Comments by "Horatio82" (@horatio8213) on ""Blitzkrieg" is the wrong term (and more) | TIK Q&A 24" video.

That was Pact of Non-aggresion. Basicly Poland get the same Pact with USSR in 1932. There were no Polish-German agrement to split Czehoslovakia. That was Polish mistake caused by Polish-Czech animosity. Hitler want alliance with Poland against USSR and neutrality in war with West. But Poles didn't agree, one of the reason was Polish-Soviet Non-agression Pact. Accusation of Poland as a Hitler's ally was caused soviet propaganda looaking to reason for Ribbentropp-Molotov Pact. And I hope people start reading translation of documents. Polish- Soviet and Polish-Germany Pacts are tottaly different than Soviet-German Pact from 1939.
3
@bcamp6088 This "formely German territory" was Polish ethnic lands from 10th century occiupied by Germansfrom end of 18th century. In 1939 no one belive in Hitler's assurances that he will stop only on that! Giving up Poland basicly give up last chance to stop Germans from dominating Europe without one shot. And what is justificaton of German aggression? That independent countries didn't wan't to be a satelite states for Berlin? I see really didn't read Mein Kampf or lissent what Hitler talk about Slavs.
1
@bcamp6088 " The modern interpretation of WW2 is little more than allied propaganda (the victors write the history books), Germany was aggressive but by contrast the British,French,Americans,Italians, etc were all pretty aggressive as well" That is totally missrepresentation of modern WW2 historography and spin o take blame for WW2 from Germans.
1
@bcamp6088 That give Germans exccuse to be worse? Many things done by British was harsh and cruel, but Germans were beter because the want do the same? Strange logic. You should read what Germans did in their colonies before WW1. And stop whitewashing them.
1
@bcamp6088 Befor WW2? Americans were involved in trade competition with other nations like UK, Japan, France and Germany. In political sence they were more involved in South America and Philipines, no continental Asia. In any way they were "aggressive" like that two states. You should read less propaganda mor real historic books. American were in stage of political isolationism if you don't remeber.
1
@bcamp6088 I don't claim that colonial powers were good or evil. But you try to spin Hitler aggression and attrocieties as a normal actions. It is nothing like moral superiority it is just simple comparision. In terms of strategy UK have less options than in WW1. War with Third Reich was an natural response for German aggression. Hitler didn't stop at Austria, Chehoslovakia. He always want more. And remember Hitler start war attacking Poland, UK nad France go to war after Germans didn't agree to stop attacking Poland.
1
@bcamp6088 About warfare and morality. Allied powers didn't bomb German cities before late 1940, which happens in response of bombing London. Only military targets. UK nad France treat with all regard to their rights German civilians that they find on own teritories. When in the same time Germans commited genocide in Poland kiling Polish civilians in mass executions from 1st September. German with unessesery cruelty bomb civilians on roads in Poland from day one as a operational practice. Attack civilians targets, as a military which they weren't. Practice common in all actions in German campaings in 1939-1945. Terrorist attacks was German main tactic not accident. Many POW was killed by Germans without any real reason in Polish, Norvay and French Campaings. That is just little sample of Germans war crimes. Yes Allies do many bad things in war with Germans, but war was caused by unprovoced German invasion of Poland. And Germans with any regards comitt many war crimes before any Allied power did the same. Scale and goal was totaly different on both sides. I don't see how you can try spin that to exccuse Germans for everything they planed and done. Morality exist in war in conventions and treaties. Germans didn't respect any of them if they feel that they can avoide retribusion.
1
As a comaprition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Polish_Non-Aggression_Pact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Polish_Non-Aggression_Pact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact Any one can see a difference. Propaganda starts when Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact is named as a "Non-agression Pact".
1