Early Plans for Operation Barbarossa Before the Invasion of Poland?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 окт 2020
- Operation Barbarossa started in 1941. But was this when the German High Command really wanted to start it? Could they have started it earlier, before the invasion of Poland in 1939. Well, Roff-Dieter Müller's "Enemy in the East" sheds some light on what plans were being developed, and what could have happened had a war broke out before Germans invaded Poland.
Thank you to Diego Torres-Siclait for today's question!
🔔 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 graphic designer Terri Young. Check out her website here! www.terriyoungdesigns.co.uk/
- - - - -
📚 BIBLIOGRAPHY / SOURCES 📚
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 RUclips 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 📽️
The REAL Reason why Germany 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History Theory 101 • [Out of Date, see desc...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.
In case you were one of the people not notified about Thursday’s video on Karl Marx, here’s the link ruclips.net/video/rZh01xRO_Qg/видео.html
Thank you to all those who did watch it and I’m glad to see that the majority of people understood it and realized how “huge” (to quote one person) it is. I’ve read your comments, and my interpretation of the two ‘P’ words hasn’t changed for reasons I will explain in an upcoming follow-up video to that one. Cheers!
In case you didn't see this
4th army corp
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IV_Army_Corps_(Wehrmacht)#/media/File:IV_Armeekorps_emblem.svg
8th army corp
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:VIII_Armeekorps.svg
Reference
stalingrad.net/german-hq/generals-and-divisions/armeekorps_commanders.htm
Von Daniels,Von armin,Deboi,Heitz,Adam,Paulus.
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Field_Marshal_Paulus,_General_Heitz_and_other_German_officers_of_the_6th_Army_after_its_surrender.jpg
Other Stalingrad pics
gr.pinterest.com/Nonepolitical/stalingrad/
I would like to point out the picture for Von Schwerin is Gehard Von Schwerin not
Richard Von Schwerin.Who is with the 8th jager and later the 16th mot division
gr.pinterest.com/Nonepolitical/stalingrad/
@King George V - Glad to hear you liked the Hitler's Socialism video 👍
Também sou dessa época. Inclusive comprei o Unity of Command por recomendação dele.
I'm from this good old times too. O even bought Unity of Command because of his recomendation.
BTW, best historic channel of RUclips, seconded by Kings and Generals. Keep up the good work, @TIK
Can you talk about honorary arians like natives
Authentic?
That border gore was a nightmare just to think about. It makes HOI4 AI border gore tame by comparison.
It does confirm to me that Hitler needed to take out Poland, otherwise the map just would look silly with a pink blob in the middle of a grey blob. Just wrong.
@@TheImperatorKnight Yeah the territory that would have been owned by Germany should they follow the Polish idea is forested and doesn't hold those necessary resources that I hear Hitler wanted. Food and Fuel. Everything I've read and heard from you there was little way for Poland to survive this era unless they conceded everything to Germany in exchange for their continued existence.
@@TheImperatorKnight I literally LOL'd when your map of "Greater Poland" popped up on the screen. Can you imagine the Poles actually pulling that off?
@@MrNPC the best way to do so was to have an alliance with the Netherlands and set up an East-Baltic Seas Trade Co.
And maybe give a share to the UK to look the other way. BUT...
After the political butchery that was the Munich's agreement, there was no way for Germany to assume any major power's neutrality. Or the poles buying anything Hitler was to sell.
When you know someone's word is sh** diplomacy becomes a short term jar jar before the war war thing.
Note that international diplomacy and strategy do not take 'border gore' into account. There is a reason why Alaska is not connected to the US, or why East Prussia stands out so much in TiK's map (or why we had a united East and West Pakistan - unconnected by land from each other - after the country's separation from India). Also, see the country of Gambia as a prime example of deliberate Border Gore inflicted by the British on the French territory of Senegal.
"The Germany had an overall strategic vision to invade the Soviet Union really back to 20 years before it was even founded."
It is really interesting to see these hypothetical German and Polish alliance scenarios given what we know in hindsight.
Also, this is what we in the Paradox gaming community call “Border Gore”
Once I played Fascist Poland in MP Roleplay, I took half of Ukraine, so I could have entrance to the black sea, and I took rest of Belarus just cause. Btw Axis was the most caused Axis ever. Germany, China, Poland, Mexico, Spain.
Well, a Poland that friendly towards Germany could have been better for them then an anti-german pro-english poland which have been threw to Stalin...
“Drang nach Osten” indeed goes back some ways. Interesting video.
@Paul K. DiCostanzo, for those who didn't know, Drang nach Osten means drive to the East.
Like, thousand years of border clashes and expansion? :D
Still does.
To early Middle Ages.
@@_Dovar_
Exactly! How else was East Prussia conquered than by German expansion to the east ?
6:15 Baltics, not Balkans :)
Thanks, was a bit confused there at first, till he pinged the map :)
"Black sea is also a sea" - I guess that was Goering who said that to Poles.
Yup, and Poles were like "Nah, we good, thanks".
@@devnull436 Józef Beck, Ostatni raport, Warszawa 1987. "[Ribbentrop] Podjął ostatnią próbę kombinacji antyrosyjskiej. W rozmowie towarzyskiej posunął się nawet do powiedzenia: „Pan jest taki uparty w sprawach morskich. Morze Czarne jest także morzem”. "
@@MKJ-PRIV
For non-Polish speakers: "He made one last attempt at an anti-Russian combination. In a social conversation, he even went so far as to say: “The Lord is so stubborn about maritime affairs. The Black Sea is also a sea".
My understanding is, Germany offered Slovakia and Ukraine to Poland, in return for Danzig and working together against the USSR. Poland rejected this, in particular because this would cut them off from their only port, at the Baltic sea. Ribbentrop suggested they'd take ports at the Black sea instead.
This by the way disputes TIK's explanation, as it suggests Germany was willing to take the north (and the caucasus, I presume) and let poland have Ukraine. To my knowledge this however still went against Polish nationalist visions, who believed in resurrecting the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, a great power stretching from the Baltic to the Black Sea.
(which of course wasn't compatible with German ambitions)
@@sorsocksfake there was also pragmatic issue into it - Poland regained access to the sea after 120 years and put enormous effort into bulding up Gdynia basically from scratch and giving up tangible assent for unspecified promise of sea which didn't offer access to world ocean would be stupid. Also, everybody knew that Germany had doubious capability and NO inention whatosever of keeping that promise, as much as Soviet Union's offer to assist Czechohslovakia at expense of Poland. Poland was supposed to be exterminated by 1970s anyway. Danzig was de facto already German, with token polish presence (which was precisely because why Gdynia was built). Polish plans of re-creating commonwealth were not as much nationalism, as idea of exploitiing anti-Russian sentiment to create buffer states on eastern border. In German planning Eastern "untermensch" were to burn anyway, as evidenced by stuipid genocidal policy at beginning of Barbarossa.
@@sorsocksfake It was more in the line of: "You Sir, are so stubborn about maritime affairs..."
And if Hitler had aligned with Polish Slavs he wouldnt have been Hitler.
Very true
Because of hitler, it was inevitable that Germany would start WWII, just as it was equally inevitable that Germany would loose that war. All because of Hitler.
@Jonathan Williams except Bulgarians aren't really slavic. They've got more Bulgar and Turcic blood than slavic blood.
@Somarik Green They took back what the Czechs shamelessly annexed from Poland in 1920 when the newly born Polish State was on the verge of total collapse struggling to repel the Bolsheviks at the gates of Warsaw and by thus saving entire Europe
@@davidtuttle7556 The same could be said about the Red Army. Azeri, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Uzbek and Turkmen are not Slavic languages. They are Turkic languages, and Tajik has been considered to be a variety of Persian.
Don't all armies have plans, in some form or state, at the ready for all of their neighbors? Especially back then.
More less, though in Poland (even considering all almost Stalinist-level damage do General Staff) plan to defend against joint assault form Germany and USSR was consciously rejected as pointless.
Yet another fantastic video. Thank you TIK and the subscriber who shared that book with you. I learn something new in my job every day and I learn tons from your videos. Keep up the great work, but please take time for your self.
Hey TIK, it would be interesting to get your view on whether the 1918-19 Polish-Ukrainian War and the 1919-20 Polish-Soviet War was a factor in inter-war German-Soviet relations, given that the Soviets ended up giving Poland territorial concessions which may have created some bitterness
It absolutely was! Maybe I'll cover that war one day
Isn't it usually called "Polish-Bolshevik War"?
The red Russia became "soviet" in late 20s or in 30s.
During the course of Russian civil war, a lot of territorial concessions were issued by reds, mencheviks fought that soon the whole world will be consumed in global revolution and that borders wont matter anymore, while bolsheviks had the been focused on winning war in Russia and would not want to engage in any distraction from that objective. Eventually they did had to face Poles, as they did not show any sign of stopping with their invasion.
@B A russia is shit.
@@TheImperatorKnight Never heard of this conflict.. shame on me. But never was taught in school! would be very interesting :)
I love your videos I've learned so much about the unknown side of history that most of my history classes miss. thank you :)
Whoa TIK you're on a roll! 3 videos in super rapid succession! Thanks! Take care ❤
Wow, this was fascinating. No one ever discusses the geo-politics of the inter-war period, especially in regards to Poland’s relationship with Germany and the USSR. Secondly, I’ve recently wondered why Poland never traded the Danzig Corridor for Lithuania as that would have provided them with access to the sea, however your video addressed this. I still think it was a geo-political mistake for Hitler not to allow Poland to grab Lithuania, both countries have historically close ties (Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) and it would have bought Poland into Germany’s sphere of interest, anyway, well done in producing another fascinating video on WW2!
TIK once again you have performed professionally with your response and research. Thank you for sharing ✌️
TIK; "Trust in to the Balkans"
Shows map of USSR invading Latvija*
I do presume you ment Baltija.
I was about to make a comment here as well, from when does Baltic lands became Balkans ?
@@seporasep9811 It dont know. But funily enough the next video was by bedtime stories about vampires and he once confused Baltija and Balkans, for the record we have no stories of vampires here in Baltija.
TIK, i’ve been watching your videos all day. wether in the background , or not. i just wanted to say thank you so much for your in depth research and talking about topics that aren’t usually mentioned . we all know about valkyrie or d day. i’m fascinated by how deep you get into the research and continue to show me new things about a war that’s almost 100 years old. i was particularly impressed with your video about joseph stalin perhaps wanting a separate peace around 42/43. bless you my brother ! keep them coming !
juan p
miami florida, USA
Great video TIK! Thank you
What about Starlin’s purges of all of his Soviet generals? Sounds like an opportunity too good to miss if you ask me
Excellent and concise analysis, I might say even one of your best. I am an Englishman and I live in Poland (for many years) and this is the best answer to that question I have heard. You got your facts right on all issues - and touched upon some that I didn't know about. This film was a pleasure to watch :) But your work is always top notch :)
Absolutely agree. This one is a real eye opener.
From the picture of the German soldier about to throw a grenade, I thought it was a Stalingrad episode and was slightly excited. Funny how suspenseful it is waiting for TIK’s next episode! Keep up the great work!
Another awesome TIK video! Great stuff.
Really great video. Really interesting geopolitics of the time.
Great vid! Pure science-fiction but very entertaining watch! Thank you :)
= Alternate history.
This as well as your previous videos on marx and Hitler are absolutely brilliant and clearly well researched. Keep up the good work, even if we disagree on some topics. 👍
It would be fair, before unfolding all these weird plans from the 1920", to remind about the last war in 1920 when USSR wanted to export the revolution but was stopped by the Poles, at the Visla. That might have to do with the subject, isn't it ? And reread Tolstoi too, in Hadji Mourad he explain how the Tzar was making the Poles suffering. As with Finland, one can easily understand an alliance between theses states and Germany.
Great video!
Very instructive. I have learn something important. thank you
HOWDY TIK,
FANTASTIC VIDEO.
KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK.
🤜🤛🙋♂️🐈👍
I seriously love your videos.
"[...] even though they had conquered the east, Germany collapsed anyway. Which suggested that taking the eastern territories may not have provided enough resources to sustain Germany. But shhh...."
But the Brest-Litovsk treaty was signed on March 3, 1918 and the armistice treaty from November of the same year made them lose it again. I feel like eight months are not enough time to be able to conclude that having conquered these lands didn't help the Germans win the war. Setting up new infrastructure and repairing war damage would take longer than that, or not? I am a bit confused about this part of your video.
I personally am very interested in the idea of Poland and Germany attacking the Soviet Union together, and I'd love to see a detailed and historically accurate (alternate history based on historic facts as much as possible) analysis of this scenario. Including the post-war situation in case of a Germano-polish victory, which might have resulted in a cold war with poland? Does Müller go into this a bit further? Or do you happen to know any more works that explore this idea?
Thanks for all your hard work, I really enjoy watching your videos.
Yes, even at the time it was recognized that the Eastern territories would take time to be brought up to speed. Bear in mind that Germany launched the Great Offensive in the West of 1918 (Operation Michael) with the troops that could be spared from the East on March 21st, barely two weeks after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.
Tik convienantly ignored the American troops massing in the millions on the Western Front. Germany still had a manpower problem and the Treaty could not compensate for the Americans arriving.
Looking forward to learning something new today.
Nice video
Another fantastic episode.
That German soldier throwing a grenade is often shown in history videos and history books. Any info what happened to him?
Really really loving the map animations
I kept thinking Czechoslovakia was some big inland sea from the light blue colour. "OMG that inland sea is shrinking!"
Have you thought about doing a video about Oswald Mosley? What did he really believe? Was he really a fascist, or could his views more accurately be labelled as something else? From what I've been able to read about him, I'm not sure how much of it is true.
He was a Fascist (but not a National Socialist). He said so himself. The man didn't disappear after WW2, you know? Here is an interview with him in 1975: ruclips.net/video/HNhF28fzN9I/видео.html
Mosley preferred to keep Britain neutral and let Germany and the USSR go at it between themselves, without outside interference.
Any chance in the far away future you'll discuss the Polish-Soviet War of 1919-1920?
I totally geek out on your Channel. When is the next in the Stalingrad series coming out?
It seems to me some more points are required here.
1) the Soviet invasion of Ukraine and Belarus, and attempted invasion of Europe in 1920 which doesn't seem widely remembered. Rest assured, 1930 Poland remembered it all too well.
2) Poland itself had major ambitions and grabbed some land in the '30s. Its full ambitions were to create a federation of Eastern European states, at least recreating the Commonwealth from the Baltic to the Black sea, and possibly even extend it to the Balkans and the Adriatic sea.
3) This is all in a context of the tension between Russia and Germany. In the Imperial age, the thinking was that nations would continue to be swallowed up until a few super-empires remained. Both Germany and Russia were too small to really compete as superstates (compared to the US American sphere, and the British Empire especially) and they were each other's most natural expansion.
4) I believe this is a major source of the World War era. Germany sought to achieve its ambition, and the Western powers really wanted to prevent that as that would make for a terrifying German empire. The Allied solution was to balkanize the defeated powers into smaller states that should balance each other, generally based on ethnic boundaries.
5) Thus comes Poland. Stuck between Germany and Russia as a buffer state, though the Allies had already shown they weren't eager to jump to its defense. It would eventually be targeted and devoured, and so its only real hope was creating an eastern federation that could stand up to the USSR and Germany.
6) I would also reckon that the Allied semi-intervention in 1939 was exactly because of that. With Poland attacked, the Nazi-Soviet war was bound to happen, and the only way to prevent it was to have that second front in the west. Of course this backfired badly as every country that got dragged in to contain Germany, instead just got occupied, and Britain bankrupted its empire in the effort. Blockade and bombardment eventually did prevent Germany from conquering the USSR, but it ended up with Russia taking over Eastern Europe anyway and becoming the USSR superpower that we know.
This is mostly logic, as far as I know, evidenced by the actual history. There was no real other way for it to play out, within the imperial mindset. Hitler made some important adaptations (ethno-socialism), with some new reasons including oil, but the core idea never changed. And I don't think it would. If Broccoli-socialism had won the German "civil war" instead, maybe they'd have eyed Italy a bit more, but ultimately I think they'd still head into Russia, since geography is key for stable nations.
There are some variations - France might go colonial, or it might go for franco-iberia-italy, or it might go full EU. But some are just the natural expansions.
So worth it being a patreon supporter!
It's a tragedy that Piłsudski died when he did. If he would have lived for at least a year or two more, then a lot of things could have been avoided abd worked out
Pilsudski has good reputation in Poland ONLY because he died before the results of his policy became the reality.
Poland after his death did exactly what it did before. Poland became an enemy to every single one of it's neighbors.
Very very good Tikula that was an amazing analogy of Poland and Germany doing this!!!!!!!!
I don't know how much Hitler was influenced by it, but the first conceptional and also practical roots of the expansion in the the East/"Lebensraum"-idea can (argueably) found in the german occuption of Poland, Belorus and the Baltics during WW1. These occupied territories were administrated by the "Oberfehlshaber Ost" (Supreme Commander East), which was Hindenburg (together with Ludendorff, the real "brain" of all the operations of course). Before these two became the german military leaders in 1916, they ruled the forementioned lands in the east like military dictators - with their focus lying on resource exploitation and brutal supression of resistance. Not quite as brutal and genocidal as later during WW2, but it could be argued that the so called "Ober Ost" (abbreviation of Oberbefehlshaber Ost, referring to the territory which he was responsible for) was a protoypical form of the later "Reichskommissariate" ("Ostland" and Ukraine). I think I read that Himmler was influenced by the experiences and "lessons" of Ober Ost.
Of course, nobody learned the right lessons from the OHO/OHL, which was that centralised control of the economy for purely war production doesn't work!
Would you consider creating a Firestorm series on some early Barbarossa phases, like in Belorussia or Baltics in the future? It would be awesome.
@TIK
Dear TIK, I've been following your channel for quite some time now. Im a Polish architect by trade, arch. historian PhD candidate, and half professional historian - researcher of the Interwar Period ( both my parents are historians by trade- my mom even studies Tudor Britain and british parliment, democracy etc.) Myself, I am focusing not only on architecture but also different aspects of that era. I have a site dedicated to polish interwar architecture on facebook.com/warszawskimodernizm
Feel free to give it a look, but never the less I wanted to add or explain two events, from what polish historians studied, regarding 1938- 39 events leading up to war:
1- Poland was not trying to take over ( invade) whole Lithuania. Actually, Polish authoritharian government used a border shooting incident as a pretense/ reason for mobilization and starting a diplomatic crisis, and the Poles found a perfect excuse " to bring Lithuania to its knees" as Min. for For. Affairs Józef Beck stated in 1938. it was a diplomatic and military stand-off to force cabinet in Kaunas into establishing official diplomatic relations and also so that Lithuania accepted losing territories around Vilnus in 1919- 20
2- Yes, certain cliques within Polish regime were eager if not enthusiastic towards invading Russia, because most of national military doctrines in II RP treates USSR as the main, more dangerous enemy. But in the same time, they partially ignored hitlers ambitions or thought Hitler "wouldnt dare", " we have allies", "we are both antibolshevik" . But, it was until October 1938, not spring 1939. Why October 1938? Because back then Ribbentrop visited Warsaw and met with the upper-most echelon of Polish state and power- and for the first time sternly stated, that the Reich will require Poland to give back Free City of Danzing ( ignoring League of Nations), establish ex territorial railway and motorway, and join the AntiKomitern Pact. And to be fair and critical- this certain fact- Ribbentrop demanding total compliance - was classified top secret, was never stated or discussed in the papers or withing the wider cabinet. None of that. If I recall correctly, only in march or may 1939 did the Poles ( society as whole) found out via one of newspaper correspondents from Berlin, about the early demands from X 1938- because it was discussed as a rumor and a topic inside Berlins political circles. In Poland, Between X 1938 and III 1939 only 10 maybe 20 people knew about the early demands. If the did, they might have tried to form some kind of a Nat Unity Cabinet, or start war preparations earlier than spring 1939. But unfortunately, Polish authoritharian governement did not do so. Instead, they tried establishing closer military ties with G.B. and France, lending money, believing in scaring Hitler Off.
Anyway, you're doing great work
Greeting from Warsaw, Poland
German plans to expand east in one form or another seems to have been currency in German politics since the 1890s. I remember when I read Norman Stone’s short history of the First World War where he quotes a German Nationalist, in either the late 1890s or early Edwardian era (my memory is a bit hazy as I’ve not read the book in a while) describing Germany’s destiny was to dominate East and Central Europe.
Did he also quote British nationalists concerning the Boers or the Cape-Cairo project, or US nationalists about their concept of "manifest destiny" and the "big stick" policy towards other nations? 😊
@@maximkretsch7134 No, why would he? Stone was writing about the debates within Germany on foreign policy toward Central and Eastern Europe before the First World War. One of the concepts in these debates was that of Mitteleuropa (German Hegemony over Central/Eastern Europe, either directly or indirectly), which has its origins in the 19th Century discussions of Drang nach Osten and inspired by the Ostsiedlung of the Middle Ages. These ideas would inform the German thinking behind the September Program and guarantee about the former Russian territories the Germans got in the Treaty of Brest-Litvosk.
@@arronjameshook To avoid the misperception on some naïve reader's side that there was anything specifically German about such ideas; they were to be found in every major imperialist power of the time, and often enough enforced. To my knowledge, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk did not envisage any permanent territorial gain for Germany at all, but instead the independence of Finland, the Baltic states, Poland and Ukraine from Moscow.
@@maximkretsch7134 If a reader gets that idea, that’s down to their naivety, not the author for mentioning that similar ideas in chapter on prewar German Politic. Also, a reader would have to be remarkably naive to come away from a history of the First World War and believe that such ideas were unique to a single country, especially when discussing the prewar alliances. On Brest-Litovsk, I believe the German intended that Poland, the Baltic States, Ukraine and Finland would be within their sphere of influence following a Central Powers victory in the war. So they would have a degree of independence, but with the understanding that German intervention was a possibility if they stepped out of line.
@@arronjameshook Not only some readers, but even some leaders (aka contemporary statesmen of the Entente) must have had this naive view, because otherwise they would hardly have brought about the Treaty of Versailles with all its consequences for world history.
As far as Brest-Litovsk is concerned, the German calculation - apart from a function as buffer states - may indeed have been that these new states would lean on Germany so as not to be swallowed up again by Russia. This actually became the case after 1918 with Finland and the Baltic states who got German military aid, while Poland decided to play the role of independent great power and, after the German withdrawal, tried to swallow Ukraine, reliying on French supplies.
One more thing to consider is that in 1939 Soviets wouldn't have moved the factories to the Urals, so this would have given a heavy blow to future prospects of Soviet counter-offensive strength, and not only would Russia be deprived of it, German/Polish alliance would have been boosted by it at least somewhat. I don't think Russians would have destroyed everything fast enough in the case of a surprise attack from Polish border.
Great video, thanks! Concerning your question at 2:16 I want to add that there used to be quite some research on this topic in Germany. As this was part of my studies, let me share some thoughts:
Already at the beginning of the 19th century there was this belief, widespread among intellectual circles, that Germany (which did not yet exist as a political entity, formed only in 1871!) was destined to colonise Eastern Europe. The Slavs in particular were perceived as inferior, not capable to grow beyond an agricultural lifestyle. Remember, the whole of Eastern Europe essentially was made up of peasants and herders at that time, much like Africa and Asia.
So, while Germany did manage to gain some colonies after her creation in 1871, she lost them all in World War I, and it was obvious that Germany had no chance of ever again having colonies. At least not on other continents! And that's what Hitler promised: New colonies, in Eastern Europe.
Hitler combined this thought of a German "mission civilisatrice" for Eastern Europe with traditional Antisemitism, claiming that the Slavs never managed to create culture and statehood on their own, but only thanks to the "German origins" of their elites. In World War I, however, the Slavs, particular the Russians, have allegedly lost this German ruling layer of society, which instead was replaced by J e w s. But according to Hitler their statesmanship was "degenerated" and thus doomed to fail. In my opinion this explains (at least in part) why the H o l o c a u s t was intensified as Germany got more and more into the defensive, as, according to Nazi logic, the elimination of J e w s would allow future generations of Germans to colonise Eastern Europe, despite the fact that the current one was losing the war. That of course is only a theory of mine, but I think it does explain this somewhat intriguing fact that the H o l o c a u s t increased the more Germany started to lose the war.
The above mentioned research on this topic used to be quite well established in Germany, but got out of fashion after its peak in the 1990's. Political commentators at the time for example accused German foreign policy that their decision to unilaterally recognise the independence of Slovenia and Croatia (which led to the civil war in Yugoslavia) was a direct continuation of Nazi policies.
Even former US Secretary of State Cyrus Vance called that war "Genscher's war", so it was nothing fringe at the time. Back then, people used to be aware of these continuities in German foreign policy.
There maybe was no direct "continuity of thought", as Müller puts it, but there can be no doubt that there was a "continuity of discourse", a framework of thought, that shaped Hitler's ideas.
Not Only Germany learned from mistakes and adjusted tactics. Soviets got a hard lesson from the Finns and made big changes after that war. They got kind of hard beating from an underarmed small country with a big heart for their country and freedom. Lessons learned there was both tactical and also psycological. Well, can also be argued that germanys view of Soviet capability was affected so that they thougt the Soviets were utterly uncapable to put up an serious fight. It might have escaped the german mindset that Soviets also would learn and adjust their tactics etc. And if im not all wrong the Soviets put up an heck of a fight when they got surrounded and cut of by finnish motti tactics.
I think it's pretty obvious that if Germany considered the tiny gap between Pomerania and East Prussia to be unacceptable, then a massive gap between Germany and Ukraine would have been ludicrous. Any attempt at cooperation with Poland was likely a deception from the very start.
Good video! But it's worth pointing out that, especially in the interwar years, countries had various war plans being studied. Even the USA had wacky plans involving wars with Canada and Mexico.
Thank you very much for your great work and research on all your videos. There is a question that I am troubling with regarding Germany's war plans during WW2. As you have pefectly presented in many of your videos Germany was in desperate need to secure the needed natural oil for its future war effords, since synthetic oil and romanian oli would be enough by their calculations. The Soviet oil production in Caucaus was their only solution in order to use all their miliary equipment. I am wondering then if it would be more sensible for Germany to not stop the initial war effortd with the capture of west Poland and allow the Soviets to capture the east half of Poland but continue the war and invade east Poland and then invade by surprise Soviet Union till they try to reach and capture Caucasus oil fields. They would have much more needed oil that they spent with attacking their western neighbours. With regards to its western enemies Germany could only keep a defensive line and use all its main forces at the east since anyway neither France not Great Britain had shown any seriour preparations to attach Germany as retribution to the invasion of Poland. And after Germany would have possible defeated Soviet Union and secure the oil fields they would attack France and the other western neighbours like they actually did in 1940? So they could proceed this time full force with operation Sea Lion? Could you possible make a video regarding this question? Thank you!
Yes, it was a huge mistake to wait until 1941
Nice
I feel ashamed lol!! I considered myself very knowledgeable on WW2 and much of its prelude but this episode showed me much more about the little known parts about the Polish German pacts during the 1930s and what went on behind the scenes between Poland and Germany . It’s really amazing how things turned out just the opposite with Poland getting crushed between two on opposite sides !
I am Polish and I am very surprised with those details. Especially 'who takes south' negotiation. I would love to see sources of this sensational news. To me it sounds like alternative history od whishful thinking.
@@albertofernandez2490 yea I don’t know but I just bought the book he is talking about “Enemy in the East”. It is historical fact about the German Polish parts of 1935 etc but beyond that I don’t know much.
@@albertofernandez2490 there were no such negotiations
TIK are you planning on making any videos explaining the war in the pacific?
TIK, You make a good point (one of many) that the Germans remembered they won in the East in WW1, but forgot how. I wonder the impact if they tried to play that game again … sow seeds of unrest (well, fertilise the seeds that Stalin created) and sit back and watch.
@B A Top ten anime twists
Hi TIK, my question for you is: If UK had the strength to fight Germany without US financial and military aid, but only with the colonies that it had at that moment?
Congrats for the videos that you create!
Thank you!
Hi TIK. Thank you for your work. I would make the argument though, that the roots for Hitlers thinking of conquering Russia lay more in the austrian view (Hitler was austrian, I think until 1932). As you mentioned the suggestions made at Bismarck’s time, they were made by Austria. Bismarck and Prussia were generally interested in good relationships with russia since the napoleonic wars. Austria had on the other hand big differences with Russia e.g. regarding the balkan. And WWI broke out because exactly these differences.
Plans for war with the USSR does not mean the intention was there. Its a well known fact that the US made war plans for every nation, including Canada, i would not say that this is proof that the US "wanted" a war with Canada
The two areas NOT to set up a country in Europe, between Germany and France or between Germany and Russia.
Better sugestion: NOT AROUND GERMANY
@@nottoday3817 Actually, if Poland were located between France and Germany, it would have been a safe place for Poles, bad for Germany.
@TIK: Yes, the Poles have been using the standard railway gauge. Right after gaining independence, the formerly Russian territories had the Russian gauge (mostly, the Vienna-Warsaw railway line had the standard gauge), but the established Polish railways homoganised the gauge across the newly formed country to the standard gauge.
The bulk of the post-war Polish railroad net had been taken over from the Prussians. So this set the standard, easy as that.
@@maximkretsch7134
The re-established Polish state took over the following amounts of standard and broad-gauge railway lines:
- Germany: 5000 km
- Austria-Hungary: 4200 km
- Russia: 6200 km
Thus the formerly German lines represent 32% of the preexisting railwaynetwork.
I fear your conviction that the lion share of the Polish railway network was taken over from the Germans is not based on any data you checked, but on the deeply rooted bias many Germans hold against Poland.
@@Tholomaios I never spoke of the "German" railway network but of the railway network *taken over from the Prussians* , which is a big difference as you are about to see, because I too fear something: I fear your eagerness to take the usual convenient victim role made you forget that the main part of Russian Poland was occupied by the Prussians from 1915 to 1918 since a world war was on-going. And with all the supply requirements such a war brings, the Prussians immediately began to re-gauge the Russian broad gauge on the most important lines. Incidentally, I doubt your figures when we look at the Polish railway map of 1952, which shows precisely that even then the majority of the PKP railways network was still recognisably located in the former German territory of 1918. You're welcome.
@@maximkretsch7134
1. Prussia/Germany: Since 1871, Prussia was part of the second German Reich aka Emperial Germany. All Russian territories you claim were 'taken over by Prussia', have been conquered for and ruled in the name of the Empire. It is beyond me, how it would matter that the German-occupied territories of the Russian Empire were administratively assigned to Prussia. That is, if they actually were.
2. 'the main part of Russian Poland... ': The German-occupied part of the so called 'Kingdom of Poland' was only slighlty bigger than that occupied by Austria-Hungary (see: de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalgouvernement_Warschau_(1915%E2%80%931918)#/media/Datei:OkupacjaKP1914-18.PNG)
3. '...was occupied by the Prussians: Nope. The German Empire established the so called 'Generalgouvernement Warschau' for its part of the above-mentioned kingdom. Thus, German-occupied territories were not made part of Prussia. In fact, they have not even been annexed and, therefore, not even made a part of Germany.
However, if what you mean is that most of the German officials in German-occupied territories of Russian Poland were Prussians, I wonder how that matters.
4. 'Prussians immediately began to re-gauge the Russian broad gauge': Interresting point. How much did they manage to re-gauge?
5. 'the majority of the PKP railways network was still recognisably located in the former German territory of 1918': Yes, you mean this map (pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plik:PKP1952-53.jpg) and what you say is written right below it on the Wikipedia page: 'Widać większą ilość linii kolejowych na terenie dawnego zaboru niemieckiego, a mniejszą na terenach dawnych zaborów rosyjskiego i austriackiego.'
And yet you are wrong: the map of 1952 shows Poland in the post World War 2 borders. Before WW2, half of the Polish territory was East of the Bug river, territories taken by the USSR. At the same time, Poland took over German territories. Thus, after WW2, the proportion of post-German, post-Austrian and post-Russian railway lines obviously shifted towards lines taken over from Germany.
My number relate to the proportions after World War 1.
BTW: I got the numbers from here: niepodlegla.gov.pl/o-niepodleglej/koleje-polskie-w-drodze-do-niepodleglosci/
and here www.sektorkolejowy.pl/jak-wygladala-polska-kolej-100-lat-temu/.
6. 'convenient victim role': Yes, a very common attitude among Polish nationalists - I am not one of them. Yet I was able to observe the German anti-Polish bias on ample occasions. It always includes the element of overestimating German strength or contributions - just as you did twice.
Hey TIK, great video. I was wondering, since the Soviets invaded Poland as well, why didn't Britain and France declare war on the Soviet Union? I know it would be illogical to wage war against two military titans simultaneously, but in principle they should have. As always, I'm sure the reason is a lot more complicated.
France only signed a defense pact against Germany. As for Britain, They actually did plan to attack the Soviets to prevent them from supplying Germany, however plans got canceled after France fell
Divide et impera is the oldest trick in the book. The British had troops everywhere (see random colony), so they couldn’t really focus on anything.
@@kingorange7739 Interestingly, the Finnish government was ready to declare war on Germany as early as September 1943, but the Western Allies were unable to support Finland.
"in the present situation in which the Finnish Government finds itself, it may feel that the best solution for its present political difficulties would be a landing by American or even British troops in Finland. "
history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1943v03/d217
@chriscmocall can't comment
Hitler should have done “Danzig For Slovakia” Outstanding video as always TIK, keep up the great work!
If you think that map looked ridiculous then you should check maps of American Congressional districts
I like how you keep the clock of ww2 history TICKING
I don‘t want to get on your nerves but do you have an idea when the next stalingrad episode will be online? I am loving the series and your videos in general.
It'll be in the next few weeks. As I said in a recent video, I work on the scripts between each season ruclips.net/video/pzoL24dqWaU/видео.html
@@TheImperatorKnight Thank you!
Just some questions about the Barbarossa Plan. (Sorry for the grammar mistakes, I am not a native English).
- Why did not the Germans play the role of the liberators, who would free the oppressed people from the Bolsheviks, would free the oppressed minorities (Ukrainians, Uzbeks, Chechens, etc., the list is infinite...) from the Russians, the oppressed religious people from the atheist communists... etc. Why were the Germans not able to make the minorities rebel against the Russians?
- If Turkey had attacked the Soviet Union, could the German have occupied the Caucasus and the oil fields?
The failure to swing south on 03/09/39, and use the next 6 months to station massive forces throughout the East European nations was the fundamental cause of the Nazi loss of WW2. Had they positioned 2 million men in Moldova in April 1940, while the other 1 million made a relatively "feint" attack at Moscow/Northern Russia, they could have made a dash across the flat, lightly defended Ukrainian plains to the Caucuses, and nothing on Earth (at that time) could have stopped them capturing the oilfields. IIRC Stalin's surviving generals didn't think up the 'Scorched earth' policy until the RL Barbarossa was several months/1 year in, in which case, barring a sudden change to a ballsy regime in France, it would have been a pretty horrific checkmate for the allies.
This isn't hoi4 lmao. How were they supposed to supply 2 million men in Moldova?
@@0witw047
Only to stay there for a couple of months after the Polish campaign. Then an invasion in spring 1940 with 2 million through Moldova.
Is easier to feed 2 million for a few months in Moldova than it is to feed 3 million inside the Soviet union in 1941-43.
Will have to watch and analyze later. Did enjoy video about Karl Marx's anti-semitism. Did have one thing to mention; I'm not sure if being apolitical is possible. I'd argue that politics is a normal facet of everyday life, if one counts it as allocation of resources, ie "Who gets the goodies." It could be as simple as which grocery store to go to, or who you vote for. It's one of the few things I took away from my political science teacher when I was an undergrad, though I had a lot of problems with him. One of which was his insistence on being the guest lecturer for the Battle of Midway for our WWII course, where he butchered it.
As far as the Polish railways are concerned...during ww1 Germany/Austria changed the railway gauge to standard in almost all the areas under German control 1915 and later. AFAIK Poland stayed with Standard between the wars (and got given German locomotives as "reparations" lol which run on Standard). The Warsaw Vienna line was already standard from the start. There were only remnants in the East/Dual.track mainly for break of gauge. Other former Russian Empire states like Baltic states still have Russian gauge while Finland has almost but just a pinch smaller than Russian. Hope this helps.
Has any information come to light since the collapse of the Soviet Union regarding the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact? Specifically regarding which party to the agreement approached the other first?
That's a good question. It would also be interesting to do a comparison of the two versions and see if they say the same thing
From what I know the Soviets quite aggressively sought a pact with the western powers against hitler up to July 39, while the Germans tried to get the Soviets in a pact.
It was when Stalin saw no serious considerations on the western powers side that he turned to Hitler and had the pact made in short order due to time constraints in August 39.
Though I might be wrong, I would be happy to be corrected.
Yes archives opens little by little, especially these days when WWII narrative changes(although it's all in russian language obviously . To cut it short - Soviet did sign the pact because they thought western europe as one of the major threat especially after Munich Agreement (in russian it is known to this day as Munich collusion/cahoot so it says something).
There were discussion between Franco-British from March 1939 (after Germans annexed the rest of Czekoslovakia) about alliance against Germany. But Moscow wanted in exchange Balts, Finland and Romania in their sphere of influence plus free passage for Army through Poland. The issue is what the British were reluctant to give it to Soviets. So negociations bogged down.
Hitler get that information so he give the greenlight to Ribbentrop to make proposals to Soviets.
29 May Germany secretary of state von Weizsacker tells Soviet ambassador Merekalov that Berlin is open for discussions.
3 August von der Schulenburg (German ambassador in Moscow) offers Molotovs trade rights and at 15 August a pact of non aggression, a mediation between Japan and USSR (which fight at that time in Mongolia) and a "resolving of Balts question" ( which is basically a greenlight for later Balts annexation)
The deal was made in Moscow and allowed Stalin to start the war and in the same put blame of that on Germany... isnt that obvious that it was Stalin idea?
This map was in Germany and ended up in western powers hands in 1945 commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact_showing_the_new_German-Soviet_border_Sept_28_1939.png
There is no signature of Adolf, Stalin made a signature and the best part is that he have no official position in USSR at that time to make this signature worthed anything... if you add that to the fact that he started one signature and then stoped and made another one but the new one was just gigantic then you can tell that he have something in mind at that time and was very very excited.
Stalin provided metals, oil and training facilities in Soviet union for Germany(Kama tank school | Lipetsk fighter-pilot school | gas warfare facility, ) and only because of that this new war was posible and you asking whose idea was that? HAHA
Who took half of Europe for half of century thanks to this deal and to this day is claiming that they save the whole world by doing so?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestapo%E2%80%93NKVD_conferences
can you do a battlestorm series for Barbarossa?
This video shows well why Gebirgsjäger battalion carry less equipment than a motorized unit:
ruclips.net/video/OQEVbhcrNWk/видео.html
This would make for an interesting alternate history videogame.
8:26 I actually laughed out loud at this map. You reconnect east prussia but then cut off the caucasus lmao.
I'm kinda... baffled by this video. What are the sources behind those revelations?
From what I know, from such historians of reputable reputations like Stanislaw Żerko that have written a lot about Polish-German relations:
1. At no point Poland seriously consider any attempt to invade Soviet Union. Instead, it was Germany that were proposing them constantly to Poland - which at no point agreed to them besides pretending to be "mildly interested" - which in diplomatic language means nothing.
2. Poland was in no position to invade Soviet Union, because they already have crippling problem with their current Ukrainian and Belarusian minorities, they didn't want more of them. In interwar period the minorities of Poland were already causing massive problem (partly due to sanation mismanagement and authoritarian rule). Adding even more minorities would be a suicide.
3. Sources confirm that Polish Army military plans did not have offensive plans for invasion of Soviet Union due to complete lack of economic capacity to sustain such invasion. Instead, the drawn defensive plans of Poland in case of invasion by Soviet Union and Germany portrays something opposite - Poland economic strength was so weak it could sustain barely half a year of defensive warfare (on assumption it would not lose key economic areas like Upper Silesia). How Poland could sustain offensive operations into Soviet Union, when Poland, as rather weak power could not even properly sustain defensive warfare?
4. Instead, what can be easily confirm is that Poland wanted to avoid war with either Germany and Soviet Union (clearly visible by signining two non-agression pacts with both of those states). In later parts of 30' Poland leaned more to Germany, but military cooperation was one of the weakest elements of those relations. Through entire period, even during the worst year of 1938, Poland had more military cooperation with France than Germany.
The video portrays absolutely bizzare picture of Poland unironically wanting to "paint the map" with Germany, like in Hearts of Iron game. The geopolitical and diplomatic reality was however complely different: Poland was too weak economically to sustain any kind of offensive warfare, and instead Poland tried to rely on idea that it was possible to permanently achieve the status of peace between Poland and Germany and Poland and Soviet Union, which in long-term was a doomed idea - but only in hindsight.
Source was stated in the video and in the description: Müller "Enemy in the East". Everything I talked about was talked about in that book, and it's a great book
As Müller explains, Poland may have been the one to propose to the Germans about an invasion in the East. Yes, it could have been diplomatic speak, but the point is that the talks happened
@@TheImperatorKnight According to Żerko, several times German officials approached Lipski (Polish Ambassador in Berlin) with the ideas of direct military cooperation against Soviet Union and that actually involves the "Ukrainian quote" - Germans proposing that in dismantling Soviet Union Poland could aquire Ukraine. Lipski then didn't completely refuted Germans, but also show no sign of agreeing or even treating it seriously.
Instead, it looks like German diplomacy pulled another "Zimmerman scenario". I don't mean actual telegraph, but diplomatic talks behind the scenes with Japanese in 1915 that involved bizzare ideas of Japan and Mexico somehow dismantling USA. Japan however never treated those diplomatic talks behind the scenes seriously, while Germany did - which later backfired. What you describe from Muller book looks like something similar - German diplomacy unironically thinking Poland could be offensive partner for dismantling Soviet Union, while not realising that Polish diplomats, while polite and rather "supportive" (as in case of ambassador Lipski) are not treating the ideas of invasion of Soviet Union seriously at all.
@@maciejjarocki8350 From the recording of a conversation between German Foreign Minister I. Ribbentrop and Polish Foreign Minister J. Beck
January 6, 1939
"I asked Beck if they had given up the ambitious aspirations of Marshal Pilsudski in this direction, that is, from claims to Ukraine. To this he, smiling, answered me *that they had already been in Kiev itself and that these aspirations, undoubtedly, are still alive today."*
From the recording of a conversation between German Foreign Minister I. Ribbentrop and Polish Foreign Minister J. Beck
January 26, 1939
"Then I spoke with Beck again about the policy of Poland and Germany in relation to the Soviet Union and in this connection also on the question of Greater Ukraine; I again proposed cooperation between Poland and Germany in this area.
*Mr. Beck made no secret of the fact that Poland claims Soviet Ukraine and access to the Black Sea,* he immediately pointed out the allegedly existing dangers that, in the opinion of the Polish side, the treaty with Germany against the Soviet Union would entail for Poland. However, speaking about the future of the Soviet Union, he expressed the opinion that the Soviet Union would either collapse as a result of internal disintegration, or, in order to avoid this fate, would gather all its forces into a fist in advance and strike."
@@simplicius11 The problem of those quotes, is the fact they have been written by German officials with assumption (by Foreign Office) that those remarks are treated seriously. This is exactly what I'm talking about - German diplomats proved to be simply delusional and are buying the offer that isn't even there. What is a form of flattery, German official desperetely wants to paint as an offer of actual alliance - because he is so desperete to create a situation in which grand objectives of Hitler policies (invasion of Soviet Union) could be realised. Which is completely not the case.
It kinda reminds me of similar delusion of III Reich diplomacy in interwar period which was the period of "reapproachment" between Germany and Great Britain during which German officials desperetely tried to paint the picture that United Kingdom could be convinced to "accept" German domination in Europe. Another example would be German-Japanese talks on Pact of Steel and then immensely botched attempt to """"""invite""""" Japan to invade Soviet Union. There are a lot of talks about failures of German army, logistics, espionage, but very rarely actual diplomacy is being analysed, and III Reich diplomats proved to be continuisly wrong on several occassions, especially in predicting what actually is their opponent or ally thinking of them and their offers.
One of the ideas was supposed to be southern focused operations from day one? Please go over that plan.
There is an actual historical debate in Poland that we should have allied ourselves to hitler and that would be better from purely polish perspective. Also this debate crossed the border of history and is beeing implemented into the current geopolitical situation ( russian threat and no visible NATO/EU support exept USA)
If you had allied, u wouldve lost far more civilians from genocide than you had lost in ww2.
Have you read the book “The Next 100 Years”by George Friedman??
@@mvfc7637 no but i know the general thesis in this book.
@@marcinpietraszko2997 it discusses how Poland’s demographics will lead to it becoming a regional hegemon which competes with a resurgent Turkey, it’s all based on the premise that Russia collapses though. However, Poland like many countries in Eastern Europe needs to face up to their geo-political realities, once again Poland is stuck between two major powers.
@@devnull436 it is not the question whether Poland could do this but if she should. Past doesn't really matter to our presesnt lifes at least from geopolitical perspective expect learning from it and what resources we are given at a start
Perhaps like the campaign in the West, which was an updated version of the schlieffen plan all over again but with more “modern weaponry” and “new tactics.”
Like wise in the East, they did have an outdated blue print based on Napoleons campaign and their own experiences on the eastern front WWI to draw from...
although I agree with Tik With everything he mentioned in regards to the question raised...
I’d just like to remind everyone that an outdated blue print did exist based on past experiences in the east...
sorry a bit off topic TIK what do you know of the Dirlewanger ss brigade, could these monsters have existed ?
TIK. I liked the video but since you were talking about post WW1 events I think you should have mentioned the Russo-Polish war of 1921, so viewer could understand why Polish were thinking of a relationship with Germany in the 1920's.
You mean the Polish feared to be relieved of the Soviet territories grabbed after their invasion of 1919-21?
In case you didn't see this
4th army corp
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IV_Army_Corps_(Wehrmacht)#/media/File:IV_Armeekorps_emblem.svg
8th army corp
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:VIII_Armeekorps.svg
Reference
stalingrad.net/german-hq/generals-and-divisions/armeekorps_commanders.htm
Von Daniels,Von armin,Deboi,Heitz,Adam,Paulus.
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Field_Marshal_Paulus,_General_Heitz_and_other_German_officers_of_the_6th_Army_after_its_surrender.jpg
Other Stalingrad pics
gr.pinterest.com/Nonepolitical/stalingrad/
I would like to point out the picture for Von Schwerin is Gehard Von Schwerin not
Richard Von Schwerin.Who is with the 8th jager and later the 16th mot division
gr.pinterest.com/Nonepolitical/stalingrad/
You did mention a 1921 treaty between Germany and the USSR, can someone tell me the name of this treaty or point to a source where I could find information on this treaty?
It's not a 'treaty'. It's 'treaties' or relations.
There were quite a few.
First I think should be the Brest Litovsk of 1918. After Germany capitulated, Soviet Union was still fighting and through 1919 they managed to recover their lost territories to the Germans, since UK and France did not bother to invite the third (and most affected) major power of the original Entente to the Versailles. A peace treaty was signed around the time Germany signed one with US (1920 I believe). Then relations started to warm up as both nations felt cheated by the outcome of WW1 and the Soviets were also hoping for a second communist revolution in Germany (like the one in Bavaria in 1919)
Economic ties were formed and a tank school was formed in Kazan (you can google it). Everything fell apart in 1933 as Hitler took power, though, and they fought at least one major proxy war in Spain from 1936 to 1939. (well, more like they fought each other on the land of another state)
------> Rapallo
Interesting video TIK. Are you considering making a video on the inflation that many countries faced in world war 1, the deflation that followed in some countries and the hyperinflation in Germany and Russia?
I am also interested in your thoughts on why Hitler declared war on the USA. I agree with your view that the East was the priority for Hitler and that he may have later used his war with Britain for strategic purposes with his eventual conflict with Stalin. However I think it would be important to explain how the United States would fit into Germany's larger strategy as, at first glance, Hitler declaring war on the USA (because it was after Barbarossa began) would seem to fly against the goal of Eastern conquest.
"Are you considering making a video on the inflation that many countries faced in world war 1, the deflation that followed in some countries and the hyperinflation in Germany and Russia?"
Yes. Not sure when it will be (probably a while away) but I absolutely do want to cover this issue because the current narrative completely misses the mark (pun intended).
"I am also interested in your thoughts on why Hitler declared war on the USA."
This is a Patreon question. I've currently not fully figured out the reason for it yet. If you (or anyone else) has any suggestions as to why, or has any recommendations of books on this particular topic, let me know.
"However I think it would be important to explain how the United States would fit into Germany's larger strategy"
I do know that Hitler envisioned a war with the USA after the conquest of Lebensraum, since he says this in Mein Kampf and his Second Book. But that doesn't explain why he declared war on her in 1941.
@@TheImperatorKnight I do know that Hitler may have had plenty confidence in the Japanese navy, believing that they could hold off the USA until he had won in the east, which would allow him to turn west and fight the USA with Japan as an ally.
I think it may have been related to the German navy's fight in the Atlantic to cut British supplies from America. America's entry into the war was followed by the German U-Boats sinking many ships on the east coast.
But I'm not sure as to the long term reason for Hitler wanting war with them.
What do you think the nature of this envisioned war would've been? Did Hitler want a full scale conflict with the Americans and may actually have thought a land invasion (maybe 2 fronts with Japan from the west) was possible, or something else?
@Superdude70 That could certainly have played its part as a short term cause.
@@TheImperatorKnight I can't remember which one it was, but I saw a lecture on RUclips that Raeder and Donitz had been urging Hitler to declare war on the US after the USN began escorting convoys from Canada to Iceland around August 1941. There were three famous incidents of US Navy destroyers attacking/being attacked by German u-boats. See the USS Greer, USS Kearny, and USS Reuben James. According to Wikipedia the Kearny incident was specifically mention by Hitler when he gave his speech declaring war on the USA.
@Superdude70 That's always been my assumption as well. Knowing how badly the Wehrmacht was doing in the east, and knowing that even if the US wanted to attack Germany directly they were years away from being able to do so, it must have seemed like a great idea to the Germans to show their "ally" Japan that they were willing to take on the same enemies in order to try to convince them to open up a front with the Soviets. They might have thought they could defeat the USSR together, then turn on the US and Britain and win a victory there as well.
Plz tell me where did you find the discussions between the poles and the Germans splitting the ussr.
Müller "Enemy in the East" P50-52. He was actually referencing a meeting between Göring and the Polish leaders, and got his information from a Polish historian.
@@TheImperatorKnight thanks
@@danieltsiprun8080he got the information from a book that the author had got the information from a Polish Historian! Sorry but I need documents and where they can be found in the archives! Too many times when I tracked down sources it went back 4 to 5 authors quoting the previous until I reached the 1st never to find his source or collaborative evidence?
Polish Wikipedia says all railways was transformed to western standard until 1929.
It's not completely accurate, because only former russian part had eastern gauges
@@Warszawski_Modernizm Many of which were probably transformed already by Central Powers during WW1
@@ReichLife the most strategic ones, yes. But then, a lot was destroyed later, 1918-1920 during wars in Ukraine and with Bolshevik invasion. there was still a problem of intersecting and connecting former german and austrian with former russian network. Fun fact- In 1939 the official estimate for destruction of railway stock, material, infrastructure, bridges, intersections etc etc stood at 595 million french franks gold standard...
Tik did you not mention the Marcks Plan from 1940. A lot of people seem to forget this.
So,a West Germany and an East Germany! Kinda worked out that way!
Are you familiar with Paul Johnson’s Modern Times?
was i right about tyneside geordie?
And which is why Poland in 1933-34 approached France with a plan of their own for a pre-emptive war against Germany, with France annexing the Rhineland outright and Poland talking East Prussia and Silesia and Germany divided up into the collection of states it was in before 1866. Since the Poles would be doing the heavy lifting they informed the French they would need to meet Polish expenses as the Polish economy could not manage such a strain. This and the absolute opposition of the British scotched what would have been plan almost guaranteed to succeed.
If you're looking for a good book about the eastern front read "Eastern Inferno" by Hans Roth. It documents the operation from a German perspective.
Hitler had to get the state of Poland out of the way first then - before acquiring his "living space." So that by his way of thinking, Poland too would "have to be incorporated" in the "living space."
Poland did, and still does, have the western railway gauge. Only the Soviet Union, and today's Russia, has it's own, much wider gauge, making the transfer of train carriages and goods wagons a difficult procedure, as the Wehrmacht realised in 1941. It was forced to narrow all railway tracks to take western rolling stock. The famous photo of a French SNCF goods wagon far into Russia is proof of a major replacement of tracks by the Germans during the war. It would be interesting to find out what the Red Army did when it moved west. Did it change the tracks back to the Russian gauge, or keep the western system operating until the war was over? I know of course that the Germans destroyed hundreds of kilometers of railway tracks as they withdrew, but this question would be interesting.
TIK channel - come for the history, stay for the alternate history!
Nobody cares that you’re first
3st
FIRST! :D
Question ..why didn't Japan ( a German allie) attack the Russians simultaneously...they owed the Russians already and this could of secured the the Siberian troops in the east and not freed them to defend Moscow...
In the last centuries the European societies were dominated by agriculture that occupied most of the population and was the base of its existance. All continental nations had ideas and plans how to increase the own territory and thus the land to feed the population.
The author took selectivly the plans that supported his thesis.
I read plenty of German books from the past written by the elite that wrote books at that time. In the 1920 - 1930ies. The main desire of the German elites of the 1920ies and 1930ies was to regain the territorries taken away and given to Poland in the Versailles treaty that had in some parts a German majority - in other parts a strong German minority population. The German population in these areas was disciminated and suppressed. The idea to gain new territories ("Lebensraum") in the East was by far less popular. Please be aware that even a dictatorship is not a one man show but depends on an elite of several million poeple.
Poland had expansionary plans to the west and the east but was aware that neither Germany nor Russia were pleased by its existance. It was a mixture of expanionary ideas and fear. As far as known to me the fear against Russia was stronger.
Russia/Soviet Union had always expensionary ideas and plans. Poland was always target of its expansionary ideas and plans.
At the end Russia and Germany digested Poland. Russia took the opportunity to expand to the west (Finnland, Baltic Nations, Romania) and threatened vital positions of Germany (Romanian oil). In the situation of a 2 - front war /threat Germany decided to go east first as in WW1.