General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Dennis Weidner
TIKhistory
comments

Comments by "Dennis Weidner" (@dennisweidner288) on "The Changing WW2 Historiography... and More! TIK's Q&A 10" video.

The Cold War began in 1917 when the Bolsheviks seized power. The West only began to fight back with President Truman. The change in attitude among the Western Allies began with the brutal suppression of the people of Eastern Europe after World War II.
2
@ rollo clevich Absolutely wrong. It was Stalin and Molotov that wanted to join the Axis. Hitler was adamantly opposed to it as he was aleady preparing the invasion plans. He didn't tell Molotov that he was against it, but simply ignored further Soviet initiatives.
2
@tentypek5295 Absolutely correct.
2
@TheImperatorKnight Absolutely correct.
2
@ Matt Fischer Just what is the difference between NAZIs and Communists except Hitler's Jewish mania. Katyn for example looks just like what we usually see as NAZI atrocities.
2
@ eisai gay Nonsense. We know precisely where the American carriers were and if you ever open a history book you woud also.
2
@ alex hayden Some of their industry, a great deal was left behind.
2
@nottoday3817 The Soviet Union and the West, you are correct were not allies. They were co-belgerents. The only sway that the Allies could have prevented German rearmament would have been to invade Germany and the British and French people were absolutely against such an action. In fact appeasement was very popular. https://www.histclo.com/bio/c/ind/ch/chamb/app/appi-ind.html
2
@burdjija You can talk about circkes in France, but there was one overriding concern of Britain and France, how to avoid another war. I think it is a fair point that Chamberlain wild have like to deflect Hitler eastward, but notice he made a deal with Poland which was between Germany and the Soviet Union. The historical fact is that it was the Soviet Union that formed an alliance launching World War II and both committed terrible atrocities.
2
@ Webster 1 Among other matters he signed infanous murders orders issued by OKW. https://www.histclo.com/essay/war/swc/force/wehr/wehr-order.html
2
@josephdestaubin7426 Basically correct. World War II was as you say launched by Hitler AND Stalin. And it was not only Hitler that brutally suppressed other countries, so did the Soviets. And we did not just leave our Allies. Lend Lease was replaced with the Marsgall Plan and then NATO. Stalin could have participated in the Marshall Plan, but instead decided to use the NKVD to brutally supress the people of Eastern Europe.
2
bucnasty14 Nonsence. The fact that pure capitalism and socialism has never existed does not mean that there have not been many capitalistic and socialist economies--although socialist economizes tend to fail and do not last long.
1
@ Pablo Astini This is not my experience. There were a lot of books about Hitler in the book stores. And a great deal of Communist thought.
1
@Peorhum What nonsense. You need to read a bit about Stalin and the NKVD.
1
@alanpennie8013 I wouldn't say that's it. He commanded a criminal enterprise in inolved in mass war crimes and murder, but his names on those orders was more than enough for his conviction.
1
@4Bobay Excellent choice. He also did a fine biography of George Kennan.
1
@bcgames4054 Perhaps recognized is a better word. The Soviets had been waging but since 1917.
1
@vlad78th I think you are correct, had he been well.
1
@kurt9395 Totalitarianism by definition means control of the economy.
1
@dondajulah4168 About 70,000. Millions is quite an overstatement. And the puroose was to resist Communist aggression.
1
@Peorhum Written by historians? What has not been written 'by historians'. Of course this has been written by left wing historians who approve of Stalin's aggression and suppression of the Europeans countries that the Red Army occupied. Real historians like John Lewis Gaddis and George Kennan who do not approve of the NKVD, political murder, concentration camps, slave labor, rigged elections, suppression of human rights, etc. applaud Truman for saving Western Europe. (Notice I name actual historiians and do not just say "by historians'.) You might want to read Solzhenitsyn to understand the character of the regime you are trying to defend,
1
@dondajulah4168 Do you really think Hitler can be relied in as a truthful source. If that was the case, how do you explain Goering's Five Year Plan? And the seizure of so many private companies? https://www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/tol/ger/eco/nazi-eco.html
1
@Glockenbeat The similarities are overwhealming because both are totalitarian ideologies. It is no accident they were World War II allies (1939-41).
1
@dondajulah4168 The fact that Stalin killed moire people than Hitler suggests your distinction is not s obvious as you think. And you might want to look at Katyn before saying race and ethnicity had no place in Soviet society. A good place to begin is Solzhenitsyn's 'Gulag Archipelago'. There is a helpful index, just look up all the different eternities to see what hopened to them in the Soviet Union. The engineered Ukrainian Famine is a good place to begin.,
1
@Glockenbeat I think that is a fair statement of formal state ideology, but in-actuality there was considerable racism in Soviet Society. Stalin was planning a major pogram when he died. (He might have lived exceopt his Jewish doctor who could have saved him was being tortured by the NKVD in the Lubianka.) And just look at Russia today,
1
@jjquinn295 Lenin saw that Socialism did not work. So he introduced the New Economic Program (NEP). Stalin did away with it.
1
@ Coop Kind of depends how you define old men. There were a lot oi middle-aged men called up for military service.
1
@ Al Mol. If Barbarossa had succeeded, so would the Germans have had the atomic bomb.
1
@trololobochum Absolutely correct. It all hinged on Barbsrossa.
1
@vlad78th It was not their scientists, it was Hitler who saw nuclear physics as Jewish physics. German scientists had no problem working for the NAZIs.
1
@varovaro1967 This was because of Hitler's decision as to priorities and resources and not because of the capabilities of German sciennce.
1
@andrewblake2254 That is what they said after the War.
1
@ Charles Dexter Ward Not any pro-German films, but a lot of anti-American films.
1
@EnglishShieldwall But that is all Germany had was a few Tigers.
1
@tomhutchins7495 Absolutely. The Whermacht was not a modern mechanized army. https://www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/air/eur/sbc/eco/sbc-gie.html
1
@ Tom Hutchins Unfortunately a lot more Lenins.
1
@TheImperatorKnight Absolutely. But many were actually seized by the NAZI state as part if Goering's Five Year Plan. https://www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/tol/ger/eco/nazi-eco.html I think there is so much resistance to this idea is a testimony to the extent that Marxist professors in our universities have popularized the idea of socialism.
1
@ Alec Avdakov The thing is that the extreme right is very similar to the extreme left, suppression of free speech, secret police, concentration camps, slave labor, suppression of trade unions, heavy military spending, control of the economy, etc. Totalitarianism is totalitarianism. The only major difference was Hiter's Jewish mania.
1
@frederickthegreatpodcast382 This is in correct. Please read about Goering's Five Year Plan and the extent of NAZI seizures of private companies. https://www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/tol/ger/eco/nazi-eco.html
1
@ Dom Weselny Brzozie Lubawskie No one will wonder. Here is what your "best countries" were up to: https://www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/wca/ww2-wca.html
1
German was stronger in 1941 in part because the Soviet Union was supplying the German war economy vast quantities of oil and other critical war material.
1
Teras Mus German was stronger in 1941 in part because the Soviet Union was supplying the German war economy vast quantities of oil and other critical war material.
1
@ Not Today TIK is absolutely correct. The Royal Navy cut off the flow of oil and other resources Germsny needed to wage war. This is often forgotten in assessing the importance of the War in the West.
1
@nottoday3817 Not true. The Latin Americans would have sold them everything they needed including oil. America and Britain prevented that.
1
@ TheBreadBaron TIK is absolutely correct. Just how were they different except fir Hitler's Jewish mania??
1
@TheImperatorKnight Absolutely correct.
1
trainbomb Well the SA thugs were rather like the Bolsheviks. But the NAZIs even after the SA was suppressed pursued socialist economic policies. Are you unaware of Goering's Five Year Plan? https://www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/tol/ger/eco/nazi-eco.html
1
@josephahner3031 Absolutely correct. Bit in fact the NAZIs seized a major part of the Germany economy. https://www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/tol/ger/eco/nazi-eco.html
1
@ gnet kuji TIK is generally correct in his assessments.
1
@ DoddyIshamel Actually the Germans were historic allies. It was Blucher who saved Wellington at Waterloo. And Marlborough marched into Bavaria to join with the Germans and defeat the French. Not to mention the fact that the German royal family was Gemnan -- Sachs Colberg Gotha actually. It was only changed to Windsor during World War I.
1
@DoddyIshamel Well France and Spain were the main English adversary before Britain came into existence. Russia was a relatively late British enemy, dating primarily from the Crimean War with the Great Game..
1
@ Dewitt Bourchier Protectionism has nothing to do with ownership. Both socialist and capitalist countries can adopt protectionist trade policies.
1
trainbomb They had to, but NAZI policy meant that the Germans were exporting less than before the NAZI seizure of power.
1
@dejabu24 There is a huge difference between NAZI control of the economy and what the Fed is doing.
1
@dejabu24 Well they got out of the gold standard, everyone did including the United States, but an important part of their economic program was to acquire gold.
1
@dewittbourchier7169 So did America.
1
@ Steve Burstein Chomsky is a propagandist. Do you really take him seriously. 1
1
@ Derrick Field Actually, Chamberlain was reluctant to declare war even after Hitler invaded Poland.
1