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.
That was Stephen Ambrose who said that many years ago when he did the World at War documentary. He said World War I and II were essentially one European Civil War with a long armistice in between.
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.
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....
@@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.
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.
@@chrisopherlogano5811 The first attempt that day was a bomb, but it failed. Gavrilo Princip succeeded later in the day with an FN Model 1910 .380 ACP chambered semi auto pistol.
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.
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.
A fellow student once ask our history professor, "What is the difference between fascism and communism?" The student was confused as on the surface they look so alike. The professor answered, "In fascism they line you up against the wall and shoot for the good of the state. In communism they line you up against the wall and shoot you for the good of the people."
This talking point about grand strategy gives you far more appreciation for General Grant during the US Civil War. He understood logistics, communication and the necessity to achieve long-term goals vs tactical gains. The Confederacy came close to crushing the Union fighting spirit multiple times but Grant plotted carefully on how to break their capacity to fight.
@frcluc I love how you say that and don't say why. But Grant was good at Grand Strategy. He understood the war as a whole and worked to undermine every aspect of the enemy's ability to fight across all theaters of the war.
@@parkwoojin1875 That's not grand strategy. A grand strategy by Grant would have been how to utilise the new freed black population to their advantage and that of a reunited USA. Another example: The Mexican-American War that happened two decades before the American Civil War had many details of grand strategy by the generals back then. Grant is not a good example, unfortunately.
I don't know much about the Civil War (I'm Canadian), but I once saw General Lee quoted as saying that Grant was an incompetent general. I don't think that was sour grapes, I think it was his genuine military assessment.
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.
The thing I find interesting/sad about WW1 is that no great generals arose to take advantage of the new forms of warfare like had happend with previous tech revolutions in war
@@MrJpc1234 _What_ new forms of warfare? Deep Trench networks? Super-heavy artillery? Machine Guns? Trucks? Tanks? Chemical agents? SMGs? Airplanes? Strategic bombers? Radio? All of those forms of warfare were used - none of them could break the trench stalemate. It's not about generals - it's about the very technology itself. It led to fundamentally static warfare. There was nothing anyone could have done.
"WW1 only showed how little we actually understood about the tactical use of firearms in modern warfare." Firearms? You mean small arms? Rifles? SMGs? They're all trivial - useful additions that increase soldier efficiency, to be sure, but they pale in weight to the role of artillery in warfare. Firearms could _never_ solve the trench warfare.
@roadent217 Well those are technologies which obviously affect but are not in and of themselves forms of warfare......what I am criticising was the lack of Generals that managed to adapt to how these technologies should be used quick enough.....if the technology meant that defensive operations had an advantage so be it don't waste the number of lives they had on failed offensive operations.....this wasn't the first or last time warfare went through a technological revolution the interesting part about this one was the lack of Strategists that managed to successfully adapt to the new tech leading to levels of waste unheard of
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.
@@samuelspiel8855I mean yes, Franco is a legitimate example, but then again Franco didn't have a massive industrialized killing program like the Holocaust in his country. I feel the Nazis are a unique example of a dictatorship that physically couldn't transition into a less radicalized government. That's just me though.
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
He does those long ramblings, because these "debates" are scripted to spread a false narrative that supports the US endless wars. The thing is that the level of idiocy is beyond imagination.
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.
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 .
Germany established a democracy beat back a dozen faschist and communist takeover attempts and negotiates with the rest of the world until economic problems lead to the rise of a faschist party lead by a man that romanticized a germany that never existed and a bunch of guys that romanticized a military they had never been part off. How do you listen to an intelligent video and then say insanely dumbshit while trying to agree with it?
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.
Russia role in WW2 should not be "Burnished" for their contribution defeating Hitler. Hitler would not have been able to invade Poland, Norway, France, attack Britain, and invade Russia, if Russia had not made a deal with Germany in 1925 to allow the German military to break the Versailles treaty by letting them practice military drills in Russia. Russia also sent billions, no exaggeration, of raw materials to Germany in trade for tech support. That trade gave Germany the munitions and weapons to be able to build their army to go to war. Stalin enabled the war, and its known the two were going to fight each other anyway.
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
If you think about it, Gavrilo Princip may have committed the single, most influential act of the entire twenty century. So many events for the remainder of the century had a butterfly effect from that one assassination.
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
Dwarkesh you ask a helluvalot of hypothetical questions which can be tough to answer, however, I'm happy you've exposed your channel to Sarah; she is a very interesting and informative lady and I've been binging these chats.
Wait but he asked what if the Third Reich outlived WW2 and does a scenario exist where both Hitler and Stalin fall... She gave a lot of good insight, but she didn't really elaborate on the questions much... Am I missing something?
This topic is fake from the start so it is difficult to expand. The truth is Third Reich survived with Moscow as the capital. Berlin, Washington, London satelites acknowledged Moscow as the ruler.
All these videos, it (at least) sounds like the interviewer is trying to ask, "Gotcha!" questions, only to get shot down and soundly schooled by this fantastic wealth of knowledge and insight we call, Sarah.
WW1 strategy was always "okay, charge. Ignore the arty, gas, barbwire, MGs, flamethrowers, mines, quicksand, and planes. Affix bayonets for good luck."
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!
@@jeopardyfan122u guys are acting like hitler did invade Poland, Belguim, France, and Russia. A lot of just either people who really like hitler or dudes who don’t like “communism” so they want Stalin to be worse
Russia may have been largest in land area but 90% of people lived in western Russia ! Even today they only have a few million more people than Mexico !
Except for bankers in Germany or Russia, right? 😉 That said, I'd say that the US won the most from the world wars. You look at the US prior to 1914, and then post 1945, and it's like an entirely different country. Now would the US production capabilities have eventually transformed the US into what it is now? It may have, but nowhere near as the accelerated time span that the world wars helped to foster.
Thank you for clarifying the reason that WW l led to WW ll. Everyone has this idea that it was due to the poverty of the German people but Joachim Fest in his biography of Hitler says that the German economy was doing reasonably well by the time Hitler began his grand scheme. The fact that Germany could afford to provide rooms and beds to homeless men (which Hitler was) clearly indicates they had an economy that was strong enough to support the homeless.
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
@@weirdshibainu the story of Stalin freaking out and locking himself in his room has been debunked. Stalin's War by Sean McMeekin goes over this exact point. He was actively involved and meeting with staff for countermeasures and dealing with the task at hand.
That book and definitely the show portray that world unrealistically. Truth is if these two empires continued to live they would not have conquered the world, like the US, USSR, Britain, and France already did that. These were nationalistic societies that were driven by their native blood spheres of influence; Germany for Europe, Japan for East/Southeast Asia. These two were, and by some metrics, are still the cultural and technological drivers of their respective regions. Humanity would accelerate to greater degree without the global degradation of culture and society like in our timeline - as a result of empty hypercapitalism and communism. This world would only be possible if two things did not happen: The 1914 Federal Reserve Act. And the assassination of Huey Long. If these two actions failed then we would be living decades in advance with world peace.
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!
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.
as a German i must say it's absolutely unimagninable that Hitler survived or the system. A nightmare. My generation born in the sixties came to realize that we were indeed saved and liberated. Not deliberately but actually we were. And we were fed and learned democracy by the Western Allies... thank god. Today many are hesitant about doing that... it's sort of coloniaslism or feeling superior.. don't know the english words for it... but thank god they did with "us" and i think Germany or West-Germany is the best example it can work. Geographically being a child from refugee parents from aereas now in Russia and Poland of course i do regret the outcome. I wished it to be still Germany.. but of course the lines are drawn and it's been 80 years now and no one would wanna fight about those borders. I learned a bit of Polish, no bordercontrol between Poland and Germany, it's Europe now, who cares about borders. Peace is important. End of story. But Nazis still in power ?... i don't wanna think about it for a second. Unlike what Stalin did, Hitler imo was simply a mass murderer who started war to cover his genocide on the Jews in the backyard of the deepest Poland where allied aircraft didn't get so easily. The world was distracted with WW2 and he fullfilled his murderplans. The deathrating of Poles is just as racist as the Jewish numbers. The Nazis and the Wehrmacht didn't kill not a percentage as much in Denmark, Norway, Netherland and France. Slavic people and Jews did not count. Western Nations did. Pure racism.
Wilson campaigned that he would keep us out of the war (WW1). We got war, federal reserve, IRS, and debt leading to the Great Depression,WPA etc, and the need for Rosevelt to push Japan and Germany into WW2, with the Belford Declaration. And the current situation.
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)
WW1 was so nasty purely because there were no rules of engagement and no direction was forbidden nothing was "off the table" for consideration and was THE war to burgeon in modern warfare. SURE the civil was as well as any war or battle before it is and was nasty but without the ability for mass casualties and with such horrible effect, trench warfare and nerve gas is a nasty hellscape to be sure.
I think there's one more layer that explored, post ww1 the western democracies did a terrible job of contained the nazis. They had the chance to end it early when Germany started breaking treaties. They did this in the mistaken assumption that they could arm faster than Germany did, but Germany was far more efficient at rearmament in the 2 years leading to ww2. On top of that they allowed the massive Czech armory to fall into German hands, as well as it's industrial base. There were rebellious elements in Germany at the time, ready to overthrow Hitler, but these fell in line as Hitlers diplomatic strategy started to pay off.
I think there is a legitimate argument to be made that they allowed Germany to rearm due to a fear of communism. Shortly after WW1, there was actually western intervention that helped the Baltic countries retain independence AND also aided the White movement that fought against the red army. They knew that the Soviet Union wanted a world revolution and would try to expand west. Germany was essentially an industrial power that if armed could have been a strong buffer against this getting into the heart of Europe. I think they, meaning Britain and France, severely miscalculated Hitler and his ambitions. I also believe that there was a good degree of sympathy towards the Nazis early on for sure. A lot of their ideologies about race and disdain for communism were beliefs that were widely held in the west, especially in America for sure. In a slightly different environment, there's a possibility that a less extreme right wing government in Germany made an alliance with the west to take on the Soviets. This gets into some very interesting alternate history stuff that could have actually happened in the right set of circumstances. Stalin wanted expansion westward, such as when they took over the Baltic states and Bessarabia, now known as Moldova. In fall 1940 there were actually talks that the Soviets had with Hitler about joining the axis powers. Stalin wanted dominion over the Balkans and the Bosporus, Istanbul, plus certain holdings in Finland. Germany countered this by saying that the Soviet Union should seek the Persian gulf and the Indian Ocean instead, to which they turned down. These two ultimately went to war because of this conflicting interests, something I believe that the western powers were all aware of. In our actual timeline, we do see this play out with the Iron Curtain in 1945. Russian geopolitical strategy is heavily based around access to warm water ports, it's a reason why Crimea was of huge interest for them.
@@oglocbaby520 Germany and the soviets were already cooperating militarily by the time the nazis came into power if I recall correctly. They had essentially had their own treaty.
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.
there was a 4th Reich in Argentina and Paraguay etc. they kept their extreme views, but it fizzled out. they did do very very well financially and most escaped justice.
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. ...
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.
Instead of sending a letter in early 1939, FDR should have sent the Whermacht Generals, and the King of Italy, straightjackets for Hitler, Goring, Himmler, and Mussolini.
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.
Use the navy to weaken them. Let them spin their wheels in trench warfare. Drawing from the colonies elevated the colonies. It gave them a military victory they were directly involved in. The US gained freedom shortly after the French and indian/7 years war. Colonies must stay dependent.
The Nat Zees did not loose WWII. The German people did. The Nat Zees merely went underground. Many moved to the US where they were esteemed. Many moved to South America.
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...
There was a brief period after world war two when only the USA had a nuclear bomb. Winston Churchill suggested to the American's they should drop a nuclear bomb on Moscow to free Eastern Europe. The Americans refused. I think that was a mistake.
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?
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.
@@AP-ui7oi history is written by the victors, apparently the Germans kept impeccable records of everything other than that one thing. Show me the quote or shut up.
Yup, Stalin and HItler had an agreement. German attack on Soviet Union was fake. The end of war was scripted to save as many HItler's followers as possible and kill as many people ready to fight against Hitler as possible. That's why this fake-war in Ukriane is now possible. "Former" Soviet Union is one THird Reich now with millions of Hitler's followers having this scam together to extort money and weapon. Elon Musk showed lately truth who rules in USA, who sends American tax money to nazis in Europe.
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
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.
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.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 96 | คู่เอก "คมอาวุธ vs พันฤทธิ์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ofERaO0gOsE/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Live] : ONE FIGHT NIGHT 28 วันนี้!! "พระจันทร์ฉาย vs เอลลิส"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LfImEQqfARc/mqdefault.jpg)
Sarah Paine has to be the most interesting speaker ever. I love these posts with her answering questions. I could listen to her all day.
She is great, I agree.
Wish the questioner was as great. That title is the lamest counterfactual query ever.
She is such a clear speaker. Articulates her thoughts in such an easy precise manner. I love it
Brown nosers
Glad this came up in my feed. She is so engaging and informative. Thanks for doing this interview and posting
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.
Who funded WW1? Dont worry, you don't have to say it out loud if you're afraid.
nope. jewish behavior was the catalyst. always has been.
@@fredjackson8408*asks a question but already has a predetermined answer*
Churchill, originally articulated this as the 30 yrs war. The history channel did a documentary on this touching on it at a 30k feet view.
That was Stephen Ambrose who said that many years ago when he did the World at War documentary.
He said World War I and II were essentially one European Civil War with a long armistice in between.
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.
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....
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.
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.
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.
The Anglo-German naval arms race had been going for decades, if Ferdinand hadn't been shot Britain and Germany would have started at the next excuse
It wasn't a gunshot it was a grenade
@@chrisopherlogano5811 The first attempt that day was a bomb, but it failed. Gavrilo Princip succeeded later in the day with an FN Model 1910 .380 ACP chambered semi auto pistol.
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.
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.
She does an amazing thing she takes his questions and makes them better in such an elegant and kind way and gives you something even better ❤
Yeah glad she provides an actual logical response to edgy third reich/alternate history questions.
A fellow student once ask our history professor, "What is the difference between fascism and communism?" The student was confused as on the surface they look so alike. The professor answered, "In fascism they line you up against the wall and shoot for the good of the state. In communism they line you up against the wall and shoot you for the good of the people."
Horseshoe theory lol
Communism claims to be for the workers and people. It really is just another form of tyranny that benefits the few and suppresses the rest.
This talking point about grand strategy gives you far more appreciation for General Grant during the US Civil War. He understood logistics, communication and the necessity to achieve long-term goals vs tactical gains. The Confederacy came close to crushing the Union fighting spirit multiple times but Grant plotted carefully on how to break their capacity to fight.
That's not what Grand Strategy means. An appropriate example would be strategies designed by Douglas MacArthur.
@frcluc I love how you say that and don't say why. But Grant was good at Grand Strategy. He understood the war as a whole and worked to undermine every aspect of the enemy's ability to fight across all theaters of the war.
@@parkwoojin1875 That's not grand strategy. A grand strategy by Grant would have been how to utilise the new freed black population to their advantage and that of a reunited USA. Another example: The Mexican-American War that happened two decades before the American Civil War had many details of grand strategy by the generals back then. Grant is not a good example, unfortunately.
I don't know much about the Civil War (I'm Canadian), but I once saw General Lee quoted as saying that Grant was an incompetent general. I don't think that was sour grapes, I think it was his genuine military assessment.
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.
True!
The thing I find interesting/sad about WW1 is that no great generals arose to take advantage of the new forms of warfare like had happend with previous tech revolutions in war
@@MrJpc1234 _What_ new forms of warfare? Deep Trench networks? Super-heavy artillery? Machine Guns? Trucks? Tanks? Chemical agents? SMGs? Airplanes? Strategic bombers? Radio?
All of those forms of warfare were used - none of them could break the trench stalemate. It's not about generals - it's about the very technology itself. It led to fundamentally static warfare. There was nothing anyone could have done.
"WW1 only showed how little we actually understood about the tactical use of firearms in modern warfare."
Firearms? You mean small arms? Rifles? SMGs? They're all trivial - useful additions that increase soldier efficiency, to be sure, but they pale in weight to the role of artillery in warfare. Firearms could _never_ solve the trench warfare.
@roadent217 Well those are technologies which obviously affect but are not in and of themselves forms of warfare......what I am criticising was the lack of Generals that managed to adapt to how these technologies should be used quick enough.....if the technology meant that defensive operations had an advantage so be it don't waste the number of lives they had on failed offensive operations.....this wasn't the first or last time warfare went through a technological revolution the interesting part about this one was the lack of Strategists that managed to successfully adapt to the new tech leading to levels of waste unheard of
"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.
@@samuelspiel8855 Germany didn’t start the war. The Jews did.
@@samuelspiel8855I mean yes, Franco is a legitimate example, but then again Franco didn't have a massive industrialized killing program like the Holocaust in his country. I feel the Nazis are a unique example of a dictatorship that physically couldn't transition into a less radicalized government. That's just me though.
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.
He does those long ramblings, because these "debates" are scripted to spread a false narrative that supports the US endless wars. The thing is that the level of idiocy is beyond imagination.
I enjoyed her response
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.
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.
@@RonSilver-l8e what’s your point?
WWII was just the second half of WWI. Germany took a breather, rearmed, and went after France, Russia and Britain again.
2 wars on 2 fronts simultaneously, each time with lesser resources. And yet, we think that Germans are smart and program everything.
Revenge for crippling treaty of Versailles
@@randomuploadsism have you ever heard of the Brest-Litovsk treaty?
Germany established a democracy beat back a dozen faschist and communist takeover attempts and negotiates with the rest of the world until economic problems lead to the rise of a faschist party lead by a man that romanticized a germany that never existed and a bunch of guys that romanticized a military they had never been part off. How do you listen to an intelligent video and then say insanely dumbshit while trying to agree with it?
General Patton once said a famous quote and later died after the war ended in Germany.
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.
the fact that she entertains your hypotheticals with such sincerity is endearing
Ww1 strategy really was pure insanity
One of the biggest catalysts for WW2 was the harshness of the Treaty of Versailles.
Russia role in WW2 should not be "Burnished" for their contribution defeating Hitler. Hitler would not have been able to invade Poland, Norway, France, attack Britain, and invade Russia, if Russia had not made a deal with Germany in 1925 to allow the German military to break the Versailles treaty by letting them practice military drills in Russia. Russia also sent billions, no exaggeration, of raw materials to Germany in trade for tech support. That trade gave Germany the munitions and weapons to be able to build their army to go to war. Stalin enabled the war, and its known the two were going to fight each other anyway.
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
Funny thing that's exactly what they got know with Brexit (living in the shadow of a unified continent)
@@andrijapfc Not really. The E.U. doesn't have military designs on England.
@@weirdshibainu Military designs are not the only threat
How does this only have 207 likes? These videos should be viewed by ALL!
If you think about it, Gavrilo Princip may have committed the single, most influential act of the entire twenty century. So many events for the remainder of the century had a butterfly effect from that one assassination.
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
thats why its very important to make friends with your enemies after a war.
Sarah Paine is amazing, and her patience in the face of your ridiculously leading questions is amazing.
Dwarkesh you ask a helluvalot of hypothetical questions which can be tough to answer, however, I'm happy you've exposed your channel to Sarah; she is a very interesting and informative lady and I've been binging these chats.
Wait but he asked what if the Third Reich outlived WW2 and does a scenario exist where both Hitler and Stalin fall... She gave a lot of good insight, but she didn't really elaborate on the questions much... Am I missing something?
Then he’s a crap interviewer and inarticulate too. That’s on him to get an answer
This topic is fake from the start so it is difficult to expand. The truth is Third Reich survived with Moscow as the capital. Berlin, Washington, London satelites acknowledged Moscow as the ruler.
Really like your content. You ask the right questions and get great structured answers.
NASA and CIA : We're going to ignore this.
Right don't look behind the veil
This lady knows stuff... and knows how to say it. Thank you Sarah Paine.
Looking back the entire 20th century could be seen as a continuous war, from the Balkin wars to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The Yugoslav wars continued long after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
All these videos, it (at least) sounds like the interviewer is trying to ask, "Gotcha!" questions, only to get shot down and soundly schooled by this fantastic wealth of knowledge and insight we call, Sarah.
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.
@kreb12 They didn't need him to take them into space, did they?
*Wernher
WW1 strategy was always "okay, charge. Ignore the arty, gas, barbwire, MGs, flamethrowers, mines, quicksand, and planes. Affix bayonets for good luck."
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!
I mean sure, if Stalin is cool with that and has no ambitions of expansion into Europe. But he did have imperial ambitions over Europe.
The Soviets had already invaded Romania a year before Operation Barbarossa, the Romanians begged for help from Germany and Italy to put a stop to it.
@@jeopardyfan122u guys are acting like hitler did invade Poland, Belguim, France, and Russia. A lot of just either people who really like hitler or dudes who don’t like “communism” so they want Stalin to be worse
Russia may have been largest in land area but 90% of people lived in western Russia ! Even today they only have a few million more people than Mexico !
Thank you Winston, thank you Franklin.
Fatherland was a good programme that dealt on this topic.
We are still paying the price for WW1 today.
according to reddit, the 3rd Reich not only survived the second world war, but is currently in control of America.
Where to get full video?
Got the creator page.
These are brilliant! Please make more!!!! Sara Paine is just wonderful with her intelligence and incisiveness.
Bankers won
The Focus got what they wanted from Churchill.
@theimistocles.. thanks for the intelligent response
@@johnfoster2584 I second the motion.
Capitalist’s and fascists won* look at which industries reign in Europe and East Asia (Germany and Japan)
Except for bankers in Germany or Russia, right? 😉
That said, I'd say that the US won the most from the world wars. You look at the US prior to 1914, and then post 1945, and it's like an entirely different country. Now would the US production capabilities have eventually transformed the US into what it is now? It may have, but nowhere near as the accelerated time span that the world wars helped to foster.
Thank you for clarifying the reason that WW l led to WW ll. Everyone has this idea that it was due to the poverty of the German people but Joachim Fest in his biography of Hitler says that the German economy was doing reasonably well by the time Hitler began his grand scheme. The fact that Germany could afford to provide rooms and beds to homeless men (which Hitler was) clearly indicates they had an economy that was strong enough to support the homeless.
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
@@weirdshibainu the story of Stalin freaking out and locking himself in his room has been debunked. Stalin's War by Sean McMeekin goes over this exact point. He was actively involved and meeting with staff for countermeasures and dealing with the task at hand.
@@jeopardyfan122 I don't believe you
I could listen to her all day long. She is absolutely amazing.
Man In the high castle
That damn show had such promise... Ended up being a huge disappointment unfortunately.
That book and definitely the show portray that world unrealistically. Truth is if these two empires continued to live they would not have conquered the world, like the US, USSR, Britain, and France already did that. These were nationalistic societies that were driven by their native blood spheres of influence; Germany for Europe, Japan for East/Southeast Asia.
These two were, and by some metrics, are still the cultural and technological drivers of their respective regions.
Humanity would accelerate to greater degree without the global degradation of culture and society like in our timeline - as a result of empty hypercapitalism and communism.
This world would only be possible if two things did not happen: The 1914 Federal Reserve Act. And the assassination of Huey Long. If these two actions failed then we would be living decades in advance with world peace.
That show is very inaccurate
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatherland_(novel)
It's hypothetical
Don't forget that the wall street crash and the depression of the 30s really opened the door to these ideologies.
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.
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.
This woman really is brilliant
as a German i must say it's absolutely unimagninable that Hitler survived or the system. A nightmare. My generation born in the sixties came to realize that we were indeed saved and liberated. Not deliberately but actually we were. And we were fed and learned democracy by the Western Allies... thank god. Today many are hesitant about doing that... it's sort of coloniaslism or feeling superior.. don't know the english words for it... but thank god they did with "us" and i think Germany or West-Germany is the best example it can work. Geographically being a child from refugee parents from aereas now in Russia and Poland of course i do regret the outcome. I wished it to be still Germany.. but of course the lines are drawn and it's been 80 years now and no one would wanna fight about those borders. I learned a bit of Polish, no bordercontrol between Poland and Germany, it's Europe now, who cares about borders. Peace is important. End of story. But Nazis still in power ?... i don't wanna think about it for a second. Unlike what Stalin did, Hitler imo was simply a mass murderer who started war to cover his genocide on the Jews in the backyard of the deepest Poland where allied aircraft didn't get so easily. The world was distracted with WW2 and he fullfilled his murderplans. The deathrating of Poles is just as racist as the Jewish numbers. The Nazis and the Wehrmacht didn't kill not a percentage as much in Denmark, Norway, Netherland and France. Slavic people and Jews did not count. Western Nations did. Pure racism.
Biggest what if in history
Stalin was more evil than Hitler imo
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.
Wilson campaigned that he would keep us out of the war (WW1). We got war, federal reserve, IRS, and debt leading to the Great Depression,WPA etc, and the need for Rosevelt to push Japan and Germany into WW2, with the Belford Declaration. And the current situation.
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)
Thye went massively to the US with the American governments help under false identities
you missed the U.S.A.
And the bolsheviks came to America
WW1 was so nasty purely because there were no rules of engagement and no direction was forbidden nothing was "off the table" for consideration and was THE war to burgeon in modern warfare. SURE the civil was as well as any war or battle before it is and was nasty but without the ability for mass casualties and with such horrible effect, trench warfare and nerve gas is a nasty hellscape to be sure.
The Spanish American War, the Russo-Japanese War, and WW1 - everything in the 20th century emanated from those three conflicts.
I think there's one more layer that explored, post ww1 the western democracies did a terrible job of contained the nazis. They had the chance to end it early when Germany started breaking treaties. They did this in the mistaken assumption that they could arm faster than Germany did, but Germany was far more efficient at rearmament in the 2 years leading to ww2.
On top of that they allowed the massive Czech armory to fall into German hands, as well as it's industrial base.
There were rebellious elements in Germany at the time, ready to overthrow Hitler, but these fell in line as Hitlers diplomatic strategy started to pay off.
I think there is a legitimate argument to be made that they allowed Germany to rearm due to a fear of communism. Shortly after WW1, there was actually western intervention that helped the Baltic countries retain independence AND also aided the White movement that fought against the red army. They knew that the Soviet Union wanted a world revolution and would try to expand west. Germany was essentially an industrial power that if armed could have been a strong buffer against this getting into the heart of Europe. I think they, meaning Britain and France, severely miscalculated Hitler and his ambitions. I also believe that there was a good degree of sympathy towards the Nazis early on for sure. A lot of their ideologies about race and disdain for communism were beliefs that were widely held in the west, especially in America for sure. In a slightly different environment, there's a possibility that a less extreme right wing government in Germany made an alliance with the west to take on the Soviets. This gets into some very interesting alternate history stuff that could have actually happened in the right set of circumstances.
Stalin wanted expansion westward, such as when they took over the Baltic states and Bessarabia, now known as Moldova. In fall 1940 there were actually talks that the Soviets had with Hitler about joining the axis powers. Stalin wanted dominion over the Balkans and the Bosporus, Istanbul, plus certain holdings in Finland. Germany countered this by saying that the Soviet Union should seek the Persian gulf and the Indian Ocean instead, to which they turned down. These two ultimately went to war because of this conflicting interests, something I believe that the western powers were all aware of.
In our actual timeline, we do see this play out with the Iron Curtain in 1945. Russian geopolitical strategy is heavily based around access to warm water ports, it's a reason why Crimea was of huge interest for them.
@@oglocbaby520 Germany and the soviets were already cooperating militarily by the time the nazis came into power if I recall correctly. They had essentially had their own treaty.
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.
there was a 4th Reich in Argentina and Paraguay etc. they kept their extreme views, but it fizzled out. they did do very very well financially and most escaped justice.
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. ...
Hitler talked about genocide and did it, Stalin never talked about it, but did it anyway.
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.
@fikretpajalic1224 It was a terribly worded, revisionist history-filled question at best and very easy to pick apart.
MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE
WW2 was Man vs. Evil and Man lost
Yeah, evil is is fighting defender country and Man is killing people because they have disabilities and they’re not pure Aryan
Instead of sending a letter in early 1939, FDR should have sent the Whermacht Generals, and the King of Italy, straightjackets for Hitler, Goring, Himmler, and Mussolini.
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.
Use the navy to weaken them. Let them spin their wheels in trench warfare. Drawing from the colonies elevated the colonies. It gave them a military victory they were directly involved in. The US gained freedom shortly after the French and indian/7 years war. Colonies must stay dependent.
Realistically the book Fatherland is as close as we will get to that dark alternate reality.
The Nat Zees did not loose WWII. The German people did.
The Nat Zees merely went underground.
Many moved to the US where they were esteemed. Many moved to South America.
Nazi :)
This woman is a soviet apologist.
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
There was a brief period after world war two when only the USA had a nuclear bomb.
Winston Churchill suggested to the American's they should drop a nuclear bomb on Moscow to free Eastern Europe. The Americans refused. I think that was a mistake.
Well then you are a moron 😂
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
@@LvanderMwhat 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?
Surprised to see so many Fascist apologists in the comments.
It the same way with communist videos. “That wasn’t real communism” apologists.
You shouldn't be. The world is a complete shit show now
of course i know him. he's me.
Don’t be suprised, there’s alot of us now.
I’m surprised there are still communists brave or stupid enough to reveal their idealogy.
It's crazy to think something like WW2 ever happened, isn't it?
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.
I always learn from her. She’s no lightweight regarding history, that’s for sure.
Can you please show me a quote of AH talking about “annihilating whole peoples.”
Talk is cheap. Look what he did. Are you crazy?
@@AP-ui7oi history is written by the victors, apparently the Germans kept impeccable records of everything other than that one thing. Show me the quote or shut up.
@@Musique986W
No they can’t, it doesn’t exist
@@AP-ui7oiin wartime every side did crazy things. Look at the years between 33-38 Germany did a great job in those years
As a dictator Stalin was as evil as Hitler. Both awful men.
Yup, Stalin and HItler had an agreement. German attack on Soviet Union was fake. The end of war was scripted to save as many HItler's followers as possible and kill as many people ready to fight against Hitler as possible. That's why this fake-war in Ukriane is now possible. "Former" Soviet Union is one THird Reich now with millions of Hitler's followers having this scam together to extort money and weapon. Elon Musk showed lately truth who rules in USA, who sends American tax money to nazis in Europe.
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
He really wants her to attack Stalin, and keeps jumping in to defend Hitler. wtf?
It would be a far less Diverse World, and therefore a far more Civilized World.
Much of civilization was achieved by diverse people who didn't surrender to invaders.
@@tritium1998 - Ya. Before the Greeks. But not after. Not at all.
It did survive. It is now in South America, and called the WEF.
If you think these vile people with all the money and power simply went away... You are a special kind of nieve.
The UK, and the US, should have stayed out of WW1, and then help put the pieces back together.
They would look like American college students.
😂
You misspelled MAGA.
@@dark_natas_666Maga isn't socialist or communist
@@allananderson949 MAGA is a cult. A cult that would've loved for Trump to stay in office at all costs. That is true communism.
@@allananderson949 MAGA is Nazi
Thanks!
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.
This dudes beard is PHENOMENAL
What is up with GenZ turning into Hitler youth.
Nazis 😅
As a History teacher, it frightens me…and they’re only 6-7 years younger than me
They are ANTIFA, BLM, and LGBTQ followers. All are being trained in universities.
@@Sully2001 We are waking up whats so frightening in it?
The pendulum swings ....
Excellent. This is 100% right on
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.
Does anyone know where I can find the full length interview?