Comments by "" (@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684) on "TIKhistory" channel.

  1. 19
  2. 14
  3. 12
  4. 7
  5. 6
  6. 6
  7. 5
  8. Because unlike nazi Germany, neither country had spent the previous 7 years preparing at 110% for a European war. Do you imagine the real world is like a computer game were you press a button and fully equipped armies suddenly appear on the map? Or that democratic nations maintain huge standing armies ready to swing into action at a moments notice? Both the UK and France immediately started mobilising their unprepared nations for war in very late August 1939. Britain on 3rd Sept 1939 IMMEDIATELY dispatched its first regular infantry division to France on 3rd Sept 1939. By Dec 1939 it had just THREE infantry divisions on the continent, and by May 1940 it had just TEN fully equipped (and 3 partially equipped) divisions on the Belgian border. All those conscripted civilians had to be assembled, equipped, sent for training, dispatched to units, then the units had to be transported to their assigned positions on the Belgian border, such a process is known as mobilisation and takes MONTHS. The French nation, beset by political turmoil throughout the interwar years was a poorly organised and politically undermined and unstable nation. It fumbled its own mobilisation of it reserves and conscription of its population, so much so that it damaged its own economy by its blanket conscription of its skilled workforce, and tens of thousands of men had to be released from military service to restart its war economy. By the time that the western allies had organised anything like a cohesive military force the Germans and soviets had conquered Poland and by then the Wehrmacht had nearly 150 divisions stationed along Germany's western border facing around the same number of allied divisions (including just 10 British "BEF" divisions)... though many of the French divisions were poorly trained, equipped and organised. As opposed to the idea that the British and French could muster 150 fully trained equipped and organised divisions on "day one".
    5
  9. 5
  10. 4
  11. 4
  12. 4
  13. 4
  14. 4
  15. 4
  16. 4
  17. 4
  18. 4
  19. 4
  20. 3
  21. 3
  22. 3
  23. 3
  24. Not ANOTHER insidious neo nazi. How come when you dupes say "Hitler never wanted war with Britain and France" you ALWAYS miss off the part that says "until he was ready for it on his OWN terms". Because of course Hitler laid all his hopes on being left to expand the nazi empire EASTWARDS in peace, assimilate his new found conquests with their collective economies and resources, further build up his military power and only THEN conquer Britain & France, as they had already attempted TWICE BEFORE in the previous 70 years, once in 1870 and again in 1914, the THIRD attempt in 1940 was precipitated by the British and French not sitting and waiting for it to happen on Hitler's terms. If we had've waited the outcome would have been much MUCH different from the destruction of nazism in 1945. Not confronting Hitler in 1939 would have resulted with Britain by the late 1940s onwards having: A puppet nazi government, a nazi supporting King Edward VIII restored to the throne, and the UK as a nazi satellite state. Extermination camps in the Cotswolds, Pennines & Scottish Highlands. SS Einsatzgruppen stalking the shires looking to find "undesirables" to summarily execute. All UK males of working age being deported to the reich to be slaved to death in nazi armaments factories or infrastructure projects. And now, slimy nazi fanbois and other devious loons want the uninformed to think that letting Hitler conduct his plans undisturbed would mean that we would have a Britain today filled with rose cottages, warm beer, bar skittles, morris dancers & village cricket. How utterly devious those people are, people with greater awareness of the situation don't fall for their nazi apologist nonsense.
    3
  25. 3
  26. 3
  27. 3
  28. 3
  29. 3
  30. 3
  31. 3
  32. 3
  33. 3
  34. 3
  35. I can only imagine the emotional torment that must have tore at Josef Goebbels' soul after he realised that the luftwaffe had burned and destroyed the "cultural historic centre" of Coventry on the night of 14th Nov 1940 in Operation Moonlight Sonata, where the German's premier "pathfinding" bomber unit KGr 100 used its "X-gerat" precision bombing sytem, which the German's themselves stated could place "target indicators" with a precision of 50 meters at a range of 200 miles, to spread 30,000 incendiaries and 500 tons of bombs on sleeping British civilians, killing hundreds, destroying schools, hospitals and the vital military target of the city's 700 year old cathedral. Oh wait a minute, no!!! He wasn't tormented at all, instead he light heartedly joked that a new word had entered the dictionary... To "Coventrate", used as the verb to indicate the complete destruction of a town by heavy bombing. Seems that Goebbels forgot the word he'd invented 5 years earlier as in Feb 1945 he failed to announce on German radio that "Dresden has been coventrated". Did the good burghers of Dresden rise up as one in 1940 to protest at the heinous regime they'd helped to vote into power in 1933 and which had inflicted such unprovoked evil on innocent civilians in that far away English city (and 50 others) in 1940 - 41? No, back then it was all part of the fun game of "total European domination" that the vast majority of the Germany public thought would make them the "master race", but it didn't quite work out did it, no instead it came back to bite them all right on the arse? "What goes round, comes round", "wind and whirlwind" and all that.
    3
  36. 3
  37. 3
  38. 3
  39.  @andrewavila8682  "attempted to have peace talks", do you mean after invading and enslaving most of continental Europe? Yes "unprovoked attacks" like the unprovoked toppling of the Austrian government complete with the assasination of its president. The unprovoked subjugation of the entirety of Czechoslovakia, followed by the unprovoked assault on Poland. So when a serial rapist grabs its third victim do you accuse the person who attempts to stop them of being "the aggressor"? As for the first bombs dropped, not a single RAF bomb landed on the German mainland until 11th May 1940, as the RAF was forbidden to bomb Germany up until that date (instead preferring to supply Germany's demand for toilet paper by dropping only propaganda leaflets). The guff about a "bombing attack on Wilhelmshaven" on the night of 3/4th september 1939 sometimes offered up as "the first civilian bombing of Germany during WW2" is complete BS. There were NO bombs dropped at all on the city, the attack that uninformed nazi apologists attempt to pass of as "civilian bombing" was actually an attack by 10 Blenheim bombers directed at Kreigsmarine naval vessels in the Jade estuary off the coast of Wilhelmshaven (I.E a legitimate military target far away from the nearest civilians). The RAF was even forbidden from attacking the German warships in port for fear of hitting civilians, and the RAF bombing attack even took place in broad daylight so as to avoid the possiblity of bombing neutral merchant shipping in the area. Unsurprisingly the unescorted RAF light bombers were savaged by defending fighters. The first bombs dropped by either side onto the actual land of the other was on 13th November 1939 when the luftwaffe bombed RAF Sullom Voe a seaplane base with port facilities in the Shetland Isles (with the resultant death of a rabbit, and no hits on the 9 seaplanes or 2 RN vessels stationed there). The RAF retaliated by hitting the nazi seaplane base at Hörnum on the island of Sylt on 19th March 1940... the very first RAF bombs to land on German soil....4 months AFTER the first German bombs had landed on British soil. The first civilian fatalities of either side from bombing during WW2 were inflicted by the luftwaffe during an attack on Scapa Flow in the Orkney Islands on 16th March 1940 when German bombs hit the village of Waithe on Orkney killing a 27 year-old County Council employee, James Isbister (luckily, his wife, baby son, and the neighbour James was endeavouring to rescue from her bombed cottage all survived).
    3
  40. 3
  41. 3
  42. 3
  43. 3
  44. 3
  45. 2
  46. 2
  47. When devious nazi fanboi idiots or assorted uninformed idiots say "Hitler never wanted war with Britain and France" they ALWAYS miss off the part that says "until he was ready for it on his OWN terms". Because of course Hitler laid all his hopes on being left to expand the nazi empire EASTWARDS in peace, assimilate his new found conquests with their collective economies and resources, further build up his military power and only THEN conquer Britain & France, as they had already attempted TWICE BEFORE in the previous 70 years, once in 1870 and again in 1914, the THIRD attempt in 1940 was precipitated by the British and French not sitting and waiting for it to happen on Hitler's terms. If we had've waited the outcome would have been much MUCH different from the destruction of nazism in 1945. Not confronting Hitler in 1939 would have resulted with Britain by the late 1940s onwards having: A puppet nazi government, a nazi supporting King Edward VIII restored to the throne, and the UK as a nazi satellite state. Extermination camps in the Cotswolds, Pennines & Scottish Highlands. SS Einsatzgruppen stalking the shires looking to find "undesirables" to summarily execute. All UK males of working age being deported to the reich to be slaved to death in nazi armaments factories or infrastructure projects. And now, slimy nazi fanbois and other devious loons want the uninformed to think that letting Hitler conduct his plans undisturbed would mean that we would have a Britain today filled with Rose cottages, warm beer, bar skittles & village cricket. How utterly devious those people are, people with greater awareness of the situation don't fall for their nazi apologist nonsense.
    2
  48. 2
  49. 2
  50. 2
  51. 2
  52. 2
  53. 2
  54. 2
  55. 2
  56. 2
  57. 2
  58. 2
  59. 2
  60. 2
  61. 2
  62. 2
  63. 2
  64. 2
  65. 2
  66. 2
  67. Dear oh dear. More "Britain bombed first" nonsense. First German bombs dropped on the British mainland? 16th October 1939 saw the very first bombs dropped on Britain when the Germans launched scattered air attacks over port and industrial facilities around the Scottish city of Edinburgh, and the RN naval base at Rosyth. First bombs dropped by the RAF on German soil? Although the RAF had launched bomber attacks on Kriegsmarine naval units in the North sea from Sept 3rd 1939 onwards, it was actually the 19th March 1940 that the FIRST RAF bombs landed on German soil... When on 13th November 1939 the luftwaffe bombed RAF Sullom Voe a seaplane base with port facilities in the Shetland Isles (with the resultant death of a rabbit, and no hits on the 9 seaplanes or 2 RN vessels stationed there), the RAF retaliated by hitting the nazi seaplane base at Hörnum on the island of Sylt in the North Sea. These were THE VERY FIRST RAF bombs to land on German soil....5 months AFTER the first German bombs had landed on British soil. The first British or German civilian casualty caused by the bombing of the opposing side during WW2? 16th March 1940 when German bombs hit the village of "Bridge of Waithe" near Stenness on the Orkney Islands during an attack on the Home Fleet anchorage at Scapa Flow, which killed a 27 year-old County Council employee, James Isbister (luckily, his wife, baby son, and the neighbour James was endeavouring to rescue from her bombed cottage all survived). First British bombs to drop on the actual German mainland? 11th May 1940, when the British air ministry for the first time allowed the bombing of railway yards, communication centres and bridges west of the Rhine River to interrupt German supply lines supporting their undeclared assault into the NEUTRAL Low countries and France on 10th May 1940. Previous to this date the British air ministry in an effort to stop the inflaming of the conflict had refused to allow the RAF to drop ANY bombs on the German mainland, instead the RAF supplied the German demand for toilet paper by dropping propaganda leaflets on German cities. The RAF attacks on 11th May 1940 had also come after REPEATED attacks against RN installations on the British mainland, most notably at Rosyth near Edinburgh, Cromarty Firth & Scapa Flow all in Scotland throughout the winter of 1939/40. First British bombs dropped EAST of the Rhine River? On the night of 23/24th August 1940 the RAF launched an attack on Berlin. This attack directed at the Klingenberg Power Station in Eastern Berlin & Templehof airport was in RETALIATION for REPEATED luftwaffe raids on RAF Fighter Command Sector Airfields within the suburbs of Greater London throughout July and August 1940 that had already caused HUNDREDS of innocent British civilian deaths & casualties (euphemistically known nowadays as "collateral damage") this was inspite of Hitler's previous decrees that no bombs should be dropped within the boundary of Greater London. Obviously that decree had never reached the ears of Herman Goering. German retaliation for the one night of bombing of Berlin on 23/24th August 1940? The launching of the all out assault against British cities from 7th Sept 1940 onwards, culminating in the world's first attempt to create a "firestorm" during operation "moonlight sonata" on the British city of Coventry on the night of 14/15th Nov 1940, where the luftwaffe sent 575 bombers using their world beating "X-gerat" bombing system (in the Germans own words capable of placing "target indicator" flares with an accuracy of 50 meters at 200 miles range) over the civilian city centre of Coventry dropping 550 tons of high explosive (including hundreds of "flammen" (oil) bombs) followed by over 30,000 incendiary bombs. The final death toll of that single raid? A previously unheard of 568 innocent civilians, this was in addition to the thousands of other British civilians already killed & injured in other cities across Britain over the previous 2 months. The first British bombing raid directly targetted at German civilians? "Operation Abigail" on the night of 16/17th December 1940, (3 months AFTER the opening of the nazi "blitz" on British cities) the Dec 16th attack by the RAF was launched against the German city of Mannheim where 100 RAF bombers dropped 100 tons of HE and 14,000 incendiaries inflicting a death toll on the German population of 34 dead and 81 injured. Not to worry though , the RAF eventually "upped its game" and showed the Germans how to do it properly a year or two later. Don't try to hide the fact that the Germans enjoyed dropping HE on the cities of its neighbours from the earliest days of flight. The first aerial bombs dropped in history were from a zeppelin raid on Liege in Belgium on 4th August 1914... just 11 years after the invention of powered flight. Since WW2, they've learned the lesson NOT to do it again.
    2
  68. 2
  69. 2
  70. 2
  71. 2
  72. 2
  73. 2
  74.  @nickarnold814  "Why Guarantee Poland protection". The did NO such thing !!! How could the UK & France "protect Poland"? They guaranteed that if nazi Germany crossed the Polish border they would declare war on Germany, which as good as their word, they did. It was hoped that the THREAT alone of facing the Frence and the British Empires would forestall any German moves to cross the Polish border. The bluff didn't work and WW2 broke out. "Why not build up your military?" Do you think the military is made up by collecting 20 tokens from the back of cornflakes packets? Maintaining a large standing military is an INCREDIBLY expensive luxury that NO nation on earth commits to. You seem oblivious of history & reality. ALL nations (even the US) maintain a relatively small force of regular full time troops, these are backed up by a larger number of "reservists" who can double or treble the size of the armed forces within a relatively short space of time, to assemble a large standing army complete with in Britain's close to a million conscripted civilians (France had near to 4 million conscripts!!!) who need outfitting, basic & infantry training then assimilating into the army's organisation takes a long time. All of which also cost LOTS of money, the western world was still recovering from the financial collapse of wall street of 1929 and the ensuing "great Depression" of the 1930s.... all nations (apart from nazi Germany) felt they had more pressing matters than building up armies for future wars, feeding & housing their populations, maintaining their empires were the most important items, defence spending in all western nations (including the US) was at an all time low through the 1930s. Also remember that all decisions are made WITHOUT the benefit of future hindsight.
    2
  75. 2
  76. 2
  77. 2
  78. As I've been saying for YEARS the flooding of Europe with third world migrants thereby destabilising western societies and placing untold strain on our national infrastructures has a distinct parallel to the rise of communism throughout Europe the early 20th century. What is happening in the west today has very strong echoes of the German Weimar republic, political instability..... rapidly increasing cost of living making many feel desperate.... an external force bringing with it an impending national doom, an incompetent and corrupted political class wringing their hands in helplessness as things are being intentionally spiralled out of control..... and then though the darkness and chaos emerges "the man for the moment"..... in each country a potential Hitler in the making, calling out the causes of the choas and promising to lead us back to a better past where we were in control of our own national destinies. All completely orchestrated by those at the VERY top..... the new authoritarian framework of the WEF, UN, WHO, WB who want to impose RIGID control over the whole of mankind.... corporate globalism. They couldn't just have announced their intentions and taken over multiple, formerly stable, sovereign nations, and so over the last 50 years they've had their "long march through the institutions" and have now subverted those former sovereign govts like a fungus, now those subverted governments intentionally enacted policies to bring each nation to its knees, have instigated a needless "war without end" in Ukraine all with the intention of diverting TRILLIONS of dollars and pounds worth of public taxpayer's money into private globalist corporate MIC bank accounts, terrifying an increasingly poorly educated and subservient population with "fake plagues" of "winter sniffles".... do as you're told, come and get your untested, debilitating "vaccines"... or else !!!! The old process of "Ordo ab chao" or "Order from the chaos"..... more commonly known as "problem - reaction - solution" who knows? It may end up to be the "final solution"?
    2
  79. 2
  80. 2
  81. 2
  82. 2
  83. 2
  84. 2
  85. 2
  86. 2
  87. 2
  88. 2
  89. 2
  90. 2
  91. 2
  92. 2
  93. 2
  94. 2
  95. 2
  96. 2
  97. 2
  98. 2
  99. 2
  100. 2
  101. 2
  102. 2
  103. 2
  104. 2
  105. 1
  106. 1
  107. 1
  108. 1
  109. ​ @CArchivist  Accusing your corespondent of "whataboutism" is a defence used by those who want to airbrush the rest of history out of existence to bolster their own poisoned narrative and set it in a blinding, though thoroughly unrealitic relief, in your case by ignoring ALL of the slavery by many many empires since the beginning of human "civilisation". Why do YOU feel the need to focus on "the Atlantic slave triangle" and not the countless millions of Africans, Arabs and Europeans enslaved by the Egyptian, Roman or Achaemenid Empires for example. Empires who without the ingenuity to kickstart the "industrial revolution" based their WHOLE economy on human slavery? You even choose to ignore the plight of countless MILLIONS of WHITE slave labourers in the industrial economies of the world through the 19th and 20th centuries. Why not apply the same amount of scrutiny to the genocide of the "First nation" Indians at the hands of the US government? Or the hundreds of millions who died at the hands of communist tyrannies throughout the 20th century? Do you place as much emphasis on the ABOLITION of the slave trade by the BRITISH empire? The empire who when it was at the very APEX of its might, standing Colossus like across the globe, with no other competing power able to control it's desires, in THAT moment it unilaterally and against the wishes of many of those competitors decided to outlaw human slavery, and then set its full naval might to police and enforce that decision. I suspect not. I smell an upper middle class, self hating lefty turd in the conversation.....
    1
  110. 1
  111. 1
  112. 1
  113. 1
  114. 1
  115. 1
  116. 1
  117. 1
  118. 1
  119. 1
  120. 1
  121. 1
  122. 1
  123. 1
  124. 1
  125. 1
  126. 1
  127. 1
  128. 1
  129. 1
  130. 1
  131. 1
  132. ​ @thegreatmr.a3846  Like Sweden the USA up until the German declaration of war upon her on 11th Dec 1941, was neutral, and was "morally" (as if that had ANYTHING to do with matters) entitled to sell to EITHER side of the European war, which is why the precursor to "Lend-Lease" that is the US policy of "Cash and Carry" was passed by US congress in Sept 1939. The prior US Neutrality Acts of 1935/36/37/early 39 had all completely prohibited the sales of military goods to foreign combattants, as it was publicly felt across the world after WW1 that the fledgling "Military industrial complex" had it's dirty hands in upto the elbows in the continuation of WW1 to "line its own pockets". (How anyone could believe such slander against peace loving arms companies is beyond me). But under pressure from the ever powerful US "business community" and individual US corporations with their associated "political funding" (a.k.a corruption) the US govt was tacitly forced to acknowledge that US businesses (and consequently the US Govt) was missing out on a BUMPER payday with the outbreak of war in Europe in Sept 1939, and with that in mind the above mentioned "Cash & Carry" policy was passed which for the first time since WWI allowed US companies to sell their wares to foreign combattants, and make HUGE profits in the process. It was ostensibly a neutral policy whereby ANYONE could conduct legal military business with US companies, as long as they paid up front and made their own arrangements for transportation of the goods purchased, but in practice it was skewed towards the British as it was obvious that the nazi regime would be highly unlikely to be able to transport purchased goods across the Atlantic, but generally the principle of aiding two of your largest competitors to knock seven kinds of shit out of one another while you reap the profits made and still makes good business sense..... even if one of those customers was then beginning their murderous policies against their own and neighbouring populations... who cares, profits are profits !!!! But, If the US had REALLY wanted to purely "help Britain" in its "hour of need", then instead of bleeding the British empire dry and causing its collapse, they could have, as one example, sold a production license for Tetra Ethyl Lead (or TEL - The compound required for the production of hi-octane fuels) to Britain when we applied to purchase one from the "Standard Oil of Jersey City Company" in 1938.... Instead "Standard Oil" & the US Govt refused to sell one to "their British cousins". But simultaneously they both had NO qualms though about providing the exact same licence to the nazis when they applied to purchase one prewar. But when it came to Britain the US preferred to strip the British of ALL their gold, cutting edge technology and military bases around the world during the British "hour of need" in return for a supply of amongst other things, US produced hi-octane fuel. Where there nazi sympathies in the Standard Oil boardroom and in some parts of the US Govt? The truth is so unsavoury were the business practices of the US "Standard Oil" company (such as seeking furtive routes and brokering shady deals to supply nazi Germany with fuel and oil via neutral nations during the war) that it's activities were investigated and closely monitored by the US Govt... but only AFTER the they had been DRAGGED into WW2 in Dec 1941 by the German declaration of war on the US!!! The reason Britain was refused a TEL license was geopolitical, in that the British empire had a PLENTIFUL supply of oil from its colonies in British Guyana and Persia, whereas Germany did not. Why would the US sell a geopolitical advantage to one of their largest competitors to produce their own Hi-Octane fuel when they could instead milk the British Empire out of all its wealth? The US "business community" engaged in VERY profitable business dealings with BOTH sides throughout WW2. US corporations such as Ford, General Motors, US Standard Oil, IBM, Kodak, Chase Bank, Coke-Cola (to name but a few) carried on "business as usual" with nazi Germany THROUGHOUT WW2. Ford's auto production facility in Cologne and General Motor's Opel subsiduary plant in Berlin were both busy working 24/7 THROUGHOUT WW2 furnishing the nazis with approximately 60% of the Wehrmacht's military transportation needs, as well as a sizeable chunk of the Luftwaffe's aero engine requirements... all the better for attacking Britain with eh, and all the while providing US companies with BILLIONS of dollars in profit, and the US govt with millions of dollars of tax revenue The "ALuminum COrporation of America" (ALCOA) for instance supplied SO much aircraft grade aluminium to nazi Germany in the late 1930s and into the early 1940s that it actually caused shortfalls within the US government's own military aircraft production schedules during the same period, so much so that in June 1941 the situation prompted Harold Ickes, US Secretary of the Interior, to go on record as saying “If America loses this coming war, it can thank the Aluminum Corporation of America”.
    1
  133. 1
  134. 1
  135. 1
  136. 1
  137. 1
  138. 1
  139. 1
  140. 1
  141. 1
  142. 1
  143. 1
  144. 1
  145. 1
  146. 1
  147. 1
  148. 1
  149. 1
  150. 1
  151. 1
  152. 1
  153. 1
  154. 1
  155. 1
  156. 1
  157. 1
  158. 1
  159. 1
  160. 1
  161. 1
  162. 1
  163. 1
  164. 1
  165. 1
  166. 1
  167. 1
  168. 1
  169. 1
  170. 1
  171. 1
  172. 1
  173. 1
  174. 1
  175. 1
  176. 1
  177. 1
  178. 1
  179. 1
  180. 1
  181. 1
  182. 1
  183. 1
  184. 1
  185. 1
  186. 1
  187. 1
  188. Luckily more intelligent people than yourself were directing the war aims of the British Empire at the time. When devious nazi fanboi idiots and other assorted uninformed loons such as yourself say "Hitler never wanted war with Britain and France" they ALWAYS miss off the part that says "until he was ready for it on his OWN terms". Because of course Hitler laid all his hopes on being left to expand the nazi empire EASTWARDS in peace, assimilate his new found conquests with their collective economies and resources, further build up his military power and only THEN conquer France followed by Britain (or possibly impose a crushing "pax Germanica" on the UK as they did with Vichy France), they had already attempted such a feat TWICE BEFORE in the previous 70 years, once in 1870 and again in 1914, the THIRD attempt in 1940 was precipitated by the British and French not sitting and waiting for it to happen on Hitler's terms. If we had've waited the outcome would have been much MUCH different from the destruction of nazism in 1945. Not confronting Hitler in 1939 would have resulted with Britain by the late 1940s onwards having: A puppet nazi government, a nazi supporting King Edward VIII restored to the throne, and the UK as a nazi satellite state. Extermination camps in the Cotswolds, Pennines & Scottish Highlands. SS Einsatzgruppen stalking the shires looking to find "undesirables" to summarily execute. All UK males of working age being deported to the reich to be slaved to death in nazi armaments factories or infrastructure projects. And now, slimy nazi fanbois and other devious loons want the uninformed to think that letting Hitler conduct his plans undisturbed would mean that we would have a Britain today filled with Rose cottages, warm beer, bar skittles, Morris dancers & village cricket. How utterly devious those people are, people with greater awareness of the situation don't fall for their nazi apologist nonsense.
    1
  189. 1
  190. 1
  191. 1
  192. 1
  193. 1
  194. 1
  195. 1
  196. 1
  197. 1
  198. 1
  199. 1
  200. 1
  201. 1
  202. 1
  203. Incessant "navel gazing" more often than not clouds the issue and obscures any hope of finding an justifiable answer. I like to keep it simple. The western allies decree at the Casablanca Conference in Jan 1943 for a unconditional surrender of nazi Germany meant that they would not accept a separate nazi surrender to the west whilst continuing to allow the nazis to fight the war in the east (or incredibly unlikely the other way around). Seeing as by January 1943 the nazi regime had already slaughtered its way across the western Soviet Union, there was simply NO WAY that they could accept a surrender to the USSR who they were still busy slaughtering (or more correctly being slaughtered by) in Jan 1943. After the dream of a Pan European / North African / Middle eastern /Asia Minor nazi empire was seen to be untenable, It was their last nazi hope that a chasm would open between eastern and western allies, and that the west would join in the war against the east. Even the "lord of the SS" Heinrich Himmler the most dyed in the wool exponent of nazism pleaded with the western allies to join Germany against the USSR in 1945. For Germany to accept unconditional surrender meant letting their most hated and avowed mortal enemy freely into the very midst of their homes and families to exact their unimaginably awful revenge. All the political dogma and other claptrap is just a smokescreen. Tell a man that he and his family are to be subjugated and then slowly buggered with barbed wire wrapped truncheons for the rest of eternity, and then watch him fight to his death.
    1
  204. 1
  205. 1
  206. 1
  207. 1
  208. 1
  209. 1
  210. 1
  211. 1
  212. 1
  213. 1
  214. 1
  215. 1
  216. 1
  217. 1
  218. 1
  219. 1
  220. 1
  221. 1
  222.  @yingyang1008  You're wrong. Even by weaselly reducing the discussion to purely the British and Germans the first to "bomb another city" was the Germans in EVERY sense. The first bombs to fall on the land of EITHER country? The Luftwaffe attack on RAF Sullom Voe in the Shetland Islands on 13th November 1939. The RAF RESPONDED by dropping THEIR first bombs on German soil by attacking the German seaplane base on the island of Sylt on 19th March 1940, FOUR MONTHS after the first of repeated German air attacks on RAF and Royal Navy bases on the British mainland. Prior to the RAF's attack on Sylt in March 1940, they had been prohibited by the British government from dropping ANY bombs on German soil whatsoever, instead preferring to avoid civilian casualties by supplying the German demand for toilet paper by dropping propaganda leaflets over German cities. The first civilian bombing casualty of either of the two countries was a Mr James Isbister who on 16th March 1940 was killed in the village of Brig o' Waithe in the Orkney islands during a luftwaffe attack on Scapa Flow. The first RAF bombs to land on the German mainland fell on May 11th 1940, and were likewise ostensibly directed at military targets such as Bridges and railyards west of the river Rhine to disrupt the supply of the German armies then attacking France and the Low countries. Both sides in striking designated non civilian targets regularly caused what is quaintly known as "collateral civilian casualties" (Remember while we're discussing this we're ignoring the direct aerial assaults of the nazis on Polish towns and cities in the east and the bombing of Rotterdam and the aerial attacks executed against the roads of France clogged with hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing from the invading German armies in the west). The attack on Berlin on the night of 23/24th August 1940 that you attempt to portray as the "first civilian bombing", was also targetted at valid non civilian targets, those being the Klingenburg power station in eastern Berlin and Templehof airport. That attack was a DIRECT RESPONSE to what the suburbs of London had been exposed to for the PREVIOUS MONTH during luftwaffe attacks on the RAF fighter airfields of Hornchurch, Biggin Hill, Kenley & Croydon ALL of which were situated in suburban areas of Greater London, and which had resulted in HUNDREDS of innocent British civilian deaths. The German response to the attack on Berlin took place from 7th September 1940 onwards with widespread attacks on London and 50 other British towns and cities, culminating in operation "Moonlight sonata" the then LARGEST firebombing attack on a city to that date, the target being Coventry on the night of 13th Nov 1940. In RESPONSE to that unmittigated assault on innocent civilians the RAF planned and launched its FIRST purposely civilian targetted bombing raid of the war, that being "Operation Abigail" on the night of 16th December 1940 against the German city of Mannheim. Don't try to hide the fact that the Germans enjoyed dropping HE on the cities of its neighbours from the earliest days of flight. The first aerial bombs dropped in history were from a zeppelin raid on Bruges in Belgium in August 1914... just 11 years after the invention of powered flight. Since WW2, they've learned the lesson NOT to do it again.
    1
  223. 1
  224. 1
  225.  @yingyang1008  Oh give over with your "Britain started the bombing first" BS. The nazis were flattening Spanish towns 3 years before the outbreak of WW2. They flattened Wieluń in Poland on the first day of their unannounced attack on Poland (1st Sept 1939), before slamming Warsaw MULTIPLE times, followed by Rotterdam in May 1940. During ALL that time RAF Bomber command had dropped nothing but propaganda leaflets over the German mainland. The first RAF bombs on the German mainland were dropped on bridges and railway yards west of the Rhine on 11th May 1940 the day after the attack on France and NINE MONTHS after the Germans had started bombing civilians. Germany whilst then attacking Britain in the summer of 1940 killed THOUSANDS of innocent civilians as "collateral damage" during attacks on military and industrial targets. The RAF launched its first attack on targets within the boundary of Berlin (the Brandenburg power station and Templehof airport)on the night of 23/24 August 1940 after the luftwaffe had REPEATEDLY bombed RAF airfields within the boundary of Greater London, which again had resulted in hundreds of British civilian deaths. The Germans then "upped the ante" with Operation moolight sonata on 13th Nov 1940, when they purposely attempted to initiate a firestorm in the city centre of Coventry by dropping an unholy mixture of HE, incendary and oil bombs, the destruction of Coventry was an unheard of warcrime which led to Goebbels joking that a new word had entered the dictionary.... "coventrieren" which was supposed to mean when a large city had been levelled by fire and HE. Geobbels, the stupid polio addled prick, wasn't laughing when later the RAF showed the Germans how to do it properly. Only THEN in retaliation did Britain purposely target German civilians. The first purposely civilian targetted RAF bombing raid was "Operation Abigail" launched against the city of Mannheim on the 16th december 1940.... 15 months after the first German bombs purposely rained down on civilians of their intended conquests.
    1
  226. 1
  227. 1
  228. 1
  229. 1
  230. 1
  231. 1
  232. 1
  233. 1
  234. 1
  235. 1
  236. 1
  237. 1
  238. 1
  239. 1
  240. 1
  241. I'm going to LOVE this series. I've ALWAYS said that while the so called "political spectrum" is commonly represented as a straight line going from communism at the left hand end gradually transforming in Centre left/right (centrism) before moving along to far right nationalism at the opposite end, the result being that the left wing/right wing "extremes" are diametrically opposed, and the main division is simplistically "left" vs "Right". My perception has instead always been one where the "spectrum" is in the form of a "split ring", where the same progression of political viewpoints around the ring mean that the communist / nationalist dictatorships are actually adjoining one another across the "split" in the ring while the moderate/democratic centrists are on the other side of the "ring", meaning that the former "opposite political extremes" are now grouped next to each other (in their practical, real world effect) and are jointly diametrically opposed to the moderates on the other side of the ring, in this model the main division is NOT "left" Vs "right" but instead centrist "free" societies/economies opposed by command (totalitarian) societies/economies, or simplistically "moderates" vs "extremists". The totalitarians gain power in nations by one of their "tentacles" flaring up to put the fear of god into ordinary people of the "democracy", much like how the communist chaos generated in the Weimar republic or the current BS of "wokism" attempts to rip apart the fabric of society, the resultant landslide of public outcry is then answered by the "arrival" of the "right hand tentacle" of the totalitarians popping up to "crush the evil" of the "left hand tentacle" which results in .... "totalitarian order achieved out of totalitarian generated chaos" otherwise depicted as "ordo ab chao". which is EXACTLY the process that is ongoing in the world at the moment.
    1
  242. 1
  243. 1
  244. 1
  245. 1
  246. 1
  247. 1
  248. 1
  249. 1
  250. 1
  251. 1
  252. 1
  253. 1
  254. 1
  255. 1
  256. 1
  257. 1
  258. 1
  259. 1
  260. 1
  261. 1
  262. 1
  263. 1
  264. 1
  265. 1
  266. 1
  267. 1
  268. 1
  269. 1
  270. 1
  271. 1
  272. 1
  273. 1
  274. 1
  275. 1
  276. 1
  277. 1
  278. 1
  279. 1
  280. 1
  281. 1
  282. 1
  283. 1
  284. 1
  285. 1
  286. 1
  287. 1
  288. 1
  289. 1
  290. 1
  291. 1
  292. 1
  293. 1
  294. 1
  295. 1
  296. 1
  297. 1
  298. 1
  299. 1
  300. 1
  301. 1
  302. 1
  303. 1
  304. 1
  305. 1
  306. 1
  307. 1
  308. 1
  309. 1
  310. 1
  311.  @heartsofiron4ever  Who says the bombing of industry was "largely ineffective"? Albert Speer (who knew more about the situation than contemporary lefty commentators) told Hitler after "Operation Millenium" (the bombing of Cologne in May 1942) that If the allies were able to launch 6 more raids of that scale in quick succession then the Germans would be forced out of the war. "Ineffective" eh? What allied bombing accomplished was substantial in contributing to Germany’s defeat. The Anglo-American bombing offensive brought the war to the German people long before their armies were forced back onto German soil. In a war in which the effort of civilian workers on the production lines was as essential to victory as the fighting of the soldiers on the front lines, the very existence of the strategic bombing offensive encouraged US and British civilians and inflicted pain and suffering on the enemy. The British may have devoted 40 to 50 percent of their total war production to the air forces; the United States expended up to 35 percent; and the Germans up to 40 percent. German war production increased throughout the war, reaching its peak in the third quarter of 1944. Strategic air bombardment beyond ANY doubt kept that production increase from reaching stratospheric levels. It forced the dispersion of factories and the building of underground facilities, made German production more vulnerable to transportation disruption, lowered production by forcing on German industry smaller, more labor-intensive, production facilities that denied the Germans the manufacturing economies of scale available to the allies, it disorganized workers’ lives, and lowered their productivity. In ways great and small and utterly incalculable strategic bombing made German war production less efficient and effective than it would have been if the bombers had not flown night after night and day after day. Strategic bombing also forced the Germans into an enormous defense and reconstruction effort, diverting German aircraft manufacture almost exclusively into fighter and interceptor production. The bombing of oil not only limited mobility, but as a side effect greatly reduced nitrogen production, hampering the manufacture of explosives and fertilizers. By 1944, Germany had two million soldiers, civilians, and prisoners of war engaged in Reich antiaircraft defense, more than the total number of workers in its aircraft industry. And on any given day or night, most of this huge force, spread across the length & breadth of Germany to defend all targets, stood idle, while the Allied bombers struck only a relatively few areas. An additional million workers were engaged in repair and rebuilding; the maintenance of the nazi oil industry alone (used for the rebuilding of oil production facilities NOT the actual oil production effort itself) absorbed 250,000 workers. Albert Speer estimated that 30 percent of total gun output and 20 percent of heavy ammunition output was directed towards air defense, a significant loss to the front line ground forces of high velocity weapons suitable for antitank defense. It took an average of 16,000 88 mm flak shells to bring down a single Allied heavy bomber. Speer further estimated that 50 percent of electro-technical production and one-third of the optical industry was devoted to radar and signals equipment for the antiaircraft effort, further starving the front lines of essential communications equipment.
    1
  312. 1
  313. 1
  314. 1
  315. 1
  316. 1
  317. 1
  318. 1
  319. 1
  320. 1
  321. 1
  322. 1
  323. 1
  324. 1
  325. 1
  326. 1
  327. ​ @agandaprop  Let me correct the errors & misinformation in your reply. They weren't on a "residence Permit" they had been granted FULL UK citizenship and residency rights, as detailed in the UK's "1947 Polish Resettlement Act". Please feel free to go and read about it. Or watch this Polish RAF pilot interviewed in 2006 before all the left wing bullshit about Britain started after we told the EU to "fuck off" in 2016. https://youtu.be/kyjrGSuS8Po?t=500 So a peaceful post WW2 Europe was solely the UK's "profit" was it? Please direct me towards evidence of the clamour by the rest of Europe to launch WW3 against the soviets in summer 1945? Its just such a pity that YOU and the legions on other clueless YT "virtue signallers" weren't there personally on the front lines in central Europe in summer 1945 EAGER to sacrifice YOUR lives to push the Red Army steamroller back to its pre 1939 borders, instead of your utterly pathetic "virtue signalling" from the safety of your keyboard 80 years after the event whining that millions of OTHER people didn't sacrifice THEIR lives. The UK had already sacrificed ENOUGH of its blood, treasure and empire to see the overthrow of nazi tyranny in Europe. Rest assured little one if it hadn't been for the UK ALONE after the fall of France then Poland and the other eastern European countries would still to this day have nazi death camps operating on their soil and swastikas flying over their cities. The "generals and professors" you allude to were not exploited prisoners in the UK after WW2 as you pathetically try to make out, but were free to leave the UK whenever they wished. It is clear the they were only too happy to spend the rest of their lives in the UK no matter WHAT job they carried out, clearly more happy than YOU believe they should have been, as they knew it was preferable to ending up in a shallow grave in a remote Polish forest with a soviet NKVD bullet in the backs of their heads. The fact that never happened was down to the UK's gracious gift of UK citizenship.... We being the FIRST country after WW2 to freely give a new nationality to the hundreds of thousands of Poles who had been made stateless by the theft of Poland by the communists. Now please go and burn the communist schoolbooks and copies of "socialist worker" that you've been misinformed by.
    1
  328. 1
  329. 1
  330. 1