Can't wait to see what happens next? This is only part 1 of our 3 part series HITLER'S WAR ON POLAND, parts 2 and 3 are already available to members of the RUclips channel, and members of The Rest Is History Club, join here to watch part 2 now: ruclips.net/channel/UCUYK0BJZF3yNb2fw1EdAXUQjoin
It is a historical fact that Poland was betrayed by its allies in 1939! This betrayal of Poland in 1939 was not only dishonest but it was also a military stupidity of truly monumental dimensions. The opportunity to fight a brief, localized war against Germany was therefore lost in September 1939. In hindsight, also lost were the opportunities to save millions of lives and to have prevented the creation of conditions that led to the Cold War. As General Ironside the Chief of the British General Staff stated in 1945, after much of Europe was in ruins and 70 million have died, "Militarily we should have gone all out against the German the minute Germans invaded Poland. ... We did not ... And so we missed the strategical advantage of the Germans being engaged in the East. We thought completely defensively and of ourselves.
In 1939 Britain and France signed a series of military agreements with Poland that contained very specific promises. Three main actions were agreed that the French and British should take in the event of a German raid.: 1. France immediately carries out an air campaign according to a pre-determined plan. 2. As soon as part of the French troops are ready (on the third day or so), France will progressively launch offensive actions with limited targets. 3. As soon as the main effort of Germany was directed against Poland, France with support from the British (from the fifteenth day onward) would begin with the bulk of its troops an offensive action against Germany. Three days after the German raid on Poland, France and Great Britain actually declared war on Germany. BUT... the declaration of war in 1939 against Germany served only for saving face. This was the continuation of British and French appeasement politics of the 30s. The inaction of the French and British was the message to Germany: Be satisfied with Poland. Do not attack us behind the Maginot Line. We do not attack you either! With the alliance agreement, the French and British promised to support Poland with all their might in the event of a German raid with a massive attack in the West. But the British and the French did not intend to keep to the contractual commitment. They wanted to sacrifice Poland for peace with the Germans! They have betrayed Poland! The attack had been promised in the contract. Instead of attacking, they did that Phoney War, in German "Sitzkrieg" called. The German name is the most appropriate Sitzkrieg! Means war while sitting! The British and French sat around instead of attacking. There was an agreement with Poland and an offensive plan with three crucial elements in the event of a German raid on Polend. 1. The allies immediately carries out an air campaign following a pre-determined plan. 2. As soon as part of the French troops are ready no later than three days after the raid, the allies will progressively launch offensive actions initially with limited strength. 3. As soon as the main effort of Germany was directed against Poland, the allies would begin (with effect from the fifteenth day) an offensive action against Germany with the bulk of its troops. One should also keep in mind that Poland held out as long as was agreed with the French and British before the war, so that the French and British had enough time for the promised massive offensive in the west. But these Polish "allies" did not massively attack in the west, therefore the opportunity for a victory against Germany was wasted. Because if the French had massively attacked in the West with British support as agreed with Poland, then the Germans would certainly have lost the war. The Germans would have lost the war because they were not prepared for a two-fronts war! The Germans had nothing in the West in 1939. Only inferior reserves with only few tanks and hardly any air support. 90% of German combat aircraft were in Poland. Part of the reserve were 808000 reserve without training! WITHOUT TRAINING! That was 110 French and British divisions with a large number of tanks, artillery and aircraft against only 23 German divisions with almost no tanks, aircraft and artillery. At the Nuremberg Trials, German military commander Alfred Jodl said that "if we did not collapse already in the year 1939 that was due only to the fact that during the Polish campaign, the approximately 110 French and British divisions in the West were held completely inactive against the 23 German divisions." German General Siegfried Westphal stated that if the French had attacked in full force in September 1939 the German army "could only have held out for one or two weeks." Franz Halder Chief of the German General Staff of the Army documents this fact in his war diary. "The Wehrmacht had been on the verge of a military logistical catastrophe in the Polish campaign. The happy ending after a few weeks saved her from having to stop the fight because of insufficient ammunition." So the Germans were by no means the invincible superpower in 1939, as is often wrong claimed, which was allegedly completely superior to Poland, France and the British. In fact, they were very clearly inferior to the Poles, French and British and were only able to win because the Polish allies betrayed Poland because they did not attack massively with all their might in the west as had been agreed before the war. This shameful behavior of inaction is usually called the Phoney War. The German name "Sitzkrieg" for the Phoney War is better appropriate! Because that means war while sitting! ! Yes, the British and French sat around instead of attacking and and the Polish soldiers died at the front! The French call this war of inaction Drôle de guerra, which translates funny war. Yes, that's very fitting, because they had fun on the fake front and even danced! There is actually a German war newsreel from 1939 in which French soldiers are shown dancing on the fake "front"! In this German video entitled “Ein seltsamer Krieg - Frankreich 1939/40” (A strange war - France 1939/40), this German war newsreel is shown with the dancing French soldiers on the fake front: ruclips.net/video/HVBt9vO4tPQ/видео.html The Germans set up large speakers and played music to the French and the French danced to this music at a front that didn't deserve the name front. This happened in 1939 when the Poles fought desperately against the Germans and hoped for the massive attack by the French and British in the West. The Poles did not know that the French were dancing instead of fighting at that time. This German documentary shows the French soldiers dance instead of fighting on the "front" wich wasn't there. The time when the dancing Frenchmen are shown and the Germans place the speakers beforehand is 29:30 One can also see how the German soldiers play like children on the non-existent front, because they are not afraid of the French soldiers at all. The point in the video, in which the German soldiers play like children, showing that they are not at all afraid of the French, shown in the time 28:40! Yes, all of this makes the betrayal in 1939 very clear!
By the way, the Soviets would not have attacked Poland in such a situation in which the Germans were defeated. If the French and British had massively attacked in the West, as agreed with Poland, Soviets would not have dared to raid Poland with the weak Red Army. Because Soviets did not want a war against the British and French, who might have been supported by the Americans. The Soviets also knew that, as in the war of 1919-21, the Poles would fight to the limit. So the Soviets waited and watched the reaction of the British and French. Only when it was obvious that the British and French would betray Poland did they raid Poland. Soviets knew they were inferior because the red army was in a miserable condition. The fact that the Red Army was in a bad state was also shown by the fight against Polish troops. The Soviets even had problems with the Polish Border Protection Corps (KOP) in 1939! For example in the Battle of Szack a 4,000 men KOP troop without air support and without tanks and only 16 piece of artillery defeated 13 000 Soviets supported by 15 tanks and 15 piece of artillery. All of the Soviet tanks involved were destroyed or captured in the battle! The Soviet units were taken by surprise and after a short hand-to-hand fight the Soviet forces were routed. Only a small part of the motorized infantry managed to retreat, but had to leave behind all their trucks, artillery and 9 T-26 tanks. The Poles also captured the staff headquarters. So with this weak red army the Soviets would not have dared to attack Poland in a situation while the Germans lost the war. But unfortunately the Polish allies decided to betray Poland and when the Soviets realized this they attacked Poland too.
💡EUROPEANS worldwide Should research this and NOT FEEL GUILTY for wanting them out. MAURICE SAMUEL 1924👉🏻 "We $lenders, we, the destroyers, will remain the destroyers for ever. Nothing that you say or do will meet our needs and demands. We will for ever destroy because we need a world of our own. You must look up the text.
@@GreatPolishWingedHussars Nice to know of someone reminding viewers of the facts that the USSR was at most a side opportunist in 1939. Your opinion is not popular among revisionists who argue that Britain and France should not have been involved. The argument is no Western Allied involvement means Germany will not approach USSR for the pact. No pact means the USSR will have to fight Germany which in turn will result both sides cancelling each other on the Polish battlefield.
All of your claims are wrong and completely contradict historical truth. All German offers to Poland were fake. These offers you mentioned to Poland were only intended to cover up their true intentions. Because they really planned to conquer all of Poland. After the conquest, they wanted to exterminate the Polish population in accordance with their Nazi ideology. So they began carrying out the genocide immediately after the attack to conquer Poland, as the various massacres of Polish prisoners of war and civilians show. They then continued the genocide after the conquest of Poland. Even with death camps and also with many other massacres. By the way, they also attacked Poland because Poland had the largest Jewish population. Because they wanted to carry out a genocide on them in accordance with their Nazi ideology. No matter what a fool says about it in his book. There was absolutely no weakness of the Polish Western allies. As I explained the historical facts in detail in my comment above, the British and French were completely superior to the weak German troops in the west in 1939. The fact that the allied troops remained almost completely inactive after the German raid on Poland was of course a betrayal. It is common knowledge that not supporting an ally with your troops in the fight when the ally is raided it is a betrayal. Also such an absurd claim that the Polish government allegedly underestimated the Germans. Poland did not underestimate the danger, which is why Poland allied itself with the French and British. This is also why Poland has heavily rearmed. Poland actually armed itself well enough that Poland was able to hold out the fight against the Germans for as long as was agreed with the British and French, who then promised to massively attack in the West. But as I have already determined, they did not stick to the contractually agreed promise of support and thereby betrayed Poland. It is also completely absurd to criticize the Polish government in this context. The Polish government behaved completely correctly and armed itself sufficiently to last the agreed time in the fight against the Germans. It was also completely right to ally with the two strong powers. The Polish government could not have suspected that they were intending to betray Poland. Because this betrayal was actually unimaginable and completely absurd and insane. As the British historian Roger Moorhaus rightly stated in his article entitled "Poland was betrayed": The military inaction of the Polish allies was the worst thing that could have happened to Poland. It was a hideous betrayal. By the way, they wanted to reach the much larger territories of the Soviet Union via Poland, which they then wanted to conquer up to the Ural Mountains. There they planned the same thing as with the wanted with all Slavs. They wanted to exterminate the Slavic population there like also in Poland and then colonize the territories with their own people.
All of your claims are wrong and completely contradict historical truth. All German offers to Poland were fake. These offers you mentioned to Poland were only intended to cover up their true intentions. Because they really planned to conquer all of Poland. After the conquest, they wanted to exterminate the Polish population in accordance with their Nazi ideology. So they began carrying out the genocide immediately after the attack to conquer Poland, as the various massacres of Polish prisoners of war and civilians show. They then continued the genocide after the conquest of Poland. Even with death camps and also with many other massacres. By the way, they also attacked Poland because Poland had the largest Jewish population. Because they wanted to carry out a genocide on them in accordance with their Nazi ideology.
All of your claims are wrong and completely contradict historical truth. All their offers that you mentioned to Poland were fake. These offers you mentioned to Poland were only intended to cover up their true intentions. Because they really planned to conquer all of Poland. After the conquest, they wanted to exterminate the Polish population in accordance with their Nazi ideology. So they began carrying out the genocide immediately after the attack to conquer Poland, as the various massacres of Polish prisoners of war and civilians show. They then continued the genocide after the conquest of Poland. Even with death camps and also with many other massacres. By the way, they also attacked Poland because Poland had the largest Jewish population. Because they wanted to carry out a genocide on them in accordance with their Nazi ideology.
Hitler doesn't like Czech beer? To quote the late great Norm Macdonald “You know, with Hitler, the more I learn about that guy, the more I don’t care for him.”
@@restishistorypoddo you have any comment as to why your host Tom Holland enables the assault of little girls? I’ve filed a police report with the authorities per his address available online.
Listening from T&T as well! 🇹🇹 I recently discovered this podcast and I'm loving it ❤ As a historian who does no history on a daily basis it is giving me my "daily" fix 😊
Listening to this podcast for the first time. What an absolute gem of a find. I'm sitting here on a hillside in the West of Ireland, with the Atlantic winds howling around the house, with a cup of tea and the fire lit. Perfect.
I was incredibly bored by the Second World War at school, you pair have made this so fascinating for me by actually highlighting the complexity and lead up. Love the podcast.
This series is not only incredibly informative but also so dramatic. :) You are sharing this history in such an engaging manner! Only a side note, most of heavy guns were build in Pilsen. Hand guns (such as BREN) are being manufactured in Brno (later known as CZ).
"The Foreign Secretary said that he had been reflecting on the anxieties which had been voiced by the Minister for Co-ordination of Defence. He agreed that there was probably no way in which France and ourselves could prevent Poland from being overrun. We were faced with the dilemma of doing nothing, or entering into a devastating war. If we did nothing, this would mean a great accession to Germany's strength and a great loss to ourselves of sympathy and support in the United States, and in other parts of the world. If we had to choose between two great evils, he favoured our going to war." - March 27th
Really the top history podcast out, I’ve learned so much from you both this year that my wife rolls her eyes when I go on history diatribes now. Cheers to the continued growth!
I came to the comment section to say that language does not equal political identity. And I am specifically referring to Pomerania, the area around Gdańsk / Danzig. My family have been German speaking but saw themselves as Polish. At one point in history half he cities rebelled against Teutonic rule and joined the Polish Crown as a Royal Prussia. Poland was a country of two competing visions "Piast" and "Jagiellon" - one nation-state, the other more of a political entity formed of peoples of different nationalities, religions and traditions, the Polish, the Germans, the Jews, the Rus (who later became Belarussians and Ukrainians), the Lithuanians and so on. The fact that cities in my region "look German" and spoke German does not mean they were German. It's more complicated.
This podcast is by far the greatest history podcast of the world. I've gained alot of useful information about several things. I really appreciate the ampunt of effort by these two gentlemen. Greetings from Iran❤❤❤❤
Nice try my Nazi apologist friend. "Joseph Stalin encouraged the theory of the possibility of constructing socialism in the Soviet Union alone. The theory was eventually adopted as Soviet state policy."
It’s funny how you never hear about the bolsheviks and their atrocities and their plans before you hear about Hitler’s. Bc if you did you’d view Hitler in a different light, and the same for the Jews…
One minor correction: Bohemian crown jewels were never taken out of Prague. Heidrich inspected them (never putting the crown on his head, that's an urban myth perpetuated by a well known film). Nazis have not seen the crown jewels as Czech. Also, there were hundreds of thousands of Germans living in Prague, Prague even had a German university, many of them lined the streets to welcome him. There is a wider context to the story here. Bohemian (and Moravian) Czechs were largely germanized by the end of the 18th century. Their striving for autonomy and language revival in the 19th century, at least in the eyes of many liberal German speakers, prevented the Greater German Solution and reunification inclusive of Austria. Czechs and their insistence on "feudal particularisms" within the Austrian empire and their cultural and linguistic revivalism drove German modern nationalists crazy, they thought it to be retrograde.
only the Czech aristocracy was mainly Germanized and in the urban centers the ethnic Germans (together with also mainly German speaking Jews) were the majority before industrialization began. The country side was vastly Czech majority and when the village dwellers started to move into the cities, ethnic tensions started to rise. It was very much linked to industrialization and the rapid growth of urban centers.
Re the skulls (17:09): the totenkopf (Death's head) insignia was used by Prussian hussar regiments going back to the mid-18th century, and was also used by the British 17th Lancers. It continued to be used by Prussian regiments into the 20th century, and was only appropriated by the SS in 1923, presumably just because they thought it looked a bit cool and edgy.
Apparently the quote is, “Denen werde ich einen Teufelstrank brauen!” (I shall brew them one devilish potion!” The German word Teufelstrank is the key thing here. That is a somewhat common thing to say, it can refer to a devilish potion like poison but also to a very strong alcoholic drink.
Always remember, the people wanted Hitler. They weren't standing aloof. They were cheering. With regard to economics. We had the crazy situation where the USA was paying the French on behalf of Germany. The UK kept trying to get France to be understanding in their approach, but wouldn't. When Foche read the treatfor the first time. He said "this isn't peace, it's a ceasfire for 20 years" he was right almost to the day.
In propaganda films and photos, you only see what you are supposed to see. It's in very private conversations or diary entries where you can learn what people really thought.
The Treaty of Versailles was obviously too heavy, and it is understandable as to how the Germans could recognise their need to rise to gain some personal control of their own country.
"Stalin is much more pragmatic than Hitler is." Oh, Dominic, please! Finland... the Baltic states... eastern Poland. PLEASE DO NOT turn the man who invaded neighbors and filled his gulags for the free labor (and absolute control) into some sort of better person than the head of the NSDAP.
Stalin was pragmatic though. Pragmatism is a mindset, a way of thinking and operating that focuses on practical results and what works, rather than being guided solely by theoretical ideals or moral principles. It is, at heart, essentially neutral. It is neither good nor bad. Even the most evil people in history are fully capable of being pragmatic. In fact, being pragmatic can make them capable of causing even greater harm and destruction. When pragmatism is combined with malicious intent or ruthless ambition, it enables individuals to act strategically and effectively toward those harmful goals.
@bolivar2153 , you can call killing all one's military leaders with a rising military power to the west pragmatic. I call it a mixture of extreme paranoia and stupidity.
@@edwardloomis887 Paranoia and pragmatism aren’t mutually exclusive. Stalin’s purges were certainly driven by extreme paranoia, but they were also part of his strategy to consolidate absolute power. It may have ultimately proven to be short-sighted and harmful, but it was still rooted in a cold, calculated logic. Pragmatism doesn't imply wisdom or guarantee success.
Since 2008 or so, it seemed that when any writer and video content creator had a topic around Hitler, there would be no shortage of external parties trying to shift the focus to Stalin. However, when the topic was about Stalin, then the topic would stay as around Stalin. WW2 revisionism is truly effective, making sure just about every negative action associated with Hitler is somehow blamed on Stalin.
33:55 It's closer than you think - in the US they tell Irish jokes about Polacks, which might have come from German immigrants. I think Germans tell Irish jokes about Bavarians, and Italians tell them about policeman.
I would compare the remembrances of the 'good Hitler economy' to those of the 'good Hugo Chavez economy'. Chavez's highly praised(by the Western left) policies were propped up by high oil prices. Though he'd died in timely fashion while prices remained high, his successor's continuation of those policies lead to the complete destruction of the Venezuelan economy. Likewise, had Hitler dropped dead in '39, any peace-mined successor would've been faced with a looming economic catastrophe.
The person of the dictator influences the regime, but Hitler was only following up on deeper currents from the 19th century - that was when the idea of the German nation as a chosen nation from an evolutionary point of view arose. In the mid-19th century, the Czechs were offered the opportunity to become part of the newly created German nation, even while preserving their Czech language, but the Czech leaders politely refused - this refusal was crucial for further German-Czech relations, because while until then "the Czechs were typical Germans" (Otto von Bismarck), after this refusal the Czechs were portrayed exclusively negatively. At the end of the First World War, the Germans said that if they won the war, they would definitively solve the "Czech question", which actually led to the creation of Czechoslovakia.
@Gorbyrev Usually, the frontal lobe sometimes temperol lobe and less frequently the brain stem itself which is often fatal. Gawd awful business, really.
This series reminded me that empires often end because of the hubris and stupidity of their ruling classes. Britain's decision to confront Germany in 1939 ended the British Empire. It could not defeat Germany and destroyed its empire trying. It wasn't a war it had to fight or could win. The country went bankrupt in 1947 and was preyed upon by the US. Benn Steil's book 'The Battle of Bretton Woods' explains how Britain left itself vulnerable to American vultures. Palmerston could have gone to war with the US and Prussia in the 1860s but decided it could be suicidal. Gladstone stayed out of the Franco-Prussian War. Salisbury backed down when confronted by the US over Venezuela. This was when Britain was at the peak of its economic power.
Spot on. Don’t expect establishment lackeys with profitable careers to espouse this though. Sandbrook and Holland join the pantheon of conformist shills as Ferguson and Lord Roberts are….
The decision to confront Hitler in 1939 was the correct one for the British Empire. It was obvious by then that France would be next after Poland and there was no way could Britain abandon the Anglo-French alliance in 1939.
@@tvgerbil1984You’re going to have to corroborate that assertion. Further, none of these fraudulent mainstream historians have got to answer why divisions from France and the UK were not sent to Czech after ceding the Sudetenland. It’s all a lot of myth making bullshit designed to support a failed British establishment’s intervention in the war that wrecked our future prosperity. The idea that we cooked up the Polish gtee on moral grounds is total dog crap. There is no mention of that in Cabinet minutes or the foreign office. It was the most colossal mistake in British history but in the dust and rubble the people had to be fed a complete load of bs to try and restore any national pride. It continues to this day, and anyone who asserts otherwise is basically destroyed. Historians have made fortunes over decades propping up the national myth….
@@ColonelMuppet Britain's limited ability to send only two infantry divisions to Europe in 1938 was disclosed in the report by the Chiefs of Staff (Paper no COS 765) which was submitted to the British cabinet. In the conclusion of the report, the Chiefs Gort, Newall and Backhouse plainly told the British cabinet that "no pressure that Great Britain and France can bring to bear, either by sea, on land or in the air, can prevent Germany from overrunning Bohemia ....". The document can be obtained from the British National Archives if you search for cabinet memoranda in 1938. Military option was not available to Chamberlain. The best he could do was to buy time for Britain to rearm.
Saved Pole? Is that a joke? Poland was not saved , but also betrayed! It is a historical fact that Poland was betrayed by its allies in 1939! This betrayal of Poland in 1939 was not only dishonest but it was also a military stupidity of truly monumental dimensions. The opportunity to fight a brief, localized war against Germany was therefore lost in September 1939. In hindsight, also lost were the opportunities to save millions of lives and to have prevented the creation of conditions that led to the Cold War. As General Ironside the Chief of the British General Staff stated in 1945, after much of Europe was in ruins and 70 million have died, "Militarily we should have gone all out against the German the minute Germans invaded Poland. ... We did not ... And so we missed the strategical advantage of the Germans being engaged in the East. We thought completely defensively and of ourselves.
In 1939 Britain and France signed a series of military agreements with Poland that contained very specific promises. Three main actions were agreed that the French and British should take in the event of a German raid.: 1. France immediately carries out an air campaign according to a pre-determined plan. 2. As soon as part of the French troops are ready (on the third day or so), France will progressively launch offensive actions with limited targets. 3. As soon as the main effort of Germany was directed against Poland, France with support from the British (from the fifteenth day onward) would begin with the bulk of its troops an offensive action against Germany. Three days after the German raid on Poland, France and Great Britain actually declared war on Germany. BUT... the declaration of war in 1939 against Germany served only for saving face. This was the continuation of British and French appeasement politics of the 30s. The inaction of the French and British was the message to Germany: Be satisfied with Poland. Do not attack us behind the Maginot Line. We do not attack you either! With the alliance agreement, the French and British promised to support Poland with all their might in the event of a German raid with a massive attack in the West. But the British and the French did not intend to keep to the contractual commitment. They wanted to sacrifice Poland for peace with the Germans! They have betrayed Poland! The attack had been promised in the contract. Instead of attacking, they did that Phoney War, in German "Sitzkrieg" called. The German name is the most appropriate Sitzkrieg! Means war while sitting! The British and French sat around instead of attacking. There was an agreement with Poland and an offensive plan with three crucial elements in the event of a German raid on Polend. 1. The allies immediately carries out an air campaign following a pre-determined plan. 2. As soon as part of the French troops are ready no later than three days after the raid, the allies will progressively launch offensive actions initially with limited strength. 3. As soon as the main effort of Germany was directed against Poland, the allies would begin (with effect from the fifteenth day) an offensive action against Germany with the bulk of its troops. One should also keep in mind that Poland held out as long as was agreed with the French and British before the war, so that the French and British had enough time for the promised massive offensive in the west. But these Polish "allies" did not massively attack in the west, therefore the opportunity for a victory against Germany was wasted. Because if the French had massively attacked in the West with British support as agreed with Poland, then the Germans would certainly have lost the war. The Germans would have lost the war because they were not prepared for a two-fronts war! The Germans had nothing in the West in 1939. Only inferior reserves with only few tanks and hardly any air support. 90% of German combat aircraft were in Poland. Part of the reserve were 808000 reserve without training! WITHOUT TRAINING! That was 110 French and British divisions with a large number of tanks, artillery and aircraft against only 23 German divisions with almost no tanks, aircraft and artillery. At the Nuremberg Trials, German military commander Alfred Jodl said that "if we did not collapse already in the year 1939 that was due only to the fact that during the Polish campaign, the approximately 110 French and British divisions in the West were held completely inactive against the 23 German divisions." German General Siegfried Westphal stated that if the French had attacked in full force in September 1939 the German army "could only have held out for one or two weeks." Franz Halder Chief of the German General Staff of the Army documents this fact in his war diary. "The Wehrmacht had been on the verge of a military logistical catastrophe in the Polish campaign. The happy ending after a few weeks saved her from having to stop the fight because of insufficient ammunition." So the Germans were by no means the invincible superpower in 1939, as is often wrong claimed, which was allegedly completely superior to Poland, France and the British. In fact, they were very clearly inferior to the Poles, French and British and were only able to win because the Polish allies betrayed Poland because they did not attack massively with all their might in the west as had been agreed before the war. This shameful behavior of inaction is usually called the Phoney War. The German name "Sitzkrieg" for the Phoney War is better appropriate! Because that means war while sitting! ! Yes, the British and French sat around instead of attacking and and the Polish soldiers died at the front! The French call this war of inaction Drôle de guerra, which translates funny war. Yes, that's very fitting, because they had fun on the fake front and even danced! There is actually a German war newsreel from 1939 in which French soldiers are shown dancing on the fake "front"! In this German video entitled “Ein seltsamer Krieg - Frankreich 1939/40” (A strange war - France 1939/40), this German war newsreel is shown with the dancing French soldiers on the fake front: ruclips.net/video/HVBt9vO4tPQ/видео.html The Germans set up large speakers and played music to the French and the French danced to this music at a front that didn't deserve the name front. This happened in 1939 when the Poles fought desperately against the Germans and hoped for the massive attack by the French and British in the West. The Poles did not know that the French were dancing instead of fighting at that time. This German documentary shows the French soldiers dance instead of fighting on the "front" wich wasn't there. The time when the dancing Frenchmen are shown and the Germans place the speakers beforehand is 29:30 One can also see how the German soldiers play like children on the non-existent front, because they are not afraid of the French soldiers at all. The point in the video, in which the German soldiers play like children, showing that they are not at all afraid of the French, shown in the time 28:40! Yes, all of this makes the betrayal in 1939 very clear!
correct. Sounded like one of these they/thems we got walking around today. My other favorite trait of these gentlemen is that Stalin was only 5ft 4inches tall. i love that
AJP Taylor believed Hitler was another Bismarck which was a ludicrous comparison. Taylor stupidly didn’t bother to read Mein Kampf. Hitler was a Keynesian, and spent money on public works and the military. He was adopting similar policies to FDR and Reagan, which helped create growth. Hitler spent 17% of GDP on defence in 1938, it was obvious he was going to war. Britain’s strategy accomplished nothing because like Bismarck and Moltke, Hitler didn’t take the British army seriously. Germany invaded Poland with 1.5 million men and France with over 3 million troops. The Europeans were mostly cowards and useless military allies. I have spent a lot of time in Czechia and the Czechs don’t fight wars. I have always believed we should have let Hitler and Stalin fight it out and sat on the sidelines rearming, which is what we mostly did in the Napoleonic Wars. We achieved a pyrrhic victory given we went bankrupt in 1947 and lost an empire, we had to get of India quickly because we could not afford to stay. The appeasement debate has never made sense because we were too weak to do anything else.
You would be right. Try making the case and the right and left in politics will tear you apart in their desperation to maintain their false narrative that has created the national myth
From a Belgian point of view: To us the Versaille Treaty was ended in 1936 when Germany re-occupied the Rheinland and France and UK did nothing. That's the worst of all worlds. Hitler could keep speeching about the injustice whilst it didn't exist anymore. Meanwhile he was free to rearm. So Belgium informed the French that the alliance (French troops could defend the Belgian-German border, thus being an extension of the Maginot Line) is finished. No Versailles Treaty, no alliance. This means that the Maginot Line is kind of useless. ... 1938 was 2 years too late to start reacting. Again, I think that's the Belgian view if the situation at the time. Not necessarily how I feel about it with hindsight
"Thinking creatively about ways WW2 could have been stopped" - perhaps not stopped, but I wonder if France would have told Germany that they were going to stay neutral, might that have prevented Germany from taking France, all its resources, and all that defensive coastal land. That could have had an enormous impact on the war.
Very well done. Goering was neither hilarious (in the sense of "the great dictator") nor was he as sinister as he appeared during the Nuremberg trials. Goering was a pompous Renaissance prince who exuded power and enjoyed a life of luxury: "At least I had 12 good years," he commented after the war. He posed with leopards. He was upper class, grew up in a castle and was a true war hero, second only to the Red Baron. He was the only popular Nazi figure except from Hitler, but there was something strange about him, a weakness that diluted the overall impression and made his colors appear pastel. He was a drug addict. Your comparison of the relationship between the Germans and Poles with the British and Irish is brilliant. Brewing a devil's potion is not a German proverb.
However if you're read the sequal to Three men on a boat - Three men on the bummel - which is about the same three men biking around Germany it would have given you a pretty strong clue about German character and nationalism.
Tom's Goring impression at the start sounded like a weird mix of Brian Blessed in Star Wars Phantom Menace, crossed with a black & white Vampire film. Is there no start to his voice talents 😂😂.
1939 and 1945 are two VERY different worlds. The Soviets in 1945 had an army of over 10 million men. There was nothing that could be done. Furthermore, as democracies, how do you persuade your people to support more war? Furthermore, against a nation who has been your ally for the last few years. So, not at all difficult to understand.
As a Pole, I have always been impressed by and felt gratitude for the fact that Great Britain and France declared war on Germany for their attack on Poland. Some Poles, understandably, feel resentment over Poland being handed over to its oppressors, the Russians after the war. Nevertheless, I believe that every country must primarily rely on itself, and that’s why I am grateful for that support.
Good day from outside of Poland. Since around 1995-2004, there has been the rise of WW2 revisionists in the Anglo-American world who also claim to be Friends of Poland. The reality is that these self-proclaimed Friends of Poland are not Poland-friendly. Their ideology is that Britain and France should have done nothing to stop Germany. Their reasoning is that if the Anglo-French have stood by, there will have been no German-Soviet Pact. No Pact means Stalin will have to send in troops to stop the German invasion. This in turn will lead to a repeat of WW1 resulting in Germans and Russians cancelling out each other on the Polish battlefield. As for what will happen to Poland in this hypothetical scenario, they tend to keep quiet. What matters is that Russians do not get to reach Berlin. In real history, the Russians were hardly the good guys but the revisionist claim that the Germans were lesser of 2 evils definitely did not apply to Poland. A good point that you made was to refer to USSR as Russian. The historical reality was that back then outside of USSR, the term Russia referred to all of the USSR. The concept of Russian included Belarusians and Ukrainians. Much of the negative views towards Russians at that time were also referring to Ukrainians.
Britain was spent in 1945. It really couldn't take on the Soviet Union on Poland's behalf. Many in Britain felt ashamed for leaving the Poles to the wolves especially after Polish pilots fought so valiantly in the Battle of Britain and the Polish Free Army fought with great distinction and courage in Europe.
The thing is Poland wasn't seeking any alliance with France, we literally have had this alliance since very beggining of Second Polish Republic, when French send us military mission to support us against soviets and let big modern-equiped Polish Army in France to join Polish Army. And the official military alliance was signed in 1923.
As regards the German economy, mentioned between 4:30 and 6:00, can strongly recommend The Wages of Destruction by Adam Tooze. Dominic mentioned A J P Taylor and his book the Origins of the Second World War in which Taylor admitted that he had not read Mein Kampf.
German economy? The Germans were effectively bankrupt in 1939 because of the enormous costs of rearmament. The Germans funded their military superiority to Poland with completely indebtedness of Germany! Because the Germans financed their rearmament program above all on debt. The Germans could not afford that rearmament program and were therefore bankrupt in 1939. Actually, the German government should have declared national bankruptcy in 1939. Just incidentally, Poland was not bankrupt in 1939 like Germany it was. But the Germans planned to save the state finances in a VERY special way. The state finances should be restored through the loot from the countries that were to be conquered. So the Germans have prepared for the war and the war should finance the war for the Germans! For this reason, one of the first actions after conquering a country was always to rob the gold reserves of the state banks. The conquered countries were plundered, but especially the countries east of Germany, where food, raw materials, industrial goods, etc. were plundered to support the occupiers' economy. In addition, millions of people were forced into slave labor. In the factories of the occupied countries, production was mainly intended for the Germans. All of this was of course very beneficial for the German economy and was one of the reasons why the Germans were able to continue the war. The enormous military armament was financed to a large extent through deficit spending, including Mefo bills. Between 1933 and 1939 the total revenue of the German government amounted to 62 billion Reichsmarks, whereas government expenditure up to 60% of which consisted of rearmament costs exceeded 101 billion, thus causing a huge deficit and rising national debt in 1939. Joseph Goebbels, who otherwise mocked the government’s financial experts as narrow-minded misers, expressed concern in his diary about the exploding deficit. Hitler and his economic team expected that the upcoming territorial expansion would provide the means of repaying the soaring national debt, by using the wealth and manpower of conquered nations. Despite these efforts, in 1939 the Germans were only materially in terms of armaments superior to Poland , but not to the British, the French and Poland together. The Germans were actually considerably inferior to the Poles, British and French in the area of armaments in 1939! But unfortunately, the Polish allies did not take advantage of this superiority with a massive attack in the west as agreed with Poland and instead decided to betray Poland.
German economy? Germany was effectively bankrupt in 1939 because of the enormous costs of rearmament. The Germans funded their military superiority to Poland with completely indebtedness of Germany! Because the Germans financed their rearmament program above all on debt. The Germans could not afford that rearmament program and were therefore bankrupt in 1939. Actually, the German government should have declared national bankruptcy in 1939. Just incidentally, Poland was not bankrupt in 1939 like Germany it was. But the Germans planned to save the state finances in a VERY special way. The state finances should be restored through the loot from the countries that were to be conquered. So the war should finance the war. The enormous military armament was financed to a large extent through deficit spending, including Mefo bills. Between 1933 and 1939 the total revenue of the German government amounted to 62 billion Reichsmarks, whereas government expenditure up to 60% of which consisted of rearmament costs exceeded 101 billion, thus causing a huge deficit and rising national debt in 1939. Joseph Goebbels, who otherwise mocked the government’s financial experts as narrow-minded misers, expressed concern in his diary about the exploding deficit. Hitler and his economic team expected that the upcoming territorial expansion would provide the means of repaying the soaring national debt, by using the wealth and manpower of conquered nations. Despite these efforts, in 1939 the Germans were only materially in terms of armaments superior to Poland , but not to the British, the French and Poland together. The Germans were actually considerably inferior to the Poles, British and French in the area of armaments in 1939! But unfortunately, the Polish allies did not take advantage of this superiority with a massive attack in the west as agreed with Poland and instead decided to betray Poland.
I was not expecting the jab at Mearsheimer there. I got to say, although he might come across as a “Putinophile”, the man does make some interesting points. So this felt a bit uncalled for. Anyways, keep up the great work guys!
The Czech lands had been part of the First Reich for several hundred years until 1806. The Czech Lands had been part of the Habsburg lands for a few hundred years until 1918. It had even been part of the 19th century German Confederation. The objection isn't that Germany didn't have a plausible claim on the Czech Lands but that Hitler welched on the Munich Agreement when it was only a few months old. So much for peace in our time.
It is interesting that when the Germans acquired the Czech lands and created the protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, they started measuring children in schools to see how much they had so-called Nordic features, and when they found out that Czech children had more of these Nordic features than German ones, they quietly backed down.
Appeasement? Tell the truth for a change, Britain, France and the USA caused WW2 by drawing up the Treaty of Versailles which re-engineered borders and invented new countries.
Dominic was cracking up his face must hurt from not laughing during the opening. The third segment is so trumpian he told the US all along he was a pos and 51% still think he isnt though he says he is a pos. Crazy man
One wonders if these gentlemen have the courage to mention and *seriously* discuss the Soviet offer of August 15, 1939. One doubts it. As they have not *seriously* discussed the many overtures made by the Soviet Union to the Western powers for an anti-Nazi alliance or concordat which began 1933 and continued right up until the last 10 days of August, 1939.
Do I understand this correctly? Hitler didn't really want to invade Poland. His dream result would have been if Poland had behaved like Hungary: A German ally against the Soviet Union. Ultimately a German puppet of course, but which would have been allowed to exist and to self-govern itself (as long as it did what Hitler wanted: fight the USSR, support the German economy and hand over the Jews). They might lose some terriory to Germany but would be somewhat compensated with territory in the East. IF the Poles had agreed to that, history would have played out quite differently, I guess. For a start: Probably no declaration of war by Britain and France (it is difficult to imagine Britain would go to war solely to defend Stalin, right?). No German invasion of Western Europe. Not much western support for the USSR and therefore probably a German victory in the East. And a German controlled central and Eastern Europe for decades to come. So it is really Polish steadfastness in the face of German threats (and German promises) which shaped the history of the 20th century. Did I get that right?
That's not right. They never even delivered the ultimatum to Poland for them to reject, and they'd already signed a pact with the USSR to split Poland. Poland would likely have rejected it if it had been delivered, but they wouldn't give it to Poland even when it asked for it to be formally delivered. They wanted it as an excuse to pretend it had been rejected so they'd pressure other countries to not help Poland for their "unreasonableness"
According to the other chap that replied to you that is a wrong assumption however it is quite a thought. What kind of world would have developed from there. Hard to imagine
@@stuartd5166imagine history if Hitler didn’t hate Jews and Stalin wasn’t a murderous bastard…. The original comment was unhinged, Hitler was not interested in working with the Poles. Aka slavs, unternmensch
@@andrewsprague4566 Except the Polish Ambassador, on the orders of Beck, refused to accept the German proposals. So you can hardly say they weren't delivered when you refuse to accept them.
Polish steadfastness, American intrigues (See Juliusz Łukasiewicz memoirs), Halifax's warmongering of March 1939 and as we all know, of course, Hitler's gambling.
@@Stashley78 Because like most popular, best selling historians they do not wish to jeopardize their careers so they cop out of anything that might shatter national myths. People like Roberts and Niall Ferguson’s entire careers are built on maintaining the national myths. Recently Neil Oliver was asked about the genesis of WW2 and he replied, sucking his teeth “I still don’t think society is ready to hear the truth…maybe in 20-30 years”
I was a pacifist when I was younger then I learned that Hitler could have stopped when he invaded Czechoslovakia or at least after he invaded Poland. I also learned that pacifists were always willing to sacrifice Jews.
Von Ribbenstrop, the sparkling wine salesman having a tizzy is brilliant, forever prepared for the moment. I’m surprised he got the non-aggression pact done with the Soviets. Molotov must have provided his pen or something.
The military occupation of Czechoslovakia post Munich - a great many young englishmen joined the military in 1938 realising that war was only a matter of time.
Excellent video. The occupation of Prague was hugely significant. A great "what-if" is, what if Hitler had gone all out for Danzig before occupying Prague?
I had to stop reading A.J.P Taylor halfway through due to some of the twist he did to try to make him “just another statesman”. I thought it would be a cool mental exercise for myself, but alas I was exhausted.
what would the 20th century have looked like if WW1 had not happened. I'm thinking that the rise of the Nazi party may never have gathered support/momentum
At 36:28 Tom wonders of there was ever a non-agressionpact which worked. Actually there is one which did, in a way, for a while, and (surprise!) Stalin was one of the signatories of this pact. In april 1941 the Soviet Union signed a non-agressionpact with Japan. It was beneficial for the Japanese, they didn't need to worry about a Soviet invasion, while they were rampaging around the Pacific. For the Soviets it meant that their soldiers stationed in the far-east could be relocated to the west to fight the Germans. On april 5th, 1945 the Soviet Union denounced this pact. It had every right to do this, this agreement had a clause making this possible. However, after the denounciation, the Soviets had to wait a year before the could open hostilities with Japan. On august 8th 1945, four months later, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan. But four months.... That's almost a year..
@@AFGuidesHD i guess it worked in the interests of the signatories. They didn't need to worry about the other invading, while they were fighting a (existential) war far removed from their shared border.
@@AFGuidesHD I guess mainly the 'picking a fight with the largest industrial power in the world'-thing didn't work out too well for Japan. The moment the Soviets denounced the pact, the war was already lost for Japan. The Soviet invasion of Manchuria was just another nail in the coffin created for Japan by the United States.
The dismissive take on Mearsheimer is disappointing. He understands great power politics, unlike most British historians these days. Salisbury. Gladstone and Palmerston understood that the job of the PM was to avoid great power conflict. Salisbury said: “English policy is to float lazily downstream, occasionally putting out a diplomatic boathook to avoid collisions.” Palmerston and Gladstone did nothing to stop Prussia from crushing Denmark, Austria, and France. They only fought wars they thought they could win. They would have thought fighting Germany over Poland was insane, given the size of the German military and its known plans to invade the Soviet Union. Many Americans believe the British establishment is delusional and has suicidal tendencies. The US was unwilling to risk a war with Russia over Ukraine, and they could not understand why Britain would be. I have been to Ukraine and to misquote Bismarck, it is not worth the sound bones of a British grenadier. Britain knew France would collapse in 1940 and it would be on its own.
Can't wait to see what happens next? This is only part 1 of our 3 part series HITLER'S WAR ON POLAND, parts 2 and 3 are already available to members of the RUclips channel, and members of The Rest Is History Club, join here to watch part 2 now:
ruclips.net/channel/UCUYK0BJZF3yNb2fw1EdAXUQjoin
It is a historical fact that Poland was betrayed by its allies in 1939! This betrayal of Poland in 1939 was not only dishonest but it was also a military stupidity of truly monumental dimensions. The opportunity to fight a brief, localized war against Germany was therefore lost in September 1939. In hindsight, also lost were the opportunities to save millions of lives and to have prevented the creation of conditions that led to the Cold War. As General Ironside the Chief of the British General Staff stated in 1945, after much of Europe was in ruins and 70 million have died, "Militarily we should have gone all out against the German the minute Germans invaded Poland. ... We did not ... And so we missed the strategical advantage of the Germans being engaged in the East. We thought completely defensively and of ourselves.
In 1939 Britain and France signed a series of military agreements with Poland that contained very specific promises. Three main actions were agreed that the French and British should take in the event of a German raid.: 1. France immediately carries out an air campaign according to a pre-determined plan. 2. As soon as part of the French troops are ready (on the third day or so), France will progressively launch offensive actions with limited targets. 3. As soon as the main effort of Germany was directed against Poland, France with support from the British (from the fifteenth day onward) would begin with the bulk of its troops an offensive action against Germany. Three days after the German raid on Poland, France and Great Britain actually declared war on Germany. BUT... the declaration of war in 1939 against Germany served only for saving face. This was the continuation of British and French appeasement politics of the 30s. The inaction of the French and British was the message to Germany: Be satisfied with Poland. Do not attack us behind the Maginot Line. We do not attack you either! With the alliance agreement, the French and British promised to support Poland with all their might in the event of a German raid with a massive attack in the West. But the British and the French did not intend to keep to the contractual commitment. They wanted to sacrifice Poland for peace with the Germans! They have betrayed Poland! The attack had been promised in the contract. Instead of attacking, they did that Phoney War, in German "Sitzkrieg" called. The German name is the most appropriate Sitzkrieg! Means war while sitting! The British and French sat around instead of attacking. There was an agreement with Poland and an offensive plan with three crucial elements in the event of a German raid on Polend. 1. The allies immediately carries out an air campaign following a pre-determined plan. 2. As soon as part of the French troops are ready no later than three days after the raid, the allies will progressively launch offensive actions initially with limited strength. 3. As soon as the main effort of Germany was directed against Poland, the allies would begin (with effect from the fifteenth day) an offensive action against Germany with the bulk of its troops. One should also keep in mind that Poland held out as long as was agreed with the French and British before the war, so that the French and British had enough time for the promised massive offensive in the west. But these Polish "allies" did not massively attack in the west, therefore the opportunity for a victory against Germany was wasted. Because if the French had massively attacked in the West with British support as agreed with Poland, then the Germans would certainly have lost the war. The Germans would have lost the war because they were not prepared for a two-fronts war! The Germans had nothing in the West in 1939. Only inferior reserves with only few tanks and hardly any air support. 90% of German combat aircraft were in Poland. Part of the reserve were 808000 reserve without training! WITHOUT TRAINING! That was 110 French and British divisions with a large number of tanks, artillery and aircraft against only 23 German divisions with almost no tanks, aircraft and artillery. At the Nuremberg Trials, German military commander Alfred Jodl said that "if we did not collapse already in the year 1939 that was due only to the fact that during the Polish campaign, the approximately 110 French and British divisions in the West were held completely inactive against the 23 German divisions." German General Siegfried Westphal stated that if the French had attacked in full force in September 1939 the German army "could only have held out for one or two weeks." Franz Halder Chief of the German General Staff of the Army documents this fact in his war diary. "The Wehrmacht had been on the verge of a military logistical catastrophe in the Polish campaign. The happy ending after a few weeks saved her from having to stop the fight because of insufficient ammunition." So the Germans were by no means the invincible superpower in 1939, as is often wrong claimed, which was allegedly completely superior to Poland, France and the British. In fact, they were very clearly inferior to the Poles, French and British and were only able to win because the Polish allies betrayed Poland because they did not attack massively with all their might in the west as had been agreed before the war. This shameful behavior of inaction is usually called the Phoney War. The German name "Sitzkrieg" for the Phoney War is better appropriate! Because that means war while sitting! ! Yes, the British and French sat around instead of attacking and and the Polish soldiers died at the front! The French call this war of inaction Drôle de guerra, which translates funny war. Yes, that's very fitting, because they had fun on the fake front and even danced! There is actually a German war newsreel from 1939 in which French soldiers are shown dancing on the fake "front"! In this German video entitled “Ein seltsamer Krieg - Frankreich 1939/40” (A strange war - France 1939/40), this German war newsreel is shown with the dancing French soldiers on the fake front: ruclips.net/video/HVBt9vO4tPQ/видео.html The Germans set up large speakers and played music to the French and the French danced to this music at a front that didn't deserve the name front. This happened in 1939 when the Poles fought desperately against the Germans and hoped for the massive attack by the French and British in the West. The Poles did not know that the French were dancing instead of fighting at that time. This German documentary shows the French soldiers dance instead of fighting on the "front" wich wasn't there. The time when the dancing Frenchmen are shown and the Germans place the speakers beforehand is 29:30 One can also see how the German soldiers play like children on the non-existent front, because they are not afraid of the French soldiers at all. The point in the video, in which the German soldiers play like children, showing that they are not at all afraid of the French, shown in the time 28:40! Yes, all of this makes the betrayal in 1939 very clear!
By the way, the Soviets would not have attacked Poland in such a situation in which the Germans were defeated. If the French and British had massively attacked in the West, as agreed with Poland, Soviets would not have dared to raid Poland with the weak Red Army. Because Soviets did not want a war against the British and French, who might have been supported by the Americans. The Soviets also knew that, as in the war of 1919-21, the Poles would fight to the limit. So the Soviets waited and watched the reaction of the British and French. Only when it was obvious that the British and French would betray Poland did they raid Poland. Soviets knew they were inferior because the red army was in a miserable condition. The fact that the Red Army was in a bad state was also shown by the fight against Polish troops. The Soviets even had problems with the Polish Border Protection Corps (KOP) in 1939! For example in the Battle of Szack a 4,000 men KOP troop without air support and without tanks and only 16 piece of artillery defeated 13 000 Soviets supported by 15 tanks and 15 piece of artillery. All of the Soviet tanks involved were destroyed or captured in the battle! The Soviet units were taken by surprise and after a short hand-to-hand fight the Soviet forces were routed. Only a small part of the motorized infantry managed to retreat, but had to leave behind all their trucks, artillery and 9 T-26 tanks. The Poles also captured the staff headquarters. So with this weak red army the Soviets would not have dared to attack Poland in a situation while the Germans lost the war. But unfortunately the Polish allies decided to betray Poland and when the Soviets realized this they attacked Poland too.
💡EUROPEANS worldwide Should research this and NOT FEEL GUILTY for wanting them out.
MAURICE SAMUEL 1924👉🏻
"We $lenders, we, the destroyers, will remain the destroyers for ever. Nothing that you say or do will meet our needs and demands. We will for ever destroy because we need a world of our own.
You must look up the text.
@@GreatPolishWingedHussars Nice to know of someone reminding viewers of the facts that the USSR was at most a side opportunist in 1939. Your opinion is not popular among revisionists who argue that Britain and France should not have been involved.
The argument is no Western Allied involvement means Germany will not approach USSR for the pact. No pact means the USSR will have to fight Germany which in turn will result both sides cancelling each other on the Polish battlefield.
This podcast is a treasure. Here’s to many years of podcasts to come.
All of your claims are wrong and completely contradict historical truth. All German offers to Poland were fake. These offers you mentioned to Poland were only intended to cover up their true intentions. Because they really planned to conquer all of Poland. After the conquest, they wanted to exterminate the Polish population in accordance with their Nazi ideology. So they began carrying out the genocide immediately after the attack to conquer Poland, as the various massacres of Polish prisoners of war and civilians show. They then continued the genocide after the conquest of Poland. Even with death camps and also with many other massacres. By the way, they also attacked Poland because Poland had the largest Jewish population. Because they wanted to carry out a genocide on them in accordance with their Nazi ideology.
No matter what a fool says about it in his book. There was absolutely no weakness of the Polish Western allies. As I explained the historical facts in detail in my comment above, the British and French were completely superior to the weak German troops in the west in 1939. The fact that the allied troops remained almost completely inactive after the German raid on Poland was of course a betrayal. It is common knowledge that not supporting an ally with your troops in the fight when the ally is raided it is a betrayal. Also such an absurd claim that the Polish government allegedly underestimated the Germans. Poland did not underestimate the danger, which is why Poland allied itself with the French and British. This is also why Poland has heavily rearmed. Poland actually armed itself well enough that Poland was able to hold out the fight against the Germans for as long as was agreed with the British and French, who then promised to massively attack in the West. But as I have already determined, they did not stick to the contractually agreed promise of support and thereby betrayed Poland.
It is also completely absurd to criticize the Polish government in this context.
The Polish government behaved completely correctly and armed itself sufficiently to last the agreed time in the fight against the Germans. It was also completely right to ally with the two strong powers. The Polish government could not have suspected that they were intending to betray Poland. Because this betrayal was actually unimaginable and completely absurd and insane. As the British historian Roger Moorhaus rightly stated in his article entitled "Poland was betrayed": The military inaction of the Polish allies was the worst thing that could have happened to Poland. It was a hideous betrayal.
By the way, they wanted to reach the much larger territories of the Soviet Union via Poland, which they then wanted to conquer up to the Ural Mountains. There they planned the same thing as with the wanted with all Slavs. They wanted to exterminate the Slavic population there like also in Poland and then colonize the territories with their own people.
All of your claims are wrong and completely contradict historical truth. All German offers to Poland were fake. These offers you mentioned to Poland were only intended to cover up their true intentions. Because they really planned to conquer all of Poland. After the conquest, they wanted to exterminate the Polish population in accordance with their Nazi ideology. So they began carrying out the genocide immediately after the attack to conquer Poland, as the various massacres of Polish prisoners of war and civilians show. They then continued the genocide after the conquest of Poland. Even with death camps and also with many other massacres. By the way, they also attacked Poland because Poland had the largest Jewish population. Because they wanted to carry out a genocide on them in accordance with their Nazi ideology.
All of your claims are wrong and completely contradict historical truth. All their offers that you mentioned to Poland were fake. These offers you mentioned to Poland were only intended to cover up their true intentions. Because they really planned to conquer all of Poland. After the conquest, they wanted to exterminate the Polish population in accordance with their Nazi ideology. So they began carrying out the genocide immediately after the attack to conquer Poland, as the various massacres of Polish prisoners of war and civilians show. They then continued the genocide after the conquest of Poland. Even with death camps and also with many other massacres. By the way, they also attacked Poland because Poland had the largest Jewish population. Because they wanted to carry out a genocide on them in accordance with their Nazi ideology.
Hitler doesn't like Czech beer? To quote the late great Norm Macdonald “You know, with Hitler, the more I learn about that guy, the more I don’t care for him.”
Odd-looking duck…
Guess I'll be listening to this on headphones in work this morning. Greetings from Trinidad and Tobago 🇹🇹
Greetings to you too !
@@restishistorypoddo you have any comment as to why your host Tom Holland enables the assault of little girls? I’ve filed a police report with the authorities per his address available online.
Oh wow, I'm listening from Antigua.
Listening from T&T as well! 🇹🇹 I recently discovered this podcast and I'm loving it ❤ As a historian who does no history on a daily basis it is giving me my "daily" fix 😊
No, listen to it without the headphones at work. See the reaction of your colleagues. I am listening from NZ.
I missed the beginning and genuinely thought Tom was doing Churchill until he said, "mein führer".
I watched the beginning and still thought it was Churchill 😅
@@unbabunga229 what a weird thing to say
@@jpstapylton making negative remarks at people for no reason over the internet, is a lot weirder
@@unbabunga229 making comparisons that make no actual, factual or literal sense such as what you did is deranged get help babes
They do good English accents
Listening to this podcast for the first time. What an absolute gem of a find. I'm sitting here on a hillside in the West of Ireland, with the Atlantic winds howling around the house, with a cup of tea and the fire lit.
Perfect.
We’re so lucky to have you guys. The addition of video was a great move.
I was incredibly bored by the Second World War at school, you pair have made this so fascinating for me by actually highlighting the complexity and lead up. Love the podcast.
Tom Holland channeling Goering channeling Churchill
@@patscott8612 Hectic
Thanks from Kraków for this excellent series!
Great Impression Tom and can't understand why Dominic was giggling 🤣
Tom is the Marlon Brando of history podcasts
You mean incomprehensible?
Hes the Dick Emery
Goering; the German Churchill...they sounded so similar...
I'd have thought such a well-mannered man would know not to speak with his mouth full.
How good would a podcast on The Mob be??
This series is not only incredibly informative but also so dramatic. :) You are sharing this history in such an engaging manner! Only a side note, most of heavy guns were build in Pilsen. Hand guns (such as BREN) are being manufactured in Brno (later known as CZ).
Requesting an episode or series on the treaty of Brest-Livtosk. Such a bizarre saga and would make a great topic for you two.
Awesome. Brilliant content. Excellent live stream.
"The Foreign Secretary said that he had been reflecting on the anxieties which had been voiced by the Minister for Co-ordination of Defence. He agreed that there was probably no way in which France and ourselves could prevent Poland from being overrun. We were faced with the dilemma of doing nothing, or entering into a devastating war. If we did nothing, this would mean a great accession to Germany's strength and a great loss to ourselves of sympathy and support in the United States, and in other parts of the world. If we had to choose between two great evils, he favoured our going to war." - March 27th
Im sure a podcast on 1066 and all that is a must
Really the top history podcast out, I’ve learned so much from you both this year that my wife rolls her eyes when I go on history diatribes now. Cheers to the continued growth!
I like the few moments where these two guys go from light-hearted joking to realizing the horrible gravity of it all.
I came to the comment section to say that language does not equal political identity. And I am specifically referring to Pomerania, the area around Gdańsk / Danzig. My family have been German speaking but saw themselves as Polish. At one point in history half he cities rebelled against Teutonic rule and joined the Polish Crown as a Royal Prussia. Poland was a country of two competing visions "Piast" and "Jagiellon" - one nation-state, the other more of a political entity formed of peoples of different nationalities, religions and traditions, the Polish, the Germans, the Jews, the Rus (who later became Belarussians and Ukrainians), the Lithuanians and so on. The fact that cities in my region "look German" and spoke German does not mean they were German. It's more complicated.
Crikey! Late at night in Aus this latest episode just fell into my lap . I can’t resist . I feel it’s happening now… it’s so vivid !
Same!
@@jenA9026yeah damn in a Google chat with someone in France . I need to tell them the ‘storm clouds are gathering ‘
This podcast is by far the greatest history podcast of the world. I've gained alot of useful information about several things. I really appreciate the ampunt of effort by these two gentlemen.
Greetings from Iran❤❤❤❤
I'm beginning to think Hitler was a narcissist.
people who think others are narcissists are usually actual narcissists themselves
@littleones-yeahh I suppose the genes to apprehend irony got left out in your case.
He was a real jerk
Hypnotic eyes
I think he was also a tad aggressive. I mean if you only look at his foreign policy.
I hope one day to we could hear a podcast about Josef Stalin and he’s plans for Europe. Please
Nice try my Nazi apologist friend.
"Joseph Stalin encouraged the theory of the possibility of constructing socialism in the Soviet Union alone.
The theory was eventually adopted as Soviet state policy."
So you didn't even Wiki P it😂
It’s funny how you never hear about the bolsheviks and their atrocities and their plans before you hear about Hitler’s. Bc if you did you’d view Hitler in a different light, and the same for the Jews…
@@julianshepherd2038 It's nice to hear what the scholars have to say...
@KarlDubhe try the two Stalin books by Seabag Montefiore.
Brilliantly presented. A great analysis of the evolution of the realisation that war with Germany was unavoidable.
One minor correction: Bohemian crown jewels were never taken out of Prague. Heidrich inspected them (never putting the crown on his head, that's an urban myth perpetuated by a well known film). Nazis have not seen the crown jewels as Czech. Also, there were hundreds of thousands of Germans living in Prague, Prague even had a German university, many of them lined the streets to welcome him. There is a wider context to the story here. Bohemian (and Moravian) Czechs were largely germanized by the end of the 18th century. Their striving for autonomy and language revival in the 19th century, at least in the eyes of many liberal German speakers, prevented the Greater German Solution and reunification inclusive of Austria. Czechs and their insistence on "feudal particularisms" within the Austrian empire and their cultural and linguistic revivalism drove German modern nationalists crazy, they thought it to be retrograde.
only the Czech aristocracy was mainly Germanized and in the urban centers the ethnic Germans (together with also mainly German speaking Jews) were the majority before industrialization began. The country side was vastly Czech majority and when the village dwellers started to move into the cities, ethnic tensions started to rise. It was very much linked to industrialization and the rapid growth of urban centers.
So entertaining and informative, absolutely love it👍😊
Always refreshing to learn new info! Thanks men.
Aw, I loved the “Three Men in a Boat” reference! A book I remember reading in Polish translation in early 1990s when in high school ❤
That first reading soundeded like a Churchillian German vampire.
I was thinking “Why is Tom doing Mr. Creosote from the Meaning of Life?” Was expecting him to end with “More bread!”
Re the skulls (17:09): the totenkopf (Death's head) insignia was used by Prussian hussar regiments going back to the mid-18th century, and was also used by the British 17th Lancers. It continued to be used by Prussian regiments into the 20th century, and was only appropriated by the SS in 1923, presumably just because they thought it looked a bit cool and edgy.
It was because they were the baddies
This podcast is remarkable. Accurate, knowledgeable and entertaining
Apparently the quote is, “Denen werde ich einen Teufelstrank brauen!” (I shall brew them one devilish potion!” The German word Teufelstrank is the key thing here. That is a somewhat common thing to say, it can refer to a devilish potion like poison but also to a very strong alcoholic drink.
But it is NOT a commonly used German proverb.
Always remember, the people wanted Hitler. They weren't standing aloof. They were cheering.
With regard to economics. We had the crazy situation where the USA was paying the French on behalf of Germany. The UK kept trying to get France to be understanding in their approach, but wouldn't.
When Foche read the treatfor the first time. He said "this isn't peace, it's a ceasfire for 20 years" he was right almost to the day.
In propaganda films and photos, you only see what you are supposed to see. It's in very private conversations or diary entries where you can learn what people really thought.
Pershing said the same about the Armistice. He was ready to push the Germans back over the Rhine and beyond!
The brownshirts battled Communists who were also in the streets and contributing to the chaos. The people wanted the fighting in the streets to end.
The Treaty of Versailles was obviously too heavy, and it is understandable as to how the Germans could recognise their need to rise to gain some personal control of their own country.
Hahaha Tom your impersonation 😊 and Dominic’s laughter! Precious
"Stalin is much more pragmatic than Hitler is." Oh, Dominic, please! Finland... the Baltic states... eastern Poland. PLEASE DO NOT turn the man who invaded neighbors and filled his gulags for the free labor (and absolute control) into some sort of better person than the head of the NSDAP.
Stalin was pragmatic though. Pragmatism is a mindset, a way of thinking and operating that focuses on practical results and what works, rather than being guided solely by theoretical ideals or moral principles. It is, at heart, essentially neutral. It is neither good nor bad.
Even the most evil people in history are fully capable of being pragmatic. In fact, being pragmatic can make them capable of causing even greater harm and destruction. When pragmatism is combined with malicious intent or ruthless ambition, it enables individuals to act strategically and effectively toward those harmful goals.
It's not a matter of comparative crimes, but that they were very different men and very different dictators. This is well known to historians.
@bolivar2153 , you can call killing all one's military leaders with a rising military power to the west pragmatic. I call it a mixture of extreme paranoia and stupidity.
@@edwardloomis887 Paranoia and pragmatism aren’t mutually exclusive. Stalin’s purges were certainly driven by extreme paranoia, but they were also part of his strategy to consolidate absolute power. It may have ultimately proven to be short-sighted and harmful, but it was still rooted in a cold, calculated logic. Pragmatism doesn't imply wisdom or guarantee success.
Since 2008 or so, it seemed that when any writer and video content creator had a topic around Hitler, there would be no shortage of external parties trying to shift the focus to Stalin.
However, when the topic was about Stalin, then the topic would stay as around Stalin.
WW2 revisionism is truly effective, making sure just about every negative action associated with Hitler is somehow blamed on Stalin.
33:55 It's closer than you think - in the US they tell Irish jokes about Polacks, which might have come from German immigrants. I think Germans tell Irish jokes about Bavarians, and Italians tell them about policeman.
I would compare the remembrances of the 'good Hitler economy' to those of the 'good Hugo Chavez economy'. Chavez's highly praised(by the Western left) policies were propped up by high oil prices. Though he'd died in timely fashion while prices remained high, his successor's continuation of those policies lead to the complete destruction of the Venezuelan economy. Likewise, had Hitler dropped dead in '39, any peace-mined successor would've been faced with a looming economic catastrophe.
Can I say, the intro music is a banger!!! it puts me in a great mood
The person of the dictator influences the regime, but Hitler was only following up on deeper currents from the 19th century - that was when the idea of the German nation as a chosen nation from an evolutionary point of view arose. In the mid-19th century, the Czechs were offered the opportunity to become part of the newly created German nation, even while preserving their Czech language, but the Czech leaders politely refused - this refusal was crucial for further German-Czech relations, because while until then "the Czechs were typical Germans" (Otto von Bismarck), after this refusal the Czechs were portrayed exclusively negatively. At the end of the First World War, the Germans said that if they won the war, they would definitively solve the "Czech question", which actually led to the creation of Czechoslovakia.
Brilliant thanks
I thought Tom was having a stroke. Happily, I was mistaken.
Indeed. Bur did it appear to be a left or right sided stroke good sir?
@Gorbyrev Usually, the frontal lobe sometimes temperol lobe and less frequently the brain stem itself which is often fatal. Gawd awful business, really.
@@michaellear6904 It is. It was more of an ironic reflection on the contemporary discussion as to whether the Nazi's were left or right wing.
This series reminded me that empires often end because of the hubris and stupidity of their ruling classes. Britain's decision to confront Germany in 1939 ended the British Empire. It could not defeat Germany and destroyed its empire trying. It wasn't a war it had to fight or could win. The country went bankrupt in 1947 and was preyed upon by the US. Benn Steil's book 'The Battle of Bretton Woods' explains how Britain left itself vulnerable to American vultures. Palmerston could have gone to war with the US and Prussia in the 1860s but decided it could be suicidal. Gladstone stayed out of the Franco-Prussian War. Salisbury backed down when confronted by the US over Venezuela. This was when Britain was at the peak of its economic power.
Spot on. Don’t expect establishment lackeys with profitable careers to espouse this though. Sandbrook and Holland join the pantheon of conformist shills as Ferguson and Lord Roberts are….
The decision to confront Hitler in 1939 was the correct one for the British Empire. It was obvious by then that France would be next after Poland and there was no way could Britain abandon the Anglo-French alliance in 1939.
@@tvgerbil1984You’re going to have to corroborate that assertion.
Further, none of these fraudulent mainstream historians have got to answer why divisions from France and the UK were not sent to Czech after ceding the Sudetenland.
It’s all a lot of myth making bullshit designed to support a failed British establishment’s intervention in the war that wrecked our future prosperity.
The idea that we cooked up the Polish gtee on moral grounds is total dog crap. There is no mention of that in Cabinet minutes or the foreign office.
It was the most colossal mistake in British history but in the dust and rubble the people had to be fed a complete load of bs to try and restore any national pride. It continues to this day, and anyone who asserts otherwise is basically destroyed. Historians have made fortunes over decades propping up the national myth….
@@ColonelMuppet Britain's limited ability to send only two infantry divisions to Europe in 1938 was disclosed in the report by the Chiefs of Staff (Paper no COS 765) which was submitted to the British cabinet. In the conclusion of the report, the Chiefs Gort, Newall and Backhouse plainly told the British cabinet that "no pressure that Great Britain and France can bring to bear, either by sea, on land or in the air, can prevent Germany from overrunning Bohemia ....". The document can be obtained from the British National Archives if you search for cabinet memoranda in 1938. Military option was not available to Chamberlain. The best he could do was to buy time for Britain to rearm.
Under 100,000 Czechs died in WW2, against over 6.5m Poles. So what was it better to be, a 'betrayed' Czech or a 'saved' Pole?
Poland is for the Polish to defend.
Ajp Taylor quote.
@ and a visionary one, when it comes to people still calling for more war today.
Saved Pole? Is that a joke? Poland was not saved , but also betrayed! It is a historical fact that Poland was betrayed by its allies in 1939! This betrayal of Poland in 1939 was not only dishonest but it was also a military stupidity of truly monumental dimensions. The opportunity to fight a brief, localized war against Germany was therefore lost in September 1939. In hindsight, also lost were the opportunities to save millions of lives and to have prevented the creation of conditions that led to the Cold War. As General Ironside the Chief of the British General Staff stated in 1945, after much of Europe was in ruins and 70 million have died, "Militarily we should have gone all out against the German the minute Germans invaded Poland. ... We did not ... And so we missed the strategical advantage of the Germans being engaged in the East. We thought completely defensively and of ourselves.
In 1939 Britain and France signed a series of military agreements with Poland that contained very specific promises. Three main actions were agreed that the French and British should take in the event of a German raid.: 1. France immediately carries out an air campaign according to a pre-determined plan. 2. As soon as part of the French troops are ready (on the third day or so), France will progressively launch offensive actions with limited targets. 3. As soon as the main effort of Germany was directed against Poland, France with support from the British (from the fifteenth day onward) would begin with the bulk of its troops an offensive action against Germany. Three days after the German raid on Poland, France and Great Britain actually declared war on Germany. BUT... the declaration of war in 1939 against Germany served only for saving face. This was the continuation of British and French appeasement politics of the 30s. The inaction of the French and British was the message to Germany: Be satisfied with Poland. Do not attack us behind the Maginot Line. We do not attack you either! With the alliance agreement, the French and British promised to support Poland with all their might in the event of a German raid with a massive attack in the West. But the British and the French did not intend to keep to the contractual commitment. They wanted to sacrifice Poland for peace with the Germans! They have betrayed Poland! The attack had been promised in the contract. Instead of attacking, they did that Phoney War, in German "Sitzkrieg" called. The German name is the most appropriate Sitzkrieg! Means war while sitting! The British and French sat around instead of attacking. There was an agreement with Poland and an offensive plan with three crucial elements in the event of a German raid on Polend. 1. The allies immediately carries out an air campaign following a pre-determined plan. 2. As soon as part of the French troops are ready no later than three days after the raid, the allies will progressively launch offensive actions initially with limited strength. 3. As soon as the main effort of Germany was directed against Poland, the allies would begin (with effect from the fifteenth day) an offensive action against Germany with the bulk of its troops. One should also keep in mind that Poland held out as long as was agreed with the French and British before the war, so that the French and British had enough time for the promised massive offensive in the west. But these Polish "allies" did not massively attack in the west, therefore the opportunity for a victory against Germany was wasted. Because if the French had massively attacked in the West with British support as agreed with Poland, then the Germans would certainly have lost the war. The Germans would have lost the war because they were not prepared for a two-fronts war! The Germans had nothing in the West in 1939. Only inferior reserves with only few tanks and hardly any air support. 90% of German combat aircraft were in Poland. Part of the reserve were 808000 reserve without training! WITHOUT TRAINING! That was 110 French and British divisions with a large number of tanks, artillery and aircraft against only 23 German divisions with almost no tanks, aircraft and artillery. At the Nuremberg Trials, German military commander Alfred Jodl said that "if we did not collapse already in the year 1939 that was due only to the fact that during the Polish campaign, the approximately 110 French and British divisions in the West were held completely inactive against the 23 German divisions." German General Siegfried Westphal stated that if the French had attacked in full force in September 1939 the German army "could only have held out for one or two weeks." Franz Halder Chief of the German General Staff of the Army documents this fact in his war diary. "The Wehrmacht had been on the verge of a military logistical catastrophe in the Polish campaign. The happy ending after a few weeks saved her from having to stop the fight because of insufficient ammunition." So the Germans were by no means the invincible superpower in 1939, as is often wrong claimed, which was allegedly completely superior to Poland, France and the British. In fact, they were very clearly inferior to the Poles, French and British and were only able to win because the Polish allies betrayed Poland because they did not attack massively with all their might in the west as had been agreed before the war. This shameful behavior of inaction is usually called the Phoney War. The German name "Sitzkrieg" for the Phoney War is better appropriate! Because that means war while sitting! ! Yes, the British and French sat around instead of attacking and and the Polish soldiers died at the front! The French call this war of inaction Drôle de guerra, which translates funny war. Yes, that's very fitting, because they had fun on the fake front and even danced! There is actually a German war newsreel from 1939 in which French soldiers are shown dancing on the fake "front"! In this German video entitled “Ein seltsamer Krieg - Frankreich 1939/40” (A strange war - France 1939/40), this German war newsreel is shown with the dancing French soldiers on the fake front: ruclips.net/video/HVBt9vO4tPQ/видео.html The Germans set up large speakers and played music to the French and the French danced to this music at a front that didn't deserve the name front. This happened in 1939 when the Poles fought desperately against the Germans and hoped for the massive attack by the French and British in the West. The Poles did not know that the French were dancing instead of fighting at that time. This German documentary shows the French soldiers dance instead of fighting on the "front" wich wasn't there. The time when the dancing Frenchmen are shown and the Germans place the speakers beforehand is 29:30 One can also see how the German soldiers play like children on the non-existent front, because they are not afraid of the French soldiers at all. The point in the video, in which the German soldiers play like children, showing that they are not at all afraid of the French, shown in the time 28:40! Yes, all of this makes the betrayal in 1939 very clear!
Good to see Dominic enjoying Tom's Janet Street Porter impression
That opening is the best line reading since the wedding scene in "The Princess Bride". 😂😂😂😂
daily reminder that history is better than fiction
Your Goering impression was tip top.
Was that an impersonation of Winston Hitler or Adolf Churchill?
I thought it was Dracula, Churchill's long lost half-German, half-Romanian cousin.
Göring had a rather sharp, almost high-pitched voice in real life. I wish he would have sounded as funny as Tom in his reimagination.
correct. Sounded like one of these they/thems we got walking around today.
My other favorite trait of these gentlemen is that Stalin was only
5ft 4inches tall. i love that
AJP Taylor believed Hitler was another Bismarck which was a ludicrous comparison. Taylor stupidly didn’t bother to read Mein Kampf. Hitler was a Keynesian, and spent money on public works and the military. He was adopting similar policies to FDR and Reagan, which helped create growth. Hitler spent 17% of GDP on defence in 1938, it was obvious he was going to war. Britain’s strategy accomplished nothing because like Bismarck and Moltke, Hitler didn’t take the British army seriously. Germany invaded Poland with 1.5 million men and France with over 3 million troops. The Europeans were mostly cowards and useless military allies. I have spent a lot of time in Czechia and the Czechs don’t fight wars. I have always believed we should have let Hitler and Stalin fight it out and sat on the sidelines rearming, which is what we mostly did in the Napoleonic Wars. We achieved a pyrrhic victory given we went bankrupt in 1947 and lost an empire, we had to get of India quickly because we could not afford to stay. The appeasement debate has never made sense because we were too weak to do anything else.
You would be right. Try making the case and the right and left in politics will tear you apart in their desperation to maintain their false narrative that has created the national myth
Tom does the policeman from "Young Frankenstein"
Slovaks then and now, chose the wrong side of history.
Yes, unfortunately!
When will you do a deep dive into the Napoleonic wars?
From a Belgian point of view:
To us the Versaille Treaty was ended in 1936 when Germany re-occupied the Rheinland and France and UK did nothing.
That's the worst of all worlds.
Hitler could keep speeching about the injustice whilst it didn't exist anymore. Meanwhile he was free to rearm.
So Belgium informed the French that the alliance (French troops could defend the Belgian-German border, thus being an extension of the Maginot Line) is finished. No Versailles Treaty, no alliance.
This means that the Maginot Line is kind of useless.
... 1938 was 2 years too late to start reacting.
Again, I think that's the Belgian view if the situation at the time. Not necessarily how I feel about it with hindsight
Hitler Goebbels up what remains of Czechoslovakia...
"Thinking creatively about ways WW2 could have been stopped" - perhaps not stopped, but I wonder if France would have told Germany that they were going to stay neutral, might that have prevented Germany from taking France, all its resources, and all that defensive coastal land. That could have had an enormous impact on the war.
Very well done.
Goering was neither hilarious (in the sense of "the great dictator") nor was he as sinister as he appeared during the Nuremberg trials. Goering was a pompous Renaissance prince who exuded power and enjoyed a life of luxury: "At least I had 12 good years," he commented after the war. He posed with leopards. He was upper class, grew up in a castle and was a true war hero, second only to the Red Baron. He was the only popular Nazi figure except from Hitler, but there was something strange about him, a weakness that diluted the overall impression and made his colors appear pastel. He was a drug addict.
Your comparison of the relationship between the Germans and Poles with the British and Irish is brilliant.
Brewing a devil's potion is not a German proverb.
However if you're read the sequal to Three men on a boat - Three men on the bummel - which is about the same three men biking around Germany it would have given you a pretty strong clue about German character and nationalism.
Tom's Goring impression at the start sounded like a weird mix of Brian Blessed in Star Wars Phantom Menace, crossed with a black & white Vampire film. Is there no start to his voice talents 😂😂.
I never understood how England and France justified war against Germany but allowed the Soviet Union their invasion of Poland without consequence.
One war at a time. They were also betting that the non-agro pact wouldn't last.
What exactly did you expect “England” and France to do to the Soviet Union ?
@@davidpryle3935 Well, there were loose plans for bombing Soviet oil fields in Baku from UK bases in Persia in 1940.
1939 and 1945 are two VERY different worlds. The Soviets in 1945 had an army of over 10 million men. There was nothing that could be done. Furthermore, as democracies, how do you persuade your people to support more war? Furthermore, against a nation who has been your ally for the last few years. So, not at all difficult to understand.
@@Richard-d1y I believe he was referring to the Soviet invasion of '39, not '45.
As a Pole, I have always been impressed by and felt gratitude for the fact that Great Britain and France declared war on Germany for their attack on Poland. Some Poles, understandably, feel resentment over Poland being handed over to its oppressors, the Russians after the war. Nevertheless, I believe that every country must primarily rely on itself, and that’s why I am grateful for that support.
Good day from outside of Poland. Since around 1995-2004, there has been the rise of WW2 revisionists in the Anglo-American world who also claim to be Friends of Poland.
The reality is that these self-proclaimed Friends of Poland are not Poland-friendly.
Their ideology is that Britain and France should have done nothing to stop Germany.
Their reasoning is that if the Anglo-French have stood by, there will have been no German-Soviet Pact.
No Pact means Stalin will have to send in troops to stop the German invasion. This in turn will lead to a repeat of WW1 resulting in Germans and Russians cancelling out each other on the Polish battlefield.
As for what will happen to Poland in this hypothetical scenario, they tend to keep quiet. What matters is that Russians do not get to reach Berlin.
In real history, the Russians were hardly the good guys but the revisionist claim that the Germans were lesser of 2 evils definitely did not apply to Poland.
A good point that you made was to refer to USSR as Russian. The historical reality was that back then outside of USSR, the term Russia referred to all of the USSR.
The concept of Russian included Belarusians and Ukrainians. Much of the negative views towards Russians at that time were also referring to Ukrainians.
Britain was spent in 1945. It really couldn't take on the Soviet Union on Poland's behalf. Many in Britain felt ashamed for leaving the Poles to the wolves especially after Polish pilots fought so valiantly in the Battle of Britain and the Polish Free Army fought with great distinction and courage in Europe.
Absolutely repulsive Goering intro. Well done, Tom. Nailed it too well. Had to take off my headphones briefly.😵💫
The thing is Poland wasn't seeking any alliance with France, we literally have had this alliance since very beggining of Second Polish Republic, when French send us military mission to support us against soviets and let big modern-equiped Polish Army in France to join Polish Army. And the official military alliance was signed in 1923.
Excellent pronunciation of Emil Hácha, sir!
As regards the German economy, mentioned between 4:30 and 6:00, can strongly recommend The Wages of Destruction by Adam Tooze.
Dominic mentioned A J P Taylor and his book the Origins of the Second World War in which Taylor admitted that he had not read Mein Kampf.
German economy? The Germans were effectively bankrupt in 1939 because of the enormous costs of rearmament.
The Germans funded their military superiority to Poland with completely indebtedness of Germany! Because the Germans financed their rearmament program above all on debt. The Germans could not afford that rearmament program and were therefore bankrupt in 1939. Actually, the German government should have declared national bankruptcy in 1939. Just incidentally, Poland was not bankrupt in 1939 like Germany it was. But the Germans planned to save the state finances in a VERY special way. The state finances should be restored through the loot from the countries that were to be conquered. So the Germans have prepared for the war and the war should finance the war for the Germans! For this reason, one of the first actions after conquering a country was always to rob the gold reserves of the state banks. The conquered countries were plundered, but especially the countries east of Germany, where food, raw materials, industrial goods, etc. were plundered to support the occupiers' economy. In addition, millions of people were forced into slave labor. In the factories of the occupied countries, production was mainly intended for the Germans. All of this was of course very beneficial for the German economy and was one of the reasons why the Germans were able to continue the war.
The enormous military armament was financed to a large extent through deficit spending, including Mefo bills. Between 1933 and 1939 the total revenue of the German government amounted to 62 billion Reichsmarks, whereas government expenditure up to 60% of which consisted of rearmament costs exceeded 101 billion, thus causing a huge deficit and rising national debt in 1939. Joseph Goebbels, who otherwise mocked the government’s financial experts as narrow-minded misers, expressed concern in his diary about the exploding deficit. Hitler and his economic team expected that the upcoming territorial expansion would provide the means of repaying the soaring national debt, by using the wealth and manpower of conquered nations. Despite these efforts, in 1939 the Germans were only materially in terms of armaments superior to Poland , but not to the British, the French and Poland together. The Germans were actually considerably inferior to the Poles, British and French in the area of armaments in 1939! But unfortunately, the Polish allies did not take advantage of this superiority with a massive attack in the west as agreed with Poland and instead decided to betray Poland.
German economy? Germany was effectively bankrupt in 1939 because of the enormous costs of rearmament. The Germans funded their military superiority to Poland with completely indebtedness of Germany! Because the Germans financed their rearmament program above all on debt. The Germans could not afford that rearmament program and were therefore bankrupt in 1939. Actually, the German government should have declared national bankruptcy in 1939. Just incidentally, Poland was not bankrupt in 1939 like Germany it was. But the Germans planned to save the state finances in a VERY special way. The state finances should be restored through the loot from the countries that were to be conquered. So the war should finance the war. The enormous military armament was financed to a large extent through deficit spending, including Mefo bills. Between 1933 and 1939 the total revenue of the German government amounted to 62 billion Reichsmarks, whereas government expenditure up to 60% of which consisted of rearmament costs exceeded 101 billion, thus causing a huge deficit and rising national debt in 1939. Joseph Goebbels, who otherwise mocked the government’s financial experts as narrow-minded misers, expressed concern in his diary about the exploding deficit. Hitler and his economic team expected that the upcoming territorial expansion would provide the means of repaying the soaring national debt, by using the wealth and manpower of conquered nations. Despite these efforts, in 1939 the Germans were only materially in terms of armaments superior to Poland , but not to the British, the French and Poland together. The Germans were actually considerably inferior to the Poles, British and French in the area of armaments in 1939! But unfortunately, the Polish allies did not take advantage of this superiority with a massive attack in the west as agreed with Poland and instead decided to betray Poland.
That impression at the beginning is supposed to be Winston Churchill, right?
I can't believe how much video adds to Spidermans intro. He's aging like a fine wine.😂
I see Tom's auditioning for the reboot of 'Allo 'Allo!
I was not expecting the jab at Mearsheimer there. I got to say, although he might come across as a “Putinophile”, the man does make some interesting points. So this felt a bit uncalled for.
Anyways, keep up the great work guys!
The Czech lands had been part of the First Reich for several hundred years until 1806. The Czech Lands had been part of the Habsburg lands for a few hundred years until 1918. It had even been part of the 19th century German Confederation. The objection isn't that Germany didn't have a plausible claim on the Czech Lands but that Hitler welched on the Munich Agreement when it was only a few months old. So much for peace in our time.
At the end I thought they were going to mention Peter Hitchens...
Yeah but they wouldn’t do that cos Hitchens destroys their naive, exculpatory and orthodox narrative….
It is interesting that when the Germans acquired the Czech lands and created the protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, they started measuring children in schools to see how much they had so-called Nordic features, and when they found out that Czech children had more of these Nordic features than German ones, they quietly backed down.
Appeasement? Tell the truth for a change, Britain, France and the USA caused WW2 by drawing up the Treaty of Versailles which re-engineered borders and invented new countries.
Officially appeasement. But France and Britain augmented their military budgets 400%
As Lemmy suggested, the bad guys had the better uniforms 😂
Dominic was cracking up his face must hurt from not laughing during the opening. The third segment is so trumpian he told the US all along he was a pos and 51% still think he isnt though he says he is a pos. Crazy man
Was Hitler’s “Ides of March” analogy for Czechoslovakia also meant as a point of vengeance for Germany’s “stab-in-the-back” humiliation at Versailles?
i love your fleshing out of history
your Goring...? it was a good thing you told us who you were impersonating
One wonders if these gentlemen have the courage to mention and *seriously* discuss the Soviet offer of August 15, 1939.
One doubts it. As they have not *seriously* discussed the many overtures made by the Soviet Union to the Western powers for an anti-Nazi alliance or concordat which began 1933 and continued right up until the last 10 days of August, 1939.
Why would they ever trust the russians? They broke nearly as many agreements of non-aggression as the Germans did.
In the name of all that is good and holy..enough with the impressions !!!!
"Three Men In A Boat" was more of a prep for WWI.
It made me think of Reeves and Mortimer's take on Last of the summer wine, but that was Three men in a bath.
Do I understand this correctly?
Hitler didn't really want to invade Poland. His dream result would have been if Poland had behaved like Hungary:
A German ally against the Soviet Union. Ultimately a German puppet of course, but which would have been allowed to exist and to self-govern itself (as long as it did what Hitler wanted: fight the USSR, support the German economy and hand over the Jews).
They might lose some terriory to Germany but would be somewhat compensated with territory in the East.
IF the Poles had agreed to that, history would have played out quite differently, I guess.
For a start: Probably no declaration of war by Britain and France (it is difficult to imagine Britain would go to war solely to defend Stalin, right?). No German invasion of Western Europe. Not much western support for the USSR and therefore probably a German victory in the East. And a German controlled central and Eastern Europe for decades to come.
So it is really Polish steadfastness in the face of German threats (and German promises) which shaped the history of the 20th century.
Did I get that right?
That's not right. They never even delivered the ultimatum to Poland for them to reject, and they'd already signed a pact with the USSR to split Poland. Poland would likely have rejected it if it had been delivered, but they wouldn't give it to Poland even when it asked for it to be formally delivered. They wanted it as an excuse to pretend it had been rejected so they'd pressure other countries to not help Poland for their "unreasonableness"
According to the other chap that replied to you that is a wrong assumption however it is quite a thought. What kind of world would have developed from there. Hard to imagine
@@stuartd5166imagine history if Hitler didn’t hate Jews and Stalin wasn’t a murderous bastard….
The original comment was unhinged, Hitler was not interested in working with the Poles. Aka slavs, unternmensch
@@andrewsprague4566 Except the Polish Ambassador, on the orders of Beck, refused to accept the German proposals. So you can hardly say they weren't delivered when you refuse to accept them.
Polish steadfastness, American intrigues (See Juliusz Łukasiewicz memoirs), Halifax's warmongering of March 1939 and as we all know, of course, Hitler's gambling.
51:04 John Mearsheimer a Putin lover? Shame on you, Dom.
Really weak. False equivalence. An absolute cop out to the lies of the standard narrative.
@@Stashley78 Because like most popular, best selling historians they do not wish to jeopardize their careers so they cop out of anything that might shatter national myths. People like Roberts and Niall Ferguson’s entire careers are built on maintaining the national myths.
Recently Neil Oliver was asked about the genesis of WW2 and he replied, sucking his teeth “I still don’t think society is ready to hear the truth…maybe in 20-30 years”
I was a pacifist when I was younger then I learned that Hitler could have stopped when he invaded Czechoslovakia or at least after he invaded Poland. I also learned that pacifists were always willing to sacrifice Jews.
Von Ribbenstrop, the sparkling wine salesman having a tizzy is brilliant, forever prepared for the moment. I’m surprised he got the non-aggression pact done with the Soviets. Molotov must have provided his pen or something.
There’s a role for Tom in the reboot of “Hogan’s Heroes.”
The military occupation of Czechoslovakia post Munich - a great many young englishmen joined the military in 1938 realising that war was only a matter of time.
Excellent video. The occupation of Prague was hugely significant. A great "what-if" is, what if Hitler had gone all out for Danzig before occupying Prague?
😂I thought Tom was doing Emperor Hirohito!
I had to stop reading A.J.P Taylor halfway through due to some of the twist he did to try to make him “just another statesman”. I thought it would be a cool mental exercise for myself, but alas I was exhausted.
what would the 20th century have looked like if WW1 had not happened. I'm thinking that the rise of the Nazi party may never have gathered support/momentum
That sounded more like Mr. Creosote voicing Mr. Goring. 😅
it is strange that Southern Tirol, belonging to Italy seemingly did not play a role at all, despite their German / Austrian population.
At 36:28 Tom wonders of there was ever a non-agressionpact which worked. Actually there is one which did, in a way, for a while, and (surprise!) Stalin was one of the signatories of this pact.
In april 1941 the Soviet Union signed a non-agressionpact with Japan. It was beneficial for the Japanese, they didn't need to worry about a Soviet invasion, while they were rampaging around the Pacific. For the Soviets it meant that their soldiers stationed in the far-east could be relocated to the west to fight the Germans.
On april 5th, 1945 the Soviet Union denounced this pact. It had every right to do this, this agreement had a clause making this possible. However, after the denounciation, the Soviets had to wait a year before the could open hostilities with Japan. On august 8th 1945, four months later, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan. But four months.... That's almost a year..
by "worked" you mean "worked in the interests of america and communism" ?
@@AFGuidesHD i guess it worked in the interests of the signatories. They didn't need to worry about the other invading, while they were fighting a (existential) war far removed from their shared border.
@ didn't work for Japan did it ?
@@AFGuidesHD I guess mainly the 'picking a fight with the largest industrial power in the world'-thing didn't work out too well for Japan. The moment the Soviets denounced the pact, the war was already lost for Japan. The Soviet invasion of Manchuria was just another nail in the coffin created for Japan by the United States.
Who is Theo?
Too many ads! Stop it please
Appeasement always fails !! A bully will not be appeased ,a bully has to be faced down a d resisted.
The dismissive take on Mearsheimer is disappointing. He understands great power politics, unlike most British historians these days. Salisbury. Gladstone and Palmerston understood that the job of the PM was to avoid great power conflict. Salisbury said: “English policy is to float lazily downstream, occasionally putting out a diplomatic boathook to avoid collisions.” Palmerston and Gladstone did nothing to stop Prussia from crushing Denmark, Austria, and France. They only fought wars they thought they could win. They would have thought fighting Germany over Poland was insane, given the size of the German military and its known plans to invade the Soviet Union. Many Americans believe the British establishment is delusional and has suicidal tendencies. The US was unwilling to risk a war with Russia over Ukraine, and they could not understand why Britain would be. I have been to Ukraine and to misquote Bismarck, it is not worth the sound bones of a British grenadier. Britain knew France would collapse in 1940 and it would be on its own.