I miss john green's crash course history videos, it'd be nice if he made another series at some point, it's been way too long since crash course European history ended
you can defeat Japan by blocking its trade route, they dont have natural resources which mostly imported (US provide 40% of oil n iron) so you can exhaust them pretty quickly
Lebensraum = living space You said 'Liebensraum' and I know mispronouncing words is your thing but I am laughing at what should be a very serious concept because. Liebensraum = loving room. :)
This was very eye opening. Told my students this was a different view I haven't heard before because of the focus on personalities and the story of good versus evil.
Dear John, thanks for broadening my perspectives about WW2. We Brits tend to neglect the negative aspects of our colonial history during school history lessons. Famine in East India is not something we mention, and never the fact that we might have been partly responsible.
I like how dense the commenters are concerning his reference to "good vs evil". The ENTIRE point of the comment was to juxtapose the common view vs the reality, which most of you seem to have glossed over in order to be offended.
Well let's be honest: the reason that most missed the point is not as much lack of intelligence (happens too), but having a certain mind set/agenda own they own.
What I miss even more is the discussion he stipulates at the end of video. How are we to act in a world of finite resources? What we have learned from WWII is that fighting over them makes everyone lose.
It's very interesting to see a different point of view on such a well discussed topic. We're all taught about WW2, but rarely was it discussed in a way other than militaristic "good v evil". This is why I love crash course!
Okay so I'm pretty sure you'r a troll, but still for anyone else who may read this. No war is not a story, it's horrible thing that happened. It matters less who won and more for the effect overall that it had.
Mongolia won. In early 1945 vast Mongol armies swept over China and the USSR, quickly defeating all of the major powers apart from Great Britain and the USA. However, they did get all of Britain's major colonies, so when the war ended Mongolia and the USA were the only ones with any negotiating power. (And the Mongols only left the western hemisphere alone because the US had developed nuclear weapons.)
Some chap called Paul well obviously lol. Miyazaki (again spelling lol) has created so many great ones that come down to opinion as to which one is the best
Joseph Chiappetta they are the best in their own right to be honest; and you got the spelling right this time, not to worry :P However, there are better /animes/ out there like Cowboy Bebop or even No Game No Life both of which I highly recommend if you haven't already.
I think you're wrong about WWII being about resources. As you said, Japan and Germany desired autarky not because they were facing a crisis, not because their people were starving or deprived, but because autarky would allow them to pursue even further conquest. It was conquest for the sake of conquest. Resources were the means by which the war was fought, but not the goal.
I agree on Germany but no Japan would have ran out of a lot of things if they didn't start an invading different countries or other countries actually start trading with them
geth117 Yeah, Japan definitely needed resources. It wasn't food that was the initial driver, but their lack of industrial resources. Taking Indonesia and the Phillipines was mostly about oil and rubber, which was so vital they risked Pearl Harbor in the hopes they could hold out versus the US Pacific Navy. Manchuria however was primarily about food, but they already had that before Pearl Harbor. Japan needed more than just food, they needed industrial resources. Germany as well needed industrial resources, otherwise they wouldn't have tried to hold north Africa, not to mention the diversion during Barbarossa to capture the Russian oil fields instead of the capitol. It was more critical for Japan. The US blockade was crushing Japan, the atomic bombs only made the surrender more immediate due to Russian advances. Japan didn't even have a hope for breaking the blockade as they couldn't fuel their ships.
I think what John said makes sense as the two main objectives for the invasion of the USSR were the oil fields of the Caucasus and Ukraine for the grain.Also,I HEARD(dunno if its true)that every german soldier was promised with a deed for a piece of russian land upon the end of the war.
+Mr Kiem3 Those two plus the years between = 31 years and 100 million + dead, Europe shattered forever and the world changed in ways we won't fully comprehend for centuries. Historians of the far future will view these wars in the same way we view the punic wars.
In the Marines, your DI will do the same thing, the purpose is to ensure that the recruit has not just handed the DI a loaded weapon. Same principle there with the Japanese trainer.
Hey, I just want to say that this channel is pure gold. Your videos are so so funny and at the same time very informative. For last 5 hours I have been watching random stuff from you guys, and it does not happen to me very often that I get so interested in something, so I just had to say thanks for the awesome content. So, well, thanks!
in india we do not read ww2 as war between good and evil but a war between newly industrialized nations looking for colonies and markets and old empires not allowing them in their traditional sphere.
+omegasavant it's important to remember that ideologies based on racial and national superiority were very popular all over the world at the time, among both fascists and democracies.
The Germans killed the Jews, the Japanese the Chinese, the Americans nuked japan and the U.K. and U.S. firebombed entire German cities of civilians into nothing the soviets (Who where on the "Good Guys Team") killed more than anyone else, with stalin killing pretty much everyone. no side was good.
India doesn't concern itself with the Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Britain and the allies. At the time, India was struggling to gain independence while suffering under the British occupation which pushed millions upon millions into starvation and death, it was a time when nationalism rose in India and efforts were made to take India back after a millennium of foreign rule and oppression.
German "food shortages" after WWI is kind of a euphemism. Due to the food blockade AFTER the armstice, hundreds of thousands of German civilians (children, women, elderly) were starved to death. - Therefore, the idea of gaining agricultural autarkie was reasonable enough. And still is.
Swan Maiden No, the blockade was during the war. However, things like the great depression combined with the french army forcing Germany to pay france by simply going into to Germany and directly taking/stealing german industrial output did contribute to some small scale food shortages.
Eric Johansson No, you're uninformed. The blockade was also AFTER the armstice in order to force Germany sign the "Versailles Treaty". Look, it's even in Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Germany#Blockade_after_armistice Even the allied-written schoolbooks in FRG admitted ca. 800,000 civilians starved to death, mostly elderly, women and children. More detailed elucidation: www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/starvation1919.html What you are writing about are the 1920s, my remark referred to 1919.
Good to see a youtube clip that actually highlights to some extent just how important resources were to the warring nations. Reading Adam Tooze's The Wages of Destruction will give an illuminating but harrowing look at how the German economy functioned during WWII. His conclusion: Germany started WWII because it was just no longer economically possible to postpone it.
I am surprised you didn’t mention that Germany was, in part, in dire need of resources due to the reparation situation of WWI and the economic damage caused by the fall of Weimar. Those were mostly how the Nazis came to power, after all, regardless of your moral opinion of that party.
Hey, CrashCourse! I must say i absolutly love your show. Especially the History courses. You do such a great job in explaining the events without entering in complicated dates and furthermore you're not just going trough the history, you're tackling questions about the real importance of it all. I love that. It would be great if u mention my country Bulgaria more often(but I'm not suprised it has went back on your priorities xD).I was thinking that maybe a Balkan wars themed episode would work out, afterall it setted the stage in the Balkans for years to come. Nevertheless, even if you don''t turn to a similar topic I'm sure I'll continue to watch your show for years to come. Continue the awesome job Crash course ;)
+Mastah Playah Three technically Northern Ireland is not a country it is a territory of the UK England, Scotland, and Wales are Northern Ireland is not.
+NZCrypT I agree. No matter what caused the war, no side is truly good. The Allies also committed atrocities against the Axis peoples, and even though the results were nowhere near as horrendous, a greater evil does not erase a smaller one.
Millions and millions of innocent people were murdered by Germany and by USSR. That is evil. Any honest and sophisticated read of history will show that the Allied powers are clearly on the right side of history.
K, not trying to be butt hurt but I genuinely am becoming more and more convinced that Jon dislikes Britain to a particular level. He goes into great deal about the British colonial deaths (which were good awful) but brushes over the deaths of Manchurian peasants under this Japanese. Hell the Nazis are given a much more brief account of their war crimes than the British Empire. I love the series and I that the empire was bad but in this episode and others it just seems that Jon is particularly disposed against Brits.
meh. if that's his view then so be it...I'm learning more than I ever did at school thanks to Jon and Hank...so...sure it's biased in a sense that he has a distaste if not a straight up disliking of us brits he's still presenting a good brief overview of an aspect of the second world war, which ultimately is what I came for.
I believe he does that because the war crimes of the axis are all well known and documented but on the other hand the ones committed by the allies (specially GB in this case, since at the beginning of the 20th century they were THE major colonial power in the world) are usually ignored by our revisionist kind of history, specially in the decades AFTER a major war or historical event. As we distance ourselves from these more and more by the passage of time we can actually take a better look at them from a more neutral ground and actually see that this "good vs evil" mentality is just "too simplistic" to justify wars and such and that most of the times BOTH sides commit atrocities. Or are you gonna tell me that GB letting it's Indian and Sub-Saharan subjects die of starvation just out of fear it wouldn't be able to maintain the war going wasn't a nasty decision and an actual crime against those people? The thing is up to this day ppl around the world are still imbued with a lot of nationalism when it comes to their history and if you go on and touch on a sensitive subject to them they tend to feel offended even if you a more objective approach to it. In the end history was written by the victorious and when even centuries latter we try to take another look at it and see something different from what we learned we tend to get defensive and that can be said about pretty much EVERY country in the world.
I thought he stressed the British colonial deaths to really show that WWII effected areas that didn't see any fighting, mainly because of resources(which was the entire point of the video) Asia and Europe were active warzones,(he did mention millions dead in concentration camps? Or the deaths attributed to Stalin) but India? Sub-Saharan Africa saw little fighting at all. Lets be honest here the Brits were horrendous people in the past with their colonialism even the most sugar coated versions of history still point to that.
Lamaking65 Compared to the competition, like the Spanish or Leopold of Belgium, or even Whilhelmine Germany, who wiped out an African ethnic group in reprisals. A lot of the administrators of the Holocaust were ex-colonial civil service. Does it excuse it, no. I understand John mentioning it, but again, from the POV of the Indians a Japanese or German victory would have been worse. There is a quote by Hitler somewhere about how "....one day, the Indians will look back on the good old days of British rule". Yes, some racism was involved. But also, you have to factor in the decision was probably made late at night, on not enough sleep and with dozens of other calls that needed taking. It's complicated.
+maddad333 The argentinian side is rather simple: Argentina always claimed "las malvinas" for itself (even though as far as I can tell, they have little to substantiate that claim other than proximity) and going for it by force was thought by the regime to be a good way to spurr nationalistic sentiments in order to take the pepoles' minds off the domestic problems the country faced. Essentialy, Argentina tried to do what Britain has ben doing for a long time: "We hold it now, so it's ours."
+Robert Whitfield You army didn't look its best either, btw. Had all the bombs in San Carlos exploded, it would have been a fucking disaster for the jingos instead. :/
you know what crash course, i applaud you for always trying to get the comments to be more thought provoking, but its a lost cause, like teaching someone without limbs to play a guitar.
"you can not invade Russia, unless you're the Mongols." And that's why Moscow has burned more times then Henry VIII was married? You can not "successfully" invade Russia... you know cause it has been invaded several times, but only conquered once. (by a foreign power)
The most interesting thing about this video is not the fallacy about being unable to invade Russia (Polish-Soviet War of 1919-1921), or even lumping all the countries of Great Britain together, but rather the fact that for the first time (At least as far as I am aware), there is finally some citation. History is open to many different interpretations, and the only way to make a valid claim is to defend it with cited evidence, something this show had failed to do in the past. However, there are still a few ways to make the historical analysis even more solid. First: Quantity of sources. I'm only in high school, but if I turned in a history paper with only one source (Both citations here are from the same book), it wouldn't even get graded. If anything, I could get expelled for plagiarism. And secondly: The counterclaim. One of the most effective ways to argue your point is to demonstrate that you understand the other side too, by presenting the opposing argument with its own valid evidence. This show has yet to do that without treating the counterclaim in an almost condescending manner. These are most prevalent in the Episodes on the American Civil War (Different series, yes, but also Crash Course History). John made a contentious claim, that the Civil War was fought over slavery, but then doesn't provide any evidence, or mention the fact that many people, both now and then, do not at all agree, and point to states rights and lack of representation, such as when Lincoln was elected without winning any Southern States. That is just not good historical practice, and raises serious questions about the validity of the show. To conclude, the inclusion of sources is an exciting step towards increased credibility, but their is still a lot of progress to be made to make the show even more credible. Because without credibility, what is really the point of discussing history?
mininonja917 Explain to me how you get expelled for plagiarizing by just using one source. Not that I disagree with the overall idea but I just don't get the logic behind that part.
lolpauve I am in the IB program, and an expectation there is constant and thorough use of sources. Every single point you make, or fact you use has to be cited. Additionally, you have to use a variety of sources. While there is no specific rule about the amount of sources that must be present, it is generally a good idea to have about 4 per claim, seeing as each claim should have around 4 pieces of evidence.
mininonja917 I get that, I don't get that whole plagiarism part. P.S. I don't think this show would work if there were that many citations for everything.
tootz1950 Yes, it is. I quote from IB definitions of malpractice. "Plagiarism: this is defined as the representation of the ideas or work of another person as the candidate’s own". Not citing a source is presenting the work of someone else as your own. That definition can be found here: www.fcps.edu/RobinsonSS/ib-program/pdf/IB%20definition%20of%20malpractice.pdf
thegreeenbeast I seem to remember what he's saying as a quote from mw2 or 3 so I think he's just quoting that. Maybe he's serious though he could be a hardcore communist
I'm surprised growing demand for tires and conflicts over the global markets for Brazilian rubber weren't mentioned. Model T Fords had reached a price level affordable to the masses and German automakers were gearing up to mass-produce VWs for the 'volk,' Industrialization and the growth of cities had already begun drawing people away from agriculture and the promise of greater food production and distribution with the help of motorized tractors and trucks was another factor. Ultimately, the New Deal was an effort to re-invigorate capitalism for the sake of structuring a new global society where agriculture and food-distribution would be more mechanized and industrialized, and the question is how this new vision for mass-societies evolved into WWII.
" I later calculated that all of the destruction and wasted resources spent on that war could have easily accounted for every human need on the plane." ~Jacque Fresco 1916 to 2017
Excellent.... Never gave much thought to the feeding of the world population during the war or how the lack of food caused such misery for both soldiers and civiliasn. Absolutely enjoy to learn and Crash Course does it so well
Schools need to learn from people like John. In a usual school lesson, it's always strict and boring but with something like this, especially something so entertaining as The Thought Bubble (And I'm not being sarcastic), it keeps my attention throughout the video.
To the two fucktards (not Thomas Drowry)....The point is still valid, no real mention of the Ukrainian genocide in American history lessons...and no lessons of Stalins hatred of the jews or the gulag and and and....
joey ballwash Well, dipshit, I'm not aware of courses taught in american history classes. And this comment is irrelevant at best as it is about WW2 and not inter-war period.
Yeah I feel like crash course is a little biased against fascism or nazis without even attempting to see it from there side and when he brings up nazis, Jews are also mentioned.
A very articulately put, if myopic point. The desire to become to become self-sufficient through the acquisition of territory wasn't driven by a lack of resources, but by the political climate. Furthermore, the same desire has been pursued through control of trade relations and diplomatic hegemony throughout history, and we're seeing it today with EU expansionism.
In my Experience of War class in college, we read the book "Fires on the Plain" about a Japanese soldier stationed in the Philippines during WWII. His unit has no provisions but he ends up getting ejected in any case. He wanders through the jungle, starving, and is forced to break one of humanity's biggest taboos- eating his fallen brethren. This is actually a true story, told by the man who lived through this nightmare, and you can tell that recounting the events is tormenting him. He even seems to dissociate at points and calls the human flesh "monkey meat" at times. The lesson of the unit was: war can make you do a lot of unthinkable things- how do you live with yourself after you've done what it takes to survive? Shohei Ooka (the author) was traumatized by this experience for the rest of his life.
I liked this new take on the Second World War. It's one of my favourite topics in History and I always strive to know about different perspectives. Thanks for this video, Mr Green!
AC1SPLIFF "I'm no holocaust denier" Bro,fuck em you can be a "holocaust denier" if you want don't worry about them calling you names. Just worry about what is true.
Britain is not a country. Britain is an area which encompasses one country (Republic of Ireland) and most of another (United Kingdom). Great Britain is just England, Scotland and Wales. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not countries in their own right, just autonomous provinces of the UK.
In my view 'good' and 'evil' are still valid concepts. It is important that while rejecting the traditional black and white definitions of those terms it is also important to use them to distinguish between right and (extreme) wrong. People are shades of gray but they can commit blatantly evil actions (usually) because they think they are doing the right thing. Especially if ideology (politics, religion) is involved. Such as in the case of Hitler. And yes the Allies were not entirely 'clean' in their conduct of the war... But please let us not reject the terms altogether and adopt pseudo-profound moral relativism (as I see some doing below) because moral relativism is a fact of history, *not* a basis for ethics/morals. It also falls to the 'tolerance-intolerance' contradiction and completely refutes itself as a political agenda. On top of that it also leaves us with nothing, only 'tolerance' but no direction morally.
Yeah I mean the Allies weren't 'good guys'. Britain were still imperial bastards, the US was locking away the Japanese, and the don't get me started on the USSR. But doing horrible things in wartime, while never excusable, is a long way from the Japanese or the Germans. 2 things can be completely unacceptable and one can still be much worse than the other. The stance that 'Both were evil and so they're equal' is just as much nonsense as 'The Allies were angels fighting for freedom'
Everything is relative, assigning right or wrong, is an incorrect way to see the issue, as you deny the reason why did it happen, and become blind to to the pitfall that is in the other extreme; one that we foolishly call good
Yes, as an outsider i see the Nazis just wanted to colonize the allies or make the allies feel what is like to be colonized / invaded. I mean because of that, thanks to Nazis... I mean the event, we become a nation now. Sorry if I'm wrong.
At least WW2 had some purpose. For the Axis powers, it was to gain more land and make the other countries pay for taxing them so heavily and severely weakening Germany's economy. For the Allies, it was simply to prevent Germany from getting world domination. World War One was far worse in my opinion. All the fighting was sort of meaningless. While it didn't have nearly as many casualties as World War Two, at least if you died in WW2 (in battle at least) you were either fighting for your homeland with extreme nationalism and pride racing through your heart (Axis) or defending your home country from the evil Germans (Allies). In WW1 soldiers suffered horrible deaths in the trenches and were subject to weapons like chlorine gas and machine guns. On top of that many died because of old-fashioned tactics which had soldiers rushing across no man's land - easy pickings for machine gun fire. And what could they say they were fighting for? Russia hated it so much they had 2 revolutions just to get out of the war!
Wasn't the Treaty of Versailles, a cause for Ww2? The treaty of Versailles' unfair policies sent upon Germany from Great Britain and France wanting revenge on Germany?
Yes, it was a cause as it caused massive debt for Germany, which led to desperate people looking for a ANY solution and why so many German people bought into extreme ideologies.
There were many causes of WW2. Many historians attribute at least part of Hitler's rise to power to the horrific devastation in the post WW1-Germany. And said devastation also fueled hyper-nationalism and xenophobia.
I actually wrote an essay on how the Versailles Treaty of 1919 contributed to the start of WWII, my main point was that if they hadn’t messed up Germany so much, there really wouldn’t have been a WWII
@@helenjovel6437 Most modern historians actually reject Versailles as causing WW2 and point out how it was actually relatively tame in terms of what it stipulated.
When I look at WWII by the perspective of resources, I'd say that in the Pacific, where it's common knowledge that the US defeated Japan, the USSR actually defeated Japan. I backed this up with the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and the Korean Peninsula in 1945. When the two A-bombs dropped, the Japanese refused to surrender until the Russians took their Resources in Manchuria (agriculture) and in the Korean Peninsula (arms factories, ores, and rumors of a Japanese atomic bomb). Russians took these territories and Japan was left with no resources. Japan cannot fight without resources which led to the Japanese surrender.
michael huynh the USSR didn’t defeat japan. However, the threat of the USSR made japan more likely to surrender to the US. The Japanese knew that the US wouldn’t utterly destroy them if they surrendered like the USSR would have.
Germany successfully invaded Russia in WW1. Germany would have also beat Russia in WW2 if it wasn't for all those weapons they "borrowed" from America.
russia do not has natural bAriers , therefore enemy's can be deep in its territory , but in the end they always go back , these buffer zones were created by russians as part of a plan because there are no natural bariers... john green was talking about this in previous video... russia is easy to invade but, very hard or impossible to win ...
6:18 - From the perspective of a british person: according to CGP grey we are a country of countries which makes confusing sense when each part of the country of countries has its own nationalism and sometimes parts within a country.
Melon Lord I can just imagine some German Brothel or something having such a thing: "Wilkommen zum die liebesraum" or something along those lines... Wouldn't surprise me that such a structured people would have such a thing.
It's not a real country though is it. I'm pretty sure any region of England is as culturally distinct as Wales is, especially when less than a quarter of Welsh people even know Welsh.
You said it affected everybody. But you forgot to mention the civilians in German accupied areas. Let me focus on winter of 44/45 after Americans failed to liberate Holland. Thousands died, because the Germans left very little resources (oil/coal/food/clothes) To be fair, the Allies attempted airdrops. But still the Dutch were forced to eat tulips, which were the value of a house 300 years earlier.
Mr. Green, I don't mean to rush you, but where is the next episode of World History? The Great African War looks super interesting, and I can't wait for your insight on the topic.
This guy is so stupid one mistake he dies by looking at a barrel of a gun at 2:51 so stupid Sergeant: *looks at barrel* Private:*press triggers* Private:That was a mistake Sergeant :*dead*
Yeah, but sometimes they could get torture too like a movie that they made but I don't remember the movie called and its from wwII and this guy get tortured by this Major.
You what's even worse than stupid guys with guns? Pretentious ignorant comments from clueless idiots who think they know everything but can't even check a clip for longer than 10 secs before thinking they have it all figured out and then proceed straight to a conclusion, while failing to ask the simplest question about it. As if you have figured this out... NO, this is NOT "so stupid". In fact, the clue is even IN THE CLIP, damn it! AND EVEN if it wasn't, HOW ON EARTH do you think the guy can check the muzzle and the barrel's interior (btw it's not "at the barrel", I mean english isn't my first language but come on...) WHEN THE RIFLE WOULD BE LOADED AND READY TO FIRE?!? So if you haven't figured it out by yourself, you can see that the rifle the soldier holds which his NCO is checking, is on an empty, open chamber, the bolt handle is turned back and up as well, which is visible too if you can't make this out for whateer reason... This was very common in many armies of that time and before then, for the NCO to check the soldier's rifle and uniform for being clean and properly handled, INCLUDING that you don't show off the rifle with a closed chamber, not to mention with a closed AND LOADED chamber to your NCO! If you would've tried to do that, even before you got near him with the rifle's muzzle, he straight up would've taken that thing right out of your hands with you receiving severe punishment, because guess what, there may have been less safety regulations concerning weapons in armies in the past, but people who are so stupid to be unable to realize that a rifle should be on an open and empty chamber for a checkup, you know, people who make jokes about such things without having thought about it for even a second apparently, they need some punishment to eradicate such idiocy from the FACE of not only the earth, but also their NCO! Sorry but such stuff makes me angry, I mean yeah the cli seems weird for anyone unaware of the details, BUT this detail is not only explained through logic (no open and empty chamber = no light in the barrel for the NCO to see the interior), but also is clearly visible down in the same shot! Also even if it' weren't and one is failing to grasp the simple logic, no one is unable to type a question a little bit like this: "What and why is he doing that? Isn't it dangerous to do that/How do they assure his safety while he checks the inside of that barrel?", again, anyone who can type an ignorant joke like you did could've just posed a simple pair of questions and would've had his/her knowledge extended instead of showing his/her lack of said knowledge in a mixture of arrogant ignorance and a false sense of being all-knowing, instead of the more humble approach that maybe, just maybe history is full of stuff you don't understand at the first glance, and often even cannot simply be deciphered by a second one, like it luckily was here. If I learned one thing about history, that humans often think they have it figured out and then make dumb decisions, or more often cruel ones, when it comes to things that are foreign to us, ridiculing practices, like, oh I don't know, joking about them. But in the past this was possible because there were none that knew better, and no book or Wikipedia that described and explained the what's and if's. Not that you had considered consulting anything before stating you judgement, also ridiculing something you surely didn't understand, but also showed to fail to even pay attention to, otherwise you would've realized it's self-explanatory. But then again it shows off how easy human behaviour sinks to such a level, even today, if not halted by either a detailed look or pure knowledge or some history-loving guy on the internet, who writes too long and likes to apologize for this, also I didn't want to sound angry. Sorry fot that, but seriously, you may realize now why this upset me so much, nothing personal.
Okay Im not reading that nor if you were saying I was wrong well this is why He put the "His eye on the BARREL of the gun" and the soldier might accidently pulls the trigger he dies don't you even know what comes out of a gun? (if you assume I was being stupid nor ignorant)
He was saying, quite simply, that the gun in the video was NOT loaded. An empty chamber allows the NCO to inspect inside the gun to see if it's clean, and if the gun was loaded that particular soldier would get punished hard. Also berated you for making a joke about it when you could've just asked "Why did he do that, isn't that dangerous? He could die!". To be honest with you, I agree with him.
Taking into account that Ethiopia and other third world countries actually export food to the first world while people starve within them makes it seem that capitalism is actually more effective than military conquering in obligating foreign resources.
British imperialism had long justified itself with the pretense that it was conducted for the benefit of the governed. Churchill's conduct in the summer and fall of 1943 gave the lie to this myth. "I hate Indians," he told the Secretary of State for India, Leopold Amery. "They are a beastly people with a beastly religion." The famine was their own fault, he declared at a war-cabinet meeting, for "breeding like rabbits." Some of India's grain was also exported to Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) to meet needs there, even though the island wasn't experiencing the same hardship; Australian wheat sailed past Indian cities (where the bodies of those who had died of starvation littered the streets) to depots in the Mediterranean and the Balkans; and offers of American and Canadian food aid were turned down. India was not permitted to use its own sterling reserves, or indeed its own ships, to import food. And because the British government paid inflated prices in the open market to ensure supplies, grain became unaffordable for ordinary Indians. Lord Wavell, appointed Viceroy of India that fateful year, considered the Churchill government's attitude to India "negligent, hostile and contemptuous."
Great end message and food for thought, but German people still did starve; my grandparents (who were there) for example had to steal crops and eat them straight from the ground with the dirt while being shot at because much of the food was allocated to the higher-ups and military. Food was also hard to come by as a result of the allied WW1 victory's effect on the currency (essentially making it worthless). There were other [Zionist] forces that sought to create an inhospitable environment in Germany to convince its large Jewish population to occupy what is now Isreal, after British powers partially followed through on their promise of giving Jews an area to settle peacefully (as a reward for getting Wall Street on board in WW1 when they were losing and their vastly stretched empire was starting to errode). I'm not sure how effective these Zionist forces were, but it definitely helped create a strong divide between Jews (who saw Zionists as an extreme faction of their faith whom they wanted to distance themselves from), and Germans (who were ignorant to the difference and ultimately blamed Jews in general, likely also because of the Nazi party's ignorance and desperation to unify the people for a common cause). It was very similar to the situation we see with Islam today, except Zionists used indirect white-collar approaches (business, media, entertainment, finance, & political relationships) to advance their goals through proxies rather than direct violence. My point is that it was a very toxic time in Germany with a huge complex range of tensions by not only internal, but also external forces. Regardless of what narrative one ultimately accepts, I think you're right in saying resources were in short supply for all but the ruling elite in every country (some more than others), and it's troubling to see that population increase is still running rampant despite the limited resources and opportunities for so many people. Most governments are fudging with numbers to make things look as rosy as possible, and to make the books communicate growth while the red flags couldn't be bigger. People are often considered economic units because of their potential, but the system doesn't seem to take into account that potential is worthless without the right conditions to liberate it from being only that. Sustainable balanced growth, health, and innovation are what happens when potential is being cultivated into something more, otherwise it's simply a waste (like any other tool in the hands of a senseless fool).
Oil should be featured much more prominently in this video. Oil probably constituted the single greatest advantage that the Allies had over the Axis powers: WW2 was a war of mobility, and the underlying means of mobility was oil. Oil was a primary reason that the Japanese pushed southward to the Dutch East Indies instead of flanking Soviet forces for a decisive victory on the eastern front (and potentially delaying the USA's entry into the war). The lack of oil supplies to Japan decided the ultimate outcome in the Pacific theatre once the US severed Japan's oil supply line from the East Indies. The need for a dependable source of oil motivated Hitler to divert troops into the Caucasus to take Baku instead of focusing on taking Moscow. And Germany's investment in synthetic fuel doomed them to shortage because static, massive synthetic fuel plants are way more susceptible to bombing and disruption than many distinct supply convoys (what Britain relied on). The difference in available oil meant that, in the last years of the war, economics and not tactics were a key driver for the Axis' military decisions. Everyone should read The Prize by Yergin; it highlights the importance oil has played in almost all major events of the last 100 years.
But Britain isn't 4 countries... It's an island that contains 3 countries. Now, the UK... wait still 3 countries. Northern Island isn't its own country.
![Tee Grizzley - Blow for Blow (feat. J. Cole) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wNLN5xsx5dc/mqdefault.jpg)
I miss john green's crash course history videos, it'd be nice if he made another series at some point, it's been way too long since crash course European history ended
Steps to world dominatiom
1.become mongols
2.invade russia in winter
3.SKIP JAPAN
4.good 2 go
8 hours ago.
you can defeat Japan by blocking its trade route, they dont have natural resources which mostly imported (US provide 40% of oil n iron) so you can exhaust them pretty quickly
n Japan never defeat the Mongols, it just happen to be storms in both of Mongols ocean invasion
+Red Deimon Mongol invasion of Japan had a hidden motive to kill the numerous surrendered soldiers from Jin and Song.
5. Disintegrate real quick due to being shitty at administration.
6.???
7. Profit?
8. Not really
Lol John, you pronounced Lebensraum "Liebensraum," which means "loving space"
+Thomas Phifer Who wouldn't want some more loving space ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡° )
Mispronunciation is his THING
+Thomas Phifer and he threw in a cheeky "Hejenomy" rather than hegemony
+Thomas Phifer Turns out Hitler just wanted land to build brothels and cheap motels for more sexy time
pronunciation depends on where you're from, who your family is, and who you learn the language from in an L2 case.
Lebensraum = living space
You said 'Liebensraum' and I know mispronouncing words is your thing but I am laughing at what should be a very serious concept because.
Liebensraum = loving room.
:)
Well, the "Lebensraum" would have been a "Liebesraum" for the arians........
Lol, yeah, it's "Lebensraum" not "Liebensraum"
Livvy P he meant it, it was the scoodilypooping room
Because all you need is loving space
he says what he means and he means what he says
This was very eye opening. Told my students this was a different view I haven't heard before because of the focus on personalities and the story of good versus evil.
Dear John, thanks for broadening my perspectives about WW2. We Brits tend to neglect the negative aspects of our colonial history during school history lessons. Famine in East India is not something we mention, and never the fact that we might have been partly responsible.
I like how dense the commenters are concerning his reference to "good vs evil". The ENTIRE point of the comment was to juxtapose the common view vs the reality, which most of you seem to have glossed over in order to be offended.
THE TRUTH HAS BEEN SPOKEN! xD
Well let's be honest: the reason that most missed the point is not as much lack of intelligence (happens too), but having a certain mind set/agenda own they own.
Si Wi true...
I'm pretty sure the fact he says "and it is" at about 0:45 might have something to do with it too.
What I miss even more is the discussion he stipulates at the end of video. How are we to act in a world of finite resources? What we have learned from WWII is that fighting over them makes everyone lose.
It's very interesting to see a different point of view on such a well discussed topic. We're all taught about WW2, but rarely was it discussed in a way other than militaristic "good v evil". This is why I love crash course!
Or was it the british fear for running out of TEA!!!
You know that tea is grown in Asia
@@zahidul6723 you just ruined the joke. give yourself a pat on the back.
Wait, so who won the war?
I hate it when stories have vague endings...
pretty sure those German guys they look tough
Okay so I'm pretty sure you'r a troll, but still for anyone else who may read this. No war is not a story, it's horrible thing that happened. It matters less who won and more for the effect overall that it had.
America....duh
brittany perkins -.-
the Allies.... duh
Mongolia won. In early 1945 vast Mongol armies swept over China and the USSR, quickly defeating all of the major powers apart from Great Britain and the USA. However, they did get all of Britain's major colonies, so when the war ended Mongolia and the USA were the only ones with any negotiating power. (And the Mongols only left the western hemisphere alone because the US had developed nuclear weapons.)
graveyard of the fireflies showed the japanese starvation pretty well
Some chap called Paul
still a good movie though
Joseph Chiappetta Most definitely;
but there are better Ghibli works imo.
Some chap called Paul
well obviously lol. Miyazaki (again spelling lol) has created so many great ones that come down to opinion as to which one is the best
Joseph Chiappetta they are the best in their own right to be honest;
and you got the spelling right this time, not to worry :P
However, there are better /animes/ out there like Cowboy Bebop or even No Game No Life both of which I highly recommend if you haven't already.
Some chap called Paul
I would put them in a different category of anime honestly but again good. Love the Bebop soundtracks too
John Green: I hope you guys discuss this in the comments
The comments: WhO eLsE iS wAtChInG tHiS tHe NiGhT bEfOrE aN eXaM
Lily more like during an online final essay😂
@@mallorysmith3273 Yeah there's so much going on rn with essays and tests
I think you're wrong about WWII being about resources. As you said, Japan and Germany desired autarky not because they were facing a crisis, not because their people were starving or deprived, but because autarky would allow them to pursue even further conquest. It was conquest for the sake of conquest. Resources were the means by which the war was fought, but not the goal.
I agree on Germany but no Japan would have ran out of a lot of things if they didn't start an invading different countries or other countries actually start trading with them
JACKPOT!!! DING DING DING! That is EXACLTY right. I'm glad I'm not the only one that sees that.
geth117 Yeah, Japan definitely needed resources. It wasn't food that was the initial driver, but their lack of industrial resources. Taking Indonesia and the Phillipines was mostly about oil and rubber, which was so vital they risked Pearl Harbor in the hopes they could hold out versus the US Pacific Navy. Manchuria however was primarily about food, but they already had that before Pearl Harbor. Japan needed more than just food, they needed industrial resources.
Germany as well needed industrial resources, otherwise they wouldn't have tried to hold north Africa, not to mention the diversion during Barbarossa to capture the Russian oil fields instead of the capitol.
It was more critical for Japan. The US blockade was crushing Japan, the atomic bombs only made the surrender more immediate due to Russian advances. Japan didn't even have a hope for breaking the blockade as they couldn't fuel their ships.
I think what John said makes sense as the two main objectives for the invasion of the USSR were the oil fields of the Caucasus and Ukraine for the grain.Also,I HEARD(dunno if its true)that every german soldier was promised with a deed for a piece of russian land upon the end of the war.
he is wrong for America and Britain it was freedom and democracy
Could someone get me some water? I'm dying of first.
This would be funnier if you actually were
Stop. That pun....
JUST TAKE IT! TAKE MY LIKE, YOU JERK.
oh wow
I'm missing a key reference.
This war was truly the darkest years of human existence.
What about WW1?
+Mr Kiem3
Those two plus the years between = 31 years and 100 million + dead, Europe shattered forever and the world changed in ways we won't fully comprehend for centuries.
Historians of the far future will view these wars in the same way we view the punic wars.
how about ice age?
Rafuad Siregar That was the coldest.
ForeverRepublic what a suprise
2:52 where's his basic gun safety training?
Liou David I thought that looked a little dangerous.
In the Marines, your DI will do the same thing, the purpose is to ensure that the recruit has not just handed the DI a loaded weapon. Same principle there with the Japanese trainer.
Alex Warnke Isn't it like, dangerous to look into the barrel?
Liou David the gun is unbolted, it would not be able to fire even if you pulled the trigger.
i should know, i own a bolt action rifle.
Oh. Didn't know that it is unbolted.
Hey, I just want to say that this channel is pure gold. Your videos are so so funny and at the same time very informative. For last 5 hours I have been watching random stuff from you guys, and it does not happen to me very often that I get so interested in something, so I just had to say thanks for the awesome content. So, well, thanks!
The Mongols running joke always gets me 😂
in india we do not read ww2 as war between good and evil but a war between newly industrialized nations looking for colonies and markets and old empires not allowing them in their traditional sphere.
+omegasavant it's important to remember that ideologies based on racial and national superiority were very popular all over the world at the time, among both fascists and democracies.
The Germans killed the Jews, the Japanese the Chinese, the Americans nuked japan and the U.K. and U.S. firebombed entire German cities of civilians into nothing the soviets (Who where on the "Good Guys Team") killed more than anyone else, with stalin killing pretty much everyone. no side was good.
India doesn't concern itself with the Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Britain and the allies. At the time, India was struggling to gain independence while suffering under the British occupation which pushed millions upon millions into starvation and death, it was a time when nationalism rose in India and efforts were made to take India back after a millennium of foreign rule and oppression.
And Soviets also stood by as Poles were massacred in Warsaw. Literally watched from across the river as it happened.
+kalibos Except the racial ideologies NEVER reached the same heights as the Axis.
German "food shortages" after WWI is kind of a euphemism. Due to the food blockade AFTER the armstice, hundreds of thousands of German civilians (children, women, elderly) were starved to death. -
Therefore, the idea of gaining agricultural autarkie was reasonable enough. And still is.
Swan Maiden No, the blockade was during the war. However, things like the great depression combined with the french army forcing Germany to pay france by simply going into to Germany and directly taking/stealing german industrial output did contribute to some small scale food shortages.
Eric Johansson No, you're uninformed. The blockade was also AFTER the armstice in order to force Germany sign the "Versailles Treaty". Look, it's even in Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Germany#Blockade_after_armistice
Even the allied-written schoolbooks in FRG admitted ca. 800,000 civilians starved to death, mostly elderly, women and children.
More detailed elucidation:
www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/starvation1919.html
What you are writing about are the 1920s, my remark referred to 1919.
Swan Maiden Okay.
Swan Maiden Nice, they didnt teach this in school.
Mighty Roogna "History is written by the victors."
This is excellent. May I recommend doing a history of the middle-east in terms of the availability of water.
I cannot lie, the way you explain things, is extremely hilarious and amazing. These are absolutely funfacts!!!!
Good to see a youtube clip that actually highlights to some extent just how important resources were to the warring nations. Reading Adam Tooze's The Wages of Destruction will give an illuminating but harrowing look at how the German economy functioned during WWII. His conclusion: Germany started WWII because it was just no longer economically possible to postpone it.
It seems the Mongols are everywhere in Eurasian history.
THE MONGOLS!!!
They're the exception.
Everywhere in World History.
>:)
derpy man kirby hmmm I wonder why.........maybe because their country covered the entire continent
Chaylen Tejeda *Continents
I am surprised you didn’t mention that Germany was, in part, in dire need of resources due to the reparation situation of WWI and the economic damage caused by the fall of Weimar. Those were mostly how the Nazis came to power, after all, regardless of your moral opinion of that party.
Awesome video and awesome explanation. This is an interesting new perspective to the war and sheds a lot of light on the motivations behind it.
The last minute of this lecture speaks volumes. Awesome stuff!
Hey, CrashCourse! I must say i absolutly love your show. Especially the History courses. You do such a great job in explaining the events without entering in complicated dates and furthermore you're not just going trough the history, you're tackling questions about the real importance of it all. I love that. It would be great if u mention my country Bulgaria more often(but I'm not suprised it has went back on your priorities xD).I was thinking that maybe a Balkan wars themed episode would work out, afterall it setted the stage in the Balkans for years to come. Nevertheless, even if you don''t turn to a similar topic I'm sure I'll continue to watch your show for years to come. Continue the awesome job Crash course ;)
WE'RE NOT A COUNTRY, WE'RE 4 SEPERATE COUNTRIES!
+Mastah Playah Too bad you are now a whole country.
+Andrew Paul Hu?
+Mastah Playah Hahahahahaha
Hugh Jenas Also don't forget the channel islands, and the overseas territories... :) CGP Grey has a great video about it.
+Mastah Playah Three technically Northern Ireland is not a country it is a territory of the UK England, Scotland, and Wales are Northern Ireland is not.
I LOVE the thought bubble animations!!! they are ABSOLUTELY amazing!!!
I know right
Also
TF2
SPHEE CREEPIN AROUND HERE
John Green you should make a video about the history of Ireland.
As a historian you should know that no truly 'Good vs Evil' war will ever exist in human history
Actually the war between me and acne is XD idk just like countering what everyone says
then again, he's not a historian (fortunately)
As a historian, you should know that oversimplistic maxims like this don't apply to human history.
+NZCrypT I agree. No matter what caused the war, no side is truly good. The Allies also committed atrocities against the Axis peoples, and even though the results were nowhere near as horrendous, a greater evil does not erase a smaller one.
Millions and millions of innocent people were murdered by Germany and by USSR. That is evil.
Any honest and sophisticated read of history will show that the Allied powers are clearly on the right side of history.
I wanted to clap at the end of this video ! Thankyou John green for being more education than a school could ever be.
HOI4 IS OUT
Also happy D-day
"We are the Exception" - Mongols
Absolutely love it.
Go John Green!!!
K, not trying to be butt hurt but I genuinely am becoming more and more convinced that Jon dislikes Britain to a particular level. He goes into great deal about the British colonial deaths (which were good awful) but brushes over the deaths of Manchurian peasants under this Japanese. Hell the Nazis are given a much more brief account of their war crimes than the British Empire. I love the series and I that the empire was bad but in this episode and others it just seems that Jon is particularly disposed against Brits.
meh.
if that's his view then so be it...I'm learning more than I ever did at school thanks to Jon and Hank...so...sure it's biased in a sense that he has a distaste if not a straight up disliking of us brits he's still presenting a good brief overview of an aspect of the second world war, which ultimately is what I came for.
Its kind of left out as well, I mean at school no one mentioned the millions of dead indians.
I believe he does that because the war crimes of the axis are all well known and documented but on the other hand the ones committed by the allies (specially GB in this case, since at the beginning of the 20th century they were THE major colonial power in the world) are usually ignored by our revisionist kind of history, specially in the decades AFTER a major war or historical event.
As we distance ourselves from these more and more by the passage of time we can actually take a better look at them from a more neutral ground and actually see that this "good vs evil" mentality is just "too simplistic" to justify wars and such and that most of the times BOTH sides commit atrocities. Or are you gonna tell me that GB letting it's Indian and Sub-Saharan subjects die of starvation just out of fear it wouldn't be able to maintain the war going wasn't a nasty decision and an actual crime against those people?
The thing is up to this day ppl around the world are still imbued with a lot of nationalism when it comes to their history and if you go on and touch on a sensitive subject to them they tend to feel offended even if you a more objective approach to it. In the end history was written by the victorious and when even centuries latter we try to take another look at it and see something different from what we learned we tend to get defensive and that can be said about pretty much EVERY country in the world.
I thought he stressed the British colonial deaths to really show that WWII effected areas that didn't see any fighting, mainly because of resources(which was the entire point of the video) Asia and Europe were active warzones,(he did mention millions dead in concentration camps? Or the deaths attributed to Stalin) but India? Sub-Saharan Africa saw little fighting at all. Lets be honest here the Brits were horrendous people in the past with their colonialism even the most sugar coated versions of history still point to that.
Lamaking65 Compared to the competition, like the Spanish or Leopold of Belgium, or even Whilhelmine Germany, who wiped out an African ethnic group in reprisals. A lot of the administrators of the Holocaust were ex-colonial civil service. Does it excuse it, no. I understand John mentioning it, but again, from the POV of the Indians a Japanese or German victory would have been worse. There is a quote by Hitler somewhere about how "....one day, the Indians will look back on the good old days of British rule". Yes, some racism was involved. But also, you have to factor in the decision was probably made late at night, on not enough sleep and with dozens of other calls that needed taking. It's complicated.
you should do something on the Falklands
+Robert Whitfield go falk yourself
+Kevin McD Tbh it would be intresting to hear about it, I wanna hear the argentianian side.
maddad333 what we got our arses kicked:)
+maddad333 The argentinian side is rather simple: Argentina always claimed "las malvinas" for itself (even though as far as I can tell, they have little to substantiate that claim other than proximity) and going for it by force was thought by the regime to be a good way to spurr nationalistic sentiments in order to take the pepoles' minds off the domestic problems the country faced.
Essentialy, Argentina tried to do what Britain has ben doing for a long time: "We hold it now, so it's ours."
+Robert Whitfield You army didn't look its best either, btw. Had all the bombs in San Carlos exploded, it would have been a fucking disaster for the jingos instead. :/
you know what crash course, i applaud you for always trying to get the comments to be more thought provoking, but its a lost cause, like teaching someone without limbs to play a guitar.
"Aw Turkey" 😂😂😂😂😂
"you can not invade Russia, unless you're the Mongols." And that's why Moscow has burned more times then Henry VIII was married? You can not "successfully" invade Russia... you know cause it has been invaded several times, but only conquered once. (by a foreign power)
Thanks using these to study for my A.P. Euro exam.😁😁😁😁
The most interesting thing about this video is not the fallacy about being unable to invade Russia (Polish-Soviet War of 1919-1921), or even lumping all the countries of Great Britain together, but rather the fact that for the first time (At least as far as I am aware), there is finally some citation. History is open to many different interpretations, and the only way to make a valid claim is to defend it with cited evidence, something this show had failed to do in the past. However, there are still a few ways to make the historical analysis even more solid.
First: Quantity of sources. I'm only in high school, but if I turned in a history paper with only one source (Both citations here are from the same book), it wouldn't even get graded. If anything, I could get expelled for plagiarism.
And secondly: The counterclaim. One of the most effective ways to argue your point is to demonstrate that you understand the other side too, by presenting the opposing argument with its own valid evidence. This show has yet to do that without treating the counterclaim in an almost condescending manner.
These are most prevalent in the Episodes on the American Civil War (Different series, yes, but also Crash Course History). John made a contentious claim, that the Civil War was fought over slavery, but then doesn't provide any evidence, or mention the fact that many people, both now and then, do not at all agree, and point to states rights and lack of representation, such as when Lincoln was elected without winning any Southern States. That is just not good historical practice, and raises serious questions about the validity of the show.
To conclude, the inclusion of sources is an exciting step towards increased credibility, but their is still a lot of progress to be made to make the show even more credible. Because without credibility, what is really the point of discussing history?
mininonja917 Explain to me how you get expelled for plagiarizing by just using one source.
Not that I disagree with the overall idea but I just don't get the logic behind that part.
lolpauve I am in the IB program, and an expectation there is constant and thorough use of sources. Every single point you make, or fact you use has to be cited. Additionally, you have to use a variety of sources. While there is no specific rule about the amount of sources that must be present, it is generally a good idea to have about 4 per claim, seeing as each claim should have around 4 pieces of evidence.
mininonja917 That's not plagiarism. They're actually going to give you a degree?
mininonja917 I get that, I don't get that whole plagiarism part.
P.S. I don't think this show would work if there were that many citations for everything.
tootz1950 Yes, it is. I quote from IB definitions of malpractice. "Plagiarism: this is defined as the representation of the ideas or work of another person as the candidate’s own". Not citing a source is presenting the work of someone else as your own. That definition can be found here:
www.fcps.edu/RobinsonSS/ib-program/pdf/IB%20definition%20of%20malpractice.pdf
John Green you are my hero and I love your book.
It was a war about evil vs evil where inocent people died and the winners claimed themselves has the good ones only because they won.
+Pedro Pablo The Winners write the history books
+Pedro Pablo here here
+KingKJ Gaming there there
thegreeenbeast
I seem to remember what he's saying as a quote from mw2 or 3 so I think he's just quoting that. Maybe he's serious though he could be a hardcore communist
+Pedro Pablo nope
I'm surprised growing demand for tires and conflicts over the global markets for Brazilian rubber weren't mentioned. Model T Fords had reached a price level affordable to the masses and German automakers were gearing up to mass-produce VWs for the 'volk,'
Industrialization and the growth of cities had already begun drawing people away from agriculture and the promise of greater food production and distribution with the help of motorized tractors and trucks was another factor.
Ultimately, the New Deal was an effort to re-invigorate capitalism for the sake of structuring a new global society where agriculture and food-distribution would be more mechanized and industrialized, and the question is how this new vision for mass-societies evolved into WWII.
discountconsulting Are you proposing that Roosevelt's actions led to the second world war?
Thank you! this is great! I use your videos to help my children learn in our homeschool.
I am really impressed by this episode. Never looked at it this way. Thanks!
" I later calculated that all of the destruction and wasted resources spent on that war could have easily accounted for every human need on the plane."
~Jacque Fresco 1916 to 2017
Crash Course World History episode on the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth?
Excellent.... Never gave much thought to the feeding of the world population during the war or how the lack of food caused such misery for both soldiers and civiliasn. Absolutely enjoy to learn and Crash Course does it so well
This was great :)
Oil, clothing, spare parts and manpower were also huge parts of the war.
and so was wheat and its byproducts (he said to someone probably not getting the reference)
Schools need to learn from people like John. In a usual school lesson, it's always strict and boring but with something like this, especially something so entertaining as The Thought Bubble (And I'm not being sarcastic), it keeps my attention throughout the video.
No mention of uncle Joe Stalin's starvation of Ukranian peasants in 1930s,, that always gets airbrushed out of history in the West.
1930's was quite far away from the war. He is strictly talking about the war.
Early 1930 wasn't 'during WW2'.
To the two fucktards (not Thomas Drowry)....The point is still valid, no real mention of the Ukrainian genocide in American history lessons...and no lessons of Stalins hatred of the jews or the gulag and and and....
joey ballwash Well, dipshit, I'm not aware of courses taught in american history classes. And this comment is irrelevant at best as it is about WW2 and not inter-war period.
If I recall correctly he talked about that in his 37th video of his first world history series. The one about communism.
World War 2, Evil vs Evil, the one who won will be called Hero, thats very simple
you guys are too edgy will forever be looked at like the Weird guy
Yeah I feel like crash course is a little biased against fascism or nazis without even attempting to see it from there side and when he brings up nazis, Jews are also mentioned.
+joseph johnson biased against... nazis?
wonder why...
Daniel Frederick nice
Yeah, most people tend to have a bias against those who commit systematic genocide, for the purpose of ethnic-cleansing.
A very articulately put, if myopic point. The desire to become to become self-sufficient through the acquisition of territory wasn't driven by a lack of resources, but by the political climate. Furthermore, the same desire has been pursued through control of trade relations and diplomatic hegemony throughout history, and we're seeing it today with EU expansionism.
If you were in nazi Germany's during WWII then you would of said you were the good guys and the allies were the bad guys and vice-versa
take the L
+silverdarlin Tried to sympathize with Nazis, gets immediate L
+Kevin McD I dont even know what the L is but i feel like he needs one
+silverdarlin according to my family members, you were trying not to get bombed.
+TheRealAskic What about american civilians with Japanese ancestry? It's not always black and white..
LOVE CRASH COURSE! Makes history much more appealing!
Polish also invaded Russia succesfully.
Not more successfull, than the Germans did.
In my Experience of War class in college, we read the book "Fires on the Plain" about a Japanese soldier stationed in the Philippines during WWII. His unit has no provisions but he ends up getting ejected in any case. He wanders through the jungle, starving, and is forced to break one of humanity's biggest taboos- eating his fallen brethren. This is actually a true story, told by the man who lived through this nightmare, and you can tell that recounting the events is tormenting him. He even seems to dissociate at points and calls the human flesh "monkey meat" at times. The lesson of the unit was: war can make you do a lot of unthinkable things- how do you live with yourself after you've done what it takes to survive? Shohei Ooka (the author) was traumatized by this experience for the rest of his life.
I liked this new take on the Second World War. It's one of my favourite topics in History and I always strive to know about different perspectives. Thanks for this video, Mr Green!
"Liebensraum" = Loveroom
The animation with Hitler's pants falling down REALLY needed a comical slide whistle sound effect.
Isn't it awfully convenient how the "evil" people always lose wars? There is no good or evil there are just people.
swegg Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnno...
Epicurus history is written by the victors
Seppuku but come on guys nazis are pretty bad
AC1SPLIFF The nazis were evil. Now obviously no one is evil for the sake of being evil, but that wasn't why they got in power.
AC1SPLIFF "I'm no holocaust denier"
Bro,fuck em you can be a "holocaust denier" if you want don't worry about them calling you names.
Just worry about what is true.
Britain is not a country. Britain is an area which encompasses one country (Republic of Ireland) and most of another (United Kingdom). Great Britain is just England, Scotland and Wales. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not countries in their own right, just autonomous provinces of the UK.
Great perspective! Shows that there were so many variables to the 2nd world war... not just the fighting. The war affected everyone.
In my view 'good' and 'evil' are still valid concepts. It is important that while rejecting the traditional black and white definitions of those terms it is also important to use them to distinguish between right and (extreme) wrong. People are shades of gray but they can commit blatantly evil actions (usually) because they think they are doing the right thing. Especially if ideology (politics, religion) is involved. Such as in the case of Hitler. And yes the Allies were not entirely 'clean' in their conduct of the war...
But please let us not reject the terms altogether and adopt pseudo-profound moral relativism (as I see some doing below) because moral relativism is a fact of history, *not* a basis for ethics/morals. It also falls to the 'tolerance-intolerance' contradiction and completely refutes itself as a political agenda. On top of that it also leaves us with nothing, only 'tolerance' but no direction morally.
Yeah I mean the Allies weren't 'good guys'. Britain were still imperial bastards, the US was locking away the Japanese, and the don't get me started on the USSR. But doing horrible things in wartime, while never excusable, is a long way from the Japanese or the Germans. 2 things can be completely unacceptable and one can still be much worse than the other. The stance that 'Both were evil and so they're equal' is just as much nonsense as 'The Allies were angels fighting for freedom'
Everything is relative, assigning right or wrong, is an incorrect way to see the issue, as you deny the reason why did it happen, and become blind to to the pitfall that is in the other extreme; one that we foolishly call good
Yes, as an outsider i see the Nazis just wanted to colonize the allies or make the allies feel what is like to be colonized / invaded.
I mean because of that, thanks to Nazis... I mean the event, we become a nation now.
Sorry if I'm wrong.
Common Sense1776 really gosh
"i wanted a brain transplant but then i changed my mind"
KingIZAK ha lol
Seriously though...what video/movie is that Mongols clip from?
Lianna Pfister I think it's from some John Wayne movie where he was for some reason Kahn
no joke
'the Mongols'
or is it just"mongols", can't remember
At least WW2 had some purpose. For the Axis powers, it was to gain more land and make the other countries pay for taxing them so heavily and severely weakening Germany's economy. For the Allies, it was simply to prevent Germany from getting world domination.
World War One was far worse in my opinion. All the fighting was sort of meaningless. While it didn't have nearly as many casualties as World War Two, at least if you died in WW2 (in battle at least) you were either fighting for your homeland with extreme nationalism and pride racing through your heart (Axis) or defending your home country from the evil Germans (Allies). In WW1 soldiers suffered horrible deaths in the trenches and were subject to weapons like chlorine gas and machine guns. On top of that many died because of old-fashioned tactics which had soldiers rushing across no man's land - easy pickings for machine gun fire. And what could they say they were fighting for? Russia hated it so much they had 2 revolutions just to get out of the war!
One of the best channels I've ever come across.
Wasn't the Treaty of Versailles, a cause for Ww2? The treaty of Versailles' unfair policies sent upon Germany from Great Britain and France wanting revenge on Germany?
Yes, it was a cause as it caused massive debt for Germany, which led to desperate people looking for a ANY solution and why so many German people bought into extreme ideologies.
There were many causes of WW2. Many historians attribute at least part of Hitler's rise to power to the horrific devastation in the post WW1-Germany. And said devastation also fueled hyper-nationalism and xenophobia.
I actually wrote an essay on how the Versailles Treaty of 1919 contributed to the start of WWII, my main point was that if they hadn’t messed up Germany so much, there really wouldn’t have been a WWII
@@helenjovel6437 Most modern historians actually reject Versailles as causing WW2 and point out how it was actually relatively tame in terms of what it stipulated.
When I look at WWII by the perspective of resources, I'd say that in the Pacific, where it's common knowledge that the US defeated Japan, the USSR actually defeated Japan. I backed this up with the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and the Korean Peninsula in 1945. When the two A-bombs dropped, the Japanese refused to surrender until the Russians took their Resources in Manchuria (agriculture) and in the Korean Peninsula (arms factories, ores, and rumors of a Japanese atomic bomb). Russians took these territories and Japan was left with no resources. Japan cannot fight without resources which led to the Japanese surrender.
michael huynh the USSR didn’t defeat japan. However, the threat of the USSR made japan more likely to surrender to the US. The Japanese knew that the US wouldn’t utterly destroy them if they surrendered like the USSR would have.
Good presentation. I'm reminded of the truism that amateur generals study strategy, professionals study logistics.
Germany successfully invaded Russia in WW1. Germany would have also beat Russia in WW2 if it wasn't for all those weapons they "borrowed" from America.
With that Logic, Britain has invaded Russia, France has invaded Russia, and other belligerents of the Anglo-Russo Crimean wars.
Ethan Barr Hardly, Germany took over all a majority of Russia's remotely densely populated regions.
russia do not has natural bAriers , therefore enemy's can be deep in its territory , but in the end they always go back , these buffer zones were created by russians as part of a plan because there are no natural bariers... john green was talking about this in previous video... russia is easy to invade but, very hard or impossible to win ...
Being in Russia does not equal defeating Russia. Invading is easy, surviving inside is the hard part.
The reason Germany got defeated in Russia was launching an all out attack in winter
6:18 - From the perspective of a british person: according to CGP grey we are a country of countries which makes confusing sense when each part of the country of countries has its own nationalism and sometimes parts within a country.
Damn your making me hungry.
It's pronounced "LAY-bens-raum" Not "LEE-bens-raum". Lieben is 'to love' (v.) or 'love' (n.)
:P
Oooooooh, "loving"-room. Sounds VERY German....
Melon Lord I can just imagine some German Brothel or something having such a thing:
"Wilkommen zum die liebesraum" or something along those lines...
Wouldn't surprise me that such a structured people would have such a thing.
A very important perspective that I hope will become more common as people become more educated about war.
Wales is a principality, not a country
Freddie Blake
It's also a mammal.
Freddie Blake Wales actually became acknowledged as a country in the 1990s
It's not a real country though is it. I'm pretty sure any region of England is as culturally distinct as Wales is, especially when less than a quarter of Welsh people even know Welsh.
Jon Wales may not " be a country" but it is certainly the most culturally distinctive part of England.
Thank you CrashCourse, this really helped me a lot
You said it affected everybody. But you forgot to mention the civilians in German accupied areas.
Let me focus on winter of 44/45 after Americans failed to liberate Holland. Thousands died, because the Germans left very little resources (oil/coal/food/clothes) To be fair, the Allies attempted airdrops. But still the Dutch were forced to eat tulips, which were the value of a house 300 years earlier.
Canada did send food drops to the Netherlands and ended up liberating them as well :)
A good episode. Lots to think about.
0:08 what kind of obsession do you have with number Seven? (the books)
great videos btw
Un saludo desde España
Thumbs up it you cringed every time John mispronounced Lebensraum (lay-bens-raum).
J.D. Montgomery lee-bens-raum
Great series. Love that is entertaining and has SUBSTANCE!! Not just the usual youtube drivel. I'm addicted!
I'm offensive and I find this british
As long as we live in a world of finite resources, there will be potential for conflict. Knowing that, hopefully, will help us avoid it.
So many people sympathising with Hitler in these comments...
Mainly they are saying America was worse not that he was good so
aww turkey
Mr. Green, I don't mean to rush you, but where is the next episode of World History? The Great African War looks super interesting, and I can't wait for your insight on the topic.
This guy is so stupid one mistake he dies by looking at a barrel of a gun at 2:51 so stupid
Sergeant: *looks at barrel*
Private:*press triggers*
Private:That was a mistake
Sergeant :*dead*
Yeah, but sometimes they could get torture too like a movie that they made but I don't remember the movie called and its from wwII and this guy get tortured by this Major.
You what's even worse than stupid guys with guns?
Pretentious ignorant comments from clueless idiots who think they know everything but can't even check a clip for longer than 10 secs before thinking they have it all figured out and then proceed straight to a conclusion, while failing to ask the simplest question about it.
As if you have figured this out...
NO, this is NOT "so stupid".
In fact, the clue is even IN THE CLIP, damn it!
AND EVEN if it wasn't, HOW ON EARTH do you think the guy can check the muzzle and the barrel's interior (btw it's not "at the barrel", I mean english isn't my first language but come on...) WHEN THE RIFLE WOULD BE LOADED AND READY TO FIRE?!?
So if you haven't figured it out by yourself, you can see that the rifle the soldier holds which his NCO is checking, is on an empty, open chamber, the bolt handle is turned back and up as well, which is visible too if you can't make this out for whateer reason...
This was very common in many armies of that time and before then, for the NCO to check the soldier's rifle and uniform for being clean and properly handled, INCLUDING that you don't show off the rifle with a closed chamber, not to mention with a closed AND LOADED chamber to your NCO!
If you would've tried to do that, even before you got near him with the rifle's muzzle, he straight up would've taken that thing right out of your hands with you receiving severe punishment, because guess what, there may have been less safety regulations concerning weapons in armies in the past, but people who are so stupid to be unable to realize that a rifle should be on an open and empty chamber for a checkup, you know, people who make jokes about such things without having thought about it for even a second apparently, they need some punishment to eradicate such idiocy from the FACE of not only the earth, but also their NCO!
Sorry but such stuff makes me angry, I mean yeah the cli seems weird for anyone unaware of the details, BUT this detail is not only explained through logic (no open and empty chamber = no light in the barrel for the NCO to see the interior), but also is clearly visible down in the same shot!
Also even if it' weren't and one is failing to grasp the simple logic, no one is unable to type a question a little bit like this: "What and why is he doing that? Isn't it dangerous to do that/How do they assure his safety while he checks the inside of that barrel?", again, anyone who can type an ignorant joke like you did could've just posed a simple pair of questions and would've had his/her knowledge extended instead of showing his/her lack of said knowledge in a mixture of arrogant ignorance and a false sense of being all-knowing, instead of the more humble approach that maybe, just maybe history is full of stuff you don't understand at the first glance, and often even cannot simply be deciphered by a second one, like it luckily was here.
If I learned one thing about history, that humans often think they have it figured out and then make dumb decisions, or more often cruel ones, when it comes to things that are foreign to us, ridiculing practices, like, oh I don't know, joking about them.
But in the past this was possible because there were none that knew better, and no book or Wikipedia that described and explained the what's and if's. Not that you had considered consulting anything before stating you judgement, also ridiculing something you surely didn't understand, but also showed to fail to even pay attention to, otherwise you would've realized it's self-explanatory.
But then again it shows off how easy human behaviour sinks to such a level, even today, if not halted by either a detailed look or pure knowledge or some history-loving guy on the internet, who writes too long and likes to apologize for this, also I didn't want to sound angry.
Sorry fot that, but seriously, you may realize now why this upset me so much, nothing personal.
Okay Im not reading that nor if you were saying I was wrong well this is why He put the "His eye on the BARREL of the gun" and the soldier might accidently pulls the trigger he dies don't you even know what comes out of a gun? (if you assume I was being stupid nor ignorant)
He was saying, quite simply, that the gun in the video was NOT loaded. An empty chamber allows the NCO to inspect inside the gun to see if it's clean, and if the gun was loaded that particular soldier would get punished hard.
Also berated you for making a joke about it when you could've just asked "Why did he do that, isn't that dangerous? He could die!". To be honest with you, I agree with him.
neet meep2
ITS STILL WRONG TO PUT YOUR EYE ON A BARREL IT MIGHT STILL HAVE A LIVE ROUND
I like the less wacky turn Crash Course World History is going thru. Me likey.
Taking into account that Ethiopia and other third world countries actually export food to the first world while people starve within them makes it seem that capitalism is actually more effective than military conquering in obligating foreign resources.
"One of the stupidest decisions of the war...." Subbed bc of that this was the first vid I watched 🌝 Thank you CC
British imperialism had long justified itself with the pretense that it was conducted for the benefit of the governed. Churchill's conduct in the summer and fall of 1943 gave the lie to this myth. "I hate Indians," he told the Secretary of State for India, Leopold Amery. "They are a beastly people with a beastly religion." The famine was their own fault, he declared at a war-cabinet meeting, for "breeding like rabbits."
Some of India's grain was also exported to Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) to meet needs there, even though the island wasn't experiencing the same hardship; Australian wheat sailed past Indian cities (where the bodies of those who had died of starvation littered the streets) to depots in the Mediterranean and the Balkans; and offers of American and Canadian food aid were turned down. India was not permitted to use its own sterling reserves, or indeed its own ships, to import food. And because the British government paid inflated prices in the open market to ensure supplies, grain became unaffordable for ordinary Indians. Lord Wavell, appointed Viceroy of India that fateful year, considered the Churchill government's attitude to India "negligent, hostile and contemptuous."
Great end message and food for thought, but German people still did starve; my grandparents (who were there) for example had to steal crops and eat them straight from the ground with the dirt while being shot at because much of the food was allocated to the higher-ups and military.
Food was also hard to come by as a result of the allied WW1 victory's effect on the currency (essentially making it worthless). There were other [Zionist] forces that sought to create an inhospitable environment in Germany to convince its large Jewish population to occupy what is now Isreal, after British powers partially followed through on their promise of giving Jews an area to settle peacefully (as a reward for getting Wall Street on board in WW1 when they were losing and their vastly stretched empire was starting to errode). I'm not sure how effective these Zionist forces were, but it definitely helped create a strong divide between Jews (who saw Zionists as an extreme faction of their faith whom they wanted to distance themselves from), and Germans (who were ignorant to the difference and ultimately blamed Jews in general, likely also because of the Nazi party's ignorance and desperation to unify the people for a common cause). It was very similar to the situation we see with Islam today, except Zionists used indirect white-collar approaches (business, media, entertainment, finance, & political relationships) to advance their goals through proxies rather than direct violence. My point is that it was a very toxic time in Germany with a huge complex range of tensions by not only internal, but also external forces.
Regardless of what narrative one ultimately accepts, I think you're right in saying resources were in short supply for all but the ruling elite in every country (some more than others), and it's troubling to see that population increase is still running rampant despite the limited resources and opportunities for so many people. Most governments are fudging with numbers to make things look as rosy as possible, and to make the books communicate growth while the red flags couldn't be bigger. People are often considered economic units because of their potential, but the system doesn't seem to take into account that potential is worthless without the right conditions to liberate it from being only that. Sustainable balanced growth, health, and innovation are what happens when potential is being cultivated into something more, otherwise it's simply a waste (like any other tool in the hands of a senseless fool).
Oil should be featured much more prominently in this video. Oil probably constituted the single greatest advantage that the Allies had over the Axis powers: WW2 was a war of mobility, and the underlying means of mobility was oil. Oil was a primary reason that the Japanese pushed southward to the Dutch East Indies instead of flanking Soviet forces for a decisive victory on the eastern front (and potentially delaying the USA's entry into the war). The lack of oil supplies to Japan decided the ultimate outcome in the Pacific theatre once the US severed Japan's oil supply line from the East Indies. The need for a dependable source of oil motivated Hitler to divert troops into the Caucasus to take Baku instead of focusing on taking Moscow. And Germany's investment in synthetic fuel doomed them to shortage because static, massive synthetic fuel plants are way more susceptible to bombing and disruption than many distinct supply convoys (what Britain relied on). The difference in available oil meant that, in the last years of the war, economics and not tactics were a key driver for the Axis' military decisions. Everyone should read The Prize by Yergin; it highlights the importance oil has played in almost all major events of the last 100 years.
why does he pronounce "leben" like "lieben"?
Because he is from the US.
Because mispronouncing words is his thing.
When your main language is English, you have a habit of pronouncing e's as many countries in the word pronounces i's.
Simple as that.
But Britain isn't 4 countries... It's an island that contains 3 countries. Now, the UK... wait still 3 countries. Northern Island isn't its own country.
"Northern Island"
"Island"
+Adam Borison No John Green was referring to England, Scotland, Ireland AND Wales!
+Conrad JD 777 northern ireland*
+Richard Winters next world war
china didn't mention NORTHERN!!! island for the last time
THE SPRADICK RED MOO demon thing wtf you talking about mate?