@@大砲はピュ Agree. I know there are people who say things like" "if he hadn't have been crazy..." Hypothetical questions can make for entertaining, and sometimes useful discussions, but we have to always remember they are hypothetical. Whether he was actually insane, or just toxic from the meds he was on, it really doesn't matter. His behavior was not stable or normal and could not ever have led to a good outcome in the real world.
@@taWay21 then Deadpool, I guess, went back in time and finally raised Hitler to be a proper human being, and he became a good artist Because somebody actually believed in him see what you get with positive reinforcement, no dictator ships
I'm second generation polish American and it doesn't go away. Something about all the generations suffering is baked into my blood. I feel like I could turn into a revolutionary at the drop of the hat and I hate abuses of power of ANY kind
No, his only slim chance to win was to actually be Hitler. His generals diverted to Moscow instead of taking the Caucuses oil fields like the wanted. The blew their one slim chance and lost the war. That's why he never trusted his generals after that.
The only way hitler could have won was not attacking the soviets, because attacking the soviets with FDR as president leads to US involvement and propping up the soviets 100% of the time.
Adolf Hitler and Walt Disney were the same man Walt Disneys number one language was German and Josef Goebbels Hitler's number one advisor was Roy Disney Walt Disneys brother the elite ran ww 2 d day was a drill there were no Japanese planes at pearl harbor and there were no nukes at Nagasaki and Hiroshima
As someone who's half Polish, I really appreciate someone talking about the our national pride. My great grandmother would always tell stories about when she left home as a teenager to join rebels that assisted in the Warsaw Uprising, on top of numerous plans/tricks/etc. they enacted to take out Nazi soldiers occupying her hometown (which was very near to Oświęcim, location of Auschwitz)
@@jonnyblayze5149if he's half, then automatically yes, in most places in the world if you're half, you automatically have citizenships of both of your parents + citizenship of place you were born in
@@jonnyblayze5149You do have a point. I am Canadian, my dad is Algerian, sometimes people ask me if i identify as Algerian, which i respond with dude I’ve never been there and i don’t speak a word of the language. I was born and raised in some shit hole in ontario, thats what i know, I’m Canadian nothing else. For some reason half the first gen people i know here don’t get that idea like go ahead go back to Pakistan or whatever you will be treated like a foreigner because thats what you are to them.
As a Greek, i have the greatest respect for the Polish people. You went through a lot of crap in your history, just like we did, and you kept your identity just like we did.
Yeah and politics. She is great to listen to. People think Soviets would have fallen after Stalingrad and a few other majior cities. Yet that isn't true. They had places and plans to hide in the Urals, and had majior factories, and cities behind the entire mountian range. I just don't see Germany being able to fight across them, and supply any majior army. I don't know why people think taking a capital city means game over.
@@dianapennepacker6854 I think the Germans should have Not fought the Battle of Britain (over reach #1) and then basically stuck deep into Ukraine and the Urals, with flanking units, and ignore Moscow and probably Leningrad (now back to being called St. Petersburg). Napoleon did capture Moscow, but still lost that war@
@Tim.NavVet.EN2 There is no way the Germans wouldn't have tried for Britain after the humiliation of Dunkirk. That being said, they could have done a better job of it, obviously
His stated goal was to unite the German people again. Those other countries had millions of Germans that were carved off Germany from WW1. Soviet Union was reclaiming it's past land at the same time, Finland, the Baltics, Ukraine, and they invaded Poland too. Weird how England and France declared war over the Invasion of Poland only on Germany and not Soviet Union.
@@lokiwhacker "that were carved off Germany from WW1" What The Polish Corridor and Alsace? Both territories with large pluralities of other peoples? " Soviet Union was reclaiming it's past land at the same time, " No it wasn't. It wasn't until they allied with Hitler to carve up spheres that they did. In 1938 there was no such action. "weird how England and France declared war over the Invasion of Poland" The UK signed an agreement with Poland at the end of March 1939 in response to Germany illegally occupying the rest of Czechoslovakia. That agreement was specific to mutual assistance in the event of an invasion from specifically Germany, which was contained in a secret protocol. Up to that point the UK was with the Soviet Union, along with France and Poland, trying to contain Germany through a 4-way alliance. The Soviet Union in the meantime signed its own treaty with Germany. Not weird at all if you actually studied Interwar history.
Hitler did not have limited ambitions. A Gustav Streseman could have given Germany additional territorial concessions but Hitler's goals were impossible to reconcile with peace and stability in Europe.
I think he could've stopped after France. Once it became clear that the battle of Britain was a losing effort and he calls off the amphibious invasion... he could have brokered a cease fire and maybe made some concessions. He never should have invaded Russia. From that point on it was game over.
@@kentdavies1988 Britain wouldve never surrendered though after Churchill became PM. Hitler was a dishonest broker, and Munich being violated proved it.
She’s with the Naval War College, they have a RUclips channel, I don’t know if they have clips of her on there or not they have a lot of people on their panels and stuff but I do remember seeing her some other places before.
The problem with that is he delivered the German economy from the Gret Depression by ramping up stimulus and war production. He needed to go to war in order to occupy and plunder. That is one of the reasons he invaded Czechoslovakia when he did - Czechoslovakia's entire gold reserve and other industry was immediately taken over, to pay for loans. Germany would have otherwise had to default and go bankrupt by 1940.
"Poles are TOUGH." LOL, during their entire history the Poles always from the very beginning onwards were under the thumb of their stronger, superior and more succesful neighbours, usually the Germans. The Germans are indeed very tough but Poles are a complete joke.
And you guys were the Z in the alliance that wiretapped all H's communications . I think England was the Y where they set up the permanent base and France was the X that didn't believe what they heard . US came late and confiscated everything to build the NSA .
You can see the fatal flaw of cultism when lying charlatans like Hitler and Trump get power and make people no longer think rationally and it leads to their own doom
Finally a post on here that makes sense. Hitler wasn't doing anything every other empire in Europe, or anywhere else for that matter, had tried to do: expand their national borders.
Absolutely true in the prelude to WW1, but that’s actually what makes the start of WW2 markedly different. It wasn’t a war of clashing empires - most of those empires had collapsed after WW1 and immense political experiments with all shades of democracy and fascism took place all over Europe as countries as we know them today began to emerge. So as a result, it was a war of clashing ideals and fascist figureheads with imperial ambitions who were leading countries who had once been big empires. But then with Stalin and Hitler in particular, you start to see this more sickening ideology, pseudoscience, propaganda and genocide begin to dominate their imperial doctrines.
I’m so glad Canada to the North of us and Mexico to the south and that’s it. Mexico being ran by the cartel minus the huge drog problem as long as the Cartel run Mexico, Mexico will never get political with America. So border expansion disputes, water disputes, fishing disputes, mineral disputes or any other crapp that neighbor countries war over, the cartel would never.
I don't think Hitler had the slightest clue as to the production capacity of the U.S. His grandiose ideas put him on an "all or nothing" path from which he couldn't retreat.
Only partly. German intelligence vastly underestimated Soviet forces and their ability to scale production. Additionally, the Germans had terrible logistics.
@@weirdshibainu Yep . Their head quartermaster said they could do blitzkreig about 1/3rd of the way to Moscow and then it's be a bunch of stops to resupply. No winterization. The rail gauge was different and German locomotives aren't meant for such long distances. Putting the armor divisions all upfront to take the damage while the infantry divisions are in the back. What a dumb idea to invade the Soviet Union.
@@seantrevathan3041 What really hampered the Germans were the majority of their supplies were moved by horses that could average about 15 kilometers a day under good conditions with armor easily able to travel 50-60 kilometers a day. It's a wonder they made it as far as they did.
@@weirdshibainu No kidding. I can't say there is one thing the Germans could have done that could have won them the war, not even taking Moscow. The Soviets just had far too many reserves of men to throw into the fight. I guess it's the sort of idicy that happens when you start a war on idealogical grounds(Lebensraum).
It's a bit like Russia and China have truly no understanding of how economically powerful the Anglosphere is, and how reliant they are on it, essentially client state. Russia under Putin is toast now. the damage he has done to the economy is irreversible. China, well, they are starting the we so sorry routine. We live in interesting times.
He could have controlled Europe in the same way that Soviet Russia controlled the Soviet block countries. They were police states with Russian occupation, every time they tried to pull out the countries tried to become independent.
One word---OIL. he had to invade the Soviet Union and take Stalingrad. Germany wasn't producing enough oil to maintain itself and it new territories. There was no holding back and stopping.
@@jdee8407 Off shore oil rigs. Oil was discovered in Scotland in 1851 and in 1896 gas was discovered in England. Furthermore the North Sea is one of the richest off shore oil sites that was discovered in the early 1850s. If Hitler conquered Great Britain first, that would’ve left all of that oil open for the German war machine to be drilled, processed, and refined since the British navy would no longer be able to prevent Hitler from using those resources.
@@TheGeoCheese The North Sea oil fields were all discovered after the war. The finds in the 1800s were discovered so close offshore, that their exploitation was on-shore. Germany extracted oil and gas as well, but it was never enough to be self-sufficient. Even if the big oil fields in the North Sea were known at the time, it would be extremely hazardous to install and exploit in war time, as they'd make for very easy targets by sea and air. But deepwater exploration wasn't even possible until the '60s, and the vast majority of the deposits lay undiscovered until then and later.
Historically, it took centuries for nations to integrate territories into their empires and that was only by ruling the locals (i.e. leaving their culture alone and only taking resouces) or assimilating them rather than genocide.
Hitler was always all or nothing. It was total victory or dying in a dank pit. There was no in between. And his concept of total victory was never going to happen. The more interesting question to me is how different Europe would be if Hitler was assassinated and replaced by a more stable Nazi figurehead. Someone who was pretty much of the same worldview but capable of a more balanced, careful approach. What would Europe look like then and now? That's fascinating to me.
What makes you think he was about total victory? He only ever speaks of reuniting the territories and populations Germany gave away at Versailles. Hitler as some cartoon villain who wanted to conquer the world is just war propaganda. It’s been 80 years. Can we start speaking honestly yet?
@@kungfoochicken08 His actions speak to that all or nothing mentality, repeatedly. There are numerous points throughout the war where the sensible, beneficial thing to do for the German cause was to tactically retreat, allow a withdrawal, or in some circumstances a surrender. But he wouldn't countenance that. The fight to the last man mentality cost Germany so many elite units when it needn't have been so. And of course the ultimate example is the last images of him. Pathetic, defeated, shaking, as he congratulates children for sacrificing themselves in the pointless, senseless fight to the last boy in Berlin. He could have saved so many German lives both military and civilian if he was not totally wedded to the all or the nothing.
@@VeeSeven700 There was never a plan to conquer the world though, as she states in this video. It’s easy to criticize any military strategy after the fact. Germany was outmanned and outgunned the entire war. Swift, decisive, and aggressive tactics were the only way they were ever going to win. All of their early victories came from this Blitzkrieg strategy. To be entirely fair, Hitler never anticipated a war against Britain and France. There’s some evidence he anticipated they would fight alongside Germany to prevent Soviet expansion into Europe. I don’t think he anticipated France, England, and America going to total war to prevent Germany reunification, only to allow the Soviets to control half of Europe at the war’s end. The strategy still doesn’t make sense to this day. In many ways WW2, much like WW1, was a complete waste. I think maybe this is why propaganda around the war is still so strong. Maybe why we have to pretend we fought the war to prevent Jews from being put into labor camps or other such ridiculousness.
@@kungfoochicken08Hitler was way more rational (for a ruthless extremist) in his earlier years but contrary to Stalin started to develop illusions of grandeur, getting more and more fixated on his role as an actual military commander, after having that amazing success with von Mansteins plan on how to win over France and the BEF, which basically no other general had supported - except for Hitler himself. Yet already quickly after the first success, he would soon be responsible for some of the most foolish military decisions, starting with his decision to halt the advance on Dunkirk as a gesture of goodwill to the British, in order to find a common ground to make peace. It had always been his plan though to not only reunite Germany (nothing extraordinary evil about that plan) but to attack the Soviet Union in order to expel a lot of people from their homeland or use them as cheap labor force.
Exactly. If he could have stopped himself after annexing Czechoslovakia, then yes, he would have had to deal with occasional Czech insurgencies but probably could have handled that, perhaps he could even have negotiated closing the Polish corridor with the sops in other countries looking to avoid war, anything bigger couldn't have been held with what he had.
Danzig and West Prussia were the end of it though. He simply didn’t expect France or Britain to ally themselves with the Soviets and start a world war over Poland.
Recently read “Blood and Ruins”, by R Overy. Extremely well-written. My background is in science/medicine, but I’m reading in other areas now that I’m retired. The book covered very interesting perspectives about colonialism, from all participants in WWII. Learned much from this book.
His biggest mistake and first lesson in how a determined and ruthless population will never give up is the Battle of Britain… everything would’ve been different had he not focused on beating Britain who were never ever gonna give up.
One of the oldest problems in conquest is that the "control" density is somewhat fixed in the modern world. A good example of the change is a game called 'Romance of the Three Kingdoms" with a leader named Ma Teng. You started in a portion of the map that had a fiefdom. You could quickly occupy the next fiefdom and because land forces had to push through the border, you had a distinct advantage that you didn't have to have troops in your starting fiefdom. "The logistics of control scale with the circumference of the zone of control". So if you need 200 troops per 1km of border. You quickly realize that you have a limit to the territory. But it scales rather linear. In the modern world, the aircraft, missiles, and communication tech changed that such that it became a volumetric control problem. It wasn't 200 trooper per linear 1km, it became 10 trooper per square kilometer. Hitler, or the Nazi in general would have needed to have nearly 2/3rd of the population actively policing the territory of Europe that the time to maintain control. This isn't just social control, but logistical control to mitigate corruption for example. Now 21st century with drones and AI... you could meet the requirements of volumetric control. The danger is, Hitler couldn't control all of Europe in the 1940s but Hitler could control the world in 2025. So make no mistake, the 21st century, technologically speaking, is the century of tyrants because they now have the technology to control a population at that scale, not through subtly, but with brutal force.
they probably wouldn’t have been able to in the long run. The polish fought from the first day of the war even through occupation all the way to the end and had no plans of giving up and like she says people living under oppression will always fight back it would’ve been too much after awhile.
@@vipwanrinkle6439 That's a complete midwit argument. By that logic, no people could ever be subdued or conquered. Yet it has been done successfully many many times.
I don’t think the Soviet Union was anywhere near as united as to ensure Hitler “Choked” on those acquisitions. Ukraine and the Baltic’s were more than happy to be under German rule (At least in the immediate term) and we must remember the Bolsheviks didn’t gain power through popular support, they were a tiny fringe of extremists that usurped power (Nowhere near the kind of public support of Hitler). Many restive non-Slavic Russian populations would equally have been pleased to be “Liberated” from Communism. Hitler at some point would have progressively been replacing these populations through The Lebensborn programme and so a series of client states would have been quite easy to maintain until a point at which Ethnic Germans began to make up a sizeable part of each state.
For the Baltics, I don't know, but I'm sure the Ukrainians were only happy for about a month after the "liberation". Definetely got angry after the plunder of their food and resources, and all that wonderful forced labour began, soon after the liberation.
No russian identity Baltic identity and Ukrainian identity will be too strong to be stamped out and will simply fight a british funded insurgency. Because the nazis were committing genocide
The irony is that was it not for Hitler, there's a possibility that us Africans would still be outright colonized today. WWII diminished the colonial capacity of western Europeans, created formidable opposition in places like my country Kenya (where returnee soldiers co-opted to help fight for the Europeans realized that they could hold their own in battle)... a whole slew of factors that resulted in a wave of independence across 40+ African states a decade or less after. There's still a lot of stealthy and overt neocolonialism (e.g compromising democracy and outright taking out leaders), but that _might_ be on it's way out.
You'd have gotten independence anyway, just maybe slightly later. The colonial empires were a financial drain and eventually the people in those colonies were starting/continuing to call for independence. The first world War had led to calls for Indian independence. The Arabs had started an independence revolt. And if the unindustrialized backwater that was Arabia can do it, the Africans could as well.
It probably would be unstable but lots of Europe tolerated or even welcomed the n.zis. Parts of Ukraine for example welcomed the Germans and thousands joined the SS willingly. I also heard of a story (I don’t have a source) where some local Norwegians handed over British soldiers to the authorities because they didn’t want war
Being fair to Ukraine, they'd just gone through a HORRIBLE famine at the hands of Stalin and probably thought the Nazis would be better. Goes back to the fact that the only way Hitler could win was to not be Hitler.
Are you sure they joined SS ? How about russians, who joined germans. Thousands of them. Heard about Vlasov army ?. They had the same flag, russia has now as their national flag. How about Stalin befriending Hitler for 2 years, 1939-1941, helping him with resources ? Do you know, that soviets wanted to join axis, but were rejected ? In Ukraine and Baltic states germans were perceived as a power, that fought savages bolshevics, so they were more than welcome to germans....and don't judge from the perspective of future, when you know the whole thing. This is nonsense
People on the west forget that the n@zi regime try to gen@cide the slavs too (and they label all the multiple ethicnic groups of sovietic unions as "slavs" because racism). Some side with the n@zis but they were minorities even in their groups that seek some instantly monetary gain, hate other minorities or had been feed up propaganda and tales that the regime would help them in existent conflicts. They didn't found much loyalty from the n@zis. (It's also said, but of this I don't remember any source so take with care, that the regime wanted to exterminate the japanese too. If possible. And only tolerate then for the danger they meant for the soviet union and China and their grographical distance)
If the US had for some reason joined the Axis in WW2 then that would’ve been the only way Germany won. Then the Cold War would’ve been between Germany and the US. But other than that, no, Germany wouldn’t have won. Once the US joined, just their manufacturing potential was enough to win the war and then you factor in the actual military might they were able to bring to bear and it was only a matter of time
No. Both the UK and Russia would have fallen - quickly - without US logistical support. If the US stays out of the European campaign then Hitler has the freedom to make the mistakes he did and still wins. If Hitler hadn't made the mistake of letting the UK remain independent and attacking Russia early they likely would have still won even with US support. FDR was preparing to fight Hitler on US soil.
"letting Britain remain independent" They did not "let them" Germans dont have a great relation with water. And the Germans attacked the Soviets at the perfect time, had they waited the Soviets would have been more prepared, and a soviet invasion possible as early as 1943
You should read more. Even at the height of the Soviet invasion in 43 the German Army was in partial demobilizing. American intervention logistically on the Soviets behalf saved them from defeat and allowed them to focus exclusively on heavy industrial production.
@@nottiredofwinning3736 your comment implies that a German defeat was inevitable with no chance of the German political apparatus remaining intact. The Prof is saying had Germany not escalated by going into Poland or Russia a peace agreement between the powers could of been had. In any case most folks are Russian stans who think they beat the Germans out right. They bled the most besides the Chinese but they functionally could not have won without intervention. Our victory in WW2 is purely due to very bad strategic decisions made that brought us into the war in the first place.
There was no unconditional surrender demand until January 1943. Stalingrad started in July 1942 and was well and truly lost by Jan 43. The question in the video was “what if he stopped before Stalingrad?”. At that time there was some reason for the Germans to believe a negotiated settlement was possible. The Japanese certainly thought it was a possibility. Your point is not invalid, a negotiation that Germany would accept probably wasn’t actually an option but it makes some assumptions that aren’t 100% historically supported.
My Dziadus fought in WW2 both during the invasion of Poland and then after.. he was educated as Warsaw University in linguistics.. he stayed behind and work for the Polish resistance due to his intelligence in German and Russian.. he forgave the Germans despite his own wife being a Ravensbruck survivor as did she forgive and remember difference between forgiveness and forgetting .. long story short he hated the Russians the Polish are a proud people and when the USSR blindsided them they never let that go.. he never went home because the Soviet Union had control over Warsaw. Kurt Meyer legendary tank commander in his memoirs wrote about each enemy that he had faced and in his writingd about the Invasion of Poland where at the time he was a recon unit commander he stated " The Polish Soldier loves dying a good death and they were good at it" a weird thought about dominating an indomitable enemy.
There's a ton of misconceptions about what the aftermath would and wouldn't have been like, if Germany won the war.. Like, I'm danish, and I don't have count on how many times I've been told that if not for the US, I'd be speaking german today.. Well, since german was mandetory in danish public schools while I grew up, I do in fact speak german, but not because of that small detail, naah, but because we had a lot of german TV channels, and everything is dubbed there, so I learned german before we even started the grade where it became mandetory., But more important. The danish government capitulated practically day 1 of the invasion, and then they helped the germans. If not for the danish terrorists, whom not many seem to know or care about, Denmark would have been destroyed by the allied nations during the counterattack. But because they were so effective with the small amount of supplies they could get their hands on (airdrops from Brittain.), it never came to that. The railroad terrorists should have a place in history for their bravery an tenacity, but have all been forgotten..
@@DominionSorcererIn relation to this short video: that germany wanted to take over the world, that they wanted to kill all non-white blue eyed people.
I mean it’s true, Denmark would have been absorbed into Germany proper… just as Schleswig-Holstein was absorbed from Denmark by Germany in 1864, Jutland would’ve been next, then the islands.
Clearly not. It's a socialist Utopia manifesto. Jews were not targeted for being Jewish, per se, they were targeted because their culture encourages rent-seeking and socialism blames classes of people and seeks retribution upon classes of people. e.g. Hitler reasoning: 35% of rent-seekers are Jewish? Then eliminate all Jews and you eliminate 35% of rent-seeking. That's a good start. It's completely rational; just wildly unethical.
@@JeffParr-zz5nv she references a supposed genocidal program in Mein Kampf which simply is not there. Even someone who has never read the book can easily ascertain there was no genocidal plan until at least 1942, when the Final Solution is alleged to have been decided. Mein Kampf was published in 1925, so the suggestion is he had a genocidal plan almost 20 years before one existed.
She seems to think Hitler wouldn't have genocided every last Pole, Russian, etc. He had built an industrial process to do it. People can't envision what Hitler's endgame would have looked like. His final solution was a final solution, everyone dead who isn't exactly what he wanted.
His “industrial process” sure left a lot of survivors 😂 Germany controlled Poland for years. They didn’t send regular poles to the labor camps, it was only certain groups. They had no ambitions of conquering the world, much less removing 95% of the population. The whole “industrial process” nonsense is laughable. If you believe the Soviet propaganda, then their process was incredibly inefficient. They shipped, housed, clothed, and fed them before using gas to kill them and then cremating their bodies? Why not dig a big hole outside the village where the live and line them up? That’s literally how every other genocide works. How the hell were the camps more effective?
@@Ccity93749 when you say contemporary do you mean contemporary with WW2 or contemporary with today? Raphael Lemke thought that Hitler didn't believe Poland could be germanized by cultural genocide alone, but only by biological genocide - wiping out the Polish people. He wrote that in 1944.
@@Skiamakhos Yes, and when he took over the Polish farmlands, he kicked everyone out except for the kids who had blond hair & blue eyes. He just took them from their parents. Then, he moved his own people into the land and had them adopt the kids. Mustache Man was very committed to his Aryan lore.
The main issue is that there's a lot of youth who did not even read the book...theres even allies lie that book is banned in germany which is ridicilous type of propaganda
Her perspectives are wrong and just take too little into account. She seriously underestimated nazi planning for the east and how they'd do it. Remember most resistance in eastern europe was funded by the british and soviets respectively, if they lost resistance would be incredibly difficult and then you have the whole thing of the fact that germany would execute intellectuals, philosophers, middle class and high class people to prevent resistance and also prevent the low classes from education or learning. Within 20 years eastern europe would be a german playground
I agree with her assessment of Hitler. But when you break it down, Hitler was more concerned with controlling genetics than actually thinking about controlling the world. His lack of knowledge about basic genetics and biology made this frightening. Which makes today’s eugenics fans more than terrifying because they are equally ignorant of genetics and biology.
What were his incorrect genetic and biology views that are so frightening? I always was under the impression that nazi genetics was the most advanced on earth at the time.
And I am not in favor of eugenics in practice but acting like eugenics is fundamentally incorrect from a biological standpoint just shows you're ignorant.
She was responding to the hypothetical, and he was using semi-present tense when proposing the question. They were imagining themselves as if it was a real time event opposed to past history. It's not that deep.
"We" didn't "rescue" Poland. The Red Army took Poland away from the Germans. Look at a map. There's absolutely NO WAY the western allies could have done anything to get into Poland to prevent anything Stalin wanted to do in Poland. It took us three years and most of the industrial capacity of the U.S. Great Britain and Canada just to get a few divisions across a few miles of water in the English Channel. After the war it would have taken the outright threat of using atomic bombs on Moscow to MAYBE get Stalin to back out of Poland and it (rightly) would have been seen as stabbing the U.S.S.R. in the back after they had been doing most of the actual fighting and dying to stop Hitler. There was ZERO practical chance of that happening in 1945-46. Everyone just wanted to go home.
Can you inform the public as to why hitler invaded poland in September 1939? What atrocities happened in poland prior to September 1939 on the german border.
Hitler has been compared to a man riding a bicycle who, if he had stopped, would have fallen over. If Hitler had stopped, that would have given people a chance to think about what he was doing and recognize his incompetence.
Hitler: Stops 10 meters before Stalingrad The 5 million angry Soviets that just watched you butcher and enslave their friends and family: "... we a'ight"
@@citrusretna2088 uhuh, and stretch their front even thinner, with even more atrocious supply lines since Stalingrad is the region's main railway hub, whilst also giving the Soviets the perfect supply hub to mount an attack on the massive German flank. A flank we know they can historically break, except now the Germans are even more spread out. No, if the Germans wanted to cut off the Caucuses they NEEDED to take Stalingrad or to hold off long enough to build their own rails, which they can't do since they desperately need the oil.
lol no. Hitler killed everyone that lived in Stalingrad. All of their bloodlines ended. Russia had to send over a million people to die in that battle - man and woman alike. They sent their women into battle to be slaughtered. They were slaughtered because Stalin didn't want to lose Stalingrad because it shared his name which became the "Not one inch" campaign. Stalin's plan was to send an endless stream of people to their slaughter to slow Hitler down until winter came.
the poles would disappear she is a expert but I think she is underestimating that even 5 million poles trained in guerilla tactics would eventually be chocked out by the 13 million Germans in Poland and the rest of Europe Hitler practically would have Infinet man power. that's not even counting the SS or Gestapo or the reservists
Stephen Kotkin once said something along the lines of "If you take it, you can't have it." He was talking about Russia and Ukraine. If they take Ukraine, they can't have it since they will either destroy Ukraine's resources or the Ukrainians won't comply or both.
Hitler only once attended a funeral. Marshall Pidulski, the Polish patriot. He absolutely admired him. So, hate for the Poles, sort of, maybe, if you are willing to ignore that just about every German had Polish (Slavic) blood…..look at the names. von Rendulic, yes, that’s Serbian. Primorsic? Fighter pilot, yes, that Polish and on and on. Just goes to show how crazy it was…..
@@someone-wh2rb Germans and Polish are largely the same people. To put it another way, if Hitler wanted to kill Slavs he would have to kill half of the Germans...
@@someone-wh2rbI think he means that their hate of Poland wasn’t on ethnic grounds but on ideological. They had to artificially create ethnic hatred of Poles in order to legitimise their goal of Lebensraum. It would be hard to convince soldiers to expel 30 odd million Poles if they weren’t made to hate them first. For example I’m Polish but the only other famous person who has my second name on Wikipedia is a Nazi General lol
Bro he attended way more than 1 funeral. From politicans, party members and famous soldiers to friends and family. Well documented and with photographic evidence.
Oh, on the issues I've heard her cover, she would dominate Ben Shapiro. But they're also not issues I think Ben would really be interested in ... or he'd be interested because he knows she's more knowledgeable.
Hitler wished he never wrote it so much millions of copies were still being sold, the profits of which he pocketed, long into the war and went on to do exactly what he said he was going to do in Mein Kampf.
@Turnipstalk the Nazi's tried every avenue to remove the jews from their country prior to 1938. No country would except them. NONE. Similar to the situation in Israel right now where no other country will accept Palestinians. Yet the entire world will tell them how to treat the Palestinians. 1938 Evian Conference, check it out.
@Turnipstalk read up on the Evian Conference 1938 in France. It explains that no country would except jews from Germany. Similar to the isreal/palestine issue going on.
we hear this every time germany gets brought up but seriously i’d love a SINGLE quote showing where he explicitly stated he wants to genocide them (which genocide itself wasn’t a word until a jewish lawyer invented it during the nuremberg trials)
What exactly do you need a quote for? Why is what he said relevant, when you can see what he did? Fact is, he DID have the concentration camps built, and he DID have minorities deported there to be exterminated. Don't judge people by their words, judge them by their actions.
@@HungryLoki The idea behind what he is saying is that the idea of extermination wasn't thought of from the beginning. It is a mistake many assume today, but at the start he only wanted to get rid of them by sending them elsewhere; the evian accords i think, but no one wanted to take them, and with all the issues of the world war, he simplified his issue by just simply killing them all.
@@HungryLokiHe wants a quote showing that hitler wanted to kill all non-germans in europe. Especially because he wanted to make jews leave his territory but all other countries said no and the british ensured he couldn't do it himself.
Hitler didn't have the oil or enough slaves to keep it running. He expected the Soviets to fight about as well as they did in Finland and didn't realize Stalin had 25,000 tanks.
There's also the matter of the Soviets not bringing Winter Camouflage against Finland. Brown and green miltary uniforms really stand out against the snow.
@@George-vf7ssthat theory has long been since debunked. A way for the west to cope with Soviet superiority over Germany. Long been considered the best soldiers in the world. You could argue that Germany not the Soviets were the one wasting soldiers lives by the end of the war.
@@darkhobo I agree that the "enemy at the gates style fighting" is debunked. But there was 2-3 sides to the story. The beginning of invasion went up against soviet soldiers that was under equipped and incompetent. Then they start defending, but with low quality soldiers that dies in droves. Soviet built up proper units that where the ones used to take back Stalingrad. Elite units take like 2y to create, so there was 2 thoughts at the same time and this messes up the story.
Had Churchill not kept the UK in the war after France fell, there is a chance Germany could have paused before going after Russia that might have given him better results. However that is the what if game & he could have simply gone after Russia sooner with an army even less equipped then it was at the start of Barbarous & still not addressed his logistics issues.
@@SmilingIbis regarding just one thing that she mentioned in the video of “genociding poles” is completely inaccurate, Hitler never had ambitions of controlling all of Poland much less genociding them. He had a lot of public speeches talking about the problems with Poland and how we wanted to avoid bloodshed and strike a deal with them. England would not let the polish government make a deal with Germany. At the same time was going on the Soviet Union who bordered Poland was making it clear of their ambitions of expanding west and taking Poland. Hitler saw this, offered them peace in making a deal Poland refused and Hitler wasn’t just going to allow Poland to be taken by the soviets to come closer to Germany without him getting anything out of it.
@@moiseshuerta3984 they surrendered because the Soviet invasion of Poland made their situation completely hopeless, yet the Polish Home Army kept on fighting as did the Polish in exile as part of the western Allies.
@@stephenstokes9117The whole “Hitler wanted to conquer the world” thing is a bit bizarre to hear too. I understand middle school history teachers spouting such nonsense, but for a professor from a college dedicated to the study of war to say it…
She misses the real reason why Germany could not take control of Europe. Britain has never allowed any single country to dominate Europe since Napoleon. The primary goal in Mein Kampf was to create a Germanic state by expanding into the East ie Russia not to dominate Europe.
Exactly. Britain lives in fear of a continental superpower. In real terms, if it had been the French in 1939 conquering Western Europe, instead of Germany, Churchill would have still gotten involved. Many Europeans criticize the U.S.for its late entry into the war, but they should thank their lucky stars that Hitler declared war and the U.S finally got involved. Once Hitler invaded Russia,if the U.S. had stayed out, Stalin would have taken all of Europe.
@@weirdshibainu There’s no way Stalin would have taken over Europe without the massive contributions from the US under the Marshall plan. That is not to say that it would have been easy for Germany to maintain jurisdiction over Russia. It would have been more likely that Germany would succumb to the same problem that all other nations who invaded Russia encountered - the country is so vast that the supply lines are an issue. Btw this was not the sole issue that Germany actually did not prevail in Russia. They invaded to get resources and Hitlers pride made them detour away from the oil fields in the south to places like Stalingrad. It might have been a different story if they stuck to the plan. If the Marshall plan was not there the Russians would never have had the ability to push Germany back.
@@weirdshibainufewer Americans have died if America gad entered the war a bit earlier. The allies wouldn’t have needed to use sanctions to push Japan to attack the US. NB my grandfather was Ambassador to Tokyo - the policy was to use Japan to bring America into the war. Because Japan had such few natural resources they thought Japan would be relatively easy to subdue. The Allied top brass refused to accept my grandfather’s warnings about the ferocity and determination of the Japanese military.
@@TheTimdoyleYou're confused. If the U.S had stayed out of the war, Russia would have still prevailed over Germany. Stalin wouldn't have a reason to stop in Berlin when there was nothing to keep him from taking the rest of the continent. No idea why you brting up the Marshal Plan which had nothing to do with Russia. The Marshal Plan was solely meant to rebuild Western Europe...after the war.
@@weirdshibainu You’re absolutely correct, it was lendlease that allowed the Russians to fight. Without it Russia would have been defeated. The US gave 11.3 Billion and the UK gave them 308 million. As far as the rest of what I said it is easy to look up and verify.
The question should’ve been; what was Hitlers endgame?I never read Mein Kempf, but I’m pretty sure he wanted to survive. The genocide is rooted in His warped perception of Natural Selection and his own racist beliefs. It’s hard to envision Anarchy being his main objective and that being backed so strongly by some pretty intelligent people. Clearly revenge was reason enough to act, we know about living space and recreating a 3rd Reich. He could’ve had easily could’ve had a Napoleon type grip on Europe for an extended period of time if he would’ve listened to his Generals and wasn’t so Hellbent on exterminating people. History is so fascinating because it’s written by the winners in multiple versions
The video is obviously sped up for the sake of the "youtube shorts" format. The full video is two and a half hours on his channel and is well worth the watch/ listen. His guests are brilliant and he asks great questions.
Hitler's mistake was picking a fight with three major powers at the same time, Britain, Soviet Russia, and the USA. He should have focused on one enemy at a time but he was overconfident.
Although its not wrong that hitler was screwed over by fighting so many powers at once, I still feel like the agruement misses a key point, that being the major weren't just sitting around wait for germany to declare war. The soviet Although taken off guard at the time were still arming up for war and the longer hitler took to focus on britian the more ready stronger they would of been. And the usa Although still not gearing up like the soviet was creeping closer and closer to joining britian, with expansions of lead lease and other operation around and for britian in 1941. Point being germany didn't really have the luxury of choose only one enemy to fight at a time.
@@lordpeanut3245 The theory of whether or not the soviets were planning an invasion of germany is still hotly debated. There isn't much of a consensus on that fact.
@@princeofgreece9054 It's not that the Soviet Union was planning an invasion of Germany, it's that they were, specifically Stalin, very paranoid of outside forces trying to overthrow them. With the russian civil war and japanese border conflicts really hamming in this mind set. Point being, the Soviets were preparing for war, just prob a defense one.
Usually agree with this content, but he made it clear that he wanted Aryans to have enough farming land. For him to have enough "breathing room", the "original inhabitants" weren't going to be there anymore. This was definitely the plan in Eastern Europe, I don't know about France.
The thing is - he wouldn't stop. He never stopped after Austria nor Czechoslovakia. And even if he won, he would choke on his victory. Hitler and the Thousand Years Reich were doomed from the start.
@@citrusretna2088 Bruh it is foolish to even consider Hitler wouldn't invade France at least. Great Britain and France declared war on him but only because he invaded Poland, which independence was guaranteed by the Allies. But if they didn't, Hitler would carve up Poland together with the USSR and with the Allied declaration of war or without, he'd invade France. His goal was to topple the Versailes order in Europe, to regain Alsace-Lorraine, he also had to defeat France before invading USSR so that he wouldn't be cought in a war on two fronts with France and Great Britain rapidly rearming.
@@citrusretna2088 Because of political reasons. They didn't want to fight USSR and force it into the Axis. Romania did the same, didn't declare war on USSR despite having an anti-Soviet defensive alliance with Poland. What exactly are you trying to prove?
@@jak00bspyr72 Hitler's main objective was always Russia. He didn't care about England or France. Very little those countries could offer in the way of resources and the would have made great aryian trading partners. Russia had everything the Reich needed.
Arguments and accusing Poland of starting World War 2 is dumb and not true. First of all, Poland did not invade but annexed, without resistance a piece of land that was taken in 1920 by a violent invasion of Czechoslovak army. The answer to your question could be more elaborated but it's quite simple, typical territorial dispute between two neighboring states that regained independence. Czechs used parliamentary election in Poland as an excuse, the disputed land was about to get population plebiscite, Poles were unable to resist having major war against Bolshevik Russia somewhere else and local population was never given chance to choose their nationality. In 1938 Poland did the same, used weakness of collapsing Czechoslovak state, issued ultimatum and annexed the disputed land. Germany invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938. In fact, it was Germany and its leader, Adolf Hitler, who pressured Czechoslovakia to cede the Sudetenland, a region with a large ethnic German population, to Germany. This was part of Hitler's expansionist policies. The Allies, particularly Britain and France, reacted by signing the Munich Agreement in September 1938, which allowed Germany to annex the Sudetenland in exchange for a promise of no further territorial expansion. This policy of appeasement was an attempt to avoid war, but it ultimately failed to prevent the outbreak of World War II. Poland since the early 1933 to 1939 did everything to avoid war with Germany, the Poles even refused Hitler when he proposed an invasion of Soviet Union, the Polish government refused in order to have peace with USSR. From the spring of 1939, Hitler turned his attention to Polish lands. Germany demanded that the area of the Free City of Gdańsk be incorporated into the Third Reich and that permission to run an extraterritorial highway and railway through Gdańsk Pomerania to East Prussia would be granted. On September 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland. To justify the action, Nazi propagandists accused Poland of persecuting ethnic Germans living in Poland. They also falsely claimed that Poland was planning, with its allies Great Britain and France, to encircle and dismember Germany. The non-aggression pact between the Republic of Poland and the USSR was signed in Moscow on July 25, 1932 for three years. Despite the extension of its validity in May 1934 until the end of 1945, the pact was broken on September 17, 1939. 90 years ago, on January 26, 1934, a Polish-German declaration of non-violence was signed in Berlin, which the Germans denounced in April 1939. The agreement with Germany was analogous to a similar non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union of July 25, 1932. These pacts didnt make Poles allies with Germans and Soviets. However I can say different about German-Soviet pact which allowed both powers to annex, conquer and divide Europe. This pact and its protocol was to invade Poland and split in two sides. German taught their children to hate Jews, Slavs and others who were not considered humans by Nazis. Hitler's dream of taking over Eastern Europe and creating Lebensraum, space for the Germans to live and grow. The plan was to kill and enslavw Jews, Slavs and others who lived there.
5.6 to 6 million Poles dead, concentration camps, executions, force labour and many more. German people taught their children to hate Jews, Slavs and others. Of course there were some antisemitic Poles who hated Jews or Germans. In 1939, 3.3 million Jews lived in Poland, 300 thousand lived in Warsaw, they were not persecuted by the State and not by the whole Polish nation. There have been Catholics who did hate them but its not comparable to Germany where they lost citizenships and human rights. Not only did Germans kill Poles, Soviets and Ukrainians did too.
Gdańsk was built by Mieszko I during 10th century. After the military defeat in World War I, the Germans realized that the reborn Polish statehood intended to return to the areas of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth taken over by the Kingdom of Prussia in the first and second partitions, and which the Germans already treated as an integral part of their state. In Germany and Gdańsk it was realized that Polish intentions were based on increasingly secure foundations, primarily on the ethnographic principle adopted by the peace conference, as well as the support of France and the favor of the President of the United States. In the spring of 1919, news came from Paris about plans to hand over most of Gdańsk Pomerania to Poland, to which the German population responded with demonstrations that gathered tens of thousands of people in the center of Gdańsk. These manifestations, as well as the domination of the German population in Gdańsk and the counties directly bordering it, resulted in the decision of the great powers to establish the Free City of Gdańsk On January 10, 1920, after the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles (ending World War I) became final, Gdańsk was separated from the German Reich, but formally the Free City of Gdańsk did not yet exist.
“What if Hitler didn’t do Hitler stuff, would the Nazis win??”
“If the N@zis stop being Nazis do they win the war? 🥹
🤣 "What if Hitler wasn't Hitler???"
@@taWay21exactly, ironically. For him to have won, he must’ve not been himself.
@@大砲はピュ Agree. I know there are people who say things like" "if he hadn't have been crazy..." Hypothetical questions can make for entertaining, and sometimes useful discussions, but we have to always remember they are hypothetical. Whether he was actually insane, or just toxic from the meds he was on, it really doesn't matter. His behavior was not stable or normal and could not ever have led to a good outcome in the real world.
@@taWay21 then Deadpool, I guess, went back in time and finally raised Hitler to be a proper human being, and he became a good artist Because somebody actually believed in him see what you get with positive reinforcement, no dictator ships
I read somewhere that even Goebbels admired the Pole's sense of national identity.
He’s a fascist he has no true values
specifically because it mirrored his concept of german nationalism and pride he tries to portray in propaganda
Goebbels was a Cultural Racist who thought in Polish stereotypes
I'm second generation polish American and it doesn't go away. Something about all the generations suffering is baked into my blood. I feel like I could turn into a revolutionary at the drop of the hat and I hate abuses of power of ANY kind
Same as a third generation german pole.. just seeing a perceived injustice makes some generational trauma broil @@MichaelBrown-wx6zq
It's been said in other videos, but to put it succinctly, "The only way Hitler could have won was if he stopped being Hitler."
No, his only slim chance to win was to actually be Hitler. His generals diverted to Moscow instead of taking the Caucuses oil fields like the wanted. The blew their one slim chance and lost the war. That's why he never trusted his generals after that.
I know of a couple of US politicians currently running for POTUS who have the same problem.
@@anderseckstrand7033 one moreso than the other based on their supporters....
The only way hitler could have won was not attacking the soviets, because attacking the soviets with FDR as president leads to US involvement and propping up the soviets 100% of the time.
@@Soundwave3591Only one even has supporters though. The other is an establishment meat puppet that only gets votes because he isn’t the other guy.
The problem with "what if Hitler" questions is that most of them are "what if Hitler wasn't Hitler"
The only real question is what if Germany deposed Hitler in the late 1930s and replaced him with someone who wasn't a genocidal maniac.
What if Hitler was a golden retriever, would German Shepard still be his favorite dog?
If grandmother had wheels ahe would have been a bicycle.
Adolf Hitler and Walt Disney were the same man Walt Disneys number one language was German and Josef Goebbels Hitler's number one advisor was Roy Disney Walt Disneys brother the elite ran ww 2 d day was a drill there were no Japanese planes at pearl harbor and there were no nukes at Nagasaki and Hiroshima
What if Franz Ferdinand was the sandwich?
As someone who's half Polish, I really appreciate someone talking about the our national pride. My great grandmother would always tell stories about when she left home as a teenager to join rebels that assisted in the Warsaw Uprising, on top of numerous plans/tricks/etc. they enacted to take out Nazi soldiers occupying her hometown (which was very near to Oświęcim, location of Auschwitz)
Our? So you have duel citizenship?
@@jonnyblayze5149if he's half, then automatically yes, in most places in the world if you're half, you automatically have citizenships of both of your parents + citizenship of place you were born in
@@jonnyblayze5149You do have a point. I am Canadian, my dad is Algerian, sometimes people ask me if i identify as Algerian, which i respond with dude I’ve never been there and i don’t speak a word of the language.
I was born and raised in some shit hole in ontario, thats what i know, I’m Canadian nothing else.
For some reason half the first gen people i know here don’t get that idea like go ahead go back to Pakistan or whatever you will be treated like a foreigner because thats what you are to them.
As a Greek, i have the greatest respect for the Polish people. You went through a lot of crap in your history, just like we did, and you kept your identity just like we did.
She understands history
Yeah and politics. She is great to listen to.
People think Soviets would have fallen after Stalingrad and a few other majior cities.
Yet that isn't true. They had places and plans to hide in the Urals, and had majior factories, and cities behind the entire mountian range. I just don't see Germany being able to fight across them, and supply any majior army.
I don't know why people think taking a capital city means game over.
@@dianapennepacker6854 I think the Germans should have Not fought the Battle of Britain (over reach #1) and then basically stuck deep into Ukraine and the Urals, with flanking units, and ignore Moscow and probably Leningrad (now back to being called St. Petersburg). Napoleon did capture Moscow, but still lost that war@
@@dianapennepacker6854 Because they never played Age of Empires.
@Tim.NavVet.EN2 There is no way the Germans wouldn't have tried for Britain after the humiliation of Dunkirk. That being said, they could have done a better job of it, obviously
She's a hack.
"Poles never give up".
They surrender in weeks.
" He'll choke in his acquisition." 😂 She's awesome 👌🏾
Love the expression.
She must be a Star Wars fan LOL --- remember that line from "Rogue One" ??
@@fredwerza3478”aspirations”
Yellow face emoji, black hand emoji. Are you blasian?
Someone needs to tell trump that.
shes absolutely right. Bro shouldve stopped after Austria. but he kept wanting more and more.
His stated goal was to unite the German people again. Those other countries had millions of Germans that were carved off Germany from WW1. Soviet Union was reclaiming it's past land at the same time, Finland, the Baltics, Ukraine, and they invaded Poland too. Weird how England and France declared war over the Invasion of Poland only on Germany and not Soviet Union.
@@lokiwhacker "that were carved off Germany from WW1" What The Polish Corridor and Alsace? Both territories with large pluralities of other peoples?
" Soviet Union was reclaiming it's past land at the same time, " No it wasn't. It wasn't until they allied with Hitler to carve up spheres that they did. In 1938 there was no such action.
"weird how England and France declared war over the Invasion of Poland" The UK signed an agreement with Poland at the end of March 1939 in response to Germany illegally occupying the rest of Czechoslovakia. That agreement was specific to mutual assistance in the event of an invasion from specifically Germany, which was contained in a secret protocol. Up to that point the UK was with the Soviet Union, along with France and Poland, trying to contain Germany through a 4-way alliance. The Soviet Union in the meantime signed its own treaty with Germany. Not weird at all if you actually studied Interwar history.
Hitler did not have limited ambitions. A Gustav Streseman could have given Germany additional territorial concessions but Hitler's goals were impossible to reconcile with peace and stability in Europe.
I think he could've stopped after France. Once it became clear that the battle of Britain was a losing effort and he calls off the amphibious invasion... he could have brokered a cease fire and maybe made some concessions. He never should have invaded Russia. From that point on it was game over.
@@kentdavies1988 Britain wouldve never surrendered though after Churchill became PM. Hitler was a dishonest broker, and Munich being violated proved it.
Does this Lady have somewhere she makes content or posts information? She's utterly amazing.
m.ruclips.net/video/YcVSgYz5SJ8/видео.html
Not sure about that, but the linked video attached to this short leads to a 2.5 hour conversation where all these shorts are taken from
She’s with the Naval War College, they have a RUclips channel, I don’t know if they have clips of her on there or not they have a lot of people on their panels and stuff but I do remember seeing her some other places before.
She's cribbing off Peterson!
Just join the military and study at the naval war college XD XD
He could’ve kept Austria and the Sudetenland and he would’ve been left alone and would’ve been considered a German national hero
Then just sit back and allow the Soviets to turn the land into an 90+ million soviet gulag for labor?
@@GHOSTDIVISION39 Nazi apologyst detected.
@@GHOSTDIVISION39 He agreed to that when he and the Soviet union divided Europe into spheres of influence.
The problem with that is he delivered the German economy from the Gret Depression by ramping up stimulus and war production. He needed to go to war in order to occupy and plunder. That is one of the reasons he invaded Czechoslovakia when he did - Czechoslovakia's entire gold reserve and other industry was immediately taken over, to pay for loans. Germany would have otherwise had to default and go bankrupt by 1940.
@@serebii666it was a fake agreement on his part though
Polish descendant here.
Poles are TOUGH.
"GOOD MORNING MY NEIGHBORS!"
True that
"Poles are TOUGH."
LOL, during their entire history the Poles always from the very beginning onwards were under the thumb of their stronger, superior and more succesful neighbours, usually the Germans. The Germans are indeed very tough but Poles are a complete joke.
And you guys were the Z in the alliance that wiretapped all H's communications . I think England was the Y where they set up the permanent base and France was the X that didn't believe what they heard . US came late and confiscated everything to build the NSA .
Heard a comedian call poles the Mexicans of Europe because you guys are tough and hard workers lol
The problem with Europe is that there were too many empires per square inch.
You can see the fatal flaw of cultism when lying charlatans like Hitler and Trump get power and make people no longer think rationally and it leads to their own doom
Finally a post on here that makes sense. Hitler wasn't doing anything every other empire in Europe, or anywhere else for that matter, had tried to do: expand their national borders.
Absolutely true in the prelude to WW1, but that’s actually what makes the start of WW2 markedly different. It wasn’t a war of clashing empires - most of those empires had collapsed after WW1 and immense political experiments with all shades of democracy and fascism took place all over Europe as countries as we know them today began to emerge. So as a result, it was a war of clashing ideals and fascist figureheads with imperial ambitions who were leading countries who had once been big empires.
But then with Stalin and Hitler in particular, you start to see this more sickening ideology, pseudoscience, propaganda and genocide begin to dominate their imperial doctrines.
Like the Khazarian Empire? The woman has no idea what Hitler was about.
I’m so glad Canada to the North of us and Mexico to the south and that’s it. Mexico being ran by the cartel minus the huge drog problem as long as the Cartel run Mexico, Mexico will never get political with America. So border expansion disputes, water disputes, fishing disputes, mineral disputes or any other crapp that neighbor countries war over, the cartel would never.
Thank you for clear and concise responses.
I don't think Hitler had the slightest clue as to the production capacity of the U.S. His grandiose ideas put him on an "all or nothing" path from which he couldn't retreat.
Only partly. German intelligence vastly underestimated Soviet forces and their ability to scale production. Additionally, the Germans had terrible logistics.
@@weirdshibainu Yep . Their head quartermaster said they could do blitzkreig about 1/3rd of the way to Moscow and then it's be a bunch of stops to resupply.
No winterization.
The rail gauge was different and German locomotives aren't meant for such long distances.
Putting the armor divisions all upfront to take the damage while the infantry divisions are in the back.
What a dumb idea to invade the Soviet Union.
@@seantrevathan3041 What really hampered the Germans were the majority of their supplies were moved by horses that could average about 15 kilometers a day under good conditions with armor easily able to travel 50-60 kilometers a day. It's a wonder they made it as far as they did.
@@weirdshibainu No kidding. I can't say there is one thing the Germans could have done that could have won them the war, not even taking Moscow. The Soviets just had far too many reserves of men to throw into the fight.
I guess it's the sort of idicy that happens when you start a war on idealogical grounds(Lebensraum).
It's a bit like Russia and China have truly no understanding of how economically powerful the Anglosphere is, and how reliant they are on it, essentially client state. Russia under Putin is toast now. the damage he has done to the economy is irreversible. China, well, they are starting the we so sorry routine. We live in interesting times.
He could have controlled Europe in the same way that Soviet Russia controlled the Soviet block countries. They were police states with Russian occupation, every time they tried to pull out the countries tried to become independent.
So how does he manage to commit the genocides that were a core part of the Nazi plans?
wasnt soviet union population superior though and german occupied most countries werent exactly friendly to nazi regime to go along with that.
@@effexonEastern europe post ww2 is what he is referencing.
That ended too. Eventually. After 45 years and many uprisings. As it showed that it's not possible to keep.
The same problem - the Pole's. Uprising after uprising (tree major uprising in the soviet times im Poland).
Yep. Machiavelli describes this in his book The Prince. Capturing country is easy, but holding it is hard.
I love that, for a moment, it looks like she thought about saying “choke on his ambitions” and chose to not paraphrase Darth Vader
LOL instantly reminded me of "Rogue One"
It's sorta telling that her response came from a movie.
The quote is 'Don't choke on your aspirations'
@@crb2061 hence the paraphrase
@@shannonbarber6161 most people incorporate parts of speech from media without realizing, it’s not a sign of anything besides being a human
One word---OIL. he had to invade the Soviet Union and take Stalingrad. Germany wasn't producing enough oil to maintain itself and it new territories. There was no holding back and stopping.
His downfall began the moment he opened up another front against the Soviets. If he just focused on Great Britain, he would’ve had his oil anyway.
@@TheGeoCheeseHow? Middle East oil wasnt discovered yet in large quantities.
@@jdee8407 Off shore oil rigs. Oil was discovered in Scotland in 1851 and in 1896 gas was discovered in England. Furthermore the North Sea is one of the richest off shore oil sites that was discovered in the early 1850s. If Hitler conquered Great Britain first, that would’ve left all of that oil open for the German war machine to be drilled, processed, and refined since the British navy would no longer be able to prevent Hitler from using those resources.
@@TheGeoCheese There was no way he could beat the Royal Navy that's why they abandoned Sea Lion. That task was more impossible than taking on Russia
@@TheGeoCheese The North Sea oil fields were all discovered after the war. The finds in the 1800s were discovered so close offshore, that their exploitation was on-shore. Germany extracted oil and gas as well, but it was never enough to be self-sufficient. Even if the big oil fields in the North Sea were known at the time, it would be extremely hazardous to install and exploit in war time, as they'd make for very easy targets by sea and air. But deepwater exploration wasn't even possible until the '60s, and the vast majority of the deposits lay undiscovered until then and later.
"Hitler, Nazis, Blitzkrieg, genocide" = The sum total of modern conversation about WW-II.
The Germans never used the term blitzkrieg.
@@citrusretna2088yeah its preußisch-deutscher Bewegungskrieg (prusso-german movement-warfare)
The word Blitzkrieg was never used by the Wehrrmacht as an official military term.
@@citrusretna2088..okay? and?
@@cr1tikal_arc If something that silly can be propagandized, everything can. Why do they lie about it? What's the point?
Conquering is the easy part, pacifying it is the hard part.
Historically, it took centuries for nations to integrate territories into their empires and that was only by ruling the locals (i.e. leaving their culture alone and only taking resouces) or assimilating them rather than genocide.
its not like he wanted to integrate poles or russians now is it? google hunger plan
Is this vid 1.5x speed or are they literally on speed? Lol
no the problem is the person recording can't record properly, so relying on ai to fix the audio so it sounds odd
@@SimonsBand1its ai
It seems like it’s 1.2x or 1.3x speed, that’s why the audio is fractured
You're slow
I'd guess it's around 1.2X speed --- the old lady is talking too fast for someone her age
There's a reason Austria-Hungary was practically on the brink of collapse for all of ww1
Idk why people are so mesmerized with this woman. This is history 101 stuff.
Because most people don't read this stuff. They would rather have someone else read it and tell them about it.
I think it is history 201 which is beyond most people education.
Looking forward to Prof Paine's opinion on BRICS 😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊 from Malaysia 🇲🇾🇲🇾🇲🇾🇲🇾🇲🇾🇲🇾
I think Norm McDonald said it best.
Bro talks at 1,75 speed
it’s really distracting.
Set speed to 0.75 ;)
Hitler was always all or nothing. It was total victory or dying in a dank pit. There was no in between. And his concept of total victory was never going to happen.
The more interesting question to me is how different Europe would be if Hitler was assassinated and replaced by a more stable Nazi figurehead. Someone who was pretty much of the same worldview but capable of a more balanced, careful approach. What would Europe look like then and now? That's fascinating to me.
What makes you think he was about total victory? He only ever speaks of reuniting the territories and populations Germany gave away at Versailles. Hitler as some cartoon villain who wanted to conquer the world is just war propaganda. It’s been 80 years. Can we start speaking honestly yet?
@@kungfoochicken08 His actions speak to that all or nothing mentality, repeatedly. There are numerous points throughout the war where the sensible, beneficial thing to do for the German cause was to tactically retreat, allow a withdrawal, or in some circumstances a surrender. But he wouldn't countenance that. The fight to the last man mentality cost Germany so many elite units when it needn't have been so.
And of course the ultimate example is the last images of him. Pathetic, defeated, shaking, as he congratulates children for sacrificing themselves in the pointless, senseless fight to the last boy in Berlin. He could have saved so many German lives both military and civilian if he was not totally wedded to the all or the nothing.
@@VeeSeven700 There was never a plan to conquer the world though, as she states in this video.
It’s easy to criticize any military strategy after the fact. Germany was outmanned and outgunned the entire war. Swift, decisive, and aggressive tactics were the only way they were ever going to win. All of their early victories came from this Blitzkrieg strategy.
To be entirely fair, Hitler never anticipated a war against Britain and France. There’s some evidence he anticipated they would fight alongside Germany to prevent Soviet expansion into Europe. I don’t think he anticipated France, England, and America going to total war to prevent Germany reunification, only to allow the Soviets to control half of Europe at the war’s end.
The strategy still doesn’t make sense to this day. In many ways WW2, much like WW1, was a complete waste. I think maybe this is why propaganda around the war is still so strong. Maybe why we have to pretend we fought the war to prevent Jews from being put into labor camps or other such ridiculousness.
@@kungfoochicken08Hitler was way more rational (for a ruthless extremist) in his earlier years but contrary to Stalin started to develop illusions of grandeur, getting more and more fixated on his role as an actual military commander, after having that amazing success with von Mansteins plan on how to win over France and the BEF, which basically no other general had supported - except for Hitler himself.
Yet already quickly after the first success, he would soon be responsible for some of the most foolish military decisions, starting with his decision to halt the advance on Dunkirk as a gesture of goodwill to the British, in order to find a common ground to make peace.
It had always been his plan though to not only reunite Germany (nothing extraordinary evil about that plan) but to attack the Soviet Union in order to expel a lot of people from their homeland or use them as cheap labor force.
@@kungfoochicken08 ah a goon
This lady is insanely logical. I've been seeing her around and I appreciate her stuff.
Exactly. If he could have stopped himself after annexing Czechoslovakia, then yes, he would have had to deal with occasional Czech insurgencies but probably could have handled that, perhaps he could even have negotiated closing the Polish corridor with the sops in other countries looking to avoid war, anything bigger couldn't have been held with what he had.
Danzig and West Prussia were the end of it though. He simply didn’t expect France or Britain to ally themselves with the Soviets and start a world war over Poland.
Can I just say, as an American. Poland is the shit. Respect. Bad asses then and now.
I'm just wondering if that boy can speak any faster
audio artifact suggests this is sped up. Same thing for how some of the video feels a bit choppy.
Thank you for speeding this up
Recently read “Blood and Ruins”, by R Overy. Extremely well-written. My background is in science/medicine, but I’m reading in other areas now that I’m retired. The book covered very interesting perspectives about colonialism, from all participants in WWII. Learned much from this book.
Why did you speed up this short? Is it too much to cram into 60 seconds?
Historical context is vital, and this is why.
His biggest mistake and first lesson in how a determined and ruthless population will never give up is the Battle of Britain… everything would’ve been different had he not focused on beating Britain who were never ever gonna give up.
She’s so dam smart. I can listen to her all day
One of the oldest problems in conquest is that the "control" density is somewhat fixed in the modern world. A good example of the change is a game called 'Romance of the Three Kingdoms" with a leader named Ma Teng. You started in a portion of the map that had a fiefdom. You could quickly occupy the next fiefdom and because land forces had to push through the border, you had a distinct advantage that you didn't have to have troops in your starting fiefdom. "The logistics of control scale with the circumference of the zone of control". So if you need 200 troops per 1km of border. You quickly realize that you have a limit to the territory. But it scales rather linear.
In the modern world, the aircraft, missiles, and communication tech changed that such that it became a volumetric control problem. It wasn't 200 trooper per linear 1km, it became 10 trooper per square kilometer.
Hitler, or the Nazi in general would have needed to have nearly 2/3rd of the population actively policing the territory of Europe that the time to maintain control. This isn't just social control, but logistical control to mitigate corruption for example.
Now 21st century with drones and AI... you could meet the requirements of volumetric control.
The danger is, Hitler couldn't control all of Europe in the 1940s but Hitler could control the world in 2025. So make no mistake, the 21st century, technologically speaking, is the century of tyrants because they now have the technology to control a population at that scale, not through subtly, but with brutal force.
The real question would be- At what point could Germany have stopped and held onto its gains?
Probably at the Munich conference.
they probably wouldn’t have been able to in the long run. The polish fought from the first day of the war even through occupation all the way to the end and had no plans of giving up and like she says people living under oppression will always fight back it would’ve been too much after awhile.
@@vipwanrinkle6439 That's a complete midwit argument. By that logic, no people could ever be subdued or conquered. Yet it has been done successfully many many times.
Most likely at France.
@@bavarianpotatoyes, they be have BEEN conquered, but they have never stayed conquered, at least not peacefully or happily
I don’t think the Soviet Union was anywhere near as united as to ensure Hitler “Choked” on those acquisitions. Ukraine and the Baltic’s were more than happy to be under German rule (At least in the immediate term) and we must remember the Bolsheviks didn’t gain power through popular support, they were a tiny fringe of extremists that usurped power (Nowhere near the kind of public support of Hitler). Many restive non-Slavic Russian populations would equally have been pleased to be “Liberated” from Communism. Hitler at some point would have progressively been replacing these populations through The Lebensborn programme and so a series of client states would have been quite easy to maintain until a point at which Ethnic Germans began to make up a sizeable part of each state.
For the Baltics, I don't know, but I'm sure the Ukrainians were only happy for about a month after the "liberation". Definetely got angry after the plunder of their food and resources, and all that wonderful forced labour began, soon after the liberation.
No russian identity Baltic identity and Ukrainian identity will be too strong to be stamped out and will simply fight a british funded insurgency. Because the nazis were committing genocide
Hitler wasn't interested in liberation, only concurring.
Only Western Ukraine allied with Hitler. Galicia , Lviv. Get your facts right.
After russian collapse in 1917 the Germans struggled to hold Ukraine even though Russia has signed a peace deal.
Conquering land is easy, holding it is another matter.
His "ah" really gets me 😂
Why are you trying to make the hitler thing work?- Peter Griffin
The irony is that was it not for Hitler, there's a possibility that us Africans would still be outright colonized today. WWII diminished the colonial capacity of western Europeans, created formidable opposition in places like my country Kenya (where returnee soldiers co-opted to help fight for the Europeans realized that they could hold their own in battle)... a whole slew of factors that resulted in a wave of independence across 40+ African states a decade or less after. There's still a lot of stealthy and overt neocolonialism (e.g compromising democracy and outright taking out leaders), but that _might_ be on it's way out.
And defeating the Nazis made the Soviet Union strong enough to help Africans achieve their liberation.
The US made sure colonial power was reduced dramatically.
@@MortabluntUsa was the reason for decolonization not your little commie nation.
You'd have gotten independence anyway, just maybe slightly later. The colonial empires were a financial drain and eventually the people in those colonies were starting/continuing to call for independence. The first world War had led to calls for Indian independence. The Arabs had started an independence revolt. And if the unindustrialized backwater that was Arabia can do it, the Africans could as well.
This is part of the reason why my dad likes to refer to the world wars are the "Colonial Wars."
Fear... and murder... dead people don't have to be controlled.
It probably would be unstable but lots of Europe tolerated or even welcomed the n.zis. Parts of Ukraine for example welcomed the Germans and thousands joined the SS willingly. I also heard of a story (I don’t have a source) where some local Norwegians handed over British soldiers to the authorities because they didn’t want war
Being fair to Ukraine, they'd just gone through a HORRIBLE famine at the hands of Stalin and probably thought the Nazis would be better. Goes back to the fact that the only way Hitler could win was to not be Hitler.
Are you sure they joined SS ?
How about russians, who joined germans. Thousands of them. Heard about Vlasov army ?. They had the same flag, russia has now as their national flag. How about Stalin befriending Hitler for 2 years, 1939-1941, helping him with resources ? Do you know, that soviets wanted to join axis, but were rejected ?
In Ukraine and Baltic states germans were perceived as a power, that fought savages bolshevics, so they were more than welcome to germans....and don't judge from the perspective of future, when you know the whole thing. This is nonsense
@@jonasjonaitis2949 hey I’m not judging. I’d have sided with the Germans over the Russians even with hindsight lol
Western Ukraine Galicia in particular Lviv is the town. Not all of Ukraine.
Excellent videos amazing and thank you !
People on the west forget that the n@zi regime try to gen@cide the slavs too (and they label all the multiple ethicnic groups of sovietic unions as "slavs" because racism). Some side with the n@zis but they were minorities even in their groups that seek some instantly monetary gain, hate other minorities or had been feed up propaganda and tales that the regime would help them in existent conflicts. They didn't found much loyalty from the n@zis.
(It's also said, but of this I don't remember any source so take with care, that the regime wanted to exterminate the japanese too. If possible. And only tolerate then for the danger they meant for the soviet union and China and their grographical distance)
The whole takeaway:
“Evil triumphs when Good Men do nothing.”
I.e. they buy into conspiracy theories that justify their weakest impulses.
The pathway to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Everyone thinks they are a "good man" but only 0.05% of them are.
Good Men do not make poor men fight their wars.
@@tanakanaoshi4769 They help free men defend their families and homeland.
Bro where tf did you get that
“What if“ History ain’t History. It’s a game.
If the US had for some reason joined the Axis in WW2 then that would’ve been the only way Germany won. Then the Cold War would’ve been between Germany and the US. But other than that, no, Germany wouldn’t have won. Once the US joined, just their manufacturing potential was enough to win the war and then you factor in the actual military might they were able to bring to bear and it was only a matter of time
Actually there wouldn't have been a cold war at all.
No. Both the UK and Russia would have fallen - quickly - without US logistical support.
If the US stays out of the European campaign then Hitler has the freedom to make the mistakes he did and still wins.
If Hitler hadn't made the mistake of letting the UK remain independent and attacking Russia early they likely would have still won even with US support.
FDR was preparing to fight Hitler on US soil.
"letting Britain remain independent" They did not "let them" Germans dont have a great relation with water. And the Germans attacked the Soviets at the perfect time, had they waited the Soviets would have been more prepared, and a soviet invasion possible as early as 1943
It wasn't an option to stop - "unconditional surrender", remember?
You should read more. Even at the height of the Soviet invasion in 43 the German Army was in partial demobilizing. American intervention logistically on the Soviets behalf saved them from defeat and allowed them to focus exclusively on heavy industrial production.
@@christopherwojtan750 You don't even understand the point I was making, as nothing you said is relevant. Nice try.
@@nottiredofwinning3736 your comment implies that a German defeat was inevitable with no chance of the German political apparatus remaining intact. The Prof is saying had Germany not escalated by going into Poland or Russia a peace agreement between the powers could of been had.
In any case most folks are Russian stans who think they beat the Germans out right. They bled the most besides the Chinese but they functionally could not have won without intervention.
Our victory in WW2 is purely due to very bad strategic decisions made that brought us into the war in the first place.
There was no unconditional surrender demand until January 1943. Stalingrad started in July 1942 and was well and truly lost by Jan 43.
The question in the video was “what if he stopped before Stalingrad?”.
At that time there was some reason for the Germans to believe a negotiated settlement was possible. The Japanese certainly thought it was a possibility.
Your point is not invalid, a negotiation that Germany would accept probably wasn’t actually an option but it makes some assumptions that aren’t 100% historically supported.
@@nottiredofwinning3736You're objectively incorrect and obviously ignorant of basic ww2 history and you respond as snarky as that? grow up
There's something about Sarah C.M. Paine that makes her bad ass.
My Dziadus fought in WW2 both during the invasion of Poland and then after.. he was educated as Warsaw University in linguistics.. he stayed behind and work for the Polish resistance due to his intelligence in German and Russian.. he forgave the Germans despite his own wife being a Ravensbruck survivor as did she forgive and remember difference between forgiveness and forgetting .. long story short he hated the Russians the Polish are a proud people and when the USSR blindsided them they never let that go.. he never went home because the Soviet Union had control over Warsaw.
Kurt Meyer legendary tank commander in his memoirs wrote about each enemy that he had faced and in his writingd about the Invasion of Poland where at the time he was a recon unit commander he stated " The Polish Soldier loves dying a good death and they were good at it" a weird thought about dominating an indomitable enemy.
There's a ton of misconceptions about what the aftermath would and wouldn't have been like, if Germany won the war.. Like, I'm danish, and I don't have count on how many times I've been told that if not for the US, I'd be speaking german today.. Well, since german was mandetory in danish public schools while I grew up, I do in fact speak german, but not because of that small detail, naah, but because we had a lot of german TV channels, and everything is dubbed there, so I learned german before we even started the grade where it became mandetory.,
But more important. The danish government capitulated practically day 1 of the invasion, and then they helped the germans. If not for the danish terrorists, whom not many seem to know or care about, Denmark would have been destroyed by the allied nations during the counterattack. But because they were so effective with the small amount of supplies they could get their hands on (airdrops from Brittain.), it never came to that. The railroad terrorists should have a place in history for their bravery an tenacity, but have all been forgotten..
So what are some of the misconceptions?
The Danish government surrendered 2 hours after the start of invasion and came through completely 6 hours after the start of the invasion
@@DominionSorcererIn relation to this short video: that germany wanted to take over the world, that they wanted to kill all non-white blue eyed people.
I mean it’s true, Denmark would have been absorbed into Germany proper… just as Schleswig-Holstein was absorbed from Denmark by Germany in 1864, Jutland would’ve been next, then the islands.
You would be speaking ONLY German ...
Sounds like she never actually read Mein Kampf.
Clearly not. It's a socialist Utopia manifesto.
Jews were not targeted for being Jewish, per se, they were targeted because their culture encourages rent-seeking and socialism blames classes of people and seeks retribution upon classes of people.
e.g. Hitler reasoning: 35% of rent-seekers are Jewish? Then eliminate all Jews and you eliminate 35% of rent-seeking. That's a good start.
It's completely rational; just wildly unethical.
I wouldn’t call it a “must read” in all fairness. 🤦♂️
@@Nikelaos_Khristianos she referenced the work and then referenced it incorrectly 🤦🏻♂️
@@reachvictoria3386 I never read that, but curious. Could you give some pointers what she got wrong? No tongue in cheek.
@@JeffParr-zz5nv she references a supposed genocidal program in Mein Kampf which simply is not there. Even someone who has never read the book can easily ascertain there was no genocidal plan until at least 1942, when the Final Solution is alleged to have been decided. Mein Kampf was published in 1925, so the suggestion is he had a genocidal plan almost 20 years before one existed.
She seems to think Hitler wouldn't have genocided every last Pole, Russian, etc. He had built an industrial process to do it. People can't envision what Hitler's endgame would have looked like. His final solution was a final solution, everyone dead who isn't exactly what he wanted.
Contemporary historians do not agree with that view so where did you come up with this?
@@Ccity93749 citation needed.
His “industrial process” sure left a lot of survivors 😂
Germany controlled Poland for years. They didn’t send regular poles to the labor camps, it was only certain groups. They had no ambitions of conquering the world, much less removing 95% of the population.
The whole “industrial process” nonsense is laughable. If you believe the Soviet propaganda, then their process was incredibly inefficient. They shipped, housed, clothed, and fed them before using gas to kill them and then cremating their bodies? Why not dig a big hole outside the village where the live and line them up? That’s literally how every other genocide works. How the hell were the camps more effective?
@@Ccity93749 when you say contemporary do you mean contemporary with WW2 or contemporary with today? Raphael Lemke thought that Hitler didn't believe Poland could be germanized by cultural genocide alone, but only by biological genocide - wiping out the Polish people. He wrote that in 1944.
@@Skiamakhos Yes, and when he took over the Polish farmlands, he kicked everyone out except for the kids who had blond hair & blue eyes. He just took them from their parents. Then, he moved his own people into the land and had them adopt the kids. Mustache Man was very committed to his Aryan lore.
The main issue is that there's a lot of youth who did not even read the book...theres even allies lie that book is banned in germany which is ridicilous type of propaganda
Thank you for addressing the question, it means the interviewers is already looking at it from a different lens than what could theoretically happen.
This lady is the most interesting historian ive had the pleasure to listen to so far. Please post more content.
Her perspectives are wrong and just take too little into account. She seriously underestimated nazi planning for the east and how they'd do it. Remember most resistance in eastern europe was funded by the british and soviets respectively, if they lost resistance would be incredibly difficult and then you have the whole thing of the fact that germany would execute intellectuals, philosophers, middle class and high class people to prevent resistance and also prevent the low classes from education or learning. Within 20 years eastern europe would be a german playground
I agree with her assessment of Hitler. But when you break it down, Hitler was more concerned with controlling genetics than actually thinking about controlling the world. His lack of knowledge about basic genetics and biology made this frightening. Which makes today’s eugenics fans more than terrifying because they are equally ignorant of genetics and biology.
That's what she said
@@badfoody Well he was into eugenics like a lot people today.
@@badfoody Thanks Jan.
What were his incorrect genetic and biology views that are so frightening? I always was under the impression that nazi genetics was the most advanced on earth at the time.
And I am not in favor of eugenics in practice but acting like eugenics is fundamentally incorrect from a biological standpoint just shows you're ignorant.
Why does she use the present tense?
She was responding to the hypothetical, and he was using semi-present tense when proposing the question. They were imagining themselves as if it was a real time event opposed to past history. It's not that deep.
We “recused” Poland from Germany and gave them to the Soviet union.
"We" didn't "rescue" Poland.
The Red Army took Poland away from the Germans.
Look at a map.
There's absolutely NO WAY the western allies could have done anything to get into Poland to prevent anything Stalin wanted to do in Poland.
It took us three years and most of the industrial capacity of the U.S. Great Britain and Canada just to get a few divisions across a few miles of water in the English Channel.
After the war it would have taken the outright threat of using atomic bombs on Moscow to MAYBE get Stalin to back out of Poland and it (rightly) would have been seen as stabbing the U.S.S.R. in the back after they had been doing most of the actual fighting and dying to stop Hitler.
There was ZERO practical chance of that happening in 1945-46. Everyone just wanted to go home.
So there are Americans that know that the "we saved Europe" is highly exaggerated
Can you inform the public as to why hitler invaded poland in September 1939? What atrocities happened in poland prior to September 1939 on the german border.
Considering how cold it gets in Poland the Polish would have heard of chill but nope😂😂😂
This was not the right guy for this interview. So unprepared with his questions. I’m surprised she didn’t call him an idiot
Shut up dude 😂 what would you ask her? Mr “intellectual” over here
No question is a dumb question
OK, then what was Deputy Reich Chancellor Rudolf Hess up to when he flew himself to the UK, risking his own life to negotiate with the British?
Shh goes against the narrative, as does the kangeroo courts that were the trials.
He was delusional. He had no mandate from his own government to negotiate and the Axis where already loosing the war.
where in mein kampf does he advocate for genocide? i must have missed it
Love these! That dude has more hair in his beard than I have on my whole body!
Hitler has been compared to a man riding a bicycle who, if he had stopped, would have fallen over. If Hitler had stopped, that would have given people a chance to think about what he was doing and recognize his incompetence.
I fucking love this woman
Hitler: Stops 10 meters before Stalingrad
The 5 million angry Soviets that just watched you butcher and enslave their friends and family: "... we a'ight"
The Soviets tricked them into Stalingrad. They could have just bypassed it.
@@citrusretna2088 uhuh, and stretch their front even thinner, with even more atrocious supply lines since Stalingrad is the region's main railway hub, whilst also giving the Soviets the perfect supply hub to mount an attack on the massive German flank.
A flank we know they can historically break, except now the Germans are even more spread out.
No, if the Germans wanted to cut off the Caucuses they NEEDED to take Stalingrad or to hold off long enough to build their own rails, which they can't do since they desperately need the oil.
lol no. Hitler killed everyone that lived in Stalingrad. All of their bloodlines ended.
Russia had to send over a million people to die in that battle - man and woman alike. They sent their women into battle to be slaughtered. They were slaughtered because Stalin didn't want to lose Stalingrad because it shared his name which became the "Not one inch" campaign.
Stalin's plan was to send an endless stream of people to their slaughter to slow Hitler down until winter came.
the poles would disappear she is a expert but I think she is underestimating that even 5 million poles trained in guerilla tactics would eventually be chocked out by the 13 million Germans in Poland and the rest of Europe Hitler practically would have Infinet man power. that's not even counting the SS or Gestapo or the reservists
Stephen Kotkin once said something along the lines of "If you take it, you can't have it." He was talking about Russia and Ukraine. If they take Ukraine, they can't have it since they will either destroy Ukraine's resources or the Ukrainians won't comply or both.
The interviewer is talking way too fast. Slow it down. 2x speed has to go.
Pretty sure it’s sped up to meet time constraints for shorts.
Hitler only once attended a funeral. Marshall Pidulski, the Polish patriot. He absolutely admired him. So, hate for the Poles, sort of, maybe, if you are willing to ignore that just about every German had Polish (Slavic) blood…..look at the names. von Rendulic, yes, that’s Serbian. Primorsic? Fighter pilot, yes, that Polish and on and on. Just goes to show how crazy it was…..
What point are you trying to make exactly?
@@someone-wh2rb Germans and Polish are largely the same people. To put it another way, if Hitler wanted to kill Slavs he would have to kill half of the Germans...
@@someone-wh2rbI think he means that their hate of Poland wasn’t on ethnic grounds but on ideological. They had to artificially create ethnic hatred of Poles in order to legitimise their goal of Lebensraum. It would be hard to convince soldiers to expel 30 odd million Poles if they weren’t made to hate them first. For example I’m Polish but the only other famous person who has my second name on Wikipedia is a Nazi General lol
@@someone-wh2rbI think, he is saying about close genetic ties, and yet, geographically, historically they are very close neubou
Bro he attended way more than 1 funeral. From politicans, party members and famous soldiers to friends and family. Well documented and with photographic evidence.
Love how she points out that the questions don’t line up with reality.
She sounds like a female version of Ben Shapiro, that’s a compliment from me
Oh, on the issues I've heard her cover, she would dominate Ben Shapiro. But they're also not issues I think Ben would really be interested in ... or he'd be interested because he knows she's more knowledgeable.
And now we know she never read Mein Kampf.
Hitler expressed remorse over Mein Kampf. He wished he never wrote it. He said he was an angry young man lead astray by elders.
Hitler wished he never wrote it so much millions of copies were still being sold, the profits of which he pocketed, long into the war and went on to do exactly what he said he was going to do in Mein Kampf.
Hitler followed its ideology and blue print to his last dying breath like a bitch in the bunker!
@Turnipstalk not really though
@Turnipstalk the Nazi's tried every avenue to remove the jews from their country prior to 1938. No country would except them. NONE. Similar to the situation in Israel right now where no other country will accept Palestinians. Yet the entire world will tell them how to treat the Palestinians. 1938 Evian Conference, check it out.
@Turnipstalk read up on the Evian Conference 1938 in France. It explains that no country would except jews from Germany. Similar to the isreal/palestine issue going on.
we hear this every time germany gets brought up but seriously i’d love a SINGLE quote showing where he explicitly stated he wants to genocide them (which genocide itself wasn’t a word until a jewish lawyer invented it during the nuremberg trials)
Yes, the war certainly led to an hitherto unconsidered plan of “Genocide”
What exactly do you need a quote for? Why is what he said relevant, when you can see what he did?
Fact is, he DID have the concentration camps built, and he DID have minorities deported there to be exterminated.
Don't judge people by their words, judge them by their actions.
@@HungryLoki The idea behind what he is saying is that the idea of extermination wasn't thought of from the beginning.
It is a mistake many assume today, but at the start he only wanted to get rid of them by sending them elsewhere; the evian accords i think, but no one wanted to take them, and with all the issues of the world war, he simplified his issue by just simply killing them all.
Is there a wider point that you have other than annoyance at inaccuracy in a minor detail?
@@HungryLokiHe wants a quote showing that hitler wanted to kill all non-germans in europe. Especially because he wanted to make jews leave his territory but all other countries said no and the british ensured he couldn't do it himself.
Hitler didn't have the oil or enough slaves to keep it running. He expected the Soviets to fight about as well as they did in Finland and didn't realize Stalin had 25,000 tanks.
There's also the matter of the Soviets not bringing Winter Camouflage against Finland. Brown and green miltary uniforms really stand out against the snow.
@@mikevignola4213 And mass frontal assaults.
@@George-vf7ssthat theory has long been since debunked. A way for the west to cope with Soviet superiority over Germany. Long been considered the best soldiers in the world.
You could argue that Germany not the Soviets were the one wasting soldiers lives by the end of the war.
@@darkhobo I agree that the "enemy at the gates style fighting" is debunked. But there was 2-3 sides to the story. The beginning of invasion went up against soviet soldiers that was under equipped and incompetent. Then they start defending, but with low quality soldiers that dies in droves. Soviet built up proper units that where the ones used to take back Stalingrad.
Elite units take like 2y to create, so there was 2 thoughts at the same time and this messes up the story.
The Germans expected Soviet reserves to be around 5 million men or something but in reality it was 30 million
Love your stuff
Had Churchill not kept the UK in the war after France fell, there is a chance Germany could have paused before going after Russia that might have given him better results. However that is the what if game & he could have simply gone after Russia sooner with an army even less equipped then it was at the start of Barbarous & still not addressed his logistics issues.
Nice to hear from someone not trying to convince you of something
She has a very shallow understanding of Hitler and what he was trying to accomplish
I don't know, she seemed to hit the nail on the head. What do you think Hitler was about and trying to accomplish?
@@SmilingIbis regarding just one thing that she mentioned in the video of “genociding poles” is completely inaccurate, Hitler never had ambitions of controlling all of Poland much less genociding them. He had a lot of public speeches talking about the problems with Poland and how we wanted to avoid bloodshed and strike a deal with them. England would not let the polish government make a deal with Germany. At the same time was going on the Soviet Union who bordered Poland was making it clear of their ambitions of expanding west and taking Poland. Hitler saw this, offered them peace in making a deal Poland refused and Hitler wasn’t just going to allow Poland to be taken by the soviets to come closer to Germany without him getting anything out of it.
@SmilingIbis
She's a hack.
"Poles never give up".
They surrendered in a matter of weeks.
Soviets liberated them.
@@moiseshuerta3984 they surrendered because the Soviet invasion of Poland made their situation completely hopeless, yet the Polish Home Army kept on fighting as did the Polish in exile as part of the western Allies.
@@stephenstokes9117The whole “Hitler wanted to conquer the world” thing is a bit bizarre to hear too. I understand middle school history teachers spouting such nonsense, but for a professor from a college dedicated to the study of war to say it…
She misses the real reason why Germany could not take control of Europe. Britain has never allowed any single country to dominate Europe since Napoleon.
The primary goal in Mein Kampf was to create a Germanic state by expanding into the East ie Russia not to dominate Europe.
Exactly. Britain lives in fear of a continental superpower. In real terms, if it had been the French in 1939 conquering Western Europe, instead of Germany, Churchill would have still gotten involved. Many Europeans criticize the U.S.for its late entry into the war, but they should thank their lucky stars that Hitler declared war and the U.S finally got involved. Once Hitler invaded Russia,if the U.S. had stayed out, Stalin would have taken all of Europe.
@@weirdshibainu There’s no way Stalin would have taken over Europe without the massive contributions from the US under the Marshall plan. That is not to say that it would have been easy for Germany to maintain jurisdiction over Russia.
It would have been more likely that Germany would succumb to the same problem that all other nations who invaded Russia encountered - the country is so vast that the supply lines are an issue.
Btw this was not the sole issue that Germany actually did not prevail in Russia.
They invaded to get resources and Hitlers pride made them detour away from the oil fields in the south to places like Stalingrad.
It might have been a different story if they stuck to the plan. If the Marshall plan was not there the Russians would never have had the ability to push Germany back.
@@weirdshibainufewer Americans have died if America gad entered the war a bit earlier. The allies wouldn’t have needed to use sanctions to push Japan to attack the US.
NB my grandfather was Ambassador to Tokyo - the policy was to use Japan to bring America into the war. Because Japan had such few natural resources they thought Japan would be relatively easy to subdue. The Allied top brass refused to accept my grandfather’s warnings about the ferocity and determination of the Japanese military.
@@TheTimdoyleYou're confused. If the U.S had stayed out of the war, Russia would have still prevailed over Germany. Stalin wouldn't have a reason to stop in Berlin when there was nothing to keep him from taking the rest of the continent. No idea why you brting up the Marshal Plan which had nothing to do with Russia. The Marshal Plan was solely meant to rebuild Western Europe...after the war.
@@weirdshibainu You’re absolutely correct, it was lendlease that allowed the Russians to fight. Without it Russia would have been defeated.
The US gave 11.3 Billion and the UK gave them 308 million.
As far as the rest of what I said it is easy to look up and verify.
The question should’ve been; what was Hitlers endgame?I never read Mein Kempf, but I’m pretty sure he wanted to survive. The genocide is rooted in His warped perception of Natural Selection and his own racist beliefs. It’s hard to envision Anarchy being his main objective and that being backed so strongly by some pretty intelligent people. Clearly revenge was reason enough to act, we know about living space and recreating a 3rd Reich. He could’ve had easily could’ve had a Napoleon type grip on Europe for an extended period of time if he would’ve listened to his Generals and wasn’t so Hellbent on exterminating people. History is so fascinating because it’s written by the winners in multiple versions
Thank you Sarha✨💃✨
I guess the faster u talk the smarter u are 😅😅😅😅😅
The video is obviously sped up for the sake of the "youtube shorts" format. The full video is two and a half hours on his channel and is well worth the watch/ listen. His guests are brilliant and he asks great questions.
Hitler's mistake was picking a fight with three major powers at the same time, Britain, Soviet Russia, and the USA. He should have focused on one enemy at a time but he was overconfident.
Although its not wrong that hitler was screwed over by fighting so many powers at once, I still feel like the agruement misses a key point, that being the major weren't just sitting around wait for germany to declare war. The soviet Although taken off guard at the time were still arming up for war and the longer hitler took to focus on britian the more ready stronger they would of been. And the usa Although still not gearing up like the soviet was creeping closer and closer to joining britian, with expansions of lead lease and other operation around and for britian in 1941. Point being germany didn't really have the luxury of choose only one enemy to fight at a time.
@@lordpeanut3245 The theory of whether or not the soviets were planning an invasion of germany is still hotly debated. There isn't much of a consensus on that fact.
@@princeofgreece9054 It's not that the Soviet Union was planning an invasion of Germany, it's that they were, specifically Stalin, very paranoid of outside forces trying to overthrow them. With the russian civil war and japanese border conflicts really hamming in this mind set. Point being, the Soviets were preparing for war, just prob a defense one.
Bro said “ah” like he was disappointed at the end
Usually agree with this content, but he made it clear that he wanted Aryans to have enough farming land. For him to have enough "breathing room", the "original inhabitants" weren't going to be there anymore. This was definitely the plan in Eastern Europe, I don't know about France.
The thing is - he wouldn't stop. He never stopped after Austria nor Czechoslovakia. And even if he won, he would choke on his victory. Hitler and the Thousand Years Reich were doomed from the start.
He had no intentions of invading France or England. They declared war on him
@@citrusretna2088 Bruh it is foolish to even consider Hitler wouldn't invade France at least. Great Britain and France declared war on him but only because he invaded Poland, which independence was guaranteed by the Allies. But if they didn't, Hitler would carve up Poland together with the USSR and with the Allied declaration of war or without, he'd invade France. His goal was to topple the Versailes order in Europe, to regain Alsace-Lorraine, he also had to defeat France before invading USSR so that he wouldn't be cought in a war on two fronts with France and Great Britain rapidly rearming.
@@jak00bspyr72 The Soviets also invaded Poland. Why didn't France and England declare war on them?
@@citrusretna2088 Because of political reasons. They didn't want to fight USSR and force it into the Axis. Romania did the same, didn't declare war on USSR despite having an anti-Soviet defensive alliance with Poland. What exactly are you trying to prove?
@@jak00bspyr72 Hitler's main objective was always Russia. He didn't care about England or France. Very little those countries could offer in the way of resources and the would have made great aryian trading partners. Russia had everything the Reich needed.
Siberian insightful response and it applies very well to the current situation in Israel / Palestine
Why is this video clip speeded up? I mean, we know that "the boy" speaks fast. But Sarah isn't usually this fast. 🤔😖
I can't give this guy a subscription but I want to keep listening to her...
i like this lady, she knows in depth what she talks about.
Next time give them Danzig
Arguments and accusing Poland of starting World War 2 is dumb and not true. First of all, Poland did not invade but annexed, without resistance a piece of land that was taken in 1920 by a violent invasion of Czechoslovak army. The answer to your question could be more elaborated but it's quite simple, typical territorial dispute between two neighboring states that regained independence. Czechs used parliamentary election in Poland as an excuse, the disputed land was about to get population plebiscite, Poles were unable to resist having major war against Bolshevik Russia somewhere else and local population was never given chance to choose their nationality. In 1938 Poland did the same, used weakness of collapsing Czechoslovak state, issued ultimatum and annexed the disputed land. Germany invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938. In fact, it was Germany and its leader, Adolf Hitler, who pressured Czechoslovakia to cede the Sudetenland, a region with a large ethnic German population, to Germany. This was part of Hitler's expansionist policies. The Allies, particularly Britain and France, reacted by signing the Munich Agreement in September 1938, which allowed Germany to annex the Sudetenland in exchange for a promise of no further territorial expansion. This policy of appeasement was an attempt to avoid war, but it ultimately failed to prevent the outbreak of World War II. Poland since the early 1933 to 1939 did everything to avoid war with Germany, the Poles even refused Hitler when he proposed an invasion of Soviet Union, the Polish government refused in order to have peace with USSR. From the spring of 1939, Hitler turned his attention to Polish lands. Germany demanded that the area of the Free City of Gdańsk be incorporated into the Third Reich and that permission to run an extraterritorial highway and railway through Gdańsk Pomerania to East Prussia would be granted. On September 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland. To justify the action, Nazi propagandists accused Poland of persecuting ethnic Germans living in Poland. They also falsely claimed that Poland was planning, with its allies Great Britain and France, to encircle and dismember Germany. The non-aggression pact between the Republic of Poland and the USSR was signed in Moscow on July 25, 1932 for three years. Despite the extension of its validity in May 1934 until the end of 1945, the pact was broken on September 17, 1939. 90 years ago, on January 26, 1934, a Polish-German declaration of non-violence was signed in Berlin, which the Germans denounced in April 1939. The agreement with Germany was analogous to a similar non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union of July 25, 1932. These pacts didnt make Poles allies with Germans and Soviets. However I can say different about German-Soviet pact which allowed both powers to annex, conquer and divide Europe. This pact and its protocol was to invade Poland and split in two sides. German taught their children to hate Jews, Slavs and others who were not considered humans by Nazis. Hitler's dream of taking over Eastern Europe and creating Lebensraum, space for the Germans to live and grow. The plan was to kill and enslavw Jews, Slavs and others who lived there.
5.6 to 6 million Poles dead, concentration camps, executions, force labour and many more. German people taught their children to hate Jews, Slavs and others. Of course there were some antisemitic Poles who hated Jews or Germans. In 1939, 3.3 million Jews lived in Poland, 300 thousand lived in Warsaw, they were not persecuted by the State and not by the whole Polish nation. There have been Catholics who did hate them but its not comparable to Germany where they lost citizenships and human rights. Not only did Germans kill Poles, Soviets and Ukrainians did too.
Gdańsk was built by Mieszko I during 10th century. After the military defeat in World War I, the Germans realized that the reborn Polish statehood intended to return to the areas of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth taken over by the Kingdom of Prussia in the first and second partitions, and which the Germans already treated as an integral part of their state. In Germany and Gdańsk it was realized that Polish intentions were based on increasingly secure foundations, primarily on the ethnographic principle adopted by the peace conference, as well as the support of France and the favor of the President of the United States. In the spring of 1919, news came from Paris about plans to hand over most of Gdańsk Pomerania to Poland, to which the German population responded with demonstrations that gathered tens of thousands of people in the center of Gdańsk. These manifestations, as well as the domination of the German population in Gdańsk and the counties directly bordering it, resulted in the decision of the great powers to establish the Free City of Gdańsk
On January 10, 1920, after the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles (ending World War I) became final, Gdańsk was separated from the German Reich, but formally the Free City of Gdańsk did not yet exist.