were sent in the Baltic were very successful. Despite Churchill's criticism of it in retrospect post WW1, his whole Norway campaign in 1940 looks like a poorly executed similar approach.
It is easy to judge history in hindsight from the future And very wrong. We didn't live in those times and therefore did not suffer from quite the same lack of information or compassion. I'm quite sure that the Allies of that time had just enough wherewithal to figure out how to win battles as opposed to thinking about how it all factors into a new world order. In addition to that, the same issues of power consolidation And hegemony are persistent today just as in the past. Just remember that one day 100 years from now we will be judged our future generations as well.
Joseph Stalin had ideas those of the intelectual spear felt a ken with in the USA that’s why if someone states they are a natz* well look at them as a crazy individual but if one says he’s a communist they just have a different idea of how the world should run however the outcome is the same if not worse.
The outcome was not the same. And communism is in no way comparable to fascism. Communism transformed a feudal agrarian society like Russia into a global power through rapid industrialization and modernization, having incredible economic growth after WWII. You're grossly misinformed.
@@HegemonicMarxismThe outcome was not the same, but Stalin intentionally murdered far more innocent civilians and children in the process than the Fashy Fellas did, and most of them were his own citizens! That's a level of evil that the fascist leaders would have rather died than commit
Nazism, Fascism and Communism are all LEFT movements but the latter is Bolshevist whereas the former have roots in nationalist utopian myths@@HegemonicMarxism
@@HegemonicMarxismNubs making assumptions on what it was because of he way it ended. Now that may seem odd to discredit but we have to look into conditions at hand. The world war started because the Western powers wanted a weak Germany. Nobody can deny that. Germany had to attack the Soviets or get attacked later. Obviously there can't be partnership between two powers that could greatly benefit from smoking 1 another. It's also claimed that while small German forces had been in east the Soviets forces in its western lands were far bigger. Don't remember quantities tbh. They had also allegedly lost so much in initial phase of ww2 because their armies were not set up in defence posture but in offence posture. Either way war was inevitable. It's also said that the others didn't want to accept Jews. Perhaps concentration camps could've been avoided after all. Anyways no point in judging outcome. The outcome of the winner was obviously supposed to be much better. Problem of fascists was they got ahead of themselves. Not too much suprise since nobody really wanted to fight as much an eventually their luck ran out. The fascists could've put a good effort into a avoiding war Vs USA at least. Nub mistake tbh.
@@HegemonicMarxismAnd yet before ww2 and during the Germans made the Soviets economic system look ridiculously inefficient as it was till it collapsed in the what 1990s. The Facists if you will, as Germany wasn't actually Facist that's what the Italians were but we call em that for easy of explanation just like Eastern Roman's as Byzantine, anyway the Facist nations did less damage and killed considerable less people then comunisum as a whole Stalin killed more then Hitler this idear Hitler was going to wipe out all slavic people is just not true, many Slavic people were considered the fabled (Aryan) and were to be indoctrinated as German's after the war but anyway. Edit: The difference was the Germans killed other people, the soviets and comunists, just their own, so it's not as bad, right.... right.
Academics rarely do. It means losing funding if they make too harsh a stance on communism by the bureaucracy (disproportionately influenced by a tribe more sympathetic to communism and vehemently against nationalism)
@@litlpunchthey Are not wrong. Look at western univesitys today. The amount of hammers and sickels all over. And thats fine thats freedom of speech, but if a right wing poletician shows up, they will censor him...
Time 1:40; No, there is no scenario where both Stalin and Hitler could've been killed. It was because of Stalin leadership, the industrious Soviet economy during the Great Depression and the strength of the Soviet Army that the allies were able to defeat the Nazi Army in WW 2. The French capitulated, the British were on their knees and the Americans also had their hands full in the Pacific for any one Allied Army to defeat the Nazi Army.
I would argue that the amount of Lend-Lease material sent to Russia is what allowed your other 3 points to "work". Those Russian offensives of '43-'45 don't work as well without US trucks, foodstuffs, gear, oil and train engines. Russia doesn't win without the 18K+ airplanes the US sent over to them. Russia built a lot of their own tanks but the 12K+ tanks the US & the UK sent them sure helped. Those factories that were built during the Great Depression - many of those were built with American assistance (like Ford Motors). Lend Lease was so important that Stalin helped invade Iran to keep a secure Lend-Lease pipeline going. Zhukov is quoted as saying "Today [1963] some say the Allies didn't really help us ... But listen, one cannot deny that the Americans shipped over to us material without which we could not have equipped our armies held in reserve or been able to continue the war." Russians like to pretend that they could (and did) beat Germany all by themselves, but if not for the US - economically & militarily - entering the war, Russia does not survive it, let alone win it.
![คบซ้อน - วงL.กฮ. [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5MtesqJ0I1c/mqdefault.jpg)
This woman is brilliant and interesting at the same time.
I could sit and listen to her for hours.
Nope
She talks a lot of lies and shit.
@@experience5988 like what? lol
Cuck
@@iuliuslovin37 if I recall she perpetuates myths, and hides major statistics, glossing over events like the massive loss of life of Natives during colonialsm, or glossing over black oppression. At least those were what I saw in the youtube short comments. Despite all of that I'm not educated enough to know if she's lying, misinformed, or if the comments were wrong. After all the shorts aren't in context so she could have spoken at length on the topics but just not in the clip.
"Not a happy ending" That's reality.
This chick is just wrong. If Germany had stopped after Czechoslovakia, like this guy's question implies, it absolutely would have been better than the war exploding like it did IRL. In fact, we have a bunch of examples of more moderate ring-wing dictators during the actual historical war that turned out great. Franco led Spain to the "Spanish economic Miracle" and had a peaceful transition to democracy after his death. This chick is clueless and shouldn't be teaching this subject.
The German's tried to negotiate with Great Britain the placement of the Jews in British Palestine. Then in Madagascar and even allowed the Jews to leave Germany and go to America on a steam ship. All were rebuffed by the "Allies". Resulting in Hitler's promise of riding the Jews from Germany and Europe. No matter what the cost to the Jew. Churchill didn't want them. Roosevelt didn't want them.
@@samuelspiel8855 As a historian, I concur with what you say in part, I'm not sure where this woman is getting her answers from.... but I disagree with her full assessment.
Europa the last battle.
Learn history.
@@samuelspiel8855 Germany didn’t start the war. The Jews did.
These interviews would be perfect if Patel's rambling, stream-of-consciousness inquiries were ruthlessly edited down into single questions that didn't require more than 5-7 seconds each. Better yet, just have him read from a prepared script...off camera, if necessary. We know he means well, and his interest in the subject is admirable, but...just put him on a verbal diet. Please.
Prof. Paine's replies, on the other hand, shouldn't be touched. Every sentence, every thought, every suggestion...they can all stand on their own.
Patel is absolutely terrible; he struggles to fully pronounce words and often swallows them as he rushes to speak, cramming too much into just a few seconds. As a result, his questions are frequently unintelligible.
@@fikretpajalic1224Patel's questions are better than her replies. Sarah Paine might be ignorant of the actual details of World War 2 history : How does Sarah Paine explain the fact that the commander of Hitler's SS bodyguard unit, Erich Kempka is a Slavic ethnic Polish person with 4 Slavic grandparents from Poland? What does Sarah Paine say about Bandera and the Banderites or Konstantin Voskoboinik or Vlasov or Pyotr Krasnov or Bronislav Kaminski? There are more than a hundred thousand Polish and Czechoslovakian soldiers in the German Wehrmacht in World War 2 and there are more than a million Soviet Union citizens (including Russians and Ukrainians) who collaborated with Germany in WW2 (as Hiwis or soldiers) and yet Sarah Paine believes that Hitler wanted to murder all Slavic people, when in reality Hitler was an anti-Jewish anti-Semite and not an anti-Czech or anti-Poleite or anti-Ukrainian
Completely agree, but doesn’t she manage his verbosity well! She even defines his questions for him.
She had a good point about Britain being a maritime power rather than a Continental power. In many of Continental wars including the Napoleonic Wars her role in the land battles was secondary to her maritime roles ,even in the Peninsular wars she had the somewhat ineffectual Spanish allies both regular army and Guerrilla forces tying down many French troops and winning some battles. In the seven years wars her main contribution was monetary to the hard pressed Prussia but she reaped huge rewards in India and America by virtue of her naval strength. The First world War changed all that.
Don't forget that Napoleon invaded Spain with a JUGGERNAUT military. The most powerful army in the world, by far, that Napoleon used and abused. So it was not so much that the Spanish were ineffectual, especially since they won the Peninsular War together with Britain, they were facing vast military resources which Napoleon was willing to us up all of it. So give the Spanish a little more credit in victory.
You didn't do anything
@@stxfdt1240( ?)
@@stxfdt1240 Talk about being "ineffective", who was the one who ran a once juggernaut French military into the ground in total defeat? Who left a generation's worth of French boys in mass graves as enemy troops marched down the streets of Paris, leaving France under military occupation? If you want to talk about "ineffective", no one beats the incompetent wasteful Napoleon and how he wasted away the juggernaut military that he seized from a lost and confused France. But of course that is not the way 19th Century European history framed it. So to the speaker's point, the British were so delusional in thinking that they had fought so great on the Continent during the Napoleonic Wars and won it for Europe, when it was Napoleon's massive blunders and lack of foresight in military incompetence that led to Napoleon's defeat, way before Waterloo. That is why the British thought they were such a great continental army, but got punished in both WW1 and WW2 continental campaigns, delusional and dishonest storytelling to themselves about how they won the Napoleonic Wars.
@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators britain is nothing but just another fraud power whose days disappeared just like that....Roman Empire is the real deal and perhaps the ottomans a 2nd....
WW1 accelerated fascism and communism; it also accelerated anti-semitism, particularly in Germany.
Boomer?
@@sturmman100 what?
The time difference was about 21 years ? ! The worldly Universe changed countless times between those two non connected events ? World War One should never have happened .
Is it possible to be an Israelite & not a Jew ? No I am not suggesting Arabs either.
@@user-cg3xk9jv3w what’s your point?
Looking forward to the full episode!
I took a class in college in ww1 history and this reason alone was enough to ruin the central powers. With the except of u boat raids and a couple small successes in Indian Ocean piracy, Germany never could level with the uk in ww1 when they had a navy and even less so in ww2.
Also (more so in ww2), Germany had less resources and poor mismanagement of the stuff they had (which was almost nothing). Even if Germany won ww2, Germany would’ve run fry on supplies because their policies were isolating comparatively to the countries they were fighting.
Man In the high castle
Very true that WW1 is the pivot point and not WW2.
Further more WW2 showcased how to actually fire with firearms effectively. WW1 only showed how little we actually understood about the tactical use of firearms in modern warfare.
Really interesting point on WW1 being the cause of what happened after.. makes u kind of wonder what world wed be living in if WW1 never started ..
If WW1 never started the world would be radically different from the one we know today. However given the situation Europe found itself in by the 1910s a major global conflict was inevitable.
Literally every educated European, at least outside the UK, knows this. What's really interesting is that it was African colonialism that largely caused WW1. The European rush to divide the continent led to military treaties to assure peace between the competing nations. These treaties were then instrumental in drawing every country into war once some of them started fighting in Europe. So in a way everything from African colonisation to the end of the cold war is just one continuous link of events in European history. WW1 was the first time the white man's hubris really bit him in the ass, leading to the systematic death of his own kind; but the seeds were laid 30 years earlier, and the devastation only ended 75 years later.
Pax Europea would occur based on multilateralism
but WW1 was a accumulation of napoleon wars, war of 1870, even the american revolution had a part of it. So many different things led up to and built up to WW1 and 2. You cant put it all on one event as history ignorant people tend to do.
@@planderlinde1969 if WW1 never started a majority of the world would have been stuck in dictatorships for a very long time. WW1 and 2 got rid of european dictatorships once and for all.
Where to get full video?
Got the creator page.
Bankers won
The Focus got what they wanted from Churchill.
Germany's economic philosophy of autarky was not sustainable. Autarky demanded that the Germans conquest the Slavic lands to the east to maintain self-sufficiency. Stopping with the annexation of adjacent German-speaking lands would have led to the collapse of the German economy.
Horace Greeley Hjalmar Schacht would agree.
They should have chosen technocrats and corporatist solidarists then😂
You’re outta your mind. You obviously took the main stream narrative without looking into it yourself. The economy was back by the German worker (aka cars, technology, etc….). It was the strongest economy in the world and did so during the Great Depression. And if you take that “war manufacturing” narrative is what got them out of it, then you’ve been caught in their trap twice. Hell the American economy is built on the 3rd Reich model. What we produce determines our dollars value. Exports…….
They would have changed to a different policy if the economy stagnates. Every country does this. No one is foolish enough to just follow the same path until the end.
It could be replaced with national capitalism as one they either lose war and receive mounting losses or run out of countries to conquer, and have to rely on a market economy to sustain itself.
Similar to Maoist and Post-Maoist China throughout the early 60s to mid 80s.
They did survive ww2. Many escaped to Brazil and Argentina and other places.
There is a town of twins in Brazil that are more than anywhere in the world. A certain doctor rumored to live there for a while
They no longer govern Germany, they explicitly said the REICH not members of the NSDAP. Your "gotcha" comment is useless
There were Russian and Ukrainian Hiwi soldiers who worked as Trawniki concentration camp guards living in the USA after World War 2 was over :
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiwi_(volunteer)
While WW1 undoubtedly held a catalyst for WW2, the prime directive for Britain's policy toward the Continent has always been living in fear of a continental superpower, no matter the nation, nor the ideology. Britain has played the role of agitator on the continent for centuries in order to keep the various nations in check. They simply cannot afford to live in the shadow of unified continent, no matter how tenuous.
Something many people miss entirely. It is not in the interest of Britain to have a United Europe.
Britain didn't want to get involved in a war with Germany, chamberlain repeated fought against that.
It was only because Churchill and various other politicians were bribed by the usual suspects to push for a war with Germany at all costs
General Patton said we fought wrong people
He loved war.
And Patton was the first casualty of the cold war for saying that
Patton was wrong in that in WWII in Europe we were fighting an ideology not a people. Patton was even more wrong about the ideology he wanted to fight next since he saw Communism as a future threat but he didn't see the bigger picture of what an attack on a now prepared and united USSR that had grown from the German invasion. As she says in another clip, prior to the German invasion Russia and the USSR itself were not really a united or coherent "nation". After the invasion and occupation they were much more united and ready for a war. Nobody really wanted to start that "next" war and hence we got the Cold War.
We sure did. Look at the west today.
Oh you did, and also made sure fascism and nazism live on. Nothing changed to this day.
This is also the fundamental reason why the British insistence on actively blaming the Germans for WW1 is erroneous. The problem with WW1 was not that it happened, but HOW it happened; and all sides have equal fault in that. WW2 had a far greater death toll, but it didn't murder an entire generation of young men as senselessly as WW1. The fact that eminent historians like Max Hasings have gone back to aggressively calling for re-blaming the Germans is quite shocking.
Nah your just incorrect, germany had multiple opportunities to stop the intensifying of ww1. 1) they gave the Austrians full support when the triple alliance pact didn’t force them to do so. 2) they invaded a neutral country in belgium which calls for others to enter the war. 3) it kept going and invaded france. A small scale conflict could of carried out between serbia and austria but german aggression prevented that.
@@johnpederson5873what about french aggression? The french, after getting humiliated in a war they started in 1871, went on a 40 year smear campaign on Germany ensuring that they’ll be diplomatically isolated except for Austria, how is Germany standing up for his only ally any different from today’s US and Israel? What about russian aggression? They were the first to escalate the conflict by mobilizing their army and threatening war with Austria, if anything they turn the regional conflict between Austria and Serbia into a major european conflict. And also Belgium was only neutral on paper, they operated in tandem with Britain and France since the beginning violating the spirit of their permanent neutrality (unlike the Netherlands or Spain who were genuinely neutral), and Britain also had the opportunity to mediate the conflict but Lloyd George (a known germaphobe) wanted an excuse to get into the war. Now although in my opinion Austria is the real culprit of this horrific conflict, Germany had plenty to do with it’s escalation, however trying to blame the germans for the whole thing is both ludicrous and bias towards the entente
Everyone knows that ww1 started because of a duke killing an ostrich.
@@jordizee because he was hungry
There was plenty of senseless generation killing on the eastern front
I agree entirely with her viewpoint. WW1 was the absolute catalyst for the consequences of what followed. In essence, a part one, then a pause, then a part two to really finalise things….awful.
General Patton: "We defeated the wrong enemy."
Did you not listen to the clip? The Germans were competent with their destruction. Russians, not as much.
He is right. We should have fought the flies instead of the ussr and nazi germany
Same general who didn't give a damn about his men and was extremely egotistical.
We could have just let the Nazis and Soviets weaken each other down. My fear is though, millions more would have died in the Holocaust.
Patton was wrong, the Nazis had to be erraticed.
Well would be interesting to see different outcome scenarios... Because in our time line human civilization has completely doomed itself and ti's too late now to escape collapse
I think things would be cleaner
World would be a better place that’s why more people are turning to fascism each year
Yes. For European man and his spirit/soul not capital or consumerism- degeneration.
It probably wouldn't have been better for you, or this Dream Awake fellow.
Brilliant woman. A family anecdote that supports her point about the cultural differences between Germans and Russians: A branch of my extended family are Jews whose ancestors were in Poland until World War Two. In 1939, Poland, of course, was JOINTLY invaded by Germans from the west and Soviets from the east. The family members who were in western Poland were mostly wiped out by the Nazis, with only a few surviving. The family members who were in eastern Poland were deported to Soviet forced-labor camps in Russia. Plenty of hardships, but most of them survived. At least for them, Stalin was the lesser of two evils.
If you think the Soviets were inefficient then you need to read “the gulag archipelago”.
Don't forget that other Jews who were in the Soviet-occupied part of Poland joined the Soviet Red Army, as well. I have a friend whose father -- a Polish Jew -- made it to the Soviet lines and eventually became a tank commander in the Red Army. He immigrated to the US after the war. Many Polish and Russian Jews served with distinction in the Red Army, many highly decorated, many even reaching high rank. In Netanya, Israel, just north of Tel Aviv, a war memorial was erected honoring the Red Army for its role in defeating Nazi Germany during WWII. It is the only war memorial to the Red Army to be erected in any country not either a present or former Soviet bloc/Russian aligned country. Putin even traveled to Israel to attend the unveiling in 2012. A number of surviving Jewish Israeli Red Army veterans were there to attend, as well, some wearing their old uniforms and medals.
@@TheTimdoyle I have read it, great book, should be on everyone shelf. However, if you think about it, it really showed in Spade just how truly inefficient Russians were. Yeah not caring, and millions died, but at the same time, zero care about function.
@@MarekDohojda Whilst the war effort at the start of the conflict was extremely inefficient and ineffective (probably the same for most countries) the Soviets did rally and out produced the Germans. It was known that they captured German tanks and copied elements of them. However whilst the Germans were manufacturing their armaments to precise measurements in underground factories the Soviets understood (as they always fought) that this is another war of attrition and their armaments were crude but effective.
The war in Ukraine is another war of attrition. The Russians are not suffering. They have prepared for this war for over a decade. The west is now ill prepared and suffering because of it. Now with a new front in Israel the majority of munitions are leaving the US for Ukraine and Israel. The US are leaving themselves at serious disadvantage.
@@TheTimdoyle Not quite sure your response in terms of OP. That said, it's all good. Russians are exceptionally inefficient and horrible at producing things. Back in the old country Russian made products were always a joke, and today is no different.
Russia did outproduce Germany but it is important to note that they had Land Lease which was incredibly useful, especially because it allowed them to focus on weapons; and Germans were bombed, and attacked on all sides; while having inefficient economy themselves.
Bottom line is that Ukraine showed just how bad Russia is, and how bad it's manufacture process is; the corruption, the failure , the great deal of waste, is all visible and in spotlight.
That said, Ukraine was a corrupt nation before hand, was hardly a nation before hand, primarily due to what Soviet's have done to it. It is also far smaller nation in terms of people, with very weak manufacturing base. Therefore it is possible that Russia may pull this off, as Russians never cared about their own losses. Their people die? OK, So? They sure don't care.
SO while it's possible that Russia may win the war of attrition they will loose the war, and will not get back their Empire, that much is certain.
Lol not gonna risk my account saying how Europe would have looked 😅
I jusy did. LOL
If all those soldiers of WWI & WWII could have gotten a glimpse of this "Twilight Zone" insane betrayal we have today...they would have pointed their guns at their leaders..to protect a common Europa brotherhood.
Heaven is how it would have looked
@@MrLeovdmeerwhat did you say?
@@sevatar5762 because everyone would be dead or because everyone would look like an inbred family from “The Hills Have Eyes”- but with more blonde hair?
Very knowledgeable about history .
How does this only have 207 likes? These videos should be viewed by ALL!
What I find ironic is both the parties she mentioned run rampant undetected currently....
And essentially, id say, this is the actual reality of what happened without it having to happen.
The Great War was so influential to today's geopolitics and economic powerhouses. The gunshot that killed Franz Ferdinand began a chain reaction that we still see today.
I could theoretically envision a scenario where Hitler sticks it to Stalin and the Allies develop the bomb and then win with that. In that scenario both would lose, but conventionally? Yeah, 2/3 of Wehrmacht faces the Red Army so Normandy would be pretty tough if Germans not busy on Eastern Front.
Without the bomb and Germany not facing the Russians, I think Normandy would have ended at the waters edge for the Allies.
@@weirdshibainu no, not really. Without Germany facing the Russians they might frankly lose even quicker than they did historically because they were utterly reliant on conquering Soviet territory to fuel their war effort.
@@DominionSorcerer That's my point. Stalin detested the West..to the point he trusted Hitler and was legitimately shocked (reports of him locking himself in his room for days after the invasion) and would have supplied Hitler with everything he needed, in fact, Germany and Russia had robust trade under the Trade and Credit agreement in August of 1939
Don't forget that the wall street crash and the depression of the 30s really opened the door to these ideologies.
Begining of end of the British Empire was the "Horrific" Happy Ending of World War I
Suppose you have another fantasy. Suppose you fantasize that you win the lottery ten times in a row.
This isnt round 2?
No. It's round 3.
In Rwanda? We know they could have tried. In Paraguay, Chile, Argentina? Well if you speak of the fuehrer, he could have survived there (argentina) protected by the german house of Lippenburg (berhard zu lippe, german king of holland).
The usual assumption for decades was a trajectory much like that of the USSR. I still tend to that, though I can entertain arguments for why it would decline slower, or much, much faster, than that. The strategic picture of the ensuing Cold War would of course have been much, much worse for the US and UK, with no continental allies to speak of.
The NASA had a Sturmbann-führer as chief engineer. His name was Werner
NASA buried the fact that Werner had been an SS officer.
@@MrGchiasson I am not surprised at all
Better than letting the Soviets have him.
The Spanish American War, the Russo-Japanese War, and WW1 - everything in the 20th century emanated from those three conflicts.
based on the title and "uploaded 7 months ago" I was CERTAIN that this had been in the context of discussions about a ceasefire to allow Hamas to survive... but then I saw that it came out before October 7th
I wonder, what she thinks about General Patton that have said "we fought the wrong enemy"
Seems like the USA needs to practise some grand strategy themselves…
You can understand that she even rooted for the tsar and his incredibly corrupt regime with unimaginably cruel treatment but she doesn’t talk about Ottoman Empire. The irony is, the Ottoman Empire was the only peaceful country among all of them.
chad beard.
looks like the czech president
@@guillemedina7908 Oh yes, he definitely looks like a typical Czech.
To hide his weak chin lol
@@nicholasgodleman7520just like how the scottish prime minister looks scottish, or how the british prime minister looks british.
Little boy questions. "What if Hitler won though?" is something you'd hear in high school social studies.
There are two important points about the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany: 1) If Stalin had not chosen to be a de-facto ally of Nazi Germany from August of 1939 to June of of 1941, Germany would not have been able to initiate World War Two. 2) Once Germany invaded the Soviet Union in Operation Barbarossa in June of 1941, it was the Soviet Union that suffered the most from Nazi Germany and that inflicted most of the damage on Nazi Germany. Without the Soviet Union inflicting massive destruction on the German military, D Day would never have succeeded and might never have been attempted. So, in effect, Stalin caused the Second World War but then insured Germany's defeat in that war. By the way -- it is the opinion of some historians that it was the August, 1945 Soviet invasion of Manchuria -- more than the atomic bombs-- that convinced Japan to surrender.
The soviets couldn't even put boots on their soldiers feet. They provided bodies. A necessary thing, but not the deciding factor.
And no intelligent historian believes that the Soviet invasion of a Japanese puppet caused them to surrender.
Japan was preparing for a literal fight to the death.
Look up "the glorious death of the 100 million"
Yes. The USSR is the most important country regarding WW2, they also benefitted the most. With that huge, incredibly powerful army they dominated all of Eastern Europe, and along with the USA replaced the British Empire in "Superpower" role. In 1938, the British Empire is huge and literally "SUPERPOWERFUL", in 1946, permanently weakened, unable to maintain control over the vast lands and peoples of the Empire, as the USA and USSR aren't going to help and instead increase their influence and hegemony over the entire World. Here's a truth no one seems to put forth, there was a moment when Humanity could have been united, but instead, the USSR on one side, and USA/Britain on the other chose to be adversaries. Together, just as they overpowered the Axis, they could have overpowered and united the world as the Axis had desired. Literally they had the forces mobilized, no one could have stood against the same troops that had just pulverized Germany and intimidated Japan into surrender. Not Civil War China, not any South America, nor any other places not still under colonial rule. Nope, they wanted enemies so became each other's enemy, since their enemies were crushed.
If they didn’t invade Russia, and called it quits, they could have negotiated trade with Soviet Union and built defences in east Poland and Romania instead of taking on the largest country on earth.
it was kill or be killed. Soviets plan to invade at some point! plus part of the German objective was to reunify all German speaking people of which Soviet union had 4 mil!
it was originally thought that the Soviet Union grew at 4-5% in the 30s. This has now been downgraded to 3.5% a year. However it appears that the real issues for the Soviet Union started to occur in the early sixties. If we look at Germany in the 30s it's growth rate was similar to the Soviets but it's rearmament program distorted the economy causing a foreign exchange crisis. This is one of the main reasons they started the war.
Man in the Hightower
to survive must mean they won .
I think is cute that Europeans forget that Nazism is basically the application of European colonialism into Europe itself.
i will always blame the allies for ww2
After 45 secs of phrasing the question......
So what's the question?
Agreed. The interviewer, while meaning well, does struggle with verbal overrun when attempting to ask whatever it is he actually intends to ask.
Patel is absolutely terrible; he struggles to fully pronounce words and often swallows them as he rushes to speak, cramming too much into just a few seconds. As a result, his questions are frequently unintelligible.
We fought the wrong enemy - George Patton.
Fascist above
Well, you made sure fascism and nazism live on.
You quote someone word for word and they blame you for what that person said. That is how it works now
No we didn’t. Patton was anti-Semitic douche bag! Any cheated on his wife all the time which means he lacks character. I lost a lot of respect for him when I found that out. I also read his personal diaries. He was blaming the Jews for the concentration camps like it was their fault for letting it happen so yeah yeah that’s the type of “great” man that Patton was
@@shkodranalbi well, ...whats the context?.....1.help the Germans and continue the "right" path .......2. "Patton said this, he was wrong in thinking this"....these types of comments are just titillating to those who have fascist , dictatorial tendencies or dreams....your "dumb" comment at least is honest ans direct. ...
WW2 was Man vs. Evil and Man lost
Imagine the west without ww1 woah
They survived and are known as rino and demokrat now.
If that were true, you would have already been shocked for your comment. Very fortunate for you. How wrong you are because it's going to keep your family safe Because if We really had a totalitarian fascist state ate a comment like yours would have put your entire family at risk. I hope you never have to understand what that feels like. I really do
TNO players: 🗿
I'd be alive. Can't say Israel would be...
Wouldn't be an Israel to begin with
“The good ending”
Fascism did survive till 1970 in Spain but it was more like Italian fascism without the overtly racial component. Yes, i do believe nazism would have crumbled. Likely by first weakening and watering it down first.
Franco was a papist royalist, not a fascist
Those freaky German men would have been getting down with African women by 1960.
I don't think fascist is the right term for Franco. I know many refer him as such he differed quite a bit from the rest.
It did, obviously you don’t know the Bush Family or the Schwab family
Funny how the EU and the one currency was what Hitler wanted.. Seen the communist threat for what is was, we backed USSR for Ww2 and then spent the next 80 years in a Cold War… like Patton said, we fought the wrong side
We’d have some guy like Klaus Schwab ruling the world, telling us to eat bugs and be happy.
Wrong, he's one of the people ze Germans wanted rid of. Best do some digging, they pop up quite often in over reaching government control. Not quite the victims you've been told!
You're living under corporate marxism so bankers won.
Excellent point re WW1
Its more complicated than that, you consider how the world has transcended into the chaos we live in today, The Reich committed atrocities as many governments did but the German people under the Reich especially pre WW2 lived lives of high morality and plentifulness, Versailles was the problem as Germany was eviscerated and humiliated
They didn't really live lives of high morality and that plentifulness was reliant on first the possessions of Jewish people and later on foreign conquests. Versailles, for the record, wasn't even that harsh. The idea that it was is Nazi propaganda.
Where, where exactly is Hitler talking about annihilating the "entire peoples"??
you're joking aren't you
If Third Reich survived Patel wouldn't be asking this question. Patel is absolutely terrible; he struggles to fully pronounce words and often swallows them as he rushes to speak, cramming too much into just a few seconds. As a result, his questions are frequently unintelligible.
Biggest what if in history
No wonder AH☠️ blamed 'his Generals' for defeat..
AH blamed his generals because they acted against him. Especially franz halder acting against him during operation barbarossa, prioritising moscow over the caucuses and its oil fields
Did he?
Those claiming so probably were in one way or another.
They made up the clean whermacht myth to cope with this.
And also cause they kinda solidified this myth at Nuremberg when they deemed the waffen SS a “criminal organization”
Even though the Whermacht did more crimes and around the same or more percent adjusted for size.
So they leaned into it despite being die hard NS themselves.
It should be interesting to see how this is all viewed once the political propaganda is gone.
It's kind of a silly question, my respect to her for her patience. "What if" questions are typically implausible, and this one is not unique in that respect. The survival of Nazism would have meant the total destruction of the Soviet Union, the surrender or annihilation of the English. Much of Europe would have been exterminated, too...including the Spanish and Italians. Ten's of millions more would have died. Entire nations would have been...liquidated.
Nazi Germany was *_doomed to fail_* because it was a totalitarian dictatorship led by a genocidal maniac. Believe it or not, at any given time, there are more people who *_love_* than *_hate._* This fact dooms the "them-or-us" ideas - like Nazism - to failure.
The Soviet Union was doomed to failure because it was a totalitarian dictatorship led by homicidal and suicidal maniacs. Believe it or not, at any given time, there are more people who respect *_reason_* than those who respect *_irrationality._* This fact dooms the "do-gooder" Socialists from convincing enough young people to accept their logical absurdities. It prevents a lot of really, really dumb things from happening.
the Germans requested a peace treaty over 15 x with the British (and other European powers), before the war, during the war, when they were winning the war and when they were losing the war, their objective was never to destroy England. also Spain and Italy were German allies. not sure where you are getting your perceptive from? BTW most European countries were allies with germany!
Field marshal Haig,or"butcher Haig" as my grandparents called him took much of the blame for the slaughter of the British and imperial forces.Fair call.Haig kept his opinions to himself after the war,as a soldier should.The politicians could have replaced him but hadn't the guts.Lloyd George the pm who could have done that trashed haigs reputation after haigs de ath to salve his own legacy. That's politicians for you
It did
It would have saved the world
Please elaborate
They did 🇨🇦
The interviewer was missing the inherent full on genocidal nature of Nazism vs Soviet Communism. Yes stalinism mirrored many aspects of the Nazi regime but it didn't have the grand visions and well thought out doctrine of racialized scientific antisemitism, racialized socities, and genocidal imperialism like with Nazism. Keep in mind the USSR wasn't just Stalin. The post-Stalin Soviet leaders, while corrupt and dictatorial, were not totalitarian like Stalin as communism, unlike Nazism, is not inherently totalitarian and genocidal. Communism can be genocidal ie Pol Pot (although many of Pol Pot's racial ideas went well beyond Communism) but it doesn't have the same automatic disposition towards racial conquest and genocide like Nazism. This is why I'm always a little cautious when I see Communism and Nazism brought up in the same breath and especially so when discussing WWII. I find Eastern Europeans given their harsh experiences with Communism understandably have a difficult time grasping this and often lend themselves to clumsy historical equivocations between Nazism and Communism.
It's also absurd to imagine defeating Hitler and Stalin at the same time when Hitler had been primary enemy of the allies for years by that point and had now made himself an enemy of a mighty country like the USSR. What attack the enemy of your enemy as opposed to teaming up with them? That's ridiculous. They didn't even have the means for that. Besides Nazism's longterm plans were so horrific they went well beyond any evil dictator like Stalin.
killing tens of millions of their own people isn't genocidal 😅 no way these people actually exist
Germany had a high standard of living
It was lower than Britain, and massively predicated on a government spending binge and debt.
They were on borrowed time and borrowed money. The amount of financial shenanigans the Nazi’s accountants worked up to hide the massive unserviceable debt in order to deflate the interest forced the Germans to look beyond their borders.
@@johnhoney657 and it’s a bit easier when they confiscate all businesses, money, and houses from their own citizens just bc they happen to be a Jew, a Gypsy, gay, from an opposition political party, or writing truth to power.
Very clever lady
IF?...
They did
You would have order peace and prosperity unlike today
Probably In some ways you're right, but at the same time at what cost of human life? How many tens of millions would have been murdered?
I thought it did. It’s called the European Union
I guess everyone can understand how the populaces of countries being at their lowest low can turn to radical ideologies such as communism and fascism. What I really wonder though is how fascism could rise to its success in a country that actually won in WW1 - Italy.
The Third Reich did continue a little on after the May 8 surrendered. They continued until they were dissolved on May 23 de facto and then on June 5 de jure.
I wonder how many nazis with faked passports & documents later infiltrated corporations, banks and companies..everywhere..
Remember the movie, 'The Odessa File'. Fiction with some truth?
Wolfenstien: The New Order
But not a a silly caricature from Liberal-leftist.
We backed the wrong side in WWI.
Now that's an interesting argument
A free and strong germany and europe
You're not free if you can't criticise your leaders
@@allananderson949 you could
@@einfachignorieren6156 The Jewish population at the time disagrees
@einfachignorieren6156 You could criticise Hitler and the nazi party?
@allananderson949 I can't criticize multiculturalism, immigration, pride, feminism without fearing for my job, gf.
We don't have leaders in the west, we have puppets. You would have been able to critize german policy after the war.
Handsome man!
wait what is her point here? The Brits shouldn’t have sent soldier to fight on the continent? The key to British grand strategy is to never let one power dominate the continent. How does she square that?
She's saying they didn't commit to a large army until Much later and struggled to do it as a result of their policies. Their policy was to be a small force that tipped the scales, when they flat didn't have the numbers in WWI
I think she is pointing to Fishers "Baltic Strategy" to cut off the Germans from Swedish Iron Ore. Very little of this was ever implemented, but the few submarines that were sent in the Baltic were very successful. Despite Churchill's criticism of it in retrospect post WW1, his whole Norway campaign in 1940 looks like a poorly executed similar approach.
It is easy to judge history in hindsight from the future And very wrong. We didn't live in those times and therefore did not suffer from quite the same lack of information or compassion. I'm quite sure that the Allies of that time had just enough wherewithal to figure out how to win battles as opposed to thinking about how it all factors into a new world order. In addition to that, the same issues of power consolidation And hegemony are persistent today just as in the past. Just remember that one day 100 years from now we will be judged our future generations as well.
Joseph Stalin had ideas those of the intelectual spear felt a ken with in the USA that’s why if someone states they are a natz* well look at them as a crazy individual but if one says he’s a communist they just have a different idea of how the world should run however the outcome is the same if not worse.
The outcome was not the same. And communism is in no way comparable to fascism. Communism transformed a feudal agrarian society like Russia into a global power through rapid industrialization and modernization, having incredible economic growth after WWII. You're grossly misinformed.
@@HegemonicMarxismThe outcome was not the same, but Stalin intentionally murdered far more innocent civilians and children in the process than the Fashy Fellas did, and most of them were his own citizens! That's a level of evil that the fascist leaders would have rather died than commit
Nazism, Fascism and Communism are all LEFT movements but the latter is Bolshevist whereas the former have roots in nationalist utopian myths@@HegemonicMarxism
@@HegemonicMarxismNubs making assumptions on what it was because of he way it ended. Now that may seem odd to discredit but we have to look into conditions at hand. The world war started because the Western powers wanted a weak Germany. Nobody can deny that. Germany had to attack the Soviets or get attacked later. Obviously there can't be partnership between two powers that could greatly benefit from smoking 1 another. It's also claimed that while small German forces had been in east the Soviets forces in its western lands were far bigger. Don't remember quantities tbh. They had also allegedly lost so much in initial phase of ww2 because their armies were not set up in defence posture but in offence posture. Either way war was inevitable. It's also said that the others didn't want to accept Jews. Perhaps concentration camps could've been avoided after all. Anyways no point in judging outcome. The outcome of the winner was obviously supposed to be much better. Problem of fascists was they got ahead of themselves. Not too much suprise since nobody really wanted to fight as much an eventually their luck ran out. The fascists could've put a good effort into a avoiding war Vs USA at least. Nub mistake tbh.
@@HegemonicMarxismAnd yet before ww2 and during the Germans made the Soviets economic system look ridiculously inefficient as it was till it collapsed in the what 1990s.
The Facists if you will, as Germany wasn't actually Facist that's what the Italians were but we call em that for easy of explanation just like Eastern Roman's as Byzantine, anyway the Facist nations did less damage and killed considerable less people then comunisum as a whole Stalin killed more then Hitler this idear Hitler was going to wipe out all slavic people is just not true, many Slavic people were considered the fabled (Aryan) and were to be indoctrinated as German's after the war but anyway.
Edit: The difference was the Germans killed other people, the soviets and comunists, just their own, so it's not as bad, right.... right.
Greetings from Germany. She is right.
If and and buts means nothing
She didn’t want to show communism any hate.
Academics rarely do. It means losing funding if they make too harsh a stance on communism by the bureaucracy (disproportionately influenced by a tribe more sympathetic to communism and vehemently against nationalism)
@@stevencooper4422don't listen to this person, doesn't know what they're talking sbout
@@litlpunchthey Are not wrong. Look at western univesitys today. The amount of hammers and sickels all over. And thats fine thats freedom of speech, but if a right wing poletician shows up, they will censor him...
I'm sorry you're invalidated by the fact that you're using a fascist dictator as your picture go to hell Franco you're already rotting there.
@@litlpunch really convincing
IT DID SURVIVE. And it’s running things now
Wonder how the culture changed due to there being comparatively fewer guys.
Who’s this big brain 🧠 will all the answers?
They did, its spirit lives on, esp among american college kids
Nadezhda Mandelstam wasn't russian btw. Just look her wiki
Lol that woman was jewish, no wonder
So a 👃🏽?
What if? It was rebranded as NATO.
Sounds pretty germaphobic dude
100%
What if Nato wasn't prowhite, Einstein
Time 1:40; No, there is no scenario where both Stalin and Hitler could've been killed. It was because of Stalin leadership, the industrious Soviet economy during the Great Depression and the strength of the Soviet Army that the allies were able to defeat the Nazi Army in WW 2. The French capitulated, the British were on their knees and the Americans also had their hands full in the Pacific for any one Allied Army to defeat the Nazi Army.
I would argue that the amount of Lend-Lease material sent to Russia is what allowed your other 3 points to "work". Those Russian offensives of '43-'45 don't work as well without US trucks, foodstuffs, gear, oil and train engines. Russia doesn't win without the 18K+ airplanes the US sent over to them. Russia built a lot of their own tanks but the 12K+ tanks the US & the UK sent them sure helped. Those factories that were built during the Great Depression - many of those were built with American assistance (like Ford Motors). Lend Lease was so important that Stalin helped invade Iran to keep a secure Lend-Lease pipeline going. Zhukov is quoted as saying "Today [1963] some say the Allies didn't really help us ... But listen, one cannot deny that the Americans shipped over to us material without which we could not have equipped our armies held in reserve or been able to continue the war."
Russians like to pretend that they could (and did) beat Germany all by themselves, but if not for the US - economically & militarily - entering the war, Russia does not survive it, let alone win it.
Ur Russians r getting they’re ass beat in Ukraine so I guess they ARENT tuff loooooool
Whatever comrade, if it wasn't for Lend Lease the Soviet Union would of fallen, as it should of...
We would not have xionism
Yeah that's probably right. Also maybe spell it correctly.
@@tavenstrickert9658 avoiding being deleted by TH-cam. Think first.
It would have been paradise
Grand strategy for who? The elite class? Shouldn’t a nation have the right to determine their own future?
😮 the Catholic Church hierarchy would have benefited as fascist ideology is merely the extension of the far right of the Catholic Church