‘But TIK, the reason WHY Hitler started WW2 makes no sense!’
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 фев 2025
- Why would Hitler go to war with Poland, knowing that Britain would declare war on Germany? For some, including my Patreon, the reason why Hitler started the war don't make any sense. But when you look at the way Hitler viewed the world (his ideology and his economics) and if you understand the way Chamberlain changed his mind after the Munich Agreement, then it all falls into place. This video will help you put the pieces of the puzzle together.
🔔 Subscribe for more History content: / @theimperatorknight
⏲️ Videos EVERY Monday at 5pm GMT (depending on season, check for British Summer Time).
The thumbnail for this video was created by Terri Young. Need graphics? Check out her website www.terriyoung...
- - - -
📚 BIBLIOGRAPHY / SOURCES 📚
Full list of all my sources docs.google.co...
- - - -
⭐ SUPPORT TIK ⭐
This video isn't sponsored. My income comes purely from my Patreons and SubscribeStars, and from RUclips ad revenue. So, if you'd like to support this channel and make these videos possible, please consider becoming a Patreon or SubscribeStar. All supporters who pledge $1 or more will have their names listed in the videos. For $5 or more you can ask questions which I will answer in future Q&A videos (note: I'm behind with the Q&A's right now, and have a lot of research to do to catch up, so there will be a delay in answering questions). There are higher tiers too with additional perks, so check out the links below for more details.
/ tikhistory
www.subscribes...
Thank you to my current supporters! You're AWESOME!
- - - -
📽️ RELATED VIDEO LINKS 📽️
Hitler's Socialism | Destroying the Denialist Counter Arguments • Hitler's Socialism | D...
The REAL Reason why Hitler HAD to go to War in WW2 • The REAL Reason why Hi...
BATTLESTORM STALINGRAD S1/E1 - The 6th Army Strikes! • BATTLESTORM STALINGRAD...
History Theory 101 • [Out of Date, see desc...
- - - -
ABOUT TIK 📝
History isn’t as boring as some people think, and my goal is to get people talking about it. I also want to dispel the myths and distortions that ruin our perception of the past by asking a simple question - “But is this really the case?”. I have a 2:1 Degree in History and a passion for early 20th Century conflicts (mainly WW2). I’m therefore approaching this like I would an academic essay. Lots of sources, quotes, references and so on. Only the truth will do.
This video is discussing events or concepts that are academic, educational and historical in nature. This video is for informational purposes and was created so we may better understand the past and learn from the mistakes others have made.
As a college student studying history, I learned that your quote "But is that really the case?" is pretty much the motif and theme about learning in history. Thanks for inspiring me TIK.
But is that really the case?
There is a reason I used to use the quote from Katsumoto from The Last Samurai "I want to know my enemy." As it fits perfectly into history study. It's the main reason I got into studying the German Empire, Nazi Germany, the USSR and the the Japanese Empire. It's also why already by the time I was in highschool I would say things "Regardless of Nazi Germany's crimes, we would of been at war with them anyways. The crimes they committed were fortunate for us after the war." As I knew very well already by then that Nazi crimes were not the reason we went to war with them but for other political and economic reasons. To be honest, I personally think the crimes they committed broke history, as you can argue today, socialist have been fighting tooth/nail to distance themselves from Nazi Germany, and Fascism as a whole, which when combined with the Cold War, poisoned much of the historical narrative for decades.
TIK just possibly single-handedly changed public perception on "Quarterly Inflation Reports". They might need to be renamed the "Price Change Reports"
I don't always agree with Tik, that being said I absolutely respect his intellectual honesty and research.
Yes, but i worry about his grasp of economics when he takes out a loan that is 10% interest per day. That is 3650 APR. :) :) (just kidding, obviously he meant the days to be an analogy for years)
Hold on, this exploitation of the outlying territories in the Reich sounds awfully similar to what happened to the Soviet Republics that bordered Russia.
"Not real Socialism!" - I think that's the phrase you're looking for :) ;)
@@edwardcullen1739 Lmao, just pointing out that the differences between all attempts at real socialism do in fact have more comparisons than contrasts with the Thrid Reich...
@Jasta Two and Britain and Roosevelt were big buddies of Stalin. No war declaration there for doing arguably worse than Hitler
It sounds like the age-old "periphery and center" idea about empires, where empires balance on how much parasitic the center can get at the cost of the periphery.
1914 Germany was starting to confiscate goods in occupied territories. Not to the point of slave labour though.
@Jasta Yildirim Everyone dislikes the soviet union, even other socialists distrust them.
But TIK- your “facts” clash with my feelings and my terrible memories of history class in public schools- thanks for all you do! Keep up the good work!
@@Edax_Royeaux Thats all socialism. When there's no free market, there's no capitalism.
@@Edax_Royeaux There was a good reason why Pinochet threw the Chilean Stock Exchange into the Pacific.
@@Edax_Royeaux I know, I was just poking fun at how the stock market is apparently socialist.
@@thefrenchareharlequins2743 the stock market is a casino. It may have Capitalist origins but it is now a heavily manipulated suckers bet. At least the NYSE is.
@@Edax_Royeaux Free market= When people exchange goods and services freely without coercion
> no, we call that Keynesianism
based and Sowellpilled
J. M. Keynes WAS A VERY CLEVER MAN - whose economic theories have been UTTERLY DEGRADED AND POISONED and DELIBERATELY MISS-interpreted BY SHAMELESS LIE-berals who will routinely tell all manner of LIES to justify their aspirations to become Soviet Socalist Dictators!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Or reductionism and mechanicism...
I've learned more about WWII in 6-7 videos with you than 3 yrs of HS and 4 years of BA. Thank you
WW2 teaching in Australia is optional and you only really learn Australia's participation and the role of blockout blinds, Eastern and Western Fronts not mentioned once
Not really. It's through the eyes of an British revisionist. He doesn't ever admit that Hitler requested peace 35+ times, while Churchill firebombed women and children.
@R.K. RocketKnight allegedly? Do your research. He called for peace 30+ times starting in 1939.
@R.K. RocketKnight Are you really this lazy that you can't look up the info on the dates peace offerings were made?
@@bijouxdoum6199 You're dealing with an absolute, lazy moron who isn't about to look into the peace offerings.
You are the embodiment of history being taught as an alive subject. Most channels unfortunately just narrate what happened and why, but what I love about your content, that you discuss history actively as a subject to be thought about, analyzed, reconsidered, or even reimagined. I was a history addict before your content. Now, I am a 2x a history addict. :) You remember me? I am the one who always send greetings from Egypt! ;)
“It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.”
― Murray N. Rothbard
Why does it not surprise that people who quote Murray Rothbard as if he ever had any valid insights AKA - AnCaps are regular listeners to this deranged apologist for the most morally degenerate regime in modern world history. At least until one of theirs somehow comes to power, you can be certain that a Fundamentalist Libertarian regime will not be hamstrung by compassion as they formulate policies to Annihilate the poor, these bow tie sporting psychopaths will give the NAZI murderers a run for the money in the genocide Olympics.
@@davidsenderodelsanto I'm not a "regular listener" here. I haven't watched many of his videos because there isn't much useful insight to be gained by studying the strategic and tactical aspects of WW2 in such detail. Wars aren't fought this way any longer. There is more insight to be gained by understanding how and why such a corrupt regime came to power in Germany. That said, I think you're being more than a bit harsh and unfair to describe TIK as a "deranged apologist for the most morally degenerate regime in modern world history". I'd say he's a more than a little "obsessed" with WW2 in Europe. He's a one-trick pony, perhaps, but I don't view him as "deranged" nor do I view him as a Nazi apologist.
As for the quote above, I had never heard of Rothbard but there is a valid point in it that extends beyond economics. All too many people confuse their strongly held opinions and beliefs with facts and real insight on a wide range of subjects. The Dunning-Kruger Effect is very much in play in this regard. The less intelligent and competent one might be, the more likely they are to hold such "loud and vociferous" opinions that are completely erroneous. Moreover, does it matter who said it? You never know where you're going to find a little bit of wisdom when it comes to quotes. I like to quote Aristotle, da Vinci or Gandhi, but one of the most truthful and insightful quotes about governments and wars is attributed to Hermann Goering. It's as true today as it was then. All governments have to do to bring "the people" to war is convince them they are under attack and accuse the "peace-mongers" of being unpatriotic.
@@davidsenderodelsanto
Judging by what looks like to be an ANTIFA profile pic I am not surprised that you feel the way you do. I mean what a normie-leftist response that is and I have heard over a decade now.
With that said now. Not one bit of your comment refuted anything in Rothbard's quote. You just went on an ad hominem tangent about how anybody center-right is a Nazi and only your side cares about the poor. You say all this sophistry while you LARP in the streets and burn down minority businesses and beat up Asians. And if you are not out in the streets you sure as hell are probably rooting for it. All while you probably penny pinch more than the most adherent Objectivist. You refuse to exchange or sacrifice your time, money and labour to help the poor, unless it to virtue signal to Facebook. And when you are not able to find glory in doing good then it's "its the government's job and not mine" while you consume pop culture toys and indulgences. Champagne socialism at its finest.
Funny thing is I know for a fact this is not the first time you have been told the irony of who you really are in relation to what you espouse. Business as usual for both parties I suppose.
I can't say for sure, but I have a very strong hunch that anybody center-right is too extreme for you.
Auh. So there is a demand behind it.
At 8 minutes I thought 'what am I watching?'
It was so fascinating I sat through the entire thing and then thought it ended too soon.
What a great explanation.
I'm subscribing
Hi! I would like to know your opinion about rabbits or chickens?! Im waiting for your response, a honest response
"Germany had to go to war because of the economy"
Funnily enough this is also why Britain went to war, I believe in one of the Cabinet meetings the treasury minister basically said "go to war in 1939 or not at all" because the British rearmament campaign would have broken the British economy in 1940.
War = Profit
@@Caresfree637 Losing trade to the populace you are fighting. Doesn't sound profitable.
@@Edax_Royeaux Cause they didn't print fraudelant money within occupied lands as far as I'm aware at least... Probably did have some sort of scam scheme with the Soviets in Iran. but too lazy to look into it lol
@@thefrenchareharlequins2743 wasn’t British trade primarily with the empire?
@@andrewjohnston9115 The white colonies, yes.
Sorry TIK, but it doesn't matter whether you list sources, people will still say that you're a lying propagandist because people have ideological and political goals that won't be dentured by irrelevant sentiments such as "reality" "facts" and "logic.
True... unfortunately
In fairness to them, to be demonstrably told that their most terrible bogeyman of the 20th century (apart from Mrs Thatcher of course) was actually a socialist, and all you have to do is exchange "class" for "race" and both ideologies are virtually inseparable, must be a very very bitter pill to have to swallow. Before TIKs video I had absolutely no idea this was the case, but once seen you can’t unsee it. It’s so obvious once you apply some critical thinking, Jews/Kulaks are both the objects of each regimes hate. TIK you’re doing a great job, keep it up.
@@andrewjohnston9115 Fair point. I didn't know that national socialism was socialism either before TIK either. I thought the name was a ploy to make the ideology sound good to other nations and the people.
@@theeternalsuperstar3773 The problem with that is that people can only learn that entire socialist ideology is bad. It's not. It's actually good and very rational. But, well, not in practice. At least not currently and probably not for quite some time in the future.
The actual problem with socialism is that it simply doesn’t work, as it's not compatible with human nature. People are inherently selfish, they don’t want to sacrifice their time and their efforts for someone they don’t know, and there are no benevolent bureaucrats with no self-interest. And those are facts, at least for now.
So, yeah, socialism, communism, as well as some other collectivist ideologies are nothing but empty words, because people are not ready for such level of cooperation.
@@damyr The actual problem with _both_ capitalism and socialism is that when taken to extreme, they don't work. That's why the most successful countries in the world are those who have best found the sweet spot between these two by letting large parts of the economy being run by capitalist system with as simple and transparent regulation as possible while dealing those parts that are unsuitable for capitalism with a socialist system. And when on top of that you combine it with a system that builds up social capital (that capitalism doesn't have a clue about) by taking care of all members of society, you'll end up in near perfection. That's what the Nordic countries are doing and keep topping year after year the top spots in world happiness rankings.
The problem with the simple kind of thinking is that people are both selfish and also have empathy for other people and keep collaborating any many aspects of life. We are neither bees that live in perfect communism, nor tigers who live completely solitary lives, but something between. Economic models that ignore one aspect of human nature or the other, are going to fail.
Most of TIK's videos deal with war. A collective war by a nation as a concept is completely impossible if people are 100% selfish. The only way to get soldiers into an army is to appeal to their collective duty to the nation.
Your channel is by far the best history channel I’ve ever seen, the depth and tremendous research you go into makes this the highest quality production on RUclips. Keep up the good work
The thing about History is it was told to us by the Victors of the wars that they financed and determined the outcomes. The Banking Cabal is just another in a line of evil Cabals in this world that we are just now learning the truth about. Do research from different view points. The truth is somewhere in the middle. We are living in scary but amazing times. Get ready to be blown away.
More like the ultimate Anglo / anglophile bogus history on the net.
@@haroldfiedler6549 How very clever.
@@haroldfiedler6549Specify or F off with that ignorance
Chamberlain gave successions to Germany the same reason France did. The British generals and the French generals both were saying the same things “we are not ready for war”.
Yep. In the fall of 1938 the Hawker Hurricane was available in several squadrons, while the Super Marine Spitfire was barely entering service. A year later, the Spitfire was available in several squadrons while the Hurricane was available in many more squadrons. Prior to them, the British were using, and still had in large numbers, the biplane Gloster Gladiator.
@@kemarisiteleagues ahead of where they are currently
The UK started ramping up before the Germans went into Poland. They bought themselves some time....
EDIT: Most of the people commenting missed the point of my comment. All I was saying is that youtubes algorithm is very aggressive towards history. He took a risk to teach.
You must be the most ballsy historian on youtube. Opening up mein kampf and reading notes from it to illustrate Hitlers frame of mind. You sir are a great historian, thank you for putting your channel at risk to teach
Quoting mein kampf isn't ballsy, however if he made a video titles "the british 'peace front' and why britain started ww2" now that would be ballsy
@@AFGuidesHD
You should do it.
Wouldn't be hard to do better than Hoggan.
@@AFGuidesHD No that would be silly as they clearly didn't.
Not ballsy, important. You have to know your enemy and the way they thought to understand how you can dismantle it, and why they acted the way they did. The beliefs espoused in Mein Kampf are obviously hideous, but the information we can *get* from Mein Kampf is an important piece of the puzzle.
@@stephenobrien5909 Perhaps you should read "March 1939: The British Guarantee to Poland" by Simon Newman, because yes, their actions clearly did regardless of intent.
Whilst Poland and Germany were in talks over settling their issues amicably one such Noel Mason-Macfarlane wrote a long winded letter to the Cabinet urging for war, days letter when Chamberlain issued the blank cheque to Poland, Alexander Cadogan the permanent under secretary to the foreign office would note "I gather Mason-Macfarlane will approve our action today".
TIK your channel is a blessing during COVID-19. This is the only excitement I get other than studying 10-12 hours/day. God Bless
I'm studying only through TIK. So?
@@metal87power Lol I am not studying history. I am studying medicine. I meant that TIK excites from the mundane routines of everyday life
Tus exam, huh ?
@@mustafacanguvercin Medical Licensing stuff
you should say "A blessing from the Lord" XD
Why isn't this taught in school? Thx, for being the best history teacher I ever had.
Because the Marxists after WWII and when the horror stories from the USSR came out all ran and hid in the western school system and have essentially taken it over. Why? Teachers do not have to deal with the real world, they get to preach from bully pulpits about their utopia... with them in charge of course and us peasants kow towing to their magnanimous presence.
@@w8stral You're delusional. It's just an incompetent memory based learning system, if you are referring to the USA.
@@zupalan2265 Ah, you must be a delusional Maxists socialist playing pretend games as if you have never been to a college or inside a teachers union which are all or nearly all Marxist socialists in power and are blatantly lying to cover up their incompetence. And every school is based on memory learning as 95% of schooling is just swallowing, and not much thinking until last couple years of high school and college.
@@zupalan2265
He certainly comes across as delusional.
He should hide under the bed from those scary Communist teachers.
No time in the curriculum
I liked the deferential allusion to Margaret Thatcher at the very end: "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
The problem with Thatcherism is eventually you run out of other people's assets to sell
Germany went full command economy in the Great War, more than in '43. The german command starts to run the country like a military dictatorship. Both Germanies think confiscating goods from occupied and client nations is fine, but WW II Germany makes it all the way to slave labour.
All the powers in Europe slide a little closer to a command economy during wartime.
@John Beige What do you think of confiscations in the previous war? The germans are loading up supplies from their captured territories in France at the time. Not at all the same scale as here.
@@Lennon6412 Thatcher was a statesman, she was clearly speaking from personal experience.
@@Lennon6412The alternative at the time was raise yet more taxes on a dying economy or cut pensions, services.
Selling assets was like a once rich family selling the family business. And living large off the sales.....for a while longer.
33:27 so basically Romania started WW2
double crossing the allied, sided with Germany and became communist.....
something went wrong
@@tijotypo5252 They really had few options.
No, we all know that Poland started it when they attacked a radio station (sarc)
Balkans strike again.
@@odysseus2656 Well, the Germans weren't going to live without the latest pop hits from the Hit Parade on the wireless now were they?
Favourite ww2 channel. Thanks for the well researched videos.
27:27 This video is chock-full of important information, but the prostate exam joke had me in stitches
TIK doesn't study this stuff, he straps it to the bench and dissects it under bright lights and a microscope.
Suberb understanding of these things and real depth of knowledge.
I really like how aggressive you sound when quoting Hitler.
He's a real snack our Tikky boi hey*
You were my favourite WWII General!
@@thegreathadoken6808 Who's now?
@@нєманрсь General-Major Heinrich zu Dohna-Tolksdorff!
@@thegreathadoken6808 The guy who tried to kill Hitler?
The "gotta conquer to stabilize the economy. oh no the economy is falling apart because of a lack of conquest" kinda reminds me of Rome, except on 100x fast forward
Also The French Revolutionary Wars, launched because the Revolution. which was the result of a fiscal crisis, had made that crisis even worse
@@ryanward10
There's a depressing thought.
Perhaps the Vietnamese will save us.
It works until it runs out real goods to steal.
The difference is that Rome never pretended it was any other way.
@@brucetucker4847
It's quite interesting that Rome conquered the world despite The Fetial Law, which prohibited wars of aggression.
TIK's scholarly work commands my highest respect. I have a Master's degree, but I don't just trot that out to throw weight behind my often unscholarly opinions. I mention it here to add weight to my studied opinion regarding TIK's work. Also, I contribute financially. TIK's work is unique and brilliant in addition to rigorously researched.
It's good to be reminded from time to time that the possession of an advanced degree doesn't completely preclude good sense and discernment.
@@billosby9997 Absolutely. I have a PhD and my wife has a MD. I've seen the type of people that get advanced degrees and they're not always the best and the brightest.
You contribute to this nonsense? He has absolutely no grasp of modern economics. "that's what you call Keynesianism" says TIK when he probably hasn't seriously read any of the modern Keynesian literature. He presents an incredibly simplistic view of the economy and without proper academic backing supports a fringe school of economic thought (Austrian Economics).
@@benbruce9192 Nobody has a good grasp of modern economics. Monterism died years ago. In recent years the idea that massive increases in money and deficits would automatically cause inflation have not proven true. As we blow up the US debt, interest rates have steadily declined and there is no sign of inflation, contrary to what all traditional economists have said. I suspect it has something to with the enormous growth of international finance capital, some of which is always looking for a safe haven like US Treasuries. In any even, economists seem to have no explanation for what's happening.
@@benbruce9192 He's probably much better off not to have read "modern Keynesian literature"
I'm a bit curious why the poster would disregard Hitler's beliefs and ideology, when (paraphrasing) "Trying to pit himself in Hitler's shoes/frame of reference to understand why he made the decisions he made". Knowing that the German war effort had such a heavy slant of ideology in their preachings and actions (obviously not a strictly resource/land/fiscal/political pursuit), it seems double-dipping odd to not include his ideology, beliefs and worldview in the equation, when you're already taking the approach of trying to understand his reasonings from Hitler's own mind and perspective.
If you're intending to "walk a mile" in someone shoes to understand them, don't take the bus.
One of the few channels I click instantly.
Others being : Military History Visualized, Military History Not Visualized, Mark Felton Productions, Indy Nidell's, Historia Civilis. You guys are so damn good at being through with history. And being part of a history interested community (than some who try to be know it all's).
You should check the armchair historian too.
@@ΑνδρέαςΠαππάς-φ4ν Much more "popular history" focused. Made for entertainment value, not necessarily a believable presentation of history.
You forgot my nigga Potential History
Plainly Difficult and Invicta are good mentions as well
What about The Chieftain, Drachinifel, and Bismarck (Military Aviation History)?
Tank Museum as well.
Though with them the list gets a bit too long.
This side of history would make some interesting pc games: 'Close Combat: A loan too far' maybe?
On the allied side, the war ends with a bunch of the european powers heavily indebted to the USA. Two huge wars in a row is more than their empires can absorb, financially.
Prior to the Polish Defensive War of 1939 against Third Reich and Soviet Union, all of the gold reserves (105,000 kg) were evacuated from Poland to Paris.
Thanks.
True!
Also - no atrocities were committed against German minority in Poland! It’s Goebbels propaganda to provide a reason to start the war!
So why didn't Brittan and France not declare war on Russia as well?
Maybe their guarantee did not serve the purpose they declared?
They (correctly) assumed that Germany and Russia would be at war soon. Declaring war on Russia too would have prevented that.
@@mrsnrub282A lot of britain France decisions to let germany get away with as much as it did make at least degree of sense in the view of the growing soviet union.
Well they definitely considered doing so after the fall of Poland tho
"People imagine economics to be all about maths and a subject that has no real substance. No, we call that Keynesianism." lol best quote of the video.
Damn you! Yours is one of those channels you can't just let play in the background while you do something else. You force me to pay attention and hold my attention with your energetically researched facts. Well... when I explain it like that it's more of a compliment, isn't it. Hmmph.
Hitler was like an addicted Gambler on a hot streak. He had rearmed, he had occupied the rheinland, he had taken Czechoslovakia and cowed to a degree the United Kingdom in France. He had every reason to believe that France and England would back down yet again. It's kind of like that addicted gambler rolling snake eyes and he has his whole steak on the table. Now what. Every signal sent to Nazi Germany prior to the invasion of Poland was one of weakness and acquiescence. Was that kind of feedback for a few years you think you can do whatever the hell you want. Kind of like a spoiled 5 year old.
Sounds like a certain People's Republic these days.
Furthermore he kept on gambling down to Barbarossa and declaring war on USA. Hell, he gambled away as late as december 44 Ardennes offensive.
Thanks for showing the commenters in the video. It’s amazing to see that there’s actual Nazis complaining about Jews and trying to defend Hitler as some sort of Marxist hero. Good job man!
I'm going to be honest, I was an adult by the time I became aware that the Soviet Union invaded Poland at the same time as Nazi Germany. It wasn't taught in school.
How about this: there was a third invader, namely Slovakia.
@@Cthulhu1PL A mere Nazi puppet at that time, though.
@@shootinputin6332 Yet still quite an independent country which could decide not to invade.
@@Cthulhu1PL ? It was a Nazi puppet, they had no actual power. If they refused the Nazi's would of just taken full control.
@@shootinputin6332 does this justify their action? They could still refuse. Hungary refused.
Just found your channel , must say every episode I've watched so far are top draw packed full of detail and presented flawlessly, your Battlestorm Stalingrad series has to be the best on this subject around.
Awesome! Glad you're enjoying the videos! :)
"As so often happens in the course of history, the main difficulty is not to establish a new order of things but to clear the ground for it's establishment."
Prophetic words indeed, as this happens before our very eyes.
I think that the reason why Hitler started the war was very simple. Up to 1938 Hitler was on a roll & when he met Chamberlain face to face & looked into his eyes he must have thought this man will NOT fight, that is why he was so surprised when Britain reacted the way it did a year later....
I really appreciate your efforts to educate people on this. With so many millions of victims, I think it is crucial to understand this time period correctly not just write it off as "A really evil person just couldn't help himself from invading other countries" - you don't prevent a repeat with that level of understanding. Sincerely thank you for all your work.
Is that not basically what happened? Hitler could have just not invaded sovereign countries
@@0witw047 TIK goes into the dynamics behind the choice for war. If people chalk up WW2 solely to Hitler being evil, they might not get alarm bells when the same or similar economic forces push a different leader to a similar choice.
@@krissobieski4341 I don't think you can understand the NSDAP without understanding their worldview. They believe a sionist conspiracy controls international communism, the press, several world governments and international business.
Economically, they end up concentrating on rearmament. They grab any quick tool they can get and use it without making too much radical change to the pre-NSDAP german economic model. Germany already had a conservative welfare state, they and other countries already had industrial cartels.
You're the only RUclipsr that I have ever heard use the term "Bibliography." It's appreciated. Hitler literally said what he wanted to do, to ignore someone when they do so is incredibly dangerous and the world found that out the hard way. This "Elon Musk" thought themselves into a corner, a lot of words but not a lot of actual thought or perspective.
I taught Economics for 15 years. If your video had been available, I could have done it in 42 minutes.
I stopped taking Adolph serious when I found out he didn’t inhale when he smoked a joint.
Don’t be that guy.
This was another fascinating TIK discussion of the “WHY” background of the complex origins of WW2. Thank you and keep up the good work.👍
Revisionist history is the property of idiots.
@typo pit Pl)p]please
L)
The real question for me is that why Churchill won't accept a peace treaty after France surrendered. He's gambling with the fate of the UK for his personal gain. The sad truth is that he won and treated as a war hero. And the same behavior was repeated up to now.
I had suspected for a long time that the Nazi economy was completely dependant upon the confiscation of the wealth of "undesirables" in their own population, and later entire treasuries of countries that they conquered. I never looked into the reasons for this dependence, but it's good to hear these reasons from you. I also liked your explanation as to how the Nazi's arrangement in control of the German economy couldn't be "Capitalistic." The very idea of "shrinking markets" most certainly couldn't have come from the mind of a "Capitalist."
Germany was still one of the industrialized nations of Europe. The NSDAP ends up taking loans and granting orders and contracts to the existing industrial cartels. In practice, their confiscation of goods lets them treat the civilian german economy with a lighter hand. Germany enters a wartime economy slower than the other powers of Europe.
They all have these bombastic, apocalyptic ideas of grand, sweeping struggles against vast sionistic conspiracies. A lot of it only makes sense if you buy into their conviction of a nebulous sionistic conspiracy controlling everything that isn't the true nation-soul. Their idea of the nation-soul itself borders on the occult.
There are a lot of different ideas inside the NSDAP. There was a group of people who were much more on board with nationalization of industry, but they ended up getting purged. I always stall because of how many counterintuitive ideals different NSDAP guys have.
Sometimes things just happen because the people at the head of the NSDAP are trying to build small empires within the state and balance their power against eachother. Himmler ends up grabbing more and more power towards the end.
Those "undesirables" just so happened to be in a position after ww1 to basically seize the majority of real estate, production and assets of the German people, who were being starved to death by the British blockade until 1919 and were so desperate they sold off everything for pennies just to have something to eat. It was one of the most massive transfers of wealth in German history. So the Nazi's, it could be argued were simply taking back what had been taken from them.
Also the main reason the German economy recovered under Hitler was that they basically swindled countries by importing goods paid with their weak currency and then exporting in a better currency, essentially defrauding the countries they did this too. I haven't explained it very well but that's the gist.
I think another reason they invaded Poland is simply because it was in the way. They wanted Russia and that means going through Poland first to get there.
And to get the polish stuff for free to fund his next stages.
They also were paying huge custom taxes for moving any goods to eastern Preussia- that was the whole deal with corridor and Gdansk!
As we know, war destroys wealth (in aggregate) - could germany really plunder enough to pay for all personell, materiell, etc? Id love to see a video on this!
I’m also really intrested in this too
This video is wrong
1 pound does not equal 100p. It's actually like 1/90ish
quite right! it equals 240d
@@michelguevara151 Man, the pound system is so simple with the dozen, right? Not that dollar system with the decimal system.
The pound was decimalised in 1971.
@@thefrenchareharlequins2743 Which actually helps my point, since this is ww2 era.
“Socialism only works until you run out of other peoples money”
Im using this
Its funny because that is exactly how capitalism works
So does everything
It's 2am and I've never clicked on a notification harder than when this happened
Save your mouse button, it doesn't load up the video any quicker! Trust me, I have done extensive research on this!
@@thegreathadoken6808 my mouse button may suffer from it, but it is a price I willingly pay for my enthusiasm
Just a quick point regarding lending and consumption. You contend that lending allows more consumption today but less tomorrow.
This is naturally an oversimplification of lending and is true mainly for individuals or individual households.
When lending is put in national and global contexts where it can be invested in infrastructure or technologies which allow for improvements in efficiency then this simplified process of lending no longer applies.
I'm not actually dismissing your overall argument in this video at all but would just like to make the point that the principles of lending in national contexts are not always the same as personal lending.
I think your theory ignores the massive Soviet army amassed on Germanys border complete with European gauge railways pointed westwards. Hitler attacked because he had to.
TIK, You should really write a book on this so it can be placed with honor on many a bookshelf and place you in that realm of historical correction sorely needed in historical circles. Thank You for What YOU do!
PS, that Chamberlain proctology reference was priceless!
27:33 I liked the video for this most historical accurate description of the munich agreement I've ever heard!
Well done. I’m a history major as well. A couple of quick additions. Apparently, Britain did not expect Joseph Beck, the Polish foreign minister, to cash their check quite so quickly over the Danzig Corridor; but they knew what they were doing, and their support of Poland was aimed at Berlin. Your comments about Hitler’s economy are right on the mark. The other well know dictator who needed conquest to fund his government was Napoleon I. He was unable to overcome Directoire’s massive Assignats inflation which forced him back onto the the gold standard in February of 1797. Ironically, that was the same month in which Britain ceased convertibility (the “battle” of Fishguard), left the gold standard. England, in contrast, had such a good financial reputation that it had little trouble borrowing money. In those days, borrowers expected wartime inflation to be reversed shortly after the cessation of hostilities with a restoration of the old rate of convertibility; thereby, losing none of their capital in the long run. In 1815, Britain began the process with huge tax cuts and, finally, a return to the gold standard in 1821-that powered 100 years of prosperous world leadership.
What kind of elevator music would Hitler and Himmler listen to?
"Sky rockets in flight - afternoon delight"
Asking the real questions here.
Wagner, Ride of the Valkeries
Disco Inferno
Obviously "Blitzkrieg Bop".
As an economics student this really helped! Wasn't expecting to learn economics :) thanks
What is more important, military history or political history?
Neither, *E C O N O M I C S*
This isn't economics. Please please please do not think this man has an understanding of economic thought. Would be happy to introduce you to some sources on real economics (I have an MA)
@@benbruce9192 Does "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell count?
I hope you don't take TIK's word as any kind of proof that his views align with any mainline thinking in economics.
@@srelma And? It once was mainline to think that miasma caused cholera.
Also, this different format of camera angles and the Finding the Plec trailer was awesome 😎
'Hitler knew that England would declare war ...'
Really?
Starting with a wrong assumption doesn't help your argument, even if you repeat it over and over again. Constitutional gamblers always see a chance of them succeeding, whatever the odds. For AH it worked often enough. In this case it didn't, but that was by no means a foregone conclusion.
Apart from that: a bunch of more (or sometimes less) correct details does not replace context and the big picture. Both are sadly missing here.
Adam Tooze - The Wages of Destruction is also a truly great book on the Nazi Economy and their constant balancing act.
What are the important forces balancing in Germany?
The one big drive I notice is their constant push to keep the military industry going. Any sort of patchwork effort is okay.
@@SusCalvin balancing between rearming, popularity and avoid defaulting.
@@RasmusDyhrFrederiksen How much the NSDAP can push the population to do sometimes limits them. There are some moments where the NSDAP takes a momentary step back. You can't present the most radical stuff (let's euthanize granny etc) to people.
What's the big source of government loans in Germany? I just know that for ideological and/or practical reasons, they ramp up confiscations in occupied and client nations through the war.
The irony in Tik's voice when he said "I look forward (deep breath) to seeing the comments," rofl
Another superb video. The precise and clear explanatios by Tik, combined with great graphics, makes a complex issue easy to follow and undertand. Thanks for the great work. Cheers form Peru!
Hitler saw europe through his ww1 style lens. Poland wasn't a nation state until after Versailles. He could undo one more piece of Versailles and bring the soviets closer, which he planned on attacking. That's why he attacked poland.
I have to say, your channel is one of the most enlightening and valuable resources I've found in recent months. Thank you for all your hard work.
I think you, MHV and a couple other history content creators are still the only channels using a reference bar or on screen references of any kind and your one of the few with an extensive bibliography. I think this is an great mechanism to allow for viewer engagement and makes watching your videos worthwhile. It should really be the standard for all History/Political/Economic & Academic channel's channels which take themselves & their subject seriously, alas many do not and saturate the internet with myths and 'fun cool thing that happened' rather than the pursuit of the truth. Many 'History channels' today concern themselves with cosmetic factoids and contemporary political agitation rather than asking difficult questions, it's a sneaky way to cherry-pick the past to push a modern agenda. You and about a half dozen other channels are the only one's I have trust in regardless of difference in opinion. "Is this really the case?" has become the default response for any suspect claim I hear people pandering about. Edit: Just got an ad on your video for 'We the People' from Patagonia.com has all the usual 'Great Reset' newspeak.
Love Thomas Sowell, glad you do too! 15:10
Why would Germany NOT invade Poland at that time? It's the same scenario of today's Eastern Ukraine. In this case, Germany had held the land conquered for hundreds of years until the end of WWI. Germany recaptured the part of Poland that was theirs before, which had a large ethnic German majority. Just like today's Eastern Ukraine has a large Russian ethnic majority.
The issue is that it’s referred to as Poland. For the brainlets maybe it should be called ‘former Germany’. Britain declared war because Germany invaded former Germany.
I can respect the methodical approach you take to your videos and your plethora of sources, it's allowed me to expand my own reading material, for which I am grateful.
Happy to be a patron. You are def one of the only WW2 you tubers to source throughly.
But it does. Genocide and cleansing of ethnical Germans in regions formerly belonging to Germany, now in Poland and Czechoslovakia. It was really bad. Brutally butchering unarmed civilians in the tens of thousands. Any good leader of their people would intervene to protect their own. The treaty of Versailles is one of the most punishing and unjust treaties I've ever had the displeasure of reading. The Belezhev accords made more sense than the Versailles treaty. Think about it, a Serbian revolutionist assassinates an Archduke of your neighbouring country who shares the same language, culture and history as you and they declare war on Serbia. You join in to support and you're successful in your endeavour. Then you're forced to surrender and you alone is held responsible for the war. Like what? You didn't initiate, you showed support for your fellow man who was attacked, and now you're punished into the ground for decades and foreign armies occupy your towns, forcing you to work for them, treating you abhorrent for simply walking down the street.
This discussion is madness, nobody would accept the mistreatment of their country and the millions of fellow countrymen such as the punishment Germany was put through. Would you allow foreign forces to push the price of a load of bread to the point of needing a wheelbarrow of money to buy it? No, no one would. But history is written by the victor. Which means it's heavily edited and biased.
AH VS JWO
He speaks the truth. Just look at what happened to the ethnic German's in those lands after the war.
About Danzig (Gdansk) , we need to begin with one fact, that Gdansk was an independent town with its own government, money, post office all other establishments. Yes, Polish were living there, but it was not part of Poland, so attacking Poland because of some accusation against Germans being mistreated in Gdansk make no sense. Gdansk was on a way to Prussia and Hitler wanted a corridor to get there without crossing borders, which was one of the reasons to start a war but his need to expand and crash some nations in the process was another.
However, a war for some is the best place to speed-up development of any kind of technology ranging from machines to chemicals and control of mases or individuals without any restrictions what so ever. For some, well those who put their money into it to make profit and much more. To get resources (in human creativity perhaps?), power? gain more control?
Your argument sounds cogent to me, more coherent than most others I've heard on this topic.
What scares me most is that, barring anecdotal and biographical details, in almost all of your sentences, the word Putin could replace the word Hitler. That leads to two scary conclusions: A) that the threat of economic collapse instigated his (Putin's) assault on Ukraine and B that makes World War III a self-fulfilling prophecy in his (Putin's) analysis. When Putin says "the West" he could just as well be using a notoriously anti-Semitic Russian dog whistle code for the International Jewish-Communists now Capitalists-homosexual-baby eater conspiracy, cha cha cha.
Jesus Christ how wrong you are.
Please study NATO expansion, the war Ukraine started in 2014 after a US backed coup of the Government, the Ukrainian build up on the border just before Putin invaded and the decades worth of speeches and interviews were Putin wants to create economic ties with Europe and foster working together as an international community.
Ah yes, the legendary aryan super saiyans. I love that phrase so much xD
They'll never be as endowed as an Hung-aryan
Power levels are bullshit
The legendary aryan super saiyans just needed to mass produce the Maus tank :D
@@noodled6145 And mass produce the fuel to run them...
*super aryan
The Soviet narrative is that they approached France and Britain and were rebuffed before signing the pact with Germany. It's interesting that you mentioned Chamberlain dropped the Soviets because of the Poles. This development probably needs a deeper exploration, who exactly did what to whom in this episode.
After Annexation of the rest of Czekoslovakia (March 1939?) appeasement policy was abandoned by Britain making Britain and France searching allies on the continent in the East. However this put Stalin in the position of sort of king maker.
Stalin wanted to expand westward. (Balts, Eastern Poland, Romania) also he need direct border with Germany in order to fight them in case of war, so he proposed France and Britain to force those countries to accept Soviets troops.
Allies hesitated, lost time in negotiations, then Hitler saw an opportunity to neutralise two front threat and offered Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, surprising Allies and even other Axis members. M-R pact basically gave Moscow that it needed - German neutrality during expansion westward
Poles hated Soviets at least as much as they did hate Nazis. So, they would have never accepted Soviet troops in Poland to "guarantee" Poland's freedom. And their paranoia wasn't probably not unfounded especially considering what happened after Germany attacked and also what happened in 1944.
However, the key question was why didn't the West collaborate with the Soviets at the time of Sudetenland crisis, which is the time when it would have been easy to check the German expansion. I think the France and Britain were thinking that since Hitler had declared in Mein Kampf that he sought Lebensraum in the east, their optimal situation would be that the Soviet Union were left to be crushed by Germany (as they hated communism as well as nazism). Then they were outplayed and surprised by Stalin with the M-R pact and at that point there were no longer any good options available.
So, they did two mistakes. First by not allying with the Soviets with the Soviets during the Sudeten crisis and then by being played into the corner by Hitler with Poland.
@@srelma west kept USSR in international isolation - they wouldn’t ally with them apart from extraordinary circumstances like war. The right move was to listen to Pilsudski and attack Germany preemptively in 1934. The idiots in France an UK overslept as usually!
@@srelma also - Polish army was tooled to fight against Russians - had western powers allied with Russia - Poland would have probably be left without a choice and had to ally with Germany. The whole west perceived Poland as German ally in the late 1930! The whole 1939 was spent negotiating with Poland not to go with Hitler and that is why British guarantee to Poland was given.
@@KrissowskiM Germany's ultimate goal (under Hitler) was to get living space from the East. I can't see why it would ally with Poland at any point. If it did force an alliance with Poland, it would require Poland to let German troops to march through it to Soviet Union.would they allow that?
The truth is: he didn’t know he was starting a world war. The British had flippantly gave a bunch of guarantees to a lot of nations. The focus had whipped up a frenzy of panic in England led by Churchill, the poles would not negotiate. Would not negotiate. The British had told Poland they would rush to defense and the poles thought they could win. And also hitler said he wished he wouldn’t have written mien kamf. The ideology in mien kamf was not the ideology he ruled with. You speak of rational mind. Yet you lack so much of this and or information. I believe you do have the evidence but choose to walk this line of approaching the truth without actually being honest with yourself.
For some reason I forgot to respond, but I just want to say "Thank you for mentioning my question", really appreciate it.
The weird thing for me is I was taught all this in High School thirty years ago. Glad to hear it again.
Same here. Something must have changed in teaching during the intervening decades.
In school they never teached me the economic motives of the war but this certainly should be more commonly known
@@IvorMektin1701 much has changed, I was in school 5 years ago and after becoming interested in history in the last couple years i realised how little I actually learned in school
@@timcahill4676
It's anti-learning so it seems. Independent thought was definitely discouraged when I was in school. Memorize, regurgitate, obey orderly schedules. Definitely training for factory work.
NO high school I know of teaches this stuff. I am 50. The marxist socialists have truly taken over our school system.
Hitler DID NOT start WWII - England and France did. Hitler only went to war with Poland. Oddly England and France supposedly declared war on Germany to protect Poland but did nothing when the Soviets also invaded Poland. Point your finger at London and Paris.
Did u even try researching?
They only made the agreement with poland to fight against germany, that's why. Why tf would they fight the soviets if they knew fighting the germans would be tough enough already. BTW its literally well known by those who study history that the west never expected hitler and stalin to work together and that the pact shocked the allies
The policy of appeasing Nazi Germany began during the prime ministership of Ramsay McDonald (1929-35) and continued under the prime ministership of Stanly Baldwin(1935-37). Thus Chamberlain, who only became Prime Minister in 1937, was not solely responsible for the appeasement policy.
The reaon that Britain appeased Hitler was that the Soviet Union and Communism were seen as a much more serious threat to Britain, and especially its ruling classes, than Nazism and fascism. It was the Labour Party with its socialist program that called for the nationalization of Britain’s basic industries, not the British fascists, whom the elite dismissed as a bunch of obnoxious street thugs, but no real threat to themselves. Such nationalizations would The Labourites were also openly sympathetic to the Soviets The Nazis were therefore seen as a bulwark against Soviet expansion westward. They were even “grateful” to Hitler for preventing a Communist takeover of Germany.
This view changed when the Germans and Soviets concluded the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact in August 1939.The British never thought it possiblt that these two arch-rivals would ever form an alliance. It is unlikely that Britain would have declared war on Germany if the pact had not been signed. But once it was concluded, the British then realized that Hitler was likely to turn his armies westward . endangering Britain’s allies France, the Netherlands, and Belgium, and eventually Britain itself.
Another element in the apeasement policy was Lord Keynes, who was far more responsible for it than Chaimberlain or anyone else. It was Keynes who argued as early as 1919 that the Versailles Treaty was unfair to Germany, placed all the war guilt on the Germans even though the “victorious" allies, including Britain, shared in the guilt, and that Germany would justified in taking action, once it was in aposition to do so, too overturn the “Versaille Dictate.” As you have pointed out, Keynesianism was doctrine to the British elite at this time, and one pillar of Keynesianism was that Britain must at all costs avoid involvement in wars on the European continent.
I dont generally agree with your economic beliefs, but these videos still provide an interesting perspective on ww2.
The laws of economics don't agree with your economic beliefs.
And why is that exactly? You don't state why you disagree with him.
@@thorshammer7883 Dude im just an economic liberal. Id just rather not get into a fight about economics with libertarians. See the first guy who commented? I dont need more of that in my life
@@thorshammer7883 also if you dont know, TIK is a VERY strong proponent of free market cspitalism. Not a bad thing neccesarily, but i feel it colors his views on historical events, especially economic circumstances, from time to time. Like, its the point on some videos he treats nazis as leftists.
Thank you for using the correct definition of inflation.
It's not.
@@YlL-ji2sl it’s indeed not. Money growth isn’t inflation. I hate redefinitions that only confuse matters. That doesn’t mean that money growth doesn’t lead to inflation. And inflation was relatively high in Germany and government tried to conceal this by price controls and rationing.
@@marcschramm6958 The term you are looking for is “devaluation” (of “currency”, since actual “money” rarely lose their value). “Inflation” is indeed expansion of currency base. Btw it’s not the case that Inflation always leads to devaluation. If economy expands inflation is needed to support it otherwise prices might skyrocket as well.
It's so hard to find history that is free of contemporary political correctness.
agreed. it is a mistake to judge history by contemporary standards.
"Your comment offends me, I'm going to cancel my subscription to 'Cats Today' because of it." -Donald T.
Eh, you can just read histories from other places then. Other countries don't hold to the same political correctness. How ever I'm not sure you should say TIK is entirely free of his own biases either, because he kind of likes pushing some of his own ideological beliefs as well.
A historical perspective that also constantly questions Keynesianism for instance? Kind of odd, it's not very objective when you keep adding pushing an extra ideological narrative beyond what is needed to understand the historical one. That very economic model wasn't really much of a thing back when this was playing either. So it's kind of bringing a contemporary argument in to history.
As such I'd say it's probably wise to balance out this channel with other perspectives, as not everyone agrees with his perspective and some of them also source their arguments. History as is many things is something that gets debated a lot and which ones own beliefs tend to color.
@@michelguevara151 So we should ignore all recent research and accept the myths and legends instead?
@@Quickshot0 Nothing to do with political correctness. Not unless you are one of those who refuses to accept anything that comes out of the Soviet archives, anyway.
Honestly I think your video format and camera personality make you the most palatable RUclips history guy. Ily TIK
Actually ran into one of those "TIK is making stuff up, or is a moron, or doesn't know what he is talking about" people the other day on one of Mark Felton's videos on the Rhineland Meadow POW Camps. I commented thanking Mark for making that video, but eventually in the comment mentioned I was hoping TIK would get around to making a video on this subject but I'm glad someone touched up on it because of how this particular story has been used in a propaganda sense throughout the 90s and 2000s. Someone later commented they unsubscribed from TIK when he said the Anarchist sided with the Fascist in Spain. Someone else later replied saying TIK doesn't even know what the Socialism was, and I pointed out the Oxford and Webster Dictionary definition of the word, and stated it's exactly what TIK used in his videos even before the one he did on Spain and Franco. Replied to me in turn saying "Exactly, if TIK believed that to be the definition of Socialism then he is a moron or lying because the Nazis were Capitalist." Person then claimed they were a collage professor and taught international relations as if that makes a difference or something along that not, of course I paraphrased what happened. But I'm quite glad that TIK includes references in his videos anymore.
@Wind Rose Just checked Oxford Reference, list a lot of books, dictionaries and encyclopedias with oxford's name attached. A lot of them it will provide a rough definition of the primary definition of the books when you search them on the website.
The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (3 ed.): Political system in which the (major) means of production are not in private or institutional hands, but under social control.
A Dictionary of Geography (5 ed.): A social system based on equality and *social justice, once linked with common ownership of the *means of production
A Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics and International Relations (4 ed.): A political and economic theory or system of social organization based on collective or state ownership of the means of production
The Oxford Encyclopedia of American Political and Legal History: A political ideology that rejects the private ownership of land, factories, and other means of production
Dictionary of the Social Sciences: A form of social organization that prioritizes the common ownership of property and the collective control of economic production
Oxford World Encyclopedia: System of social and economic organization in which the means of production are owned not by private individuals
All above literally mean "Public Control of the Means of Production." Or as TIK would say the Public Sector is the state, so Public Control is State control. Those were also the first 6 that actually presented a definition, some of them sadly came up blank sadly, which means they're not all properly cataloged. But I find it funny that they all pretty much said the same thing... and it isn't the one you listed. =P
Websters Online Dictionary:
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2A: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
2B: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
#3 in Particular ONLY APPLIES TO MARXIST, and TIK already pointed out in an earlier video how that actually isn't correct either among Marxist themselves, as few believe it from what I've seen in debates myself. So I honestly dunno where they even get that from, because it's vague and undescriptive, so it's a meaningless definition.
Also Irregardless is an oxymoronic word. You're basically using a double negative. You should be saying "Regardless." Irregardless isn't even a proper word. So great way of starting an argument.
@Wind Rose I didn't decide what Socialism means, consensus decided what Socialism means. The most common definition of Socialism is the Common Control of the Means of Production.
I listed plenty of sources that literally said that exact same thing. Common is the Community, and the Community is the Public sector, and the Public sector is the State. I didn't ignore your argument, I countered it. Language has nothing to do with it.
Also do you even know what Liberalism is? Liberalism is about individual liberty over the social group. You have a right to religion, a right to property, and right to be who you want to be without the community, the collective, the state deciding it for you. That is liberalism, and it's the core essence of Capitalism. So ironically Capitalism is true Liberalism.
Classic Liberalism comes from John Locke who promoted the concept of the right to property free from the grips of the Collective State which at his time was the King/Nobility. Instead of the King owning the land and in extension the Nobles, it was the private farmer who gets to own the land. This is from Classic Liberalism. A lot of Marxist Socialist are anti liberal and they don't even know it or not. They are definitely not Conservatives, but they're definitely not Liberals either. But when Marx refers to the "Liberal State" and he did a number of times in Das Kapital he is referring to a state which allows Liberal ideals like Capitalism to thrive, because Capitalism is built on individual freedom which is the basis of Liberalism. So Marx wasn't Liberal.
@Wind Rose Unless you're paid to talk stupid, just read and learn what the kind people wrote for your edification.
@@KameradVonTurnip Nicely done. Thanks for taking the time clarifying definitions. Important front in the war for our minds!
@Wind Rose But without economic freedom there is no social freedom. Also Taxation isn't normally necessary. Prior to the 1930s the USA did not even have sn income tax. For public works projects the state sold Bonds and asked for donations from private individuals, at a national level income tax was only introduced by FDR during his first term as President. Yet prior to FDR the US Navy was the 2nd largest in the world. So in spite no income tax the Federal government found ways to fund the US Navy quite handsomely. 🤔
I loved the Thomas Sowell quote popping up in the middle of your commentary. Well done Sir, well done.
That quote sounded to me as though it was describing capitalism ie taking from the many to enrich the few. It was, after all, said by an academic, not someone who has not had to work for wages.
Taking from the poor (interchanchably here with poverty) explicitly demands that they have something to take from, but relative to the total economy, being poor requires that you don't have much to take in the first place.
I've watched this a couple of times now, and it's a really good analytical piece - its fascinating. I noticed more than a couple of parallels to the invasion of Poland and Germany's reasons and rhetoric to that of the invasion of Ukraine and Russia spin. "History rarely repeats, but it often rhymes" someone once said.
Tik, I think that when referring to Hitler's book you have to take into account the age at which he wrote, and the age at which he was chancellor, people change over time, they do not remain static, many of the ideas he exposed have no meaning with the attitudes he has in the future, being a Christian is an example, and invading Russia is another, I think the irony caught up with him in relation to Russia, he had ideas of invading and having resources to be self-sustainable, but he ended up invading by Stalin's threats, and the danger in Romania.
Riveting analysis, well done! 2 issues left me wondering, if you could please address in a future video (apologies if they are addressed in another video I haven't seen yet):
1) As you mentioned Germany's debt-based economy, which is always a bad idea (sounds familiar to contemporary times & my USA moreso than most, btw)...but WHO was Germany receiving such loans from? Many conspiracies out there on this subject, I'm sure you know...would be refreshing to get well-researched & unbiased facts;
2) Hitler repeatedly alleged horrific atrocities against ethnic Germans who found themselves in a new Poland post-WW1, as a pretext (similar allegations in the Sudetenland)...what reliable documentation exists to prove or disprove such troublesome claim(s)?
Thanks, and please keep up the in-depth work!
The comment at 14.45 on Keynesian is fantastic, I am saying that as a business studies teacher with 24 years in finance and trying to teach students correctly
"B...but economics isn't about humans, it can be mathematically predicted, right?"
Have you actually read anything on modern Keynesianism? Do you have any idea where the economics profession is today? Very few of today's economists are actual Keynesians in the traditional sense.
@@benbruce9192 I'd that is aimed at me I agree, I look a lot at Keynesian and its practicality.
And agree economists have mainly rejected keynes
@@benbruce9192 Yeah, BUT THEY SAID THAT IT WAS OK TO PRINT 1.3 TRILLION DOLLARS TO SAVE GIGANTIC CORPORATIONS AND BANKS IN THE WORST CRISIS WE EVER HAD IN THE WORLD.
Guess neo keynesians really aren't like Mr. Keynes, huh?
...
Yes, there truly is something odd about whole WWII when you look at the general picture...
@ Krampus What is odd about it? It is simply the end result of the rise of totalitarian powers.
It's mostly half truths and bull ish like all other stories about wars and heroes and that is why germans weren't allowed to talk about it and anyone that says anything will go to jail.. I don't believe anything that is trying to paint some as monsters and others like angels.. In my experience that is how all wars are explained more or less !
@@SvensktTroll Nationalist feelings do influence the public discussion. I notice you still do not mention any specific historical era. What you apparently do not like is history. And I agree the history of NAZI Germany is horrible. Tragically it is all too true. If anything it dose not fully depict the evil involved. www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/tol/ger/crime/nazi-crime.html
@@dennisweidner288 If the history of Nazi Germany is all true, then why is it punishable by law to question certain parts of it?
@@SvensktTroll Yeah, I mean how could anyone consider a bunch of killers herding civilians into buildings, setting them alight, and hen shooting anyone who somehow survived, as monsters?
And don't even get me started on the sons-of-a taxman (thanks for that one TIK) who drove the Jews into gas chambers!
Your a great teacher, I can count on you for the truth !
We've been learning history and repeating it since the beginning, and we will repeat it to the end. Ego has always driven us, coupled with short memories...
I smell some nihilism. I think when you study history it becomes pretty clear that consciousness evolves. There's a reason we can't just look back on history through the lens of our own worldly understanding and expect anything other than inaccuracy . The world changes and people change right along with it. Somethings are definitely likely to repeat themselves but not most. History has actually been broken down into different eras, and they were all vastly different from one another because the accessible world was vastly different. Drawing up a timeline for forms of govenrment and characterize them properly, you'll find that things change rather chronologically. The idea that freedom of the individual being the foundation of govenrments is a wildly new concept when you look at the evolution of human history. I think the only way your statement really holds substance is if one believes all history has been nothing but conquest.
The policy of appeasement was practised precisely because of the experience of WW1. Chamberlain et al learned very profoundly from the history of WW1.
I scored “Hitler’s Beneficiaries” from you TIK and actually read that monumental piece of work. If more people would just read the references ..... well, it would be a better world now, wouldn’t it? Thanks a million for that book
The snag I hit with the NSDAP is their organisation itself. The different factions inside it, how they balance eachothers power. How much different parts of the german state could distrust eachother. It's like a circle of people and factions trying to build their own powerbase within the state.
@@SusCalvin Yes. It's ironic how that distrust/power brokerage struggle goes on and on in many governments today. I think they all have it at some level. It's the nature of politics and mankind.
@@IL2TXGunslinger A lot of dictatorships have it weirder because they remove balances of power and has to use different ones. Like how close was Churchill ever to a palace coup in the war years.
If I'm a dictator trying to be alone at the top and institute my elite Deathguard to keep me there, what keeps those guys from doing me in. So you end up with a lot of parallell organisations with the job of keeping eachother in check. And suddenly there's four security agencies all doing the same job.
@@SusCalvin I concur 100%. The dictatorships become then - the most inefficient governments over time, exactly the opposite of “streamlining” the decision process. Gradually devote more and more treasure from traditional tasks/organizations toward remaining in power.
Just a short note on economics. If you want to understand it, forget about the currency. An economy is the production of goods and services, as well as their exchange. If you increase production, you become richer, over a long period of time. Almost everything else is just borrowing from the future, or playing around with numbers. If you update a factory, you will have to wait 2-3 years until it pays off. If you become richer within months, then it's probably just borrowing.
Really impressed by this work, very interesting, quite challenging, quite persuasive. Thanks
"To defeat an enemy, you must know them. Not simply their battle tactics, but their history, philosophy, art." - Grand Admiral Thrawn
Agreed
I wish I was a Grand Admiral, that sounds like a hell of a rank.
Awesome quote, awesome name. Here's how I explain to myself that I've never heard of either.
Admiral Thrawn is a character from Star Trek fan fiction, modeled after the real life Thomas Cochrane, who inspired the fictional Horatio Hornblower series.
Thrawn was a genius renegade Klingon ship captain, barely able to secure a commission and consistently passed over for recognition or promotion, despite fantastic success, because of his dangerously unconventional beliefs. Never bowing to ridicule or pressure of any kind, Thrawn insisted on assiduously studying the cultures, lives, values, and beliefs of his opponents, an extremely un-Klingon thing to do. Klingons are the most repressed people ever because of their mortal fear of empathy, which none of them can touch with a ten-parsec pole, or they'd literally vaporize on the spot from profound guilt and shame, but much worse from remorse and the grief provoked by glimpsing all the things that could have been.
So despite the huge, potentially empire-cracking social liability that he is, no one can deny his unparalleled genius, and despite extreme misgivings, Thrawn is promoted step by step, mostly because he saves the Klingon bacon in so many different ways without seeming to break a sweat and with almost no resources.
Before promotion to admiral, Thrawn had to agree to never speak of or promote or even record his beliefs or methods. Junior officers were never assigned to him for more than one tour.
There is no mention of Thrawn in Klingon history. The Federation only learned of him from oral histories of people subjugated by the Klingons during Thrawn's time, who refer to him as Grand Admiral, a title he never held.
People were just trolling you TIK, don't listen to them. They will drive you insane.
Too late, am insane 😂
@@TheImperatorKnight In other news: The YT-famous Nazi apologetic admits that he is, in fact, insane. All his content deemed unreliable. Back to the plantations, everyone!
TIK is brilliant and is underrated I think in part cos he wears a polo shirt in his living room and not a suit sitting in a plush office.
I prefer his polo over any kind o suit. Although i would like to see him in a 'stick to the tanks' t-shirt or 'hitler was a socialist'. Oh boy, that would rally some troops :)
Are you kidding? TIK is as posh as they come! This everyman image is totally constructed. I know the guy who created this whole "just like the regular folks" vibe. He records in a rented room, not his home! His clothes are rented for the vids; he wouldn't be caught dead wearing that shite in public. Those teeth are prosthetic! His voice is altered!
@@jamesdewane1642 Is he actually Lord Lucan then ?
@@henryviii6341 Possibly. One must be evasive in delicate cases you understand.
I guess Germany could have avoided economic collapse by slowing down its rearmament and thus balanced the budget. But at the same time, Britain and France were arming for war. 1939 was the time when the balance of power was as favourable to Germany as it would ever be.
In fact, Hitler had hoped the Sudetenland crisis would lead to war, and was disappointed when Chamberlain gave in. Hitler thought that already 1938 was the point where the balance of power would be the best it would be. He knew well how unsustainable the current rate of German rearmament was. To his fortune, he turned out to be wrong, mainly because the extra year gave Germany time to integrate the Austrian military and the considerable equipment of the Chechoslovak military into the Wehrmacht.
Thanks. I too have always been curious about Hitler's "What now?" reaction to Great Britain's declaration of war.
I must have had an odd history teacher. This pretty much parallels what I was taught.
Agreed, years ago, I heard that Hitler had to go to war because if he didn't, the economy would have collapsed around 40-41
@Jasta Two There is a fascist state that stays neutral during the war and survives well after it, Spain. They remain a dictatorship for the entirety of Franco's natural lifespan.
@Jasta Two I didn't say that fascist states can only be sustained by war; I was only referring to the German economy pre-war.
@Roger Daht Would you say that Germany in 1890 was socialist or not? Great War-era Germany ran like a military dictatorship with a command economy at times.
I've studied history my entire life. I've questioned a few of tiks stuff. He's always been accurate as for what I see! Love your videos.. Glad for ur channel I love history more importantly I love the truth in the history on this channel! Love from Flint Michigan U.S.A
How’s the water?
Listening to Chamberlain..... one forgets how popular appeasement was. I read a yearbook of 1938, Chamberlain got a civic dinner everywhere he stopped. Then he has to realise he's had his pants pulled down....