The REAL Reason Hitler Declared War on the USA
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 січ 2021
- Why did Hitler declare war on the United States? This question has confused people for quite some time, because the typical reasons don't really explain his reasoning. Well, from Hitler's point of view, there was a reason that he declared war, and that reason may shock you... so let's find out!
🔔 Subscribe for more History content: / @theimperatorknight
⏲️ Videos EVERY Monday at 5pm GMT (depending on season, check for British Summer Time).
The thumbnail for this video was created by Terri Young. Need graphics? Check out her website here www.terriyoungdesigns.co.uk/
- - - - -
📚 BIBLIOGRAPHY / SOURCES 📚
Bormann, M. "Hitler's Table Talk." Ostara Publications, 2016.
Buchanan, P. “Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World.” Three Rivers Press, 2008.
Deighton, L. "Blood, Tears and Folly: An Objective Look at World War II." HarperCollinsPublishers, 2014.
Hitler, A. "Mein Kampf." Jaico Publishing House, 2017.
Hitler, A. "Zweites Buch (Secret Book): Adolf Hitler's Sequel to Mein Kampf." Jaico Publishing House, 2017.
Hitler, A. "Adolf Hitler - Collection of Speeches 1922-1945." Made by Propagandaleiter, nseuropa.org
Irving, D. “Hitler’s War: 1939-1942.” PAPERMAC, 1983.
Kershaw, I. “Hitler: 1936-1945 Nemesis.” Penguin Books, 2001.
Mawdsley, E. “December 1941: Twelve Days that Began a World War.” Yale University Press, Kindle 2011.
Rees, L. "The Holocaust: A New History." Penguin Books, 2017.
“Adolf Hitler: Speech Declaring War Against the United States,” (December 11, 1941) www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...
Chamberlain, “Declaration of War,” 3 Sept 1939. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ch...
“German Declaration of War with the United States : December 11, 1941,” from avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/gerd...
Roosevelt, “Fireside Chat,” 29 Dec 1940. en.wikisource.org/wiki/Roosev...
The Essential Guide to Nazi Germany, “Why Adolf Hitler Declared War on the USA,” 2019 nazigermanyguide.blog/2019/03...
Full list of all my sources docs.google.com/spreadsheets/...
- - - - -
⭐ SUPPORT TIK ⭐
This video isn't sponsored. My income comes purely from my Patreons and SubscribeStars, and from UA-cam ad revenue. So, if you'd like to support this channel and make these videos possible, please consider becoming a Patreon or SubscribeStar. All supporters who pledge $1 or more will have their names listed in the videos. For $5 or more you can ask questions which I will answer in future Q&A videos (note: I'm behind with the Q&A's right now, and have a lot of research to do to catch up, so there will be a delay in answering questions). There are higher tiers too with additional perks, so check out the links below for more details.
/ tikhistory
www.subscribestar.com/tikhistory
Thank you to my current supporters! You're AWESOME!
- - - - -
📽️ RELATED VIDEO LINKS 📽️
Hitler's Socialism | Destroying the Denialist Counter Arguments • Hitler's Socialism | D...
The REAL Reason why Hitler HAD to go to War in WW2 • The REAL Reason why Hi...
The MAIN Reason Why Germany Lost WW2 - OIL • The MAIN Reason Why Ge...
BATTLESTORM STALINGRAD S1/E1 - The 6th Army Strikes! • BATTLESTORM STALINGRAD...
My “Why I'm Passionate about HISTORY and What Got Me Into it” video
• Why I'm Passionate abo...
History Theory 101 • [Out of Date, see desc...
- - - - -
ABOUT TIK 📝
History isn’t as boring as some people think, and my goal is to get people talking about it. I also want to dispel the myths and distortions that ruin our perception of the past by asking a simple question - “But is this really the case?”. I have a 2:1 Degree in History and a passion for early 20th Century conflicts (mainly WW2). I’m therefore approaching this like I would an academic essay. Lots of sources, quotes, references and so on. Only the truth will do.
This video is discussing events or concepts that are academic, educational and historical in nature. This video is for informational purposes and was created so we may better understand the past and learn from the mistakes others have made.
Hitler: “yeah Italy has been vanquished a lot but they seem to always end up on the right side”
I mean... he’s not wrong...
How did he not see that as a red flag?
@@Edax_Royeaux War i recon, them switching sides and whatever else Hitler thought to be the case.
As Churchill said.."Well we had them last time!"
it really depends, if you only take into account the short unitary history then it is not to terrible of a record apart from ww2, if you take into account pre-unitary states that claim becomes just ridicolous when you look at milan singlehandedly beating the hre twice, and venice wrecking the ottomans on multiple occasions.
I think Hitler did have a moment of clarity when Italy bailed.
But he kept on drinking so to speak.
My dad was in the U.S. Navy in 1939, and always said that the U.S. Navy was at war with the German Navy well before December 7 1941. He always spoke on how frustrating it was that they had to pretend they weren't.
Just like how we have to pretend we aren't at war with Russia.
@@floridaman318 Don't drag us down with you, meatball man!
@@floridaman318 >pretending to care about the Ukraine
@@floridaman318 Just like Russia pretending that Poland started the war, err I mean Ukraine started the war.
@@goldleader6074 Ukraine did start the war.
Many, many years ago I had a flight booked from Gatwick airport. I cannot remember where I was bound for. So very early one morning my father was driving me to Victoria railway station. As we passed Whitehall he pointed at a building and said, "That's where I enlisted in the Navy in 1929". He had signed up for 20 years as a stoker in the Royal Navy. I asked him, "Why the freck did you do that?" and he replied, "It was the depression, there were no jobs available".
So my poor father started his military career shovelling coal on a flat bottomed gunship up the Yangtze River. He later went on to travel around the world several times, was torpedoed twice and somehow survived WWII. R.N. 1929 to 1949
RIP Dad!
Your father was a hero, may he rest in peace
My grandfather was a stoker on boats during the war. It was one of the most dangerous jobs on boats. It was more skilled than you would think. If it was done wrong the boiler would explode, because of the location of the boilers you would be less likely to make it out as a survivor
Your father was a traitor to his people. But fought for his family, a hero
There are reserves of oil & gas deep under Gatwick airport . . greater than has been pumped out of north sea oilfields to date . . I read once
The Bottomley affair perhaps Pine creek goldfields NT Oz late 1800 rip off of share holders
2:01 is that a real Hitler quote? Holy crap I weep for Italy.
The biggest backhanded compliment of all time lmao
He was referring to the war of 1866, in which Austria lost to Prussia while soundly defeating the Italians.
He thought he had the World War metagame all figured out 🤣
The Japan part of the quote is real, I think. I've never heard the part that referred to Italy and I wondered if it was real or parody.
@@CountArtha Hitler would have had it figured out if he decided to bomb Britain to an armistice, send Japan a MG-42 for reverse engineering, reestablish the Ottoman Empire to form an alliance with them, then take over Africa meanwhile waiting for Stalin to go full-retard against a fully operational Ostwall.
Thank God that meth stopped him lol
LMAO IM WHEEZING AT HOW HITLER JUST ROASTED ITALY AT 2:06
Same LMFAO
the literal embodiment of 2 Italy memes of being weak and traitor
He was being sarcastic.
When I heard that I had to do a double take not believing that could be a actual real quote (it is though, lol).
@@thetruth495 No he wasn't. Hitler never used sarcasm, he was a fanatic.
Funny thing, this how I was taught in the school by my historian: German declaration was merely only a confirmation of a fact.
Literally Hitler! 🤣🤣🤣
As I was taught both in school and at home - it was not only a confirmation, but mainly an escalation of the fact.
Aaaah, education, a thing now little known.
I wasn't taught this at school, I learned this in my Pan-African Saturday classes.
I was taught this in my American school, so I really don't know where this other thought comes from. Unless they have changed their teachings since I've been out of school. I am 36 now
"Warmongering Press" goddamn does that sound all too familiar in American politics...
Because it's ture
because they are that way in the US
Actually the American press was anything but warmongering. German-Americans, Irish-Americans, America First-ers, Italian-Americans and the other Axis national groups in US society, and a fair portion of the rest of US society and press wanted nothing to do with another ruinous war far away from their shores. Also warmongering is a tendentious word to use for journalists like Ed Murrow who believed that the UK was fighting a just war against a despotic enemy and deserved US support if not involvement.
@@Norvik_-ug3ge They'll be war supportive based on agenda and who is in the administrative office. Media these days would support the idea of declaring war on the whole world, but a month ago they would be "shocked" or "disgusted" at the idea.
@@sik3xploit War supportive and war-mongering are two very different things. The media in late 1930s USA was more diverse in 'agenda' than it is today. Roosevelt was both warmly supported and opposed with strong hostility by various media outlets. I agree that Trump could have cured cancer and CNN would ask why he waited so long....
He was absolutely angry about Charlie Chaplin being in the United States and upset about being parodied by him and the Three Stooges.
True fact. History would be very different if only the National Socialist film industry hadn't had repeated failures at retaliatory Roosevelt parodies but National Socialists were never very good at funny. Declaring war was their only other option.
Hitler: I declare war on the USA!
FDR: Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck.
I loved Moe's impersonation.
He wanted Chaplin in Germany. He loved the guy and is even rumored to have watched "The Great Dictator" on numerous occasions. He would never publicly admit any of this though.
I remember my grandma showing me a newspaper clip during the occupation, boasting of how the " Independent State of Croatia " has declared war on the USA. It was so funny at the time that they had to preserve it...
Croatia was an ally of Nazi Germany, so much so, that it was a Croatian Catholic Abbot, that was the mastermind behind the Rat-Run of escaping German Officers and Top-Ranking Nazi's. He was based in a Monastery near Salzburg, Austria. There is proof that Martin Bormann used his services, and a witness seeing with his own eyes, seeing in Nossdorf am Inn, the ultimate escapee!
@@noggin48 very good point
@@noggin48 The remains of Martin Bormann turned up in Berlin in 1972.
Even Albania declared war on the United States.
Hail croatia
and another ally [Italy ] who has constantly been vanquished but has always ended up on the right side.
Italy 1943: switches sides and ends up with the winners.
Hitler:
Exactly. In 1943 he must've realized that he had fucked up pretty badly.
Finland
Romania
Bulgaria
France
How can Italians even walk around in public i just dont know. If you want them on your side for gods sake never admit you are losing
@@zulubeatz1
Pretty Harsh . . . . Its not like they were the only ones to turn back on the nazis, and how in the world is that a bad thing?
But they were the first to have their own territory invaded and the first one to realize that self conservation and fighting for a right cause was far better that total destruction by following down a madman in his path to hell on earth for one of the dumbest ideologies ever concieved.
For the "Ending up on the winning side" is that Italy before fascism approached international politics with realism and self conservation in mind. A young nation with not nearly the same industrial power, size or manpower of the others. Kinda the weakest among the great powers. So they always ponderated on what to do. And it tended to pay off in the end. Had they joined the central powers in ww1 for example there is no indication things would've turned in the central powers favor anyway. And they probably knew this very well regardless of whatever promise of land and colonies.
They were simply batter than the fascists at international politics.
@@zulubeatz1 how can Finns/Romanians/Bulgarians/French even walk around in public I just don't know.
Or maybe history is more complicated than memes
This just confirms what I learned in (US) high school in the mid 1980s from my Merchant Marine history teacher. We were already at war with Germany in Dec 1941, Hitler just formalized it.
Attacks on US trade results in freedom of navigation enforcement.
That is what is told in Germany, too. At least when you ask about WHY.
US (including jews) declares war for Germany. This seems pretty ugly actually. Germany's has something more urgent things to do in this time.
It’s not like we created a Military Industrial Complex!!!
@@valenrn8657 any neutral country who moves its "trade" into war zone has no basis crying wolf.
I like that in my opinion your material is more honest. More honest enough that you actually are holding my attention for more than 30 seconds.
Hitler seems to forget that always ending up on the right side doesn't mean always STARTING on the right side.
I read once that the Italian people didn't want to be in any war and they certainly didn't want to be in league with Germany.
@@dbg399 the italians had underground oppositions to Il Duce, for which he fatally paid in the end.
The germans stood united
I felt sorry for that poor dumb bastard when TIK dropped that quote lol.
@@svendhansen5427 to commies, not "underground oppositions".
I always hear about how stupid Hitler was for declaring war on the U.S. Good that someone finally adresses this topic!
Most of the time, if someone calls someone else 'crazy' for doing something, it's because that someone doesn't understand the other person's reasoning or perspective. Very rarely are they actually crazy.
@@TheImperatorKnight Kanye...
@@Konkovyeah like kanye, they call him crazy because they cant call him a liar or racist. If his skin was white he would be plastered everywhere as the next hitler. Funny how the victim hood hierarchy works
It's been addressed many times in numerous well researched books on WW2. Hitler was stupid to declare war, regardless of whether war was coming anyway, he made Churchill's Germany first aim easier to sell in the US when people were wanting to avenge Pearl Harbor.
So, basically the equivalent of "You can't fire me, I quit!" It actually seems legit.
I believe Hiter's declaration of war against the United States was done in the expectation that Japan would reciprocate against the Soviet Union.
No.
@@user-wj6dt5bq3w Yes, I'm sure there are enough reasons to go around for everyone mate. You have to be a good boy and learn to share your reasons
@@phoenixmodellingphotographyThere was never any indication that a war of Japan against Russia was a sure thing.
Well for sure he was right about Italy, we did end up on the right side of the war.
I mean... the southern half of Italy did!
@@TheImperatorKnight eventully all of it with the allied invasion of the northern half I believe
@@TheImperatorKnight Yes, as an irony of history. The north had, let's call it a captive licensing contract in the form of an M.
@@Edax_Royeaux I think they are talking about WW2, not the fall of the western empire
@@xmaniac99
"Captive licensing contract" is probably the best definition of the Italian Social Republic i ever read.
I thought it was so that Japan would have felt obligated to open a front in northern China, Mongolia etc against the USSR who were quite stretched out
He wanted that but that wasn't the reason.
Yeah, that's another ancillary reason. There's quite a few more too
Oh, and for the benefit of my American viewers - by "quite" I mean "lots". I was told that "quite" means something else in American English.
@@TheImperatorKnight lol, we understand your bastardized english... No matter how wrong it is 😁
@@TheImperatorKnight it's not "Quite" that confuses the language. It's the "a few" that would make it ambiguous, if anything
My father joined the US Navy in 1939. He was on the USS New York a battleship before the war. They rammed a uboat well before the war started, off the US coast but in international waters.
I'm genuinely surprised this is even an argument. Seriously I expected you to bring some unexpected radical view on this.
Is there anyone who has ever heard of the War in the Atlantic and doesn't think the US was practically at war with Germany already?
It's more online commenters and documentaries using this as a 'Moustache Man Dumb' point.
@@ArcticTemper Makes sense, but I guess would make a great "Commentator Man Dumb" point.
Yes there are tens of millions who wouldn’t know this. They’re called average Americans and this aspect of US provocation is unsurprisingly not taught in US school history lessons!
@@neilturner6749 shut the fuck up
@@neilturner6749 Why should that surprise you? Many Brits have never heard of US Lend-Lease before Pearl Harbor, they like to say we were sitting on our butts doing nothing until Pearl Harbor.
2:07 thats hilarious. He's basically calling Italy his good luck charm
wholesome 😌
Also Hitler being too blind to anticipate Italy flipping to the Allies again thus proving his point.
In my opinion Hitler's declaration or confirmation of war was in his perspective one rare instance of him calling a spade a spade. Hostilities existed, both sides were fudging the edges of neutrality to the point of being in open conflict.
The hindsight that FDR would manage to direct the U.S. effort and populace into focusing on Germany first and how quickly the U.S. was able to mobilize its economy, military, and people is something he simply didn't have at the time. The historical precedent he was aware of was the inverse of this. The U.S. had no Army to send to Europe in WW1 when war was declared. The U.S. AEF only managed one division on the front line by October 1917, five months after the declaration of war.
Also what he did know at the time as any casual researcher of history can see is the U.S. through its whole history had been willing to to forcefully enforce the idea of Free Trade since a very young age and as such U.S. cargo being intercepted or sunk on the way to Germany's enemies would inevitably lead to war.
Both Japan and Germany lacked an understanding of how things had changed in the U.S. since WW1. Both in society and governmental policies that really only someone living in the U.S. and working with the peacetime branches of government and military related to being able to mobilize could have known. Because while the U.S. had stood down after WW1 the liasons between industry and military had remained, quietly cataloguing what various needs would be required to rapidly mobilize again. What industries could produce what, on what time tables they could be shifted. How to recruit, transport, train men on a vast scale.
The "Great Depression" was also a silver lined boon to mobilizing the country because with FDR's "New Deal" experience in mobilizing and equipping manpower was gained and fresh. But again to the outside world it simply looked like the U.S. was only beginning to recover from it.
Nice theory on the Great Depression. Have you read Rothbard's book on the subject?
@@TheImperatorKnight I do not believe I have. As I have gotten older I've really fallen down on my book reading. It's just my own conclusion based on what I've absorbed from many view points over the decades.
In my view WWII was not a war of attrition so much as it was a war of logistics. Something that the U.S. was very well prepared and motivated to perfect at the time. The "New Deal" with all it's large national projects and financial reforms was a foundation for this success. The New Deal itself being a success is a separate matter, but the 'exercises' it generated experiences for what was to come.
The U.S. was a nation with a large manpower that wanted to work. One example the CCC - Civilian Conservation Corps which was administered by the Army gave invaluable experience in how to direct, motivate, and supply such a large manpower. Such programs formed the administrational bedrock for the logistics giant the U.S. was to become.
The battles, the equipment, the tactics, the generals and men all get the glory but when you step back and think about the management that went into getting so many parts made, sent to places, assembled, sent to dockyards, loaded onto ships and sent to theatres across one huge ocean or another and it needed to work and be maintained overseas because there wasn't a convenient railroad to back rail stuff to factories to get fixed. All while eliminating any unproductive cross-hauling or backhauling.
It just boggles my mind how those people back then did it and did it so well.
@Craigified That's an interesting perspective that the New Deal was, also in and of itself, a way of mass mobilisation of the country's resources similar to in a war.
You're absolutely correct as well that the government and industries coordinated on how to mobilise in case of a war. The US gov't discussed with Boeing the possibility of re-tooling the factories for producing war planes before the US entered the war.
"The hindsight that FDR would manage to direct the U.S. effort and populace into focusing on Germany first and how quickly the U.S. was able to mobilize its economy, military, and people is something he simply didn't have at the time. The historical precedent he was aware of was the inverse of this. The U.S. had no Army to send to Europe in WW1 when war was declared. The U.S. AEF only managed one division on the front line by October 1917, five months after the declaration of war."
The thing is that Hitler KNEW that the US was already planning to enter the war in Europe against Germany and her sattelites, because of the so called 'big leak' of F.D.R.'s war plans in the Chicago Tribune newspaper on December 4th 1941: imgur.com/a/kCVOxKU
More info:
www.americanheritage.com/big-leak#1
onetuberadio.com/2016/12/04/december-4-1941-three-days-to-war/
fly.historicwings.com/2017/03/americas-victory-program/
@@Cragified A couple of other tangental points:
1
Despite the New Deal, the employed number of workers in the US did not exceed that in 1929 until Autumn 1941, by which time the labor force had grown another 12 million or more. Meanwhile, Japan had begun "Keynesian" deficit spending in 1932 & the spending went into munitions (See Chalmers Johnsons "Miti and the Japanese Miracle). In 1929 Japan's industry was dominated by light industry/textiles. By 1940 War-Keynesian policies had doubled Japanese GNP and the largest firms were now almost all in heavy industry. And while Germany had a later start (1934) its Re-armements policy had expanded GNP by nearly 140% by 1940. Meanwhile the US was still depressed. Figure Germany and Japan's impression of the US's capabilities were framed by the year 1937, a particularly bad economic year for the US, it put them in a position of perhaps underestimated the US and over estimating themselves (as Hitler surely overestimated Germany and underestimated Russia). Once we started our own program of war Keynesianism, our economy also doubled too - but in only 4 short years.
2
Your point of the miracle of American logistics is very well founded. The book on the history of Oil, "The Prize" makes the point that the US petroleum industry in the 1930s developed aviation grade fuel - something no other nation had in part because it was so complicated and required oil refineries with pipe work extending something like 15 stories high. But the war planners, in a time of vast shortages of steel for other war needs (ships, tanks, etc...) found enough steel to build enough plants that - despite the exploding demand for aviation grade fuel, their was never a shortage. This is centralized planning at its best. As Adam Tooze's book concluded, if their was a winner in Europe it was the Soviets, and their system vastly out produced the Germans system. Also note, "The Prize" makes the point that American aviation fuel made have made the difference in the outcome of the Battle of Britain. British plains had higher octane in their fuel than the Germans did.
3
The New Deal convinced ordinary Americans by 1941 that the government was on their side and stood for good. It was their country, their government and it stood for good. This made it easy to pose the Nazi's as evil (as if the Germans had not helped them). Thus the Americans enlisted and fought with vigor as well as worked in the factories hard and motivated. It was for the common good. In Roosevelt's first administration a Wall Street cabal had attempted its own putsch (called the Wall Street putsch) that was stymied only by one man, a marine General that managed to expose the plot. Earlier an Italian anarchist had nearly assassinated Roosevelt before he was inaugurated. According to Adam Tooze, Hitler, near the end, credited his defeat to the emergence of Roosevelt almost simultaneously with the emergence of Hitler to the seats of power.
I think all these bankers, corporate owners, and, politicians should be forced to fight their own wars and leave the people alone
Convert the parliaments into fighting rings
@@Pincsi01 I would definitely buy the "congress vs the ufc" ppv
For sure...the "elites" ought to have a non-negotiable place at the tip of the spear: in the infantry, in a tank, in a special-forces unit if they can cut it in the training but "your @$$ is gonna go and stay in the thick of it until it's over...or you are."
@@tonyjones1560 and the talking heads promoting the war get to be the front line camera guys
Yep
I think you're absolutely correct. Roosevelt had put the US in a position where it was an active combatant. Although I don't know if Hitler ever stated this but I can't help but wonder if he hoped the Japanese would reciprocate by declaring war against the USSR since the Germans were in serious trouble on the Eastern Front in December
THE JAPANESE AND THE RUSSIANS SIGNED A PACT OF NON AGRESSION Signed: April 13, 1941 BROKEN BY THE SOVIETS IN APRIL 1945
Does this mean that US EU and NATO’s actions of material and tactical support supplied to Ukraine means that these western countries are at war with Russia without the declaration but by their actions. ?
The Japanese had fought a border war with the Russians before WW2 and got their butts kicked. That’s why they didn’t attack Russia 🇷🇺. If they had, the war might have ended differently. Who knows?
@@patrickmiano7901 And they were seriously bogged down in China. Had the China campaign been going their way I could imagine the Japanese would have singed the Non Aggression pact, waited for the Soviets to move all their troops west, then attacked.
@@stopspammandm I agree. Like Russia 🇷🇺 was absorbing the Germans, China 🇨🇳 absorbed the Japanese, despite their battle losses. An excellent explanation.
1:55 He turned out completely correct about Italy. 😂
"I'm gonna do what's called a pro gamer move..."
Really? I thought Italy was defeated in the ww2 and lost :P
@wakenbaker-uk According to Wikipedia: United Nations, Allied, Royal Italian and Italian Resistance victory.
@@jussim.konttinen4981 @wakenbaker-uk I asked because in the end Italy had separate peace treaty concluded with it basicaly being treated as defeated country. It lost territory to Yugoslavia, Greece, France, etc., all it's colonial possessions and I'm not sure but I believe also had to pay reparations. That's why I believe it might belong right to the group of defeated countries.
@@Norubaki66 Decolonization is too complex subject, but I would say the puppet states were colonized (losers). The Italian Social Republic was a puppet state created by Germany, so Northern Italy was actually an increase in land area, not a loss.
I declared war on you? I thought you declared on me!
Clear argumentative structure, no fancy narcissistic rubbish and abouve all source references(!).
Results in a sub.
Cheers
The "Italy always ended up on the right side" comment made me smile a little just because I put the emphasis on ended in that sentence when I heard it
You forgot the part where the USA blatantly violated its own neutrality perimeters. FDR set up neutrality a zone from the US coast to South of Greenland and the Germans respected this, but FDR and the Democrats started sending out destroyers to help patrol and guard convoys past that and attack German Uboats on sight. He even sent forces to help with the British occupation of Iceland and three Battleships (Mississippi, Idaho, New Mexico) to be stationed there. America had de facto declared war on Germany!
Germany also had Uboats deployed within sight of NYC
So what "FDR and the Democrats" did was bad?
@@justinokraski3796 while definitely not cool at all, did they torpedo any boats? nope? then can it
@@30cal23yes they did, they sank ships from the US to Britain you fool
Another thing a lot of people are missing. The declaration of war on the USA doesn't sound so crazy when you consider the situation on the Eastern Front. Basically, Hitler believed it would be surely no longer than a year before the Soviet Union was defeated, and when that happened Germany would be practically invincible (which was probably a correct assumption). He believed it would be at least 5 years before the USA would be strong enough to launch an invasion of the continent. While this was a serious underestimation it wasn't until 1943 where the Allies launched a partial second front (operation Torch in North Africa) by which time the decisive battle of the Eastern Front (Stalingrad) had already been fought. It wasn't untill 1944 where the Allies finally launched their major Second front and by this time the war was already overwhelmingly won in the East.
When you think about it the US declaration of war on Germany wasn't even very important in defeating Germany. Now to be clear, the Americans definitely DID play a decisive role in defeating Germany: without American Lend-Lease the SU would surely have been defeated. However their deicisve contribution was really just that; lend lease, something they were already doing before they formally joined the war. By the time the Americans finally put boots on the ground the war had already been decisively won by the Soviets. This is also not to say that D-Day and Torch were pointless: Without them, the war would have dragged on for many more years and millions of more people would have died, plus the Communists would have dominated post war Europe, but the point is the Soviets still would have won the war without them.
I’m afraid you are not correct . In 1944 there were 69 German divisions on the Western Front. Nine panzer divisions and one panzer grenadier division. Also they had concentrated a total of over 1400 tanks and assault guns.
I’m not talking about the Luftwaffe or the units in Germany proper.
Do you even have an idea what would have happened in 1942 in Stalingrad if German troops stationed in Europe were available for the Eastern front ????!!!
Operation Bagration in 1944 in the Eastern Front was what destroyed the Army Group Center.
Can ya imagine another 69 German divisions there , with full Luftwaffe support and also the Kriegsmarine !!!!
General Colonel Hans Guderian wrote in his memoirs : Further reinforcements from the West would have solidified our position to such extent that there would have been no probable advance from the Red Army.
Any way - even if things went bad , Stalin most likely would have felt compelled to settle with Germany or face another 3-4 million casualties.
Without a second front - Stalingrad wouldn’t have happened , the Germans would have reached the Oil Field of Maikop and the Soviet war machine would have grind to a halt.
It’s true the war was decided in the East but Germany was fighting with an arm tied behind its back ( a two front war )
Do the math your self - 1941 , the Wehrmacht in front of Moscow. +69 more divisions ,,, Siberian troops or not Moscow goes down no matter what. The Soviets retreats. Hitler gets the oil fields next summer and the Soviets are done.
There would have been no Kursk, no Rzhev battles , and no Stalingrad.
Stalin would have fallen. Also with no US Air Force the whole lot of strategic bombers bombing the daylights out of anything German , the industrial output in Germany would have churned more tanks , more trucks and more heavy artillery.
He would have won. The Red Army was never a match for the Wehrmacht.
Man for man division for division the Germans kicked their sorry asses every single time.
Cheers.
"without American Lend-Lease the SU would surely have been defeated"
Nonsense. Where was this Lend-Lease in 1941-42 when the Soviets were in a real trouble?
Check the timeline of the shipments, the wast majority of the LL help came after Kursk.
"This is also not to say that D-Day and Torch were pointless: Without them, the war would have dragged on for many more years and millions of more people would have died"
How many divisions Germany had in N Africa?
Yes, the war would last longer, maybe a year longer and it's great that the US joined. Actually, they should have invaded France in 1943 at least, like they have promised. That would have shorten the war much more and saved millions.
@@mattluke481 " The Red Army was never a match for the Wehrmacht." - yeah that is why Wehrmacht lost almost every major battle on Eastern Front. That's like saying Wilder is better than Fury even though he lost almost every round to him and was defeated in the end. Just a stupid statement on your part.
Also you got it all wrong, all major western operations were possible because Germans were fighting on Eastern Front, not the other way around.
"American Lend-Lease the SU would surely have been defeated" Germans were already stopped at Moscow, without lend-lease, and at the time Germans were at their best before they lost all their veterans. So it is not the case.
Also Romanian Oil > Lend-Lease.
Hence all Germans success were do to Romania. Without it, Germans would not only lose, they would not move at all. Romania FTW.
Sounds strange, but i am just applying same logic as with lend-lease.
Conclusion: without Romania Germany would surely be defeated. :/
@@CA-jz9bmyou forgot about British deliveries to USSR what started within weeks after Operation Barbarosa
I am really digging your channel. Have only watched a few videos, but it is a breath of fresh air. I believe that one of the reason we keep repeating history is because instead of learning from it we keep changing it.
If people learn from history then that limits their ability to pursue the path of imperialism now doesn't it? The common denominator and spirit throughout the pages of time is the sociopathic materialist. Spiritual evolution is the greatest enemy of the sociopathic materialist and the empires they will build to support their ideology
@@kinglikuid6109 I respect your view on materialism, but you need material to live. So, somebody has to provide so others can achieve a higher plane of spiritual existence.
@@Dick_Interritus Let me reiterate "sociopathic" materialism. And it is possible to acheive a higher spiritual thought process in this material realm however if selfishness is paramount, that is how you end up with a world with 15,000 nukes sitting on the brink of annihilation, because sociopathic and psychopathic behavior dictate that if I cant have it my way then no one will have anything to include life.
@@kinglikuid6109 Why link materialism to sociopathy instead of, say, putting the blame on national socialism in this case or imperial Japan?
@@BridgeportIPA You can Feel free to apply whatever label makes you sleep better at night. I am not interested in weasal words manipulation or trickery. So I brutally call it what it is and I will not allow anyone to control how I define it.
I love your videos! Especially on the topic of the Nazis and WW2 I don't think I've gained anywhere near as much insight from anyone else in my life. Your research is extremely thorough and your arguments are well thought out, so even though you don't shy away from drawing strong conclusions on some questions I can very much respect the work you put into your content. On top of that you're not afraid of publicly admitting mistakes and inaccuracies, which is another reason why I respect your opinion so much. I just want to let you know your content is being valued greatly, cheers!
Super interesting! Roosevelt saying "we would have to convert ourselves permanently into a militaristic power on the basis of a war economy".
Lmao the Italy quote
Hello. I'm from Vietnam. And I work in the granite and granite industry. It's great to know your country through UA-cam videos. Your country is wonderful and I look forward to one day coming to your country to visit. Nice to meet you and exchange with you and hope you support your UA-cam channel for mutual development. Thanks very much 👍❤❤❤❤
@@harryodum5598 your so silly
@@harryodum5598 lmao
2:07: That quote about Italy aged like fine wine.
Thank you, TIK! It's a great video answering a question that is not frequently addressed. Maybe it could be added that the President of the USA can't declare war on his own but needs the approval of a Congress that was incredibly isolationist.
Great video TIK! it’s worth mentioning on what platform Roosevelt ran for reelection, very much anti-intervention, pro neutrality. As soon as the election was won, he immediately, like the next week or so, went about preparations to increase the support for Britain, increase the US involvement further, increasing pressure on Japan. After the elections, his belligerence increasedimmensly.
And they claim Trump lied.....
Roosevelt - "there are planes that can fly from the U.K. to New England and back without refuelling."
Buchanan - "Planes cant fly from Germany to California, fuck around for a while, and go back, so checkmate bud."
Really nailed it there Pat...
A Focke Wulf 300 crossed the Atlantic during the war and turned back 12 miles short of New York, was probably empty though.
The US B35 & B36 aircraft did not become operational until just after WW2. Both were designed to bomb Germany from bases in the US.
Roosevelt said New England not California!
@philipcone357 Yeah, i said that! Then Buchanan said the thing about California. It didnt make any sense in the video
I was taught in a manner that made the decision look completely irrational and had no idea about the U-Boot engagements. Your vids should definitely be played in schools
Hitler was ironicaly spot on about Italy.
Italy was one of the victors in World War I and had previously defeated the Ottomans to take Libya. This happened well Hitler was an adult. He was simply freaking delusional
@@ronmaximilian6953 The Ottomans had already lost the important sections of North Africa like Algeria (France) and Egypt (first France then Mamelukes then UK) and were still loosing territories to those great powers, such as Cyprus (UK) and Tunisia (France) while Austria and Russia coveted their holdings in the Balkans. Libya was essentially a strip of desert that wasn’t prioritized by the Ottomans and Italy did what they do best. They got in where they could fit in.
@@Sovnarkom I didn't compare it to the Romans defeating Carthage. I'm really sad that Italy won a war against the Ottomans. Kicking a dying Empire while it's down may not be honorable, but it was still a win. Italy did a lot better here than they did in 1896, when they lost to Ethiopia
@@ronmaximilian6953 It’s arguable. Ethiopia was able to focus more attention against them, since their relations with France and Britain had stabilized. The town of Adwa also has an elevation that rivals the highest peaks of the Apennines. That difficult terrain was in favor of the Ethiopians (like the spring mud and winter snows in Russia) which made this defeat more digestible. They received a lot of bad press on their performance, only because European diplomatic circles were so racist in those years. The Italian part of this was not their poor performance on the battlefield but their unreliable diplomatic treaty that precipitated that conflict. They signed a treaty with Ethiopia demarcating the border with Eritrea. However the Italian version of this treaty proclaimed all of Ethiopia as a protectorate of Italy whereas that remark was omitted from the Amharic version. The Ethiopian emperor only recognized that charade when his diplomats were turned back in Europe and then declared war on Italy.
Hitler’s assessment of their performance was informed by how they faired in the Spanish Civil War. They were bankrupted by that conflict. When you read between the lines, it seams like the Italians understood that they weren’t a great power. That was the source of their great obsession for securing a “seat at the table” in a postwar treatise. They rushed to invade Albania (after Germany invaded Czechoslovakia) out of fear that they may be left out of a negotiation with Britain/France. It’s a very table scraps mentality.
@@Sovnarkom I thought Cyprus was given to the UK for aiding against the Russians in the Crimean War.
Good to see more content from you. Always enjoy your logic and your voice.
Well, I hope you enjoy this one :)
Hey TIK,
big fan here. Because of my interest in Aviation and men like Lindbergh I got into the topic of American Isolationism before the war and especially Lindbergh's position on the war and his "conflict" with Roosevelt. Will you do a video on that topic in the future?
Just found this channel! Loving it. Thank you!
Hey TIK, thanks a lot for this very thoughtful video, I would love to see a continuation of this debate.
My thoughts are as follows:
- The outbreak of war in 1939 must be solely blamed on Germany for obvious reasons. Yes, you could argue that Poland was unwilling to accept the German annexation of Danzig, which had a German majority, but in my opinion Hitler had already shown his colours with the destruction of Czechoslovakia just half a year earlier. In addition, and this is very important, UK and France were in no mood for war just 20 years after the last devastating war had destroyed an entire generation of their young men und wasted enormous ressources. Just look at the UK: they were in financial trouble even before the war, and althought hey ended up on the winning side, they were basically bankrupt and lost their empire which had lasted for centuries. France had even less intention to fight a war with Germany, as the last war had taken place on French soil and probably so would the next one. In fact, I would say that UK and France carry the least blame of all nations involved (although this is clearly up for debate)
- However, I would argue that the conduct of Roosevelt before the USA's official declaration of war was highly belligerent towards Germany, TIK does a fantastic job of pointing this out in the video (I mean, supplying war material to one side while simultaneously officially ordering to shoot at the other side's naval vessels is hardly neutral). And the reason therefor is, in my opinion, quite simple and has more to do with practical considerations than political ideology:
France and UK had nothing to gain from a war with Germany, however, the USA had everything to gain, and they gained everything. WW2 transformed the USA from an isolated economic powerhouse into a militaristic superpower, and I would argue that the USA were the only true beneficaries of WW2 (the Soviet Union also became a superpower, but was it worth 27 million lives?) In 1941, Roosevelt basically saw things like this: the war would exhaust UK and France and destroy their colonial empires, and both Germany and the Soviet Union would grind themselves down, so if he played his cards correctly (which he did), he could establish the USA as the world's dominant power. If you dont believe this, then just look at the Suez crisis of 1956, you will see that the USA had absolutely zero interest to help uphold the power of UK and France.
Now before you hate on me, I am not saying that the USA provoked WW2, but i think that Roosevelt decided to become involved for his own benefit. Even if the Western powers in 1939, UK and France, were planning a war against Germany (which makes no sense, they declared war only to defend themselves), this does in no way justify Germany's terrible atrocities, especially since they were no part of the war effort.
TIK, i would love to hear your opinion on my arguments. And keep up the great work!
I largely agree with your arguments. The USA wasn't working with Britain - she was working to bankrupt her (although Britain also bankrupted herself...) and for her own benefit. Churchill was begging Roosevelt to join the war pretty much from the beginning, yet Roosevelt denied Britain help, showing that their alliance wasn't total. This is something that the Nazis won't acknowledge because it doesn't suit their agenda.
"The outbreak of war in 1939 must be solely blamed on Germany for obvious reasons"
I recommend you read Simon Newman's "March 1939: The British Guarantee to Poland". A good read on how it's so illogical to say that the country which declared war had nothing to do with starting the war.
@@AFGuidesHD thanks for your recommendation, I will look into it. I can assure you that I defend the UK or France only because I think it is fair. These countries did a lot wrong in ww1, however in the 1930ies they were, in my opinion, doing their best to preserve the peace. It would have been easy for them to start a war over the Sudetenland, yet they chose not to do so, instead they sat down down with the Germans and negotiated. Only when Germany touched territory that certainly wasn't theirs (Czechoslovakia 1939) did they realize that they had to fight to protect their own interests. Don't get me wrong, I'm really no fan of churchill and Roosevelt, quite the opposite in fact(due to their pathological hatred for Germany), but the fact that Germany chose war in 1939 cannot be turned around. They wanted power and finally perished in their own deadly game
Ok its not entirely britains fault. But they should have just let germany go east. It makes no sense to declare war because germany can become a treath to britain and france jn the future. Because germany can become a large power in europe. It is definitely gonna invade britain later on. Even tho germany was ruled by a man who wanted good relations with britain and also france. Britain is making hitler his ambition to build a strong germany a problem for millions of citizens. And make a small war a terrible one for the whole world. Because there might be a chance that germany will invade britain. Even if they have not good acces to the british isles. It is stupid. And there is no reason for britain to declare war on germany. Maybe for france because they share a border. But not for britain.
Germans were being mass murdered in Poland this was the reason for the invasion.
Thank you for the closed captions!
My pleasure! I just wish UA-cam hadn't removed the feature that allowed others to contribute captions, because people used to translate what I said into other languages
finally, a real reason and not teachers saying that hitler was dumb
But it was a dumb reason.
@@alanbeaumont4848 The original commenter still has a point, often we hear “teachers” saying Hitler went to war with the US because hes dumb and never really said much about why he even did it in the first place.
@@firemangan2731 It's objectively stupid because it made no sense militarily. Germany was already stalled on the East Front; at war with the former ally that had been supplying its war machine. Here's a great idea, now let's drag in the USA! Game over.
@@alanbeaumont4848 ‘let’s drag the USA into the war’
You mean actually shoot back at someone who’s been ordered to shoot at you on sight?
And has done so?
@@silent_stalker3687 Germany started crap with the US first by sinking their ships
Germany, Italy and Japan had a treaty the Tripartite Pact! When Roosevelt held his "Day of Infamy" -speech he asked at the end of it Congress to declare war on Japan. And bound by the Tripartite Pact Germany had to declare war on the USA!
The comparison of Japan and Italy really made me laugh. Italy was just totally unprepared for the war.
I still would rather be a POW with Italy than with the evil empire of Japan. How many times have the Japanese, Germans and Russians army committed such brutal atrocities to civilians compare to the Italian army. I can think of many documented cases that the others committed but not one case for the Italian army.
@@michaeltorres638 the Italian army comitted many atrocities (particullary in the balkans). Certainly less than Germany and Japan but we did our crime during world war II
@@michelearmellini5468 As did the US. In Italy even. Italy at the very least was not AS perverse as Germany with their fascist ideology. I could see myself trying to reason with the Italians to at least not kill me, but the Germans or Soviets? Even if the German soldiers would treat me decently, god forbid I get into the hands of the SS.
Can we all just agree that everyone done their own share of crimes in any war?
@@michaeltorres638 you know why? Coz Italy got.. umm.... nothing in comparison to germany/japan?
"in relation to the general cause of British victory to which we are committed" - Ambassador in Spain to the Secretary of State, Jan .29 1941
B-but why would Germany attack the neutral, benevolent and peace loving US of A ?
Supplying the enemy, in this case the British, is not an act of war. EDIT - I stand corrected, it does go against chapter 13, article 6 of the Hague convention.
@@nonomnismoriar9051 supplying a belligerent state with weapons, certainly is an act of war, certainly removes the laws on neutrality. The USA declared war on Germany in WW1 over a mere offer of supplying weapons to Mexico lol
@@AFGuidesHD It declared war over unrestricted submarine warfare in the Atlantic and because of the Zimmerman telegram inciting Mexico to occupy parts of the US.
EDIT- But you are right, I stand corrected on the first point, it does go against chapter 13, article 6 of the Hague convention.
@@nonomnismoriar9051 uh yes it is
@@bertchintus4103 I already corrected it.
You connected all the threads perfectly. Incredible,. Thanks.
Wow, and I just finished watching a History Channel show explaining that the space aliens made him do it.
Space aliens always attack Japan in Godzilla movies. American movies they attack USA.
It's always *aliens*
Nazi aliens.
The History channel is a parody of its past self.
So IF I understand this correctly, it all comes down to point 1: there already was a war-like scenario and the declaration of war was just a formality ?
Pretty much on part of the USA.
And pretty much the same reason WW1 happened; globalism bullshit.
‘Oh hey you stepped this corner, so we have to get involved’ ‘oh they’re a a Allie so we have to get involved’ and so on.
ua-cam.com/video/Y_ggEKWB8-E/v-deo.html
A short video summary.
Ever wonder why hitler believed internationalism was a trap?
This is why.
@@silent_stalker3687 So you don't believe that a country should have an Ally? (Ally: a country that has agreed officially to give help and support to another one, especially during a war). So you don't feel any need to support others? Wars happen for many reasons and often the people themselves agree with their leaders, there are no adult-innocents now-days. We all take sides one way or another now in modern times, communication is at it's highest peak for humans.
What about in a local setting, your neighbour-hood, or in political terms? Being an ally is: someone who helps and supports other people who are part of a group that is treated badly or unfairly, although they are not themselves a member of this group.
Humans have always allied with one another, so of course it happens between countries. Why wouldn't it? There is strength in numbers. Common-sense.
Who can say if their choice is right or wrong - I guess the outcome decides that in a way.
You give no reason why YOU have such an opinion. But to sit back and deny help to others in a time of real trouble would be rather selfish. Regards to all.
@@ladybug591 artificial allies?
Yes I do y believe those should be a thing.
‘Hey if I’m attacked you defend me’
How it works on paper
If 1 is attacked 2 defends, if 3 attacks, 2 defends, if 4 attacks 3 defends.
Your care isn’t bound to allies but the ‘I know a guy that knows a guy, that knows a guy that signed a agreement on a paper, so you gotta pull bro because I’m going to war for that guy that knows a guy that knows another guy’ 7 or more down, including those who wish you dead.
‘Communication is the highest peak for humans’
Gee I didn’t know you wrote Laws, made deals… you’re doing a shitty job, do better.
You cost 100,000+ jobs with Keystone oil.
This is if you believe humans= politicians and so on that make the alliances and natural protection packs.
The communication and so on you mentioned… guess what?
Is natural, not state enforced or bound.
The US Congress voting for the elimination of all neutrality legislation on November 13, 1941, made it legally possible to take US ships and deliver supplies to directly to London ports. It eliminated all US recognition of the declared German naval war zone around the British isles. From the US legal point of view, that zone no longer held any legitimacy. Without declaring war on America, it would have been almost impossible for Germany to continue their U-boat war against British shipping.
Best history channel on UA-cam.
Thanks for everything.
I’ve always wondered this 🤔 thanks for covering it
Our first peacetime draft was in 1940... Why would we have one of those?
The only question is: were they wanting war, or reacting to Hitler and Japanese aggression?
@@TheImperatorKnight Here is something out of left field. What if Roosevelt wanted to become involved in order to "get" America out of the Depression?
@@professorpewpuew We were already headed that way. The job market was opening up, people had a little more money for luxuries like movies and treats, let alone rent and clothing. More automobiles were being made. We were getting back to work.
We have a draft twice a year. Mobilization is a different matter. The Finnish army was called for additional training, when the USSR made territorial claims in early October 1939.
I appreciate your hard work and dedication in to keeping history transparent and clear from all perspectives
Great information as alwais TIC. You are a reference. Thank u very much. If you have courage to speak about the present situation, I will pay for hear you if is necesary. 👌. Sorry for my bad english, i al from Spain. You are a english teacher for me too, 🙂. Thanks again.
It was unexpected that he brings up Patrick Buchanan’s book about the Unnecessary War, which I read. Too bad we didn’t have the two term limit on Presidents in 1940 as Roosevelt was able to take on unusual authority. Imagine if the U.S. had never entered WWI.
Read a piece on why Hitler was Times' Man of the Year regarding Rooosvelt
Just want to say thank you Tik for your video on Hitler's socialism. It's sad that too few historians (and people in general) understand national socialism. It was a fantastic video.
Thank you! It's one of my best. I actually mention it in this video... and the salty comments in that video... A lot of people would disagree with you though (and me). They refuse to accept the facts.
@@TheImperatorKnight there is no cure to mental illness.
It's one of the reasons I support the channel
Same here. I always understood that Nationalism Socialism was Socialism of a different Flavor, but in a world where we have inherited the "Nazis are Right-wing Extremists and Communists are Left-wing Extremists," it helps to have a nice reference video that concisely details how that is not the case. You'd think it would be easy to explain how Nazis and Commies are both authoritarian Socialists that mainly disagree over who should benefit most from the State control, but danged if people don't like to have their pre-conceptions of generations overturned by a simple statement like that.
Sadly it's something you see often. The WW2 Oversimplified guy pulled a Tiananmen square and completely memory holed the National Socialist Workers party and it's socialist history glossing over it saying,"Hitler was absorbed by right wing ideology."
Simple answer is. Hitler didn't want war with the USA, you can argue "YET" that he would maybe one day. But Roosevelt most definitely wanted war with Germany, at the very least, for Germany to win the current war it was in. The USA was an economic, and industrial trade hub, and honestly if Germany become a dominate power in Europe, created a closed European economy with Germany at it's center imagine how much that would hurt American economic interest? Japan also wanted to create a Autarky with the Co-Prosperity Sphere they gloated about. This would of left the USA with only South America and the British Commonwealth nations as trade partners. USA at this time was always for open world trade, with half if not two thirds of the worlds stuck in closed economies imagine how much that would effect the world market?
btw I meant to say "for german to lose the current war it was in." not "win." xD
A closed European economy would be seriously deficient in natural resources.
Roosevelt’s “Germany First” policy says it all.
@@hailexiao2770 really, outside of some rare metals and rubber I doubt that would of been a problem for them.
@@hailexiao2770 you're ignoring all European colonial possessions, many proto-EU proposals (such as Ribbentrops European confederation) included European Africa, and with the Japanese removing European influence from the Indochinese nations, Indonesia and the Phillippines, Africa and the small portion under European control in South America would provide enough raw resources to maintain the industrial consumer economy of Europe. The Co-Prosperity Sphere's main aim was pan-Asian trade and to remove European colonial interest, but there would still be trade where it benefits - Autarky is the rejection of the Wealth of Nations' assertion that nations ought to sacrifice primary industries if other nations can do it better and cheaper (like agriculture, automotive and industrial production et cetera) and simply trade for the mutual profit. Smiths assertions create trade interconnectivity and prevents war to an extent because nations hold each other's primary needs as hostage against one another, which Autarky seeks to prevent on a matter of principle
You are wrong, look up the Tripartite Pact, Germany was obliged to declare war on the US if the US declared war on Japan.
Obliged? Under what penalty, voter?
Japan attacked the US
@@justinsutton5005 Is government school the reason you can list no US Act of War prior to Pearl Harbor?
@@gregorywade1559 Act of War is different than a declaration. The thing that mafe Japan attack the US was the embargo the US put on them for the invasion of China.
@@justinsutton5005 I'll take that as a "Yes."
Sorry, government school, you do not know enough to have this conversation
TIK, love your videos! I have a quick question to you regarding the topic though: why not simply leave the "war" (I have no idea if I should use quotes or not) with the US as it is, undeclared and unescalated as it may be? Even if the US in investing heavily in arming and aiding Germany's enemies, direct US envolvement with troops on the ground fighting the germans and vast manpower pool would be terrible for Germany, so even delaying the declaration or waiting until the US declared war would, in my view, be beneficial.
The only way I can explain this situation is, and I'm very sorry I don't remember my source so this may be unreliable, Ribbentrop telling Hitler something along the lines of: "A great power does not allow itself to be declared war upon, instead it declares wars upon others.". What is your take on this?
Keep the awesome content coming, cheers!
The REAL reason...I was waiting for you to say, “OIL”. 🤣
I'm just the 'oil guy' 😢🛢️
@@TheImperatorKnight No. You’re also the stick to tanks guy.
OMG! I was waiting for that same word! xD
Natives oil extra...
Its always OIL.
Wow, you peaked my interest in the last minutes - do a video on the Table Talks, too, please. Cheers!
Thanks for sharing Josh Steel
I was always under the impression that it was because since Japan was at war with them now,he hoped by declaring war on the USA Japan would now help him and attack Russia in the east..!! Another great video..:)
Nice reference to Buchanan’s book. It’s worth a read.
Just found your channel this month and already feel much better educated. Thanks!
Awesome, glad to hear it! :)
Well, all historians are revisionists - that's literally what historians do, revise history.
See my history theory video ua-cam.com/video/PvpJEc-NxVc/v-deo.html and my "Why we need a new term for Revisionist Historians" video ua-cam.com/video/ruqt8uv__18/v-deo.html
The Nazi historians decided to take on the title "revisionist" to try and legitimise themselves, and also undermine the mainstream historians. By doing so, they can claim that mainstream historians are "rewriting history" to "suit their agenda". But of course, "rewriting history" is what historians do, and everyone has biases and agendas (my agenda is to tell in-depth and super accurate history). So their argument doesn't work, but it does work if people don't understand history theory, which is why my history theory video and the revisionist video was created - to educate people against the lies.
The real question is: Why did he make a declaration of war at all? Before this he just attacked and invaded countries with no declaration. Why did he decide to make it known without his customary sucker punch? It may have been his 2nd biggest mistake after invading Russia.
Different mentalities and political situation... Also, believe it or not, germans, especially the navy, prided itself on "fighting clean" unlike those "mongrel nations". It fed their sense of moral superiority. A psychologist would of course point at this as a clear case of compensation... Pretty much akin to a male feminist "white knight" who turns out to be a horrific creep with a sexual abuse rep sheet a mile long...
@@aceofswords1725 I agree with your saying that Germans had pride in and tended to fight clean. Most German generals were horrified with Hitler never declaring war. My question is not referring to Germans in general but to Hitler's own habit/tactic of invading or attacking without a declaration of war.
@@nealteitelbaum8660 They were so horrified, that they never fought a properly declared war on land :-D They of course use it as key stone of their strategy of surprise attack.
The Ukraine flag and invasion of "Russia" gave me all i needed to know about you champ. All hail Brandon.
@@user-jv3mm6vt6e F Brandon and F Trump.
I suppose this has already been up, but it's good. In WWII someone asked Churchill what he thought about the Italians being on the German side since they had been on the allied side in WWI. Churchill replied "it's only fair."
I love your videos man, you are really underappreciated for your effort and content. Thanks for everything.
Hello TIK . You are Right. The speech of declaration of war made by Hitler in the Reichtstag tell exactly that! Because of the land leasing Russia was already using Thompson’s guns, Shermans tanks and p38. Americans planes.
Só USA were already fighting a war with Germany. But was not mobilized.
Very good analysis! Keeping always the good work.
ua-cam.com/video/JSZFCa7NBec/v-deo.html
The propagand
www.dailymotion.com/video/x3lwscl
Unfortunately the UA-cam policy do not allows to use the speech of Hitler himself. But if you want to hear from him self the reason use the link of daily motion. But use this only for study porpoise.
I like to compliment you with your analysis of the political situation between Gemany and the US, back in '39-'41. I found it very enlightening. Must have taken a lot of time researching your resources. Nice to hear the original voicerecodings. History(TIK) at its best.
I was taught that the agreement between Germany, Italy and Japan stated that if any country declared war on any of them, the other two would join in and declare war (The Tripartite Pact). Following the US declaring war on Japan following the attack on Pearl Harbor, required Germany and Italy to declare war on the US
USSR also wanted to join that pact.
@@jasonbell6234 They also wanted to join NATO lmao
@@eodyn7 not really, it was a win if they were accepted or weren't
Roosevelt promised 50,000 plane per year production in May 1940, of which a substantial amount would be in the RAF. Plus UK production on top. Germany could not compete with the level of aircraft at the UKs disposal. Whether the planes had US and UK pilots or just UK pilots they were coming Germany's way. The only way they could really get at each other was by air. Germany feared mass bombing, which came - the bomber in the late 1930s was perceived as a war winning weapon. This mass of planes had to be countered.
The Germans knew the lead time for aircraft was 18 months from order to delivery. That meant in late 1941/early 1942, these planes would be starting to come into service in great numbers. Germany needed the resources of the east to compete. If the population was too big they would eliminate the population - the precedence was the American move to the west expanding the USA, taking lands from the native populations and Mexicans then eliminating the population. Hitler could do the same to his east. Prof Adam Tooze highlights this.
The reason why Hitler attacked the USSR. This is not the key reason why Hitler declared war on the USA, but probably one of the key peripheral contributing reasons why. He could then attack US ships in the Atlantic loaded with planes to be used against him.
See the Koch family sending oil to Hitler in in the 30's up to December 1941.
Hitler: Japan has never been defeated.
Yi Sun-sin: Bruh
@@Edax_Royeaux The Turtle warships are still making their way across the channel.
@@MarkVrem haha
@@Edax_Royeaux but he did defeat them
yeah Ming China deserves some of the credit ... Japan still lost however you measure.
@@Edax_Royeaux Japan's Goal was invasion and conquest. Did Japan Achieve that goal? No? Then they Lost an Offensive War.
22:48 "Air to Air refueling had not yet been invented in 1940."
Nope
The first mid-air refueling, based on the development of Alexander P. de Seversky, between two planes occurred on June 27, 1923, between two Airco DH-4B biplanes of the United States Army Air Service.
It wasn't yet in service but Roosevelt's advisors surely told him it could be developed and utilized.
Do you have the source for this information? References pleas.
@@afh1982 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_refueling - There are several sources listed at the bottom of the article.
I love how even Hitler partook in Italian Military meme.
Very thought provoking, as usual. Keep it up. This is a very interesting and important topic.
By the way, after WWII the US continued the arsenal of democracy, as the USSR was the arsenal of communism.
So if Roosevelt wanted war so badly, why was his first recourse to use diplomacy and embargos to stave off war? Japan for example could of gotten the embargo lifted if they ceased their aggression and returned un-justly taken lands.
I'd also bet Roosevelt was aware of some of these quotes from Hitler and was talking about how clearly aggressive Hitler was.
Only the congress could declare war, not the president by himself.
He used diplomacy and embargoes to PROVOKE a war. The only reason he didnt declare outright is that he couldnt - only the congress can. So, he started a bunch of provocatory policies instead so that war would be declared anyway (either by enemy that has no choice as a de facto state of war exists, or if an enemy responds to the provocation, using that as a casus belli that would be presented to the congress).
@@glennlgg6871 we should have fought with Germany against mass murderer Stalin.
Germany and Japan were VERY close Allies, and worked together.
From Hitler's View, the USA Did Declare War, so Hitler just confirmed it.
hi tik! i like your researches, can you do some research about the pacific war, thank you tik
You quoted Patric Bucanan's Book. What's your op;inion on that book, and the theory pf the two unnecessary War's? Love your vids!
Using Bucanan’s book ruined this video for me. I don’t trust a word he says about anything.
@@glennlgg6871 I wouldn’t trust his interpretation of history. That’s similar to trusting David Irving’s interpretation of history.
@@bingbong3643 He posted a video regarding posts like yours in the comments just now and TIK made perfect sense. TLDW; Should he have asked Churchill's or Roosevelt's opinion instead of Buchanan or Irving who are known antisemites and have fascist sympathies?
@@Perkelenaattori Does that mean we will get a part 2 from the other perceptive?
He did it for an "emotional jolt?!" He should have just drunk a bunch of coffee.
or done some more meth
Or both.
Will quote a old statenment here.
"Rather be prepared for war and not have war then have war and not be prepared".
Another really interesting video. If I ever watch my DVDs of the World at War again, I will have a number of different perspectives to the ones I was brought up on. By the way, loads of adverts on this video, around one every 3 minutes for me.
"The main and insane reason..." - I love this already, without having watched more than the intro...
I know it's a different topic, but ... I recently read an article in which the author tried to prove that Hitler's decision to attack in the Ardennes was not at all evidence of madness. On the contrary, the author argues that any military leader in this situation would do the same.
The Americans had logistical problems at the time, but it was known that they would get these problems under control quickly, so this was the only sensible moment to attack them. The constant defensive fight could not improve the situation of the Germans, and the attack at the moment of the opponent's weakness was rational and could bring some effect. The author also argued that it was not a "gamble" because the Germans never made the success of operations conditional on the acquisition of US fuel depots. There is no convincing evidence that they knew the exact location of these fuel depots, and even if they did know their location, it was impossible to obtain them intact. The author argued that before the offensive began, they had accumulated enough fuel to go where they wanted - at least they thought so, but they were not counting on American fuel. The author also argues that at the same time (or almost simultaneously) the Germans continued to send more vehicles and soldiers to the eastern front. So - a very interesting thesis. The author gave the names of individual army units, exact amounts of fuel, troop movements, etc. Unfortunately, I read this text on my smartphone, on the basis that a bit accidentally popped up on someone's profile and I can't find the source. But the question is - to your knowledge can this author be right at all?
Hi Tik, can you help me out? I have a presentation about the eastern front for school, and would like to know a citation or quote from a 'German point of view of the war/eastern front'. Like a good long quote that sums up what went on on the eastern front or what the Germans thought about the situation. Can you tell me one?
greetings, Tommy
This was one I already knew the answer to. Your answer is correct so I became a subscriber in order to learn some of the many things I don't already know.
I find your scholarly perspective, free of political biases, first class history.
bravo, TIK!
It is biassed. Britain and Usa are the culprits for Ww2. Not Germany
@@costacosti9725
Typical Nazi apologist. Germany is still responsible for the war as they have invaded a country that was, key word, GURANTEED by France and Britian through the Anglo-Polish agreement of 1939 to which Britian and France promises war if Germany crosses the line and since Germany crossed the line then theres war. This has been confirmed multiple times by qualitfied historians, even German historians, not politcal apologists, yet you Neo Nazis always wanted to blame Britian because you all are still bitter about the loss of the “aryan” race.
Source: avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/blbk19.asp
@@firemangan2731 But why Germany invaded Poland? Poland had german teritories after ww1. They mearly wanted back these territories. Russi also invaded Poland. If you say Britain entered the war because their guarantee to Poland why they did not declare war also to Russia. Russia took half of Poland no? This means this was not the real reasson. They did not care Poland. They wanted only to crush Germany. Why? Because Germany was starting to be free from the control of the internationall bankers? And the bankers used their puppet states to end this before It spre ? It is a theorry we should considerate.
he shittalks about magical "marxists" and "socialists" too much, but i would still say that he is very tolerable towards the Soviets and doesn't view WW2 as "Us won, hurray!"
@@firemangan2731 well that's a very controversial topic
Coz it all happened so fast, you can trace back a lot. Like umm, would Hitler still be around if peace wasn't so humiliating? But who ks guilty this kind of defeat? Maybe Bismark is the man, coz he unified Germany?
ye, that's kinda subjective.
Ofc Hitler started the war, but US and UK probably started Hitler...
"The roast of Hitler and Roosevelt"
Roosevelt must have violated TOS. ;)
Good job on this video. This has always been confusing to those growing up on WW2 documentaries that gloss over this.
Hitler's speech declaring war talks about the attacks on ships and U-Boats by American ships which I took as the reason.
my UR - grandfather Otto Kuschow was police chief of Nuremberg at the time ... would it be possible if you could find out something about him? not much can be learned from my family ... unfortunately..thank you!
Great video TIK.
The quotes and recordings from FDR really illustrate why he is hailed as a historic leader.
Politicians are often critiqued for their short-term outlook in pursuit of profit at the expense of long-term thinking. Rarely, it seems, that an individual comes along with a vision not just for today, tomorrow, next year or the next ten years, but for the next generation(s); and that same individual obtains significant powers of government.
What FDR highlights is the tenacious situation of the U.S in the context of global affairs; Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, the Soviet Union etc. He knows that if the U.S doesn't intervene, then the fate of the nation is at risk and potentially jeopardised, that its prosperity will be dependent on - and at the mercy of - one of the aforementioned powers, or another one entirely. Given that it has the power to respond and act autonomously, he orchestrates the U.S to derail Germany's war effort - that too in the face of popular isolationism.
To say FDR wanted to wage war is a tricky one, with arguments for both yes and no. I don't think any leader of a liberal-democracy, particularly of FDR's caliber, would want war for obvious reasons. However, if there's a known murderer in your street you will do whatever it takes to have them arrested.
It largely comes down to realism and Realpolitik.
FDR was an empire builder, like Stalin and Hitler, and like several modern leaders.
The only difference is that he had a congress and democracy to deal with, but in large part he managed to get around them.
What I don’t get about the stab in the back theory is that the German military was on the verge of disintegration in November 1918. The navy was in full mutiny, the army in fully retreat and the cities starving. The reason for the Germans calling for an armistice was that the military realized this.
Not necessarily. Yes things were going bad. But like every war there are low points. They thought they could turn things around especially since major offensives were being planned at the time of surrender. That’s what led to the mindset
I've heard that the "stab in the back" also refers to the war effort being hampered by communist affiliated general strikes in vital industries which hurt the war effort
@@kingorange7739 I get that by the end of the Hundred Days the Allies were basically back where the started in 1914 , had outrun their supply line and winter was coming. The offensive would have ended soon even had no Armastace been requested because it just would have.
As for 1919 though, it woul dhave been a disaster for the Germans. The US would have had a 4 Million strong army at that point, most of whom woul dhave been in France. This army would have been armed with Pederson Devices increasing firepower at the front. American officers woul dhave had 18 months of experience by then, so a repeat the mistakes of late 1917, early 1918 would have been avoided. The Italians would have been attacking from the south and the Anglo - French armies in the Balkans and Middle East would have been released for service in Europe.
Against this the Germans would have been able to release occupation troops from Eastern Europe and maybe get some Poles and Ukrainians but that was about it.
And the German high command knew this.
@@amcalabrese1 dude I’m not arguing against the notion Germany would of lost regardless. I’m saying that the timing is what caused the mindset.
He was specifically saying they can fly from Britain to the East Coast, not west, based on the idea that America needs to intervene to prevent the capitulation of Britain and using it as an airbase, so calculating it based on that is ridiculous. Like saying the UK doesn't have bombers that can't hit Russia because we can't make it Vladivostok and back..
Also America had a bomber which could fly that gap, the B-29 Superfortress, which was developed specifically for long range capability at the request of the US, so they doubtless knew it was possible.
I like your view. Great podcast
4:06 YES it is relevant, it was the most relevant part of this video.
Thank you! 100%. The banks played everyone just like they are now