Why Britain wouldn’t just let Hitler go East
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 жов 2024
- Some people (including people like David Hoggan) can’t understand why Britain would declare war on Germany in 1939. They argue that it was a secret plot to bully Germany, and that Britain was the instigator of the war, and that they should have just let Germany go East. Well, this argument quickly falls apart when we look at the map of Europe and think critically, which this video will show.
Correction: As many people have pointed out, I said 1938 instead of 1939 at 9:20 in the video. It was 1939, not 1938. Sorry about that.
🔔 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, and some of the icons used in the video were made by her too. Need graphics? Check out her website www.terriyoung...
- - - -
📚 BIBLIOGRAPHY / SOURCES 📚
Full list of all my sources docs.google.co...
- - - -
⭐ 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.subscribes...
Thank you to my current supporters! You're AWESOME!
- - - -
📽️ RELATED VIDEO LINKS 📽️
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...
History Theory 101 • [Out of Date, see desc...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.
Thank you for all your messages of support last week. I was very tempted to take a week off after many of you suggested that I should, but I decided to plod on and do this video anyway. It felt ‘wrong’ for me to make a short video for a Monday like this, but as I explained last week I needed to do it. Also, there wasn’t enough room to put the Patron list into the video, so I apologize to my Patreons and SubscribeStars for that. The list of names will, of course, return in the future
EDIT: As many people have pointed out, I said 1938 instead of 1939 at 9:20 in the video. It was 1939, not 1938. Sorry about that.
But we especially love the short videos!
Hapoy days 👍🏻
@@altaiaurelius Do you? Maybe I need more feedback on this. I always assumed that longer videos were good
I think a mix of both is good. If a point can be addressed in ten minutes, then by all means do so, don't stretch it out longer for its own sake. Other topics need an hour, so give them an hour.
Strategically.
Can't help wondering if leaving a (mostly) United Europe isn't a bit of a mistake.
“England has no eternal friends, England has no perpetual enemies, England has only eternal and perpetual interests”. -Lord Palmerston
Huh, two people posted the same quote at the same time
@@TheImperatorKnight if the shoe fits...
Then why is the English-Portuguese alliance the longest one in human history?
@TIK it’s nothing personal about that quote, it’s just business!
@@tsaoh5572 Just in case Britain needs leverage against Spain. Came in useful during WW2.
"A United European is a threat to British Sovereignty"
_Shows EU flag_
Peak trolling TIK
Peak honesty. 😉
If the EU ever started being a single state with any sort of unified armed force and foreign policy aims you would likely see some odd bed fellows opposing them. The British and Russians are in agreement that a unified Europe is a treat to their sovereignty, and the US has had a grand strategy of never allowing one power to dominate any region for the past 100 years or so. Could be a rather quick d day and eastern front round 2.
@@jjquinn295 Russia in the past decades never considered a unified independent Europe as a threat (unless such Europe decides to march on Russia like Napoleon and Hitler, both great "unifiers", did - but those times are probably in the past thanks to the nuclear weapons). But currently the EU, especially in its supra-national organs, is completely dominated by the Americans, so it is not reliable whatsoever. If you want to achieve something of substance, you would not talk with a puppet but rather with the puppeteer, right?
@@Tallorian yes, but that is why the condition was that the EU would have to become a real state with its own foreign policy. You don't get that as a puppet. Also while Russia had issues stopping European unification in the 1990s, when Georgia and Ukraine were in negotiation to try and enter nato and the EU, they invaded and froze the war. They don't actually want to end those wars, because you can't join nato while you are at war.
@@jjquinn295 Cases of Georgia and Ukraine has nothing to do with fear of unified Europe. It's all about Putins fear of NATO members at Russian borders. And in case of Crimea he managed to not only jeopardize Ukrainian membership - and therefore denied NATO fleet presence in Crimean ports - he also got to station Russian Black sea fleet there for free
"Is it a conspiracy?. No. It's just Britain being Britain."
*Everybody agreed with that* (especially the British :D )
It,s what we do. .......... Rule Britannia
The British siding with their enemy the US out of a fear of a hypothetical threat from the Continent. Result: lost the Empire, lost sovereignty, but Germany is dead. Grats.
- Adûnâi
@@stuartgmk rule with your behind?
Europa the last battle explains this so much better.
^×3 Clearly *Real Politic* is a concept beyond you 😒 .
The threat of one nation / a group of nations monopolizing "europe" was only too *real* (not "hypothetical"), anfld the UK had seen it happen before during the Napoleonic Wars, as France briefly had a monopoly over the region, requiring great expense in men, treasure & time to break it up again.
The UK also opposed breaking up France after Napoleon's defeat, because while seeing France dismembered would have been amusing, it would only further complicated the regional balance of power.
Germany was no different in being a threat to the status quo, as was the Soviet Union after the Germans were neutered.
In short: better to prevent a regional rival from getting too strong, than be forced to fight them *after* they've gained regional hegemony.
In this the UK's only mistakes with Germany was expecting France to hold up its side of the pact (it didn't), and having given Germany too much leeway in the years preceding the bucketheads frogmarching into Poland.
"I was a business man, doing Business"
Not under lockdown you weren't
TIK take care of yourself. Don't let this burn you out. Then we'd all be fucked. Pick up a little lady and fly to Florida. You can stay at my house. There are great blues bars down here. You will have a good old time.
@@TheImperatorKnight
I have two Ww2 questions that could make for interesting videos to do about.
First question: "How brutal and violent was Imperial Japan's military when compared to National Socialism Germany's military and how many people did they harm?"
Second question: "What did the national debt of the allies, soviets, and axis nations look like before, during, and after Ww2 and did it affect the outcome of the war and the economies?"
underrated
Britain is the Vincent Adultman of the world.
When Britain declared war on Germany Hitler said " l have always had a love affair with England, unfortunately that love was never reciprocated".
@@AthelstansSuccessorbetter than being under a nazi regime. Listen to yourself 😂
Pre-war Hitler had more admirers in Britain than he guessed.
In the1930's, more people in Britain were terrified of the Soviet Bolshevicks than Hitler.
It is only post war that Hitler gets fully monstered.
Yeah he was probably lying. Something Hitler did for his entire political career.
@@oscarmccoy9102
The total control over my people or the outright replacement of them. 🤔
I'm gonna go with the former.
@@zoch9797 you would rather live under a dictatorship than have a neighbour that’s a different race from you. You are ridiculous and sheltered.
The alliance with Portugal made sense for centuries. They always kept an ally in continental Europe and one that had one of the largest coast in the Atlantic. A coast where British ships passed from and to their colonies. For Portugal it made sense too, being allied with a nation that had a strong navy and that navigated the same waters. I know that the alliance was made pre age of discovery (and colonization), but had it's ripe fruits in that era.
And tea.
@@He_who_rides_many_winds Don't forget the Port
@@shahstormaggedoni5854 Yes.
E se você olhar as terras que Portugal descobriu você percebe que a Inglaterra se aproveitou de muito as custas da navegação lusitana
But for sheer mining and railroading interests in southern Africa Britain betrayed Portugal and practically ended the centuries-old alliance.
"Nations don't have friends, nations have interests"
- Winston Churchill
So what Britain did to unsteady Hong Kong in the last 3 years were strictly for self-interest. Don't ever try to claim the moral high ground of human rights and democracy.
Yea and that's why it's a shame to talk about morale when acting solely by interests.
@@sjsupa "Alright Mr - ahem - Comrade Xi, I said it, please give me back my family"
@@thefrenchareharlequins2743 Whatever Comrade Xi does is strictly by the national self-interest as well, just like Sir. Winston Churchill . Your family is in the least of his consideration.
@@sjsupa Still doesn't make the side that does things like the social credit system and the thing with the Uighurs right.
You know a UA-camr is good when he can get you to watch 10 minutes of him pointing at maps
I see you've changed your name to include the hashtag. What's the meaning behind it?
@@TheImperatorKnight It is support for the Scottish Libertarian Party candidate for the constituency of Motherwell and Wishaw and (because of the very complex Scottish voting system where everybody gets two votes) the electoral region of Central Scotland, Mark Meechan. Scottish elections are in three days, their ambition is to beat the Greens.
@@thefrenchareharlequins2743 I saw dankulas video, the slp aren’t real libertarians
@@iconsumedmt1350 And Uncle Angus isn't a real Scotsman.
Let me introduce to you .......... Krebs.
Essentially, Britain's foreign policy (throughout history) is to use its indominable position as an island nation (large navy) to prevent any hegemon in Europe to maintain the classic balance of power without ever being threaten by invasion itself.
Long gone now. They’ve been invaded by the third world
Are you just summarising the video for us, or are you trying to show us that you have the required English language skills to do so?
@@frenzalrhomb6919 why are you mad bro
@@masterclass3941 Do you honestly care? Or are you just hanging around to interject with your boring little "bro" opinion?
This is an A and B conversation, please C your way out!!
@@frenzalrhomb6919 why are you bro
Britain's foreign policy has always been to keep European nations/states fighting eachother. That was the whole point, keep the continentals divided so they can't gang up. This has been the policy with variations for a thousand years give or take. This was also the policy for a lot of European countries but they didn't have the luxury of being on an Island.
In that case, why not attacked Germany from the West and forced Hitler to spit out Poland?
"divide and rule"
@@sjsupa Primarily a Naval power so we had a small standing army. Plus how do we get there?
About 600 years. before that the Anglo-Norman kings' main objective was to unite Britain, France, and Ireland under their rule.
@@brucetucker4847 Debatable. Snuffing out France - as a rival - has long been a British passtime.
It would have been suicide for Britain to fight Germany and the USSR at the same time after they invaded Poland in September 1939.
Yes. It sucks for Poland, but this is true
The USSR was a far greater threat and Germany was far more similar to Britain
@@punishedgloyperstormtroope8098 Germany had a racial agenda for Europe, thus Germany was a bigger threat.
@@TheImperatorKnight What's your take on preventative measures as opposed to Sept 1939? I think you touched on it loosely in the Poland video, but If it weren't for appeasement delaying the French and British response, Poland seems like it would have had a fighting chance against a lone Germany, or even as a bulwark against the USSR while French & British troops harass Germany, assuming they get their assaults in prior to Polish collapse.
@@dragosstanciu9866 that's some nonsensical logic. I would argue that having a social/class agenda like the soviets did would be a much bigger threat than the racial agenda in Europe at that time. Though, you're better off with neither.
Many British people in the 1930s would have been happy to just let him. Many were sympathetic to Germany's plight and were impressed at how he had built a strong and nationalist Germany out of the ashes of the chaos of the 1920s, and viewed him as a bulwark against the Bolshevists.
The vast majority if Brits did not support Hitler.
So true. It’s extremely sad that we live in a timeline where the west betrayed Germany and ultimately the entirety of Eastern Europe to communism.
Thats only because they didn't how he built it, and that he was running a vampire economy, not too much different from the Bolsheviks.
Germany was pretty unpopular among Britons for years before, really the only people that wanted to pursue peace was Halifax and Moseley, of which Halifax was quickly removed from any power after Halifax failed to win the 1940 war cabinet crisis and Moseley was in prison for the entire war. Even among almost all conservative MPs and voters they commonly thought of Austrian Painter to be a tyrannical war monger.
Churchill and the other hawks wanted a war
"The other hawks" such as Hitler, Mussolini?
Germany is becoming too strong (1936).
Churchill quote:
You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism, but against the strength
of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless of whether it is in the hands
of Hitler or a Jesuit Priest.
Hitler had never wanted war with Britain.
Hitler had also never planned for a world war.
He wanted to invade Russia (Lebensraum).
@@PerPressso your argument is that Hitler didn’t want a World War, just a little war to conquer, enslave and exterminate only a few countries and a few tens of millions of people.
It’s not the fact that Germany is strong, it’s the fact that it uses that strength to keep trying to attack its neighbours, take their land and get larger and stronger. Such as in 1848, 1864, 1866, 1870 and 1914.
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 didn’t say they weren’t but they certainly were not hawkish to uk unlike Churchill to Germany
@@marksheen4873 So you think the UK and France should have just ignored a powerful European nation with a history of loathing for France & trouble making within Europe, that had just engulfed, Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland?
Britain: Trying for centuries to maintain a disunited Europe
European Union: Threatening to create a disunited Britain
Reverse Uno card
It's okay, the EU can't last in its current form
The thing is the existence of the EU is to the benefit of NATO so big papa won’t let England do their plays. Now if the EU was dumb enough to think it can go it’s own way it would be surprising to see it remain as a cohesive unit for a decade or even one election cycle. As it stands a disunited England is less harmful than a disjointed europa but a uk is more beneficial than the alternative. As long as Europe continues to nip at the heels of the used to be power in the east and yip at it from a safe distance things will be a ok
Scotland must become independent.
@@raptorxxl1904 why
@@HPlayss You can't support remaining in the EU but then in the same breath demand indepdence from the UK when literally every argument to stay in the EU can be used to even greater effect in the argument to stay in the UK. But the loony Scottish secessionists still manage those mental gymnastics.
According to Hitler he respected the British empire and wanted it to prosper, he had no plans to dismantle it
Why didn't Hitler respect the Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, Yugoslavia, Denmark, Norway since they were neutral and didn't want war?
But the Americans did have such plans and they succeeded.
@@Overwatch9 not without help from the French and Spanish
But he was a liar, appeasement policy with Czechoslovakia and Molotov-Ribbentrop pact are examples of many.
@@frixxer87All politicians are liars
Thanks for a coherent explanation of British policy that many people get confused about. Also explains British policy against Spain and Louis XIV. Churchill wrote a book about his ancestor Marlborough that clearly shows this pattern.
Napoleon also got frustrated with Britain not accepting him and constantly working to thwart him and entangle him in weakening conflicts with others. Hitler got a mirror image treatment in WWII. More than one frustrated European has railed about "Perfidious Albion"! But it was "just business" as you say.
it all started with the french changeing their laws of succession to prevent being inherented by a Norman king, were it not for french perdidiousness they might not have created perfidious albion
You're going way back. But I knew it had to be those treacherous Frog's all along. Britain's rep has been unfairly sullied.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 that's the wrong reading of history the french feudal lords didn't change the law, the law did not specified who was the succeed the king if he had no mal heir. that is because of the Capetian Miracle (the first 13 kings had a male heir who survived to take the crown) and it changed the law of succession from the traditional frankish elective succession to a hereditary one. There were no jurisprudence in the succession law to prevent to crown going to Philippe de Valois.
Napoleon's continental system, a forerunner of the eu, excluded britain
From trade with Europe.
This was not Britain's choice, this was napoleon's attempt at the economic destruction of his perceived strongest adversary.
@@caractacusbrittania7442 it was Britain choice to support 7 european military coalitions against France between 1792 and 1815
(Insert "Yes Prime Minister" quote on why England is in the EU)
Well actually it is a yes minister quote.
ua-cam.com/video/ZVYqB0uTKlE/v-deo.html
Yes I know I will go back to the salt mines now :D
Sir Humphrey: "Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?"
@@stephenlarson9422 And now Scotland might want it's indepence and join the EU. See, it still works, but it seems the other European countries learned their lesson by now.
@@hjalmar4565 Especially when TIK explains it so clearly
@@paulohagan3309 And the mighty EU doesn't even have to cross the North Sea with an invasion fleet, because they will have a border with England by then.
"England is advising France that they should both go along *regardless of Poland* " - Joseph Kennedy telegram to Washington after a conversation with Halifax.
I believe this is the war plan Hoggan could be referring to.
I also like another quote from Halifax: "the alternative policy of assisting Germany in developing Eastern Europe is not feasible so long as the current economic system is maintained". Was changing the economic system of Germany a factor in Britain going to war?
TIK has shown Hoggan to be a liar many times. Why he mentioned him this time I don't know. It gives an obscure Nazi nut more exposure and credibility than he deserves. It's like seriously discussing the ravings of a reeking street bum.
"Changing the economic system of Germany" is code to "turn them into a pastoral state of deaf musicians and beer producers"
"The unforgivable sin of Hitler's Germany was to develop a new economic system by which the international bankers were deprived of their profits." - Winston Churchill
Hmmm. Sounds highly suspicious to me.
“We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."-Prime Minister Henry Palmerstone
Huh, two people posted the same quote at the same time
But Portugal is sorta our bro.
@@TheImperatorKnight Great minds think alike it would seem.
@@TheImperatorKnight until it takes over the continent...
Thats why I voted for Brexit !
"Nothing personal, its only business" That expreses british and later American external policies, pretty despicable
It’s not just them, it’s all nations. Britain and the US where just more successful at it.
Despicable Me
Nations look out for their own interests. Call it whatever you want.
Chamberlain: Tell Adolf it was only business. I always liked him.
Ribbentrop: He understands that.
Chamberlain: Can you get me off the hook, Joachim? For old times' sake?
Ribbentrop: Can't do it, Neville.
I can’t believe this is the only reference to that film, bloody millenials.
Bruce Tucker: That is a scream. Well done.
Top-tier reference
sauce?
@@rutger5000 The Godfather.
Love how clinical you described Britain’s perspectives on the conflict. Great job TIK can’t wait to see what’s next.
Germany didn't need to expand it's borders in order to develop a naval strength that could rival Britain's supremacy. That was the goal of Germany's Plan Z which was underway with Germany's pre-war borders. It would have taken until 1948 to be completed, though.
Hitler never wanted a war with Britain and he made it clear in Mein Kampf when he regretted that Germany and Britain had fought in the first world war. Hitler considered the British fellow Germanic. Nazi propaganda described the British declaration of war as being "racial treachery".
British RF are from Germany.
@@niweshlekhak9646 Not just Germany
For more that you could believe on Hitler, sooner than later a war would happen, probably because France (France would never accept a Strong Germany), and Britain would join.
@@armandoengand? It was just like in ww2 a defensive war against the brits and french. The german wanted to be left alone from the world
@@ivanbro1208then why did they orient their entire economy around war and invade Poland
Buchanan makes a solid case for exactly what you claim to discredit in his book Churchill hitler and the unnecessary war. Hitler had, until 1939, adhered to an agreement with britain, to limit their own navy to 1/3 of the british. As well as relinquishing all claim to overseas colonies. Nazis and fascists fighting communism to a stalemate is clearly a boon for Britain. Instead they courted disaster and would not have made it without the USA and hitlers error to turn east. The truth is germany was never a real threat to the british empire, but making them one ruined all of Europe, placing half of it in stalins hands and toppling the british empire in the process.
The Zoomer Historian blows this mainstream hack out of the water.
Germany invades Poland.
Britain: this means war !
Russia invades Poland
Britain: *crickets*
Luckily people more intelligent than yourself were running the "show".
Russia didn't invade Poland.
Just only took back lands recognized as Russian after WW1. Borders between newly formed postwar states weredetermined on the basis of nations living in those areas by international commission.
Two Russian revolutions mixed
political cards heavily. First Germany
before end of war was able to renew claims on Baltic shores and securing eastern lines signing
Brest- Litovsk treaty before the end
of war.
(After Versailles all those deals and
treaties were nullified).
But borders between Poland and
Russia were same after collapse
of Poland ( from now part of Germany) as was originally settled
by Versailles.
Because Russia after revolution
totally neglected Western parts
of Russian territory( being busy
to secure their power in central
areas, Poland swiftly stepped in.
Several years of neglecting western
parts Poland asked for recognition
of new status quo. I was promptly accepted.
Situation was also complicated by
creation of National Ukrainian state
( actually 3 different states with very short lived existence).
So funny history but with thousands of casualties....
@@TonyZlatko Well, then Germany taking Danzig and parts of prussia back shouldn't have been a reason for war, right?
They would have loosed
Thanks to churchill, the britons now are going to speak arabic instead of german😒😒😒
European nation has continental ambitions*
Britain: *OI M8, GOTTA STOP YOU THERE*
Love the maps! It makes things clearer!
I spent the whole of yesterday (well over 8 hours) expanding the maps and updating them. They're not 100% accurate, but they're getting there. So, I'm glad to hear you like them 👍
@@TheImperatorKnight The best one is the subtle anti EU one at 1:22. Judging from that and your past videos espousing libertarian-conservative political opinions, are you pro Brexit also?
"a short video" as you say TIK. Well, you deserve a break my friend. The dedication & devilishly hard work you put into your intensely researched videos is nothing less than a series of stupendous achievements! We treasure them all...even the short ones! Now go find a cold Guiness, a big fat expensive cigar & an easy chair!
I prefer ale to Guiness, and will be having some ale tomorrow night with some friends, so I'll wait until then 😉
@@TheImperatorKnight hmm? Ale! I gotta' try it. But don't forget that cigar TIK. If it's expensive, it's good, that's all you need to know. Do one on Hitler's secretary Trudle Junge & how she escaped the bunker. My good friend Artie Jung ('e' dropped) was her relative. He knew her well!
Well, technically you can say that they did this because they didn't want Germany to get all of eastern Europe. Though the result was that Soviet got it instead.
Yep, no win. Yet the modern "historians" pretend that it was an epic struggle that achieved something. It was an epic struggle that achieved nothing.
@@Overwatch9I feel like the fact the Germans were also occupying Western Europe is being overlooked
@@ftlfrog8738nah China would’ve fallen to communism entire reason it did was due to Japanese war in China and it’s consequences
@@Overwatch9historians tend to acknowledge the allies didn't expect to be defeated in 1940.
Balance of Power; the Perfidious Albion...
Yes, Stalin said exactly that to the Germans during the Molotov-Ribbentrop negotiations
Same thing with Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan. But it that isn't important to your argument anyway.
2:46 I enjoyed the reference to the fact that German Shepards were called "Alsatians" for a time.
I know a dog trainer who is passionate about this issue. Some still call them Alsatians, but she demands everyone calls them German Shepards
@@TheImperatorKnight They're very commonly still called "Alsatians" in South Africa.
I honestly didn’t know they were separate
@@TheImperatorKnight Haha wow I had no idea that they were still called Alsatians by some, though I suppose it isn't too surprising given that everyone still calls German Mastiffs "Great Danes"
100 years on and it's still a great way to annoy their owners.
Appeasement also had the virtue of buying some time. Britain was marginally better prepared in 1939 than they had been in 1938. Both the Brits and the French needed more time, but German didn't give it to them because -- as you've pointed out -- they couldn't.
The US Navy was looking to be ready for war around 1946.
Very interesting. I'm French, and there's an historian named Jacques Bainville who also analysed the aftermath of the treaty of Versailles in an essay : "The Political Consequences of Peace" (1920) with the same type of reflexion. Even if it's old and historiography has evolved, this book is one of my favorite. He predicts almost all that will happen in the next 20 years : the Anschluss, annexion of the Sudentenland, the war's cassus belli on Dantzig, the alliance between Italy and Germany or the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact. One of his main argument striked me at 7:36 because for Bainville, the destruction of Austria-Hungary meaned German predominance in Central Europe. The new and somewhat weak states of Central Europe would rapidly fall into Germany's hands, thanks to their economic dependance on Germany + their German diaspora. He advised for the partition of Germany : he saw that the Treaty created a homogeneous German state inhabited by 60M people, untouched by the war on its soil against a 39M devastated France. The result is clear : Germany is less powerful in absolute but more powerful in relative. He blamed this situation on British diplomacy, Wilson 14 points which he describes as unrealistic, and on Georges Clemenceau with his will to destroy Austria (this will be nuanced in the Treaty's historiography).
There's some much more to say about this book, I advise everyone to read it for understanding the French perspective on Versailles, far from the "Versailles was too harsh on Germany" simplification.
What really sunk the continent wasn’t the strategy of the UK to keep European powers neatly balanced against each other, but the appeasement of Hitler’s territorial acquisitions.
Those are some very interesting points, especially about the dismantling of Austria Hungary. I have never heard anyone mention that, yet it makes a lot of sense.
The idea of partitioning Germany seems to come up a lot. And while, as an American, I don't really like the idea, it would remove Germany as an issue at that time.
@@David-il9xw I see your point, and it's true in a sense. But Hitler's territorial acquisitions are a consequence of what happened 15 years before he took power. He would have never dared to annex the Sudentenland if Germany wasn't "naturally attracted" by it. But it's true that the Allies should have been more severe with Germany when Hitler arrived in power. Then again, it's very difficult to say this considering we know what happened next. From what I saw, France was ready to intervene in 1936 but some generals said it was not a good idea, plus Stanley Baldwin's government refused to back up France.
@@shorewall Glad I could help someone discover Bainville lol. As a French, you can understand that for me, partitioning Germany was the most secure option after WW1. Different perspectives I guess : Germany's demographic and industrial superiority over France is a key point to understand French defeat in WW2. With a lot of nuances of course
@@djoumine3648 remember that France had one hundred divisions against 10 German in 1936. Hitler sent his troops over the bridges into the Rhineland with no ammunition for fear they might shoot someone and precipitate a military reaction. Churchill accurately predicted that Czechoslovakia would follow the Anschluss, but by that time Germany was far more powerful. Churchill also got it right by saying that the western powers would sacrifice their honor, over abandoning the Czechs, and get war. True, hindsight leads us to conclusions which fit the historical narrative, but some people did know what was going on and what the remedies were for such a predicament.
Thank you for all your hard work TIK!
The only ‘large’ thing the UK has now is debt.
And the number of immigrants in their cities.
And the modern world is our legacy 🇬🇧
@@AthelstansSuccessor Thanks....
01:57 I am a Pole but living in France, some Frenchmen say : Angleterre = "Perfid Albion"
Perfidious Albion, yes, that's us.
Haha - Perfidious Albion - that old chestnut :)
The way things seem over here in England is that now Brexit has actually happened the EU - often spearheaded by Macron - is reacting with as much difficulty and duplicity as it possibly can, whenever it can…
@@VincentComet-l8e England expects...I don't think that surprised anyone.
I was told once that nickname is given because of the white cliffs of Dover.
Ah those French; they can't even get our island's name right XD.
(That one being a few thousand years out of date... and Greek)
Great work mate! Your channel is very efficient 190K subs but 1000 on Patreon amazing!
I'm really lucky to have such great support from my patrons. It's just a shame this video was too short to put the list of names in
@@TheImperatorKnight Nice mate you should do a reaction video to this one ua-cam.com/video/sbim2kGwhpc/v-deo.html&ab_channel=PotentialHistory
@@alih6953 I saw that video when it came out. In fact, I commented on it thanking him for the shout-out in the video. Not sure I need to do a reaction to it since I agree with all of it
@@TheImperatorKnight It is accurate, I agree it was just to boost your views and awareness of the channel
Yet the British Empire fell anyways and the English ethnic group is endangered from existing. Now Britain is becoming less European. In the end what was all this for?
The British/American elites realize their own mainlands have grown to powerful to control. The information age means that elites don’t need as much of a physical kingdom, but a global kingdom so they have turned their former mainlands into effective colonies
"El NO" you just made me spit my coffee hahaha
I was hoping someone would get that
Nigel Askey style?
I got it and laughed and showed it to my spouse. She laughed, but they would really say "que no,!" and that Is funny to us, too, but my mexicana spouse got a big kick from yet another gringo joke on idioma.
Sooo, the EU now lowkey supporting the unification of Ireland and Scottish independence is the continent pulling a late Uno-reverse card on Britain?
No, it's not personal, it's business :-)
The EU doesn't support Scottish indepdence at all...there a loads of separatist movements in Europe...the Spanish especially would never allow it
@@Swift-mr5zi yeah, that's a can of worms for Europe.
@@Swift-mr5zi Obviously not officially but there's quite the subtext. And Spain? Spain is the same mess it's always been and let's be honest here, about as relevant to EU policy as Greece...
@@mnk9073 That sounds so much like the russians. Interesting how powerful and united the EU seems to be from the outside.
This video summerizes everything that I have been taught about the british foreign policy .
Joining the EU was a strategical pragmatic choice ( what you call business) : better inside than outside. There was no idealism. After the Brexit the strategy has changed: Hope that EU fails. Don’t expect the conflicts and disputes between EU and UK to stop.
Actually Britain stopped being an Empire after WW2 and is barely a country now, more like a business. Germany on the other hand had an existential imperative to find resources and liberate its people so they had to be aggressive.
So Britain not only did not *have* to go to war, they destroyed themselves for the profit of certain .. interests.
Not only did Britain have to go to war to prevent the nazi ideology from spreading across Europe unchecked, it was the catalyst that saw it destroyed and prevented Hitler's dream of 1000 years of death camps and genocide from becoming a reality.
"The Romans, observing troubles from afar, always found remedies for them and never allowed them to develop in order to avoid a war, for they knew that war does not go away, but is merely deferred to the advantage of others. " Also: "If two powerful neighbors of yours come to blows, either they are such that if one of them wins, you will have to fear the victor, or you will not. In either of these two cases, it will be more useful for you to declare yourself and wage an honest war."
Churchill, unlike Chamberlain, was no doubt influenced by Machiavelli and the power politics of "The Art of War", and knew the lessons of those nations who were guided by that philosophy and those who went another way. There are reasons why Machiavelli is still read today by wise leaders.
This I’ll disagree with, Britain let the Soviets take Eastern Europe after WW2 and did nothing.
You think that Britain, or Britain, the US, and Canada, should have attacked the Soviet Union? How would you have sold that to their populations, after having sold Genial Uncle Joe as a gallant & noble ally for four years?
With respect, what could they have done?
It's rather telling when someone claims that the most rational strategy is to allow a foreign tyrant to claim endless territory "as is their right."
Even if it were, in this strange hypothetical world, what does that do *for me* or *for you*? Why would Britain ever want to throw away her sovereignty, and why would British citizens ever ask her to, when it would mean economic exploitation and repression by German citizens?
Because they want to be the German citizens, of course.
Similar movements and propaganda campaigns ongoing in China and SEA and with Russia and the Baltic states to this day.
Exactly. They're only seeing it from one point of view, and not thinking about how others may react
Because wars kill innocent people. As you know, millions died in WWII, much more than one would expect to die if Germany was appeased. That is why a conspiracy to push for war with Germany would have been basically a crime against humanity, were it not to stop some graver crime. That is why the question is interesting, because one has to ponder what was gained or prevented if the cost was so high. Britain itself, despite winning, was left a shadow of its former self.
British sovereignty was not at risk. And British peoples would not have been exploited by Germany. Both of these things however, occur now in post-war Britain.
@@dwaynebronson870 Your assertions are both unfounded and unreasonable. German ambitions in Poland were incompatible with both French and British foreign policy, and German thinkers were well aware of this prior to the invasion.
Germans regularly regarded Britain as part of the greater Germanic peoples and had no intention of allowing her to retain an independent foreign policy, but instead as a vassal and lesser party to the greater Reich, though they did try to outright annex the Channel Islands when they got a chance so who knows what constituted the truer, deeper desires. This is all well corroborated by contemporary writing and reputable historians.
@@Bingo_Bango_ I don't think Hitler believed that the allies intended to go to war over Poland. My own reasoning being his 'now what' comment towards Ribbentrop. What is your reasoning that Germany intended to have Great Britain as a vassal state or restrict her on foreign policy? If that's the cause then what was the point of the Naval agreement the two countries made?
Also, I would to like your thoughts to this particular question. What made German ambitions in Poland incompatible with Allied foreign policy and Soviet ambitions compatible?
Love European Union on the map to illustrate a threat. TIK, you are King of the Trolls.
I can see some people getting pissed at this 👀 haha
@@joaodorjmanolo Yes, mosly the Irish, because TIK forgot they are still in the EU.
Funny map though. Some People think Ireland still as a colony of the UK?
The EU is a legitimate threat to the UK though.
EU: We don't want to create a superstate.
Also EU: Lays out legal framework to centralise military control.
That was the biggest blunder for Britain. Lost its empire and lost its sovereignty.
Empires fall
@@grandcanyon-pg2pxchina, india, russia, none of them fell yet
@@ivanbro1208because the countries you listed has achieved their own living space or manifest destiny in American language they are not a colonial empire they are self sustained countries who want to be the major power in their region and eventually other regions too
@@BeyazZenc mate, they did colonize, they were succeful at it. russia in siberia, china across its western lands, and india over to the north
Britain thwarts France over and over again: cheeky banter lmao
Britain thwarts Germany twice: zionist judeo-bolshevik conspiracy
😀
Well, UK French relations had improved, they fought in the same side in the last couple of wars. Just like the US. 😀
@@shorewall Well... apart from the frenchies that collaborated with the Germans... but essentially yes.
Maybe Germans are sore losers with no sense of humour?
In what world has the UK thwarted anything. All it has done is destory its own empire, and now stands today on the brink of dissolution.
@@ludvighansson2586 like 70% of the world m8
A great history lesson for me and congratulations on your honesty and integrity in producing this.
Worth keeping in mind that "uniting Europe" in this context refers to violently conquering and subjugating other European nations into a single empire or enforced sphere of influence and this was never a case of evil Britain evilly plotting to keep Europe from uniting peacefully just for its own evil agenda.
Opposing a single European power aggressively conquering the continent through invasions or threats of invasions was the right call strategically and pragmatically, and absolutely the right call morally, and is vindicated by just how much needless suffering each attempted conqueror of Europe caused before he was stopped
you are mostly right: even if europe were to unite militarily and peacefully it would still be a threat to britain, and britain would try to do something against it.
it wouldn't be evil, it would just be business, like all of politics is (are?). though it *would* be less morally justified than if they were trying to prevent europe from being united by force
Petsamo strip is still part of Finland in EU map. Finland lost that in 1944.
Not in our hearts, not in our hearts
Good catch
@BOOBS as we aren't able or willing to retake it yes
@BOOBS are you asking me? And if you are asking, why are you asking?
In the words of a famous consigliere, “it’s not personal Sonny, it’s strictly business”
michael was not a consigliere
@@IliyanStoychev it was spoken by Robert Duvall who was playing the role of Consigliere as Tom Hagen.
@@mvfc7637 i guess u are right, but the same words were spoken by mike after the cop punched him in the eye, in the scene right after
You're wrong, Hitler had no ambitions On Britain. He admired the British people and their empire and his political ambitions largely stemmed from his racial worldview which saw the British as kin.
"Hitler had no ambitions on Britain". Is that the same Hitler who after he received the Sudetenland decreed "I have no more territorial demands in Europe" on 26th Sept 1938? Just 3 months before "absorbing" the REST of Bohemia, Moravia & Slovakia and 1 year before he sent the German wehrmacht into Poland?
Hitler didn't want "war with Britain" until HE was ready for it on HIS terms. Luckily for the rest of Europe, Britain & France weren't willing to wait for that to happen.
At least that's what he said.
He also said he wouldn't invade Poland.
And he had a non-aggression treaty with Russia.
There's a slight chance his word wasn't trustworthy.
@@alanjm1234 A "slight chance"? The nazis had not bothered negotiating over the remilitarisation of the Rhineland, destabilised the Austrian Govt and assasinated its Preseident, after the Czech crisis with Hitler's declaration of "I have no more territorial demands within Europe" then almost immediately went on the invade the rest of Czechoslovakia, before staging the fake attack on the Radio station at Gleiwitz as an excuse to invade Poland.
Of COURSE he was going to attack France and the UK, but only after having absorbed the rest of the eastern European countries in peace one by one. Britain and France had the foresight to not let Hitler have things on his own terms, and drew the warning line in the sand over Poland. All Hitler had to do if he wanted to avoid war was withdraw from Poland, but that was never his intention and so he by his actions was the cause of WW2.
I suspect you need more than a break, you sir need a vacation ! No need to push to hard TIK. Love your content.
"Its not personal, Sonny. Its strictly business." - Michael Corelone
It's nothing personal, Germany (France, Spain, India, Netherlands, Russia, Ottomans, Denmark, France again, USA, China), it's just business. - UK
@@shorewall You can add the other 60 countries who got independence from Britain to that list
@@Swift-mr5zi With Ireland it was personal.
@@brucetucker4847
1- The French aristocrats invaded them at the start not us
2- The really bad conflict in the 1600's was definitely personal, especially considering the French were there
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Boyne
but that came from religion and we are really past that era now so lets forget about that. I'm not sure that the Irish famine was on purpose at all...exploitation, mismanagement and negligence maybe but It wasn't on purpose.
@@Swift-mr5zi By "French aristocrats" do you mean the Normans who controlled England at that time? Because IIRC they first invaded Ireland around the 12th century.
Thank you for saying out loud something that rarely (if ever) can be heard in the political discourse: Britain for centuries has been sowing discord and instigating conflicts in Europe for her own benefit (just business).
However, when you look at this matter from the perspective of others, it suddenly becomes very logical, reasonable and tempting to think that in order to finally bring peace to Europe it must be united under one rule and Britain disposed of :)
P.S. This same policy was eventually inherited by the US, and British Empire fell one of the first victims to the American rise to world domination by the same means. Oh the irony...
"peace" is a relative term. Tyranny can be called a "peace" of sorts, and the only way to "unite" said region of western-Eurasia - and area with little common cultural commonality - is via tyranny.
The British have always been anti-authoritarian; whilst many of their southern neighbors have long histories of such regimes.
This tacitic wasn't invented by the British. In fact, it was used on the British people by the Romans and used by many empires and nations throughout history. There's nothing unusual. This is just history repeating itself.
20 minutes equals 2000 views... That means in a few days the whole world will see this... Genius
By your logic, "few days" equals 54.604 days (almost 150 years)
@@нєманрсь I thank you math person.
@@Exodus26.13Pi The pleasure was mine!
Most views a video will ever receive usually happen in the first 3 days or so and then tend to sharply drop off after that.
@@нєманрсь. For your logic and math, you’re saying that the population is not going to be getting bigger each and every day, which is the only way that your numbers are going to be correct, isn’t it.?.?.?.?.?.
Or did you account for growth of the population, and therefore come to the right conclusion, that the whole of the population could never get to watch the video.........
But, you decided to ignore this fact, and gave the wrong answer, just to show the other person that they were just as wrong as you are?????
It’s like the question, that asks if you are in the middle, of a twelve foot circle, and you can only take one step each day, and your first step is three feet, but each step is half of the preceding step, how long will it take you to get outside of the circle ⭕️??????
And, while many people will say x number of days, they’re all wrong, because the correct answer is never, because technically, you can infinitely halve a distance...........
Hope you are looking after yourself Tik.
I had a couple of 'half work days' last week, and managed to catch up with Stalingrad research and scripts. Also plan to catch up more this week, but doing this short video was absolutely necessary
Also, thanks! Hope things are good with you too :)
@@TheImperatorKnight celebrating international workers day, i thought you were antisocialist
Ignore this pseud analysis. The real reason is because both the UK and USSR were run by the same tribe of people.
Same tribe ?
@@AthelstansSuccessor You've not learned to identify a sore arsed nazi fanboi at first sight yet have you?
Great video and a fantastic topic for a short format like this.
Ideologues of all stripes end up looking foolish when commenting on 20th century history outside of the larger historical context.
Britain's policy towards Germany in the 20th Century is a direct analogue of that towards France during the so-called Second Hundred Years War (stretching more or less from the later reign of Louis XIV to Waterloo).
French hegemony over the continent was fought against just as bitterly then as Germany's was later on.
TIK, glad to see you back.
The Soviet Union attacked Poland about 2 weeks after Germany in September 1939, but Great Britain and France did not declare war against them. The Soviet Union also attacked here in Finland on November 30 of the same year, but still they did not act. That's pretty hypocritical in my opinion
Why declare war on a nation that you have NO practical way of attacking? The only REAL effect of the British declaring war on the USSR would be to push the soviets further into a pact with the nazis.... the world's largest "resource pool" pushed into a potentially unbeatable solid pact with the world's pre eminent military power in 1940?
It was better to declare war ONLY on the "clear and present danger" of nazi Germany and leave USSR alone, doing so drove the nazis and communists even further apart, weakened their temporary "alliance of convenience" and helped set the stage for "Barbarossa".
These decisions aren’t based on morality but practically. Hypocrisy is endemic to geopolitics.
It’s pretty astute actually, a decision made in the certain knowledge that the Nazis and Soviets would at some point tear each other to pieces.
So Ireland should pursue a divided Britain policy. Go independent Wales and Scotland.
I have no doubt they will go. We'll move from Great Britain to teensy England.
Scotland is likely to leave at some point, Wales rather less so.
'The British people didn't want another war to end all wars' nice juxtaposition.
They just hate a logical contradiction.
@@alanpennie8013 Britain : Ww1 was bloodiest as hell. We should better not get involved in another war. A Few seconds later :
Britain had just declared war on Germany. WW2 Has Started🤡🤡
Critical thinking:
The Soviet Union controlled eastern Europe instead, yet somehow we miraculously preserved our independence.
The European Union and EEA have ended up encompassing virtually the entirety of the Continent, yet we voted to leave so that we could have our "independence".
During the relevant period - 1930s/1940s - Britain still had a massive Empire that could have balanced German power.
As I see it, these are flaws in your argument.
Personally, I would prefer that Germany had won.
Hi TIK. Could the Appeasement policy be explained by the fact they believed Soviet Union and communism was a bigger threat than Germany in Europe.
For example during Spanish civil war British fleet blocked the Republicans but let pass Franco's armies from Africa.
I hadn't actually thought about it that way, but yes, that would make sense. I'd need to read up on it to confirm it though
I hope TIK will do the video about this, because that's a really good question
An easy explanation could be that the western powers wanted to take down german threat, but with minimal participation of the franco-british troops. Afterall, the western societies were still in trauma after ww1, so they would object sending their troops to battle, it will be better if others do the dirty job etc. This can be seen in the franco-soviet pact from 1935, a pact about cooperation between France and USSR in case of german expansion. Almost as if already back then France assumed that "Poland will be crushed. We could save Poland, but that would require sending our own troops to fight. That's not gonna happen, so let's already assume that there's no Poland, and let's hope that the Soviets will do most of dirty job in fights against Germany".
@@TheImperatorKnight Thanks for your answer TIK.
And think to rest yourself after Stalingrad Battlestorm series.
This is not a 'could be' this is a fact.
The history of the 1930s is taught from an anti-communist perspective, even here in Eastern Europe (for... obvious reasons). As such, many 'ugly' parts are burried under a thick rug of propaganda and idealism. Of course, you won't find any Western historian or politician admitting that they willingly helped Hitler to make a warmachine out of Germany the same way Russian historians are reluctant to aknowledge Ribentrop-Molotov. I mean, seriously, who would come up and say: "Hey, my nation proudly helped Hitler exterminate millions of people?"
However, you can do the job of a historian yourself and piece the puzzle back together. If you look in the dark annals of the early 1900s history, you can quickly realise that what Hitler did was, horriffyingly, nothing special. Everything from his racist theories to concentration camps to 'Lebensraum' were not singular to Germany. Lebensraum is nothing more than good ol' colonialism implemented by Western Europe for centuries. (Even Millenia if we include Romes expansion). And colonialism took some time to dismantle even after WW2: 'Belgians in Kongo' (Billy Joel reference to a real life reference). So you cannot claim that Lebensraum was something out of the ordinary with the times. Oh, and Italy had a similar concept too. Anti-semitism? Social-darwinism has been around since the late 1800s. It was widespread in the US and UK as well. Concentration camps? Second Boer War. And the Belgians in the Kongo, round 1. This is just the begining, showing that the ideea of Britain being incapable of helping Hitler out of some 'moral highground' consideration was pure and utter BS. Anyone defending it should have the same credibility as a Holocaust denier.
So, the moral framework existed. How about actions? Well, let's look again at the claim that 'Appeasement was born out of feear of another total war in Europe'. Oh, really? Then, if you are really afraid a nation could start a total war in Europe, would you allow that nation to remilitarise itself in the League of Nations conference of 1932? If you were afraid Germany would start a war in Europe, would you throw Versailles out the window in 1935? If you were afraid Germany would start a war in Europe, would you help them defend their opponents in a proxy war in Spain? If you were afraid Germany would start a war in Europe, would you hand out the industrial region of Czechoslovakia to Hitler for notihing but a piece of paper (not good enough to serve even as toilet paper), and, in doing so, ignoring all the please for an anti-Hitler coallition, INCLUDING GERMAN GENERALS THAT TOLD YOU ALL YOU HAD TO DO WAS TO SAY 'NO!' AND MAKE AN ANGRY FACE? If you were afraid of a war in Europe, wouldn't you demand an advanced payment of Germanys debt? Wouldn't you put pressure on it's allies to stop trading with them? Wouldn't you stop your own aristocracy giving Hitler publicity and donations?
Plus, Germany was not the only British 'project' in this direction. Intermarium was also a British attempt to create a meatshield in Eastern Europe against USSR.
For as much damage as Ribentrop-Molotov had done to my Eastern European country, I would say the pro-Soviet historians still have better factual arguments for signing it than anyone could come up to defend this 'appeasement', but, again, I doubt you could find any 'reputable' sources to actually state this.
Your research and attention to detail in these videos is absolutely amazing, keep up these great videos I enjoy them thoroughly.
"Its nothing personal, just business" - yeah, the business of dividing, bullying, stirring up national unrests and sending other states against one another. It being a long-term strategy and not a one off "conspiracy" doesnt change its nature.
It’s still business🤷🏻♀️
Just like many nations are doing on earth to this very day…
@@Deano-Dron81 Thats prure whataboutism. Doesnt make it less immoral or shameful because "others do it" or "its purely for gain" - yeah it better be, what else, pure nation-wide sadism?
Don't all powers behave like that? For example the coalitions against Napoleons France or Europe's support for Ukraine or USA supporting China against Japan prior to WW2. The nature you talk about is human and universal.
@@alanrobertson9790 No, they dont, only those imperialist in nature, or more accurately, its the politicians like Kissinger driven by a foreign policy doctrine dubbed "realism" that pretends you can play chess with national interests and keep things shitty but "balanced" - in reality, it has been proven wrong again and again, showing that people will simply want to be happy and are willing to fight for it, while autistic "analysts" like Kissinger shake their heads in disbelief: why dont they simply subdue and live under someones shoe for generations, just because Britain or Germany or Russia needs it in order to "balance things out" on a greater scale!
There's a reason for why there is a saying in the Middle East: If you see two fish in a pond fighting, chances are there's an Englishman behind it.
That was a great summary - good stuff!
Cool video, as always. One tiny suggestion: for the map with the 'Cold War where SU dominated Europe', Finland would have *definitely* been incorporated into the SU. That was a given in any such scenario.
That would've pissed off Sweden. The Soviets wanted to keep Sweden neutral.
@@zerefsunlimitedshipworks What would a 'pissed off' Sweden do? I guess they were pissed off back when Russia took Finland from them back in 1815.
Once again an excellent & very interesting video. You always talk with great inteĺligence & knowledge & give the facts as they are without favor or agenda. Keep them coming Tik 👍👍
Didn't Humphrey explain that in Yes Minister?
Indeed, and very well!
i posted before reading this!
"Why would Britain not let Germany go East?"
Napoleon asked the same question, except it was France going East.
The answer is in both cases, that once Russia is conquered, then Britain and her Empire are next on the dinner plate, and then next, the United States.
Napoleon seriously fucked up didn't he
@@gerhardschulzy taking the tax revenue of Britain is not a little reward
@@gerhardschulzy so it only makes sense to conquer sparcely populated areas with fertile planes and hydrocarbons/minerals?
The US was a non entity in world politics until the 20th century so there’s no point in th op bringing it up
Britain wouldn't be the next, the English Channel and the Royal Navy will destroy any attempt of invasion.
I've heard so many plausible explanations for 'The War' eventually you just pick the version that fits you best. The one I gravitate towards is Stalin sold all his grain on the open market causing a catastrophic famine in order to build a Tank Army with which he intended to invade western Europe. Germany just happened to make a preemptive strike but was stabbed in the back by Churchill. Leaving half of Europe behind an Iron Curtain, with gulags and torture. Victory for some.
Poland declare war on Japan.
Japanese PM Tojo: I'm gonna pretend I didn't see that.
I think it was because of the centuries-old politics of Great Britain which said not to allow hegemony in Europe. That's why they created 7 anti-French coalitions, joined the 1st and 2nd World War. And maybe that's why BREXIT happened.Short films are good, but I prefer longer ones because they are more detailed
??? This was the topic of the video, and the argument TIK gave, right down to mentioning the French coalitions & Britain's WW1 activity against now-Turkey.
Forget longer ones, this video must not be short enough if you haven't watched it.
@Yieri That's your opinion on the matter and well and good, in this thread I'm just pointing out that it's also the topic of the video, contrary to Prezes' post.
If you really want to have a conversation about it after you've watched the video, the idea that Germany would allow a second power in Europe is very counterfactual. You might want to start your rethinking there.
@Yieri Britain wasn't destroyed after ww1 at all that's a huge myth
@Yieri what destroyed Britain in the world wars was forgetting they were a naval power and trying to slug it out in the trenches. What destroyed Europe was the same old method of war, with advanced industrialized nations.
And I would argue that the 30 years war was as destructive to Europe, so this is not a new thing, nor even needs the UK to be involved. :D
The eternal anglo
Looking at Britain now, that strategy didn't really pay off very much.
It paid off HANDSOMELY !!! Britain has existed for the last 80 years WITHOUT nazi extermination camps, SS Einsatzgruppen and enforced deportation to Germany for the purposes of human slavery.
Isn't it strange how nazi sympathisers like people to forget about what "would have been".
Finland: Sweden's meat shield since forever.
the biggest reason why Germany lost the war was because it was surrounded by enemy states.
Indeed. Carrying out unprovoked attacks on other nations does tend to annoy them.
1:52 or when she sank Danish Fleet in 1801
Exactly! "Not personnal, just business" (Tolls on the way-in to the Baltic sea? NO WAY)
Nelson, poor fellow, simply wasn't able to see the signal telling him to withdraw.
Britain to Europe throughout history- "Its nothing personal , it's just a good business"
The problem is that Britian didn't want to share the burden of actually fighting the land war which was the only way to defeat Nazi Germany. Instead, it expected the French then the American to win the war for them. This was at a time when Britain controlled 400 million people but put less than 1 million troops into Europe with about 300 thousand Common Wealth forces chipping in.
The British army was too small to be effective on it's own and only won a single mid sized battle during the entire war in North Africa against the rump of the German army at the extreme of it's logical capabilities.
America won the war in the west and in the Pacific. The British military served as the largest support force for the U.S military.
The British army of WW2 was a joke.
"The British army of WW2 was a joke."
German Army during WW2 - 12.5 million men
US Army during WW2 - 8.6 million men
Red Army During WW2 - 11.5 million men
Japanese army during WW2 - 6 million men
British Army during WW2 - 3.5 million men
Here is the verbatim text of an intelligence report compiled by the headquarters of the German Heer's (army) IV korps which in May 1940 had fought against the BEF during the whole of the French campaign. The report was circulated to the German army units that were then preparing for Seelowe. It stated:
"The English soldier is in excellent physical condition. He bears his own wounds with stoical calm. The losses of his own troops are discussed with complete equanimity. He does not complain of hardships. In battle he is tough and dogged. His conviction that England will conquer in the end appears unshakeable.... The English soldier has always shown himself to be a fighter of high value. Certainly the Territorial divisions are inferior to the Regular troops in training but where morale is concerned they are their equal.... In defence the Englishman takes any punishment that comes his way"
We possess the type of "fighter of high value" that pulled your sorry strutting asses out of the shit at the likes of Kasserine in 1942 when the American army's first team were THRASHED by Rommel's "second eleven", and then came to the rescue during the nazi's 1944 Ardennes offensive which knocked the US divisions for six..
As soon as I saw the title I remembered the #1 classic vital national interest: No Hegemon in Eurasia.
Tik I wasn't expected an upload on today's Public Holiday in UK. Thanks but we need you to pace yourself to survive Stalingrad.
Churchill hated the Germans because they embarassed him in the Dardenelles in WW1. Factor that into his thinking.
Fight the Germans and accelerate the loss of your Empire.
Ally with Stalin and then give him 1/2 of Europe.
You need some more work on your Geography. The Dardnelles campaign was fought against the TURKS. I don't remember Churchill declaring war against Turkey in WW2?
P.S Fight the Germans and prevent nazi extermination camps, SS Einsatzgruppen and enforced deportation to Germany for the purposes of human slavery occuring in the UK.
Isn't it strange how nazi sympathisers like people to forget about what "would have been" if we'd NOT fought?
Churchill’s Balkan strategy. The ‘Soft Underbelly’👍
It didn't turn out to be so soft when Mussolini tried to invade it. lol
@@fatherelijahcal9620 The correct point was to stop stalin taking eastern europe.Post war stategy when already know won
Basically "fight the Germans 'till the last Serb"
Churchill was wrong about almost every strategic decision.
@@EndOfSmallSanctuary97 he was not great in WW1 either.
Germany had no intentions of starting a war against the rest of the world. However, it felt threatened by a belligerent Soviet Union that touted World Revolution, armed itself aggressively at a rate over 10 times faster than Germany ever did. Add to that the Soviet Union’s actions, such as the Winter War against Finland and its support of Communists all over Europe, not only in Spain and Italy, then Germany’s fear of an imminent Soviet attack was perfectly rational.
If the USSR was the real threat, why did Germany invade neutral Yugoslavia, Greece, entire Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium. These countries were neutral and independent and were no threat to Germany.
@@dragosstanciu9866 Reasons vary by country. A bit like asking why Britain invaded the world. Yugoslavia was pro-Axis though.
@lati long I like how Russians make this same argument. Probably 6% were Benito's fans. Only 0,5% joined the Nazies after the Winter War.
@@dragosstanciu9866 Good question! Always remember: 99% of what we are being taught about history by the establishment is lies. Victors write history. Read/Watch "The Bad War" by Mike King and "Hellstorm" by Thomas Goodrich. In short, every single German invasion was forced upon it by the Allies. Netherlands and Belgium because these countries were used by France and England to invade Germany. Yes, there were Allied troops on German soil at the start of WW2. France and England attacked Germany first, including the bombing of civilian targets, e.g. in Freiburg. Czechoslovakia and Poland, to protect the ethnic German population in those countries against Communist terrorists who were brutally raping, torturing and murdering them by the tens of thousands. Their governments did nothing to prevent it because they colluded with the Allies who wanted to engineer a war with Germany. Greece and Yugoslavia to make it harder for the Brits to bomb the Rumanian oil fields which were Germany's only source of fuel. (Germany was so desperately short of fuel due to an international embargo that its military had to use horses for transport.) Denmark and Norway, because the British were preparing to invade Norway to stop the supply of steel to Germany, which was critical for the German weapon manufacturing.
@@TruthWillOutOnline Communist terrorists in Czechoslovakia and Poland? Polish communist party was banned and Czechoslovakian was nearly disbanded because their leader run off from the country.
Nobody is going to threaten Britain,the reason was Britain wanted the Lions share of everything,land country's,people,resourses,wealth,they can have everything but nobody else can.
Haven't you got pokemon to be playing with, kid?
So basically Britain did what any other imperialist country would do.
The best analogy of Britain vs Germany in 1940 was a bear picking a fight with a whale. Different interests, needs and military doctrines
Is Britain the whale?
And the whale is allied with 10 other bears who do most of the fighting for her.
@@maxpower9979 while the whale steals the enemy bears fishes
@@maxpower9979 other than this not happening, it’s an interesting point to make
@@Lidds1973 yes? around 2/3 of Wehrmacht casualties on the Eastern Front
Love the low key brexit ref.
Oh come on Tik, it's May day bank holiday. Even the worker gets this day off. You should relax and uploaded this video tomorrow
Haha maybe. I really should have a day off this week...
@@TheImperatorKnight Hey TIK, I watched this new YT video from the channel 'Study of Antiquity and Middle Ages' with several YT historians, talking about whether or not the NSDAP were socialists. It would make me so happy if you can do a response video, because the last three out of the four 'historians' will probably make you facepalm. Here's the video: ua-cam.com/video/bGWNMcodEtk/v-deo.html
Drinking game: Take a shot every time TIK says "it's just business."
Declaring war on Germany for Poland was very suspect because we did not declare war on USSR after USSR invaded Poland, and after the war, fought for Poland, Poland was STILL occupied and not free, this time by the USSR.
It was to stop Germany. It wasn't out of some benevolent selfless love for the Poles.
@lati long Take a look "Swiss Armed Forces (1964)". About 100 casualties during WW2. That's how it's done.
@lati long If you bundle France with Britain, Vietnam will become the enemy. Saigon's administrative services had collapsed, and a loosely controlled Viet Minh-led group had seized power. Not to mention the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947-1948.
@lati long Remind me who it was that declared war on Germany again?
@lati long Land that was stolen from Germany in 1919.
Really looking forward for when you delve into the 1938 coup attempt in Germany and how its relates to the British appeasement policies.
Damn, this sounds interesting.
I mean I despise nationalism but I can see what Imperial Japan meant when they said the UK was an international bully who wouldn't let them expand their colonies lmfao
@Tik, very interesting video. Two things that came to mind. First is light hearted. Have you seen the clip from "Yes Minister" where Sir Humphrey explains Britains "place" in Europe? Essentially what you said, to keep Europe divided :-) Second point and I dont think I have seen this approached anywhere else. It would be VERY interesting to have full access to all the archives from the time. The reason for this is I am left wondering how much the Normandy invasion was planned and looked at to hold back the USSR versus defeating Germany? I cannot believe that this was not discussed or considered and that some sort of paper trail exists for this. I can see why even today the Western governments would want to keep this little detail as "hidden" as possible. Thing is it makes too much "sense" to overlook.
Please keep up the GREAT work! Even if you might not always be 100% right, it is still refreshing to look at the different subjects from a different angle.
Britain's usual response to any threat is to send a strongly-worded letter.
Not true at all. Does your knowledge of British foreign policy history extend only between 1938-39?