Comments by "Dennis Weidner" (@dennisweidner288) on "‘But TIK, the reason WHY Hitler started WW2 makes no sense!’" video.

@AFGuidesHD This demonstrates your inability to support your opinions with fact. European colonialism is an important subject, buit it had nothing to do with Hitler and World War II. Britain went to war to stop NAZI aggression pure and simple. Incidentally, Hitler approved of British colonialism. It was Roosevelt that was critical.
7
@jackmack1061 Again rather than discussing the issue rationally. You just fling insults. And you attempt to invent what I said. I never said that the NAZIs were Communists. I said that the NAZIs and other Fascists were socialists. I base this on fact. Notice I do not fling insults, Anyone can do that. It does not take intellect or knowledgeable. What are the facts? 1) The German state seized control of the economy (setting prices, wages, access to raw materials, ect. 2) Control mean that market forces did not operate in NAZI Germany, 3) The NAZIs seized control of the trade unions. 3) The NAZIs seized private business and not just Jewish businesses. 4) The NAZIs copied the Soviet Five Year Plan with their Four Year Plan run by Goering, 5) The largest industrial enterprise in the country became Goering's sate-owned Reichswerke, 6) Like the Soviets, the NAZIs used slave labor, 7) The NAZIs let some private owners manage businesses, but controlled what they did. Others who refused Government orders lost their businesses.
3
@ matelic8 Primarily most teachers and professors are 'progressives'.
2
@ AFGuidesHD Britain did not got to war to invade other countries and plunder there economies.
2
@ Lex Bor Nonsense. America does not exploit the countries where its trops are deployed. Please open a history book.
2
@coldfusionspacexxx9814 Well you are a true student of Marx. You get full marks for accurately stating Marxist ideas. The only problem with that is that countries adopting Marxist ideas have failed. Which doesn't speak too highly of the validity of Marxist idea. Have you looked at Venezuela recently? Perhaps you missed the fact that the Soviet Union collapsed years ago. Or that China has adopted capitalism. You might want to open a history/economics book or two. There are certainly wars waged for economic reasons. There are many that are not. And of course many that economics was part of the reason for war. Just what was the economic reasons for the North waging the Civil War or the American involvement in Vietnam? In both cases, there were economic reasons not to fight the War, especially given the cost.
2
@TomTwain My congratulations. Rarely have I seen so much absolute nonsense packed into such a short paragraph. Surly you deserve a Guinness Record for idiocy. You are right about Soviet barbarity. But you are wrong about "complete impunity". Perhaps you have not noticed, the Soviet Union no longer exists. And this is because of American and British resistance to Soviet barbarity. Poland undeniably suffered, but not because of Britain and America--it is a simple matter of geography, being located between the two great totalitarian powers of the 20th Century, NAZI Germany and and the Soviet Union. It took a long time, but American and British resistance to Soviet expansion eventually led to Poland's freedom in addition to the brave resistance of the Polish people.
2
@ Filip Kopec Correct and it was run by a NAZI.
2
@ dave h What nonsense. America is going bankrupt, but the idea of starring a war to finance the debt is absurd.
2
@Tee Key But only after working for Hitler for several years helping to stabilize NAZI finances.
2
@ Taylor C Absolutely correct.
1
@thethirdman225 I would not say 'the prevailing view of history'. I think virtually all important World War II historians recognize the critical role that the Soviets played in the role. And that the accounts published by the German generals were self serving, not to be ignored, but requiring critical evaluation. Personally what I see on internet is just the opposite, mostly Russians insisting that the Soviet Union won the war on its own and the war in the West was a side show of marginal importance. And I see many Westerners taught to be critical of America in our universities adopting this line of thought. In reality, the War in the West was vital to Soviet success in the East. https://www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/air/eur/sbc/eco/sbc-gie.html
1
@thethirdman225 First of all you are ignoring the fact that the Soviets were a NAZI ally for nearly 2 years and supplied them with the critical resources need to invade France and and wage the Battle of Britain. Stalin might complain that D-Day was late in coming, but the Allies were not supporting the NAZIs for nearly 2 years like the Soviets. Second, the "prevailing view" you mention is not adopted by any important World War II historian. Ambrose I think comes closet to it, but this is not the view of almost all Western historians. Third, there was a gold shipment in 1942. It bis the only one I know if. Do you know of more? I would be interested. The Soviet gold supply was not drained. The vast amount of Lend Lease purchases was done on credit. And unlike the Soviets there were no war-time deliveries to the NAZIs. Fourth, you are correct that the General generals were important in creating the WW II narrative you speak of. But also important were the Soviets who closed their archives to Western historians. Fifth, the war in the West played a significant role in the Red Army victory, forcing the Germans to devote most of their industry to the West. As a result the Ostheer was poorly supported. Most of the Ostheer was unmotorized infantry which had to fight in foot--a major reason they failed. https://www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/air/eur/sbc/eco/sbc-gie.html As to your last point, the hate America crowd rampant on campus and the media do not like to admit that America played a central role in destroying the great totalitarian powers of the 20th century. This they like to claim that it was primarily the Soviets that defeated the NAZIs.
1
@thethirdman225 You have to be kidding me. Do you ever turn on the television or read a major newspaper (New York Times, Washington Post. etc.) Are you unaware of the 1619 Project or Black Lives Matters? Or perhaps our new Vice President blaming the border crises on America. Or left wing professors claiming that everything in America is a race issue. And attacking capitalism. Now even the Constitution is at grabs--commonly called a slave documebnt. "Critical to the Allied victory'-- just how is that damming with faint praise?. Please look up the meaning of 'critical' in the dictionary. In fact I have one of the largest sites on the internet about the Ostheer. I challenge you to find any thing that diminishes the scope of the Red Army victory. https://www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/cou/sov/ww2-gpw.html The outcome of the War was determined in the East. My point is that the War in the West prevented the Germans from using their superior industrial power (over the Soviets) to adequately support the Ostheer in the decisive campaign of the War..
1
@ Pat. More like the Great Depression.
1
@pcka12 Perhaps you can explain them to me. I think Germany was certainly affected by World War I. But I don't see how World War I was a contributing factor to the Depression. And the Depression was a major factor in the rise of the NAZIs.
1
@pcka12 I do not disagree that World War I was a massive event. I do not disagree that Germamy's sole goal was a sliec of the pie. Germany was the most industrialized nation in Europe and already had an important slice of the pie. But I do not see how that caused the Depression. There are a range of matters that have been identified as the cause of the Depression.. None that know of relate to World War I. Remember that the Depression began in America, not Germany or Britain..
1
@pcka12 Your first paragraph is nonsense. Britain and France had no interest in building America into an industrial power because they had to compete with American industry. Italy was a poor country and had little capital to contribute anywhere. There was British investment in America, but by individual investors who saw profit potential. As to America having no where to go after World War I, that is Marxist doctrine, but obviously absurd. The American GDP in 1920 is a small percentage of our GDP today. As for your second paragraph. you are on firmer ground. Europe and America are badly in debt and this cam not go on for ever.
1
@pcka12 I have lees of a problem with what you write here than your first formulation. But there are issues. Most of what the British imported was raw materials, food, and munitions. The United States did not have a large arms industry so there was not a lot of manufactured goods. There were some trucks. America was already the most industrialized country on earth. America was already an industrial power. Much of the growth at the time was due to Henry Ford and the Model-T. What the War did was to make the United States a financial powers because the Allies were dependent on loans from New York banks. The orders were placed, but they did not need Government authorization to place these orders. American arms production was so limited that the AEF mostly used British and French weapons. World War II was very different. Here the Federal Government got involved and not private banks. And the United States very rapidly built a major arms industry. And the Federal Government supported the British and Soviets (after June1941) in every conceivable way, something he Government did not do in World War until declaring war (1917).
1
@pcka12 Pat, a little detail you leave out is that the war ended in 1918. When the United States declared war (April 1917), it not only did nit have a significant Army, but a significant war industry. American troops were not committed to combat in 1917 because they had to be trained. When they were first committed to combat (early 1918), their training was still not complete. And they trained and went into combat with a great deal of British and French weapons. For example, "A Springfield rifle was by far the most superior and the only weapon needed by advancing infantry in Kyler’s opinion. The rifle was dependable, easy to care for and had an adjustable rear sight for easy aiming.The Springfield.30-06 caliber rifle, however, was in short supply so the United States outfitted its soldiers with the British Enfield .303 caliber." https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2604&context=theses (p.10). I use this quote because the rifle is the major weapon of an infantry soldier. And the United States had a goof one, but they did niot have the capacity to manufacture them in quantity when America entered the War. You can search the internet and you will find that the AEF had to rely heavily on British and French weapons. America was the most industrial country at the time, but not major arms industry (April 1917). Converting that industry to arms production took time, more than a year. Significant weapons production did not begin until mid-1918. You are correct that by 1918 (late 1918) the United states had geared up a massive arms industry, but of course before it had any impact on the War, the Germans asked for an armistice. America by late 1918 could supply the AEF, but this was not the case in 1917 and early 1918 when the AEF went into combat.
1
@pcka12 1. World War I ended November 11, 1918. There is no difference of opinion on this. 2. There was a U.S. economic involvement in the War. There was no lingering impact on industry, only a mild recession after the War followed by the Roaring Twenties. This had nothing to do with the cause of the Depression. 3. There was a significant impact on agriculture, American farmers geared up to feed Europe and after Europe recovered had production that could not be sold. This was, however, not a cause of the Depression.
1
@ Samuel Yahata It doesn't help to have a Communist Pope.
1
@ Dirk Bruere Chamberlain was not matching German spending.
1
@dirkbruere The problem was that appeasement began years earlier and by 1939 the Germans had a distinct advantage. Chamberlain's policy was that Britain did not need to match German spending, only have a military capable of inflicting damage. You say it was matched in n1939. I will point nut that in 1939 the RAF still had biplane squadrons, pilot training was NOT matched, and there was no program to build needed naval escorts in 1939. Just out of curiosity, what is your source that British defense spending matched German defense spending in 1939?
1
@ Education. Hopefully it will include the fact that after independence, India made little economic progress.
1
@jackmack1061 Wow!. I thought educated used ideas and not insults. I will point out to you two important facts: 1) The only countries which even approach the attributes that you mention are countries with core capitalist economies. 2) And that these countries only exist today because the United States played a central role in defeating or stopping aggressor nations.
1
@ Joe T I suggest you read about the totalitarian powers that America defeated and then say Western Civilization is dead.
1
@Stahlgewitter Hitler was very popular in Germany. Totalitarian dictators can always manipulate the population. Saddam's use of poison gas is a proven fact. His popularity was based on the Sunni minority, not the Kurds or Shitte majority. https://www.histclo.com/essay/war/iraq/war-idtg.html
1
@ Krampus What is odd about it? It is simply the end result of the rise of totalitarian powers.
1
@SvensktTroll Nationalist feelings do influence the public discussion. I notice you still do not mention any specific historical era. What you apparently do not like is history. And I agree the history of NAZI Germany is horrible. Tragically it is all too true. If anything it dose not fully depict the evil involved. https://www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/tol/ger/crime/nazi-crime.html
1
@minki46664 I agree with you Stalin was a ruthless killer. In answer to your question about Hitler: 1) Stalin did not launch the war in the West, threatening Britain and France. 2) Stalin did not launch a race-based industrial killing effort. Is it true that Stalin's body count was higher, but only because Hitler and the NAZI regime were destroyed after only 12 years in power. As to your comment about history. Actually, history does not always favor the victors: 1. For a century after the Civil War, the Lost Cause narrative dominated American historiography. 2. If you spend any time on American university campuses you will find huge support of the Palestinians and condemnation of Israel. 3. After World War I the narrative arose that World War I was a mistake and Germany was mistreated. This was a major reason that the democracies failed to confront Hitler in time. 4. There is increasing criticism of America and Britain for using excessive force to defeat the Axis in World War II.
1
@minki46664 I am not sure what comment of mine you are referring to here. I do agree that there are plenty of tin-pot dictators that just operate within their own country. That is true enough. But I will also note that these were dictators in small countries without the capability of waging aggressive war. There are very few examples in history of a dictator in a powerful country that was content, as you say ' just to terrorize their own people'.
1
@minki46664 Thanks. Notice my comment that 'sometimes they just stay at home'. This is the case of dictators in small countries. Dictators in powerful countries rarely just stay at home, Also there is a difference between run-of-the-mill dictators and totalitarian dictators.
1
KrissowskiM The same was true of Czechoslovakia. I am not sure about the total lack of repression, but it was part of Hitler's strategy to create the allusion if repression.
1
@ jim cherkas So was Stalin, but that does not mean that they were Christians when they grew up.
1
@ Stan Dalby Nonsense. Western banks did not support Hitler. His financing was domestic. You might want to actually open a book. Try Tooze's 'The Wages of Destruction,
1
@ AFGuidesHD You need to listen to the video again.
1
@goldenhawk352 Well I agree with you about the U.S. debt, but there were important differences. The Reich Mark was virtually valueless outside of the Reich. Germany unlike the United States was not self sufficient in food, oil, and many natural resources. It needed imports to keep the economy going.
1
@AFGuidesHD Please open a World War II history book and a map. Britain had a large Empire, but the pink of contemporary maps did not extend to Eastern Europe. Britain did not possess Poland to 'give away' to any one. Poland was seized by the Red Army in the most horrific conflict in human history-the Ostkrieg. And neither Britain or America had the military capability of dislodging the Red Army from Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe after the War. Poland's misfortune was that it was located between the two most barbaric totalitarian regimes in history, NAZI Germany and the Soviet Union. That was not Britain's doing - it was simple geography.
1
@Eddard Tyrsson For those of us who are interested can you tell us what his thesis is.
1
@ kingpin outlow The reason you can make idiotic statements like this is because of those wars.,
1
@ John Walkley True, but Baldwin and Chamberlain were in power fir several years and did precious little to prepare.
1
@ Basic Stick Figure Hardly never, but you point is valid.
1
@ Ashley Do you really not know? Britain did mot have the military capability of defeating Germany. Just how could it defeat Germany and the Soviets?
1
@teekey1754 Tee, I was not saying that Schacht was not important, but only that the quote you mentioned was made AFTER Hitler had used Schacht's policies to successfully build up the German military.
1