Comments by "Valen Ron" (@valenrn8657) on "The Hossbach Memorandum PROVES Hitler Wanted to Wage a War of Aggression" video.

@nstice1 1. The trigger for European WW2 was Nazi Germany's invasion of Poland. 2. The trigger for global WW2 was the Imperial Japan bombing raid of the USA's Hawaii islands.
3
@aesop8694 There was no mutual military assistance treaty between Czechoslovakia and UK. After the Munich agreement, UK signed mutual military assistance between the nations if either was attacked by some "European country" After the German occupation of Prague in March 1939 in violation of the Munich agreement, the Chamberlain government in Britain sought Soviet and French support for a Peace Front. The goal was to deter further German aggression by guaranteeing the independence of Poland and Romania. However, Stalin refused to pledge Soviet support for the guarantees unless Britain and France first concluded a military alliance with the Soviet Union. Although the British cabinet decided to seek such an alliance, the western negotiators in Moscow in August 1939 lacked urgency. The talks were conducted poorly and slowly by diplomats with little authority, such as William Strang, an assistant under-secretary. Stalin also insisted on British and French guarantees to Finland, the Baltic states, Poland and Romania against indirect German aggression. Those countries, however, became fearful that Moscow wanted to control them. Although Hitler was escalating threats against Poland, which refused to allow Soviet troops to cross its borders for fear that they would never leave. Historian Michael Jabara Carley argues that the British were too committed to anticommunism to trust Stalin. Meanwhile, both Great Britain and USSR were separately involved into secret negotiations with Germany. Eventually Stalin was attracted to a much better deal by Hitler, the control of most of Eastern Europe, and decided to sign the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact .
3
@nstice1 Prussia should NOT have invaded Belgium to trigger the UK and British Empire's entry into European WW1.
3
@nstice1 https://www.dw.com/en/how-germany-got-the-russian-revolution-off-the-ground/a-41195312 The Russian Revolution has gone down in history as the victory of the workers and peasants over the czarist rulers. Few people realize the German kaiser was also involved: He gave aid to the Bolsheviks in 1917. Made in Deutschland. Be careful to not choke on your aspirations.
3
@brucetucker4847 1. For UK's entry into WW1, Belgium was the tripwire. 2. Facts, Germany invaded Belgium which caused the activation of the defence pact between Belgium and the UK (along with the British Empire).
2
@mattkierkegaard9403 Poland is wary of Germany and USSR (Imperial Russia successor state) since both countries have annexed Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth.
1
@aesop8694 >Why are you distorting the truth? Define it. >Did not Chamberlain give free reign to Hitler in regards to Czechoslovakia FACTS The UK did NOT invade Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain traded extra time for UK's accelerated rearmament. Germany invaded Czechoslovakia. >Before the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, did not Stalin offer to form a Tripartite Pact against Hitler with Britain and France? Who cares. Facts: Germany invaded Czechoslovakia. Why are you distorting the truth?
1
@larryhats4320 What a load of crap. Your argument is hypocritical when Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth was partitioned in three stages by the Russian Empire, the German Kingdom of Prussia, and the Austrian Habsburg Monarchy.
1
@larryhats4320 Against Napoleon, British Empire allied itself with Prussia. Napoleon is the aggressor. Your argument is hypocritical. > The irony was Britain's victory in the war, and stealing of Ottoman lands, hence Islamic Ottoman Empire was stealing lands from Christians, hence the reason for unresolved Balkans issues between Muslim majority Bosnia vs Orthodox Christians majority Serbia. Ottoman Empire joined with loser central powers of Prussia and the Austrian Habsburg Empire. Prussia attacked Belgium, hence British Empire's entry into WW1. Prussia is the aggressor. Your argument is hypocritical.
1
@larryhats4320 The trigger for the 1801 Barbary wars was Ottoman Empire's European slave trade and they attempted to slave the Americans that resulted in the USA's 1st war against Islamic Ottoman Empire. When the USA defeated Ottoman Empire's western armies, it open Africa to Europe's Scramble for Africa. 1801 Barbary wars marked the rise of the US Department of Navy (USN, USMC) and the infamous Freedom of Navigation foreign policy. The aggressor is the Ottoman Empire.
1
@larryhats4320 Iraq's top oil exports countries from Jan to Jun 2020 1st, China! 29 million tonnes 2nd, India, 23 million tonnes 3rd, EU, 8 million tonnes 4th, South Korea, 6 million tonnes 5th, Turkey, 4 million tonnes with an upwards trend 5th, USA, 4 million tonnes with a downwards trend Your knowledge is obsolete.
1
@larryhats4320 Note that partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth took place toward the end of the 18th century and UK was already a major power during the late 18th century. Background for Anglo-Prussian alliance Although the British had hoped to avoid war, Frederick the Great of Prussia launched a pre-emptive strike against Austria in August 1756. Frederick overran Saxony but was soon faced with an onslaught of enemies, including France, Austria, Sweden and Russia and so was forced to retreat from Bohemia. By 1757, it appeared that without substantive British assistance, Prussia would soon collapse. In 1756, there was an Anglo-Prussian alliance. In 1759, Britain has defeated France in Europe, North America and Asia and by repelling a planned French invasion into Britain. Britain won a number of key victories over Spain in 1762. The Anglo-Prussian alliance was eventually dissolved in 1762 when Britain withdrew financial and military support for Prussian war aims in Continental Europe. Prussia concluded the Russo-Prussian Alliance in 1764 . LOL UK is a major player in the 18th century and it didn't have a defence treaty with Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. You're wrong. 1764 Russo-Prussian Alliance leads to the partitions of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. You're wrong.
1
@larryhats4320 Note that UK's current royal family line is from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, a German dynasty. It takes its name from its oldest domain, the Ernestine duchy of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, but its members later sat on the thrones of the United Kingdom, Belgium, Portugal, Brazil, and Bulgaria. Founded in 1826 by Ernest Anton, the sixth duke of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, it is a cadet branch of the Saxon House of Wettin. Agnatic branches currently reign in Belgium—the descendants of Leopold I, and in the United Kingdom—the descendants of Albert, Prince Consor. In 1917, the First World War caused George V to change the name from "Saxe-Coburg and Gotha" to "Windsor". Notice "Belgium" which is an important factor for British Empire's entry into WW1.
1
@larryhats4320 >The UK, having swallowed half of the Ottoman Empire, were not going to have any of this. The USA defeated Ottoman Empire's western armies after Barbary Wars. After the 2nd Barbary Wars, a treaty was signed aboard the USS Guerriere in the Bay of Algiers on 3 July 1815. In early 1816, Britain undertook a diplomatic mission, backed by a squadron of ships of the line, to Tunis, Tripoli, and Algiers to convince the Deys to stop their piracy and free European Christians slaves. Two separate actions from the USA and UK have wreaked Ottoman Empire's hold over North Africa that includes Egypt. You're forgetting Ottoman Empire's fire starter actions.
1
@larryhats4320 Note that the European Union is a creation of the US CIA that guided European governments into the union without wars. From declassified CIA memo from 1965, it calls on the vice-president of the “European Community,” as the proto-superstate was then known, to impose a single currency on the nations of the continent. U.S. officials warned their contacts in Europe to impose the scheme by stealth, and to avoid public debate until the “adoption of such proposals would become virtually inescapable.” The road map appears to have been followed and it worked. US CIA's road map for the European Union is superior and avoided world wars. Your advocacy for European unity via armed wars is flawed . Australian federation process is about dialog and finding common ground, NOT with forced unity under a barrel of the gun!!!
1
@larryhats4320 You missed the point on EU's stealth implementation method that matched the CIA's stealth federal Europe road map vs Hilter's under the gun barrel unity method.
1
@larryhats4320 Your support for armed methods for forced European unity can fu-koff. If you want war, then you can have it.
1
@larryhats4320 >England's legacy of loot and wealth began by piracy Facts: Both Prussia and Russian Empire have allied together and to steal from the people of Poland. Poland's and Baltic states' strong dislike against Russia is unresolved to this day. Your "England's legacy of loot and wealth began by piracy, before 1600" generalization is flawed and hypocritical. Note that the UK is not the only European colonial power e.g. France, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, and Russia. >As for your other ideas, something about a Prussian alliance with Russia or England It's not my idea, it's fact based on history and paper trail established between the British and Prussian governments.
1
@larryhats4320 >I'm well aware of the waning importance of the middle east oil as the 21st century ticks on Prior to WW2, the USA is the largest oil exporter in the world NOT the Middle East. LOL
1
@larryhats4320 USA was able to create a federal nation based on European civilization from many European countries while mainland Europe was plagued by wars, extreme religious intolerance, and ethnic hatred that leads to armed conflict. US CIA's federal Europe road map is better than Hilter's under the gun barrel road map.
1
@larryhats4320 >Britain had no interest in common cause with the Germans at any juncture at that time or up to in the Second World War Facts: Prior to WW2, the British and French empires has a defense pact with Poland. Germany has stepped on a defense treaty landmine. Prior to the British empire's entry into WW1, the British has a defense pact with Belgium. Germany has stepped on a defense treaty landmine. Germany assumed the UK will not defend its own interest with Belgium.
1
@larryhats4320 British Empire's alliance with Imperial Japan was before WW1 and it was against the Russian Empire and Imperial China, NOT Germany. Imperial China's and Imperial Japan's conflicts have existed before the British Empire's existence. Russian Empire's land area is largely intact to this day as the Russian Federation. Imperial China's land area is largely intact to this day as the People's Republic of China.
1
@larryhats4320 >And as I've repeatedly made clear Prussia was not the cause of Poland's downfall Facts: Again, both Prussia and Russian Empire have allied together and to steal from the people of Poland. Poland's and Baltic states' strong dislike against Russia is unresolved to this day. >That's a lie meant to sow discord between Germans and Poles You lied when both Prussia and Russian Empire have allied together and to steal from the people of Poland. Poland's and Baltic states' strong dislike against Russia is unresolved to this day.
1
@larryhats4320 >no landmines there except "omg building a fleet" and everything else was just generally "oh snap Europe getting strong again, we gotta destroy it" Unmanaged landmines can kill civilians after the war while a navy fleet is easier to control and manage. A navy is useless against land warfare e.g. 1. UK's large navy vs Germany's large army was a mismatch during the phoney war. 2. Imperial Japan's large navy was nearly useless during the Soviet-Japanese War of 1939. "Defense treaty landmine" is a figure of speech for the defense treaty trigger. >But really 1939 and 1914 fit exactly into that. "British interests" is codeword for "let's destroy Europe to keep Europe weak" That's red herring. For WW1, if Germany didn't invade Belgium, then the British Empire wouldn't have entered WW1. You're NOT accounting for the defense treaty triggers! Germany built a large military machine to add European land territory into itself and it's a proven fact. US CIA's stealth method to build a federalized Europe is superior to Hilter's armed conflicts to impose forced unity. Hint: the US doesn't want another very bloody European-triggered world wars. The US rather return to its shopkeeper mode.
1
@michael boultinghouse Venezuela declared a trade war against US companies' Venezuela hardware assets via nationalization (a.k.a. state-sponsored stealing). The US executing its socialist trade protection against Venezuela's socialist trade war. LOL
1
@michael boultinghouse That's nothing to do with Venezuela's starting a trade war that resulted in the countermeasures by the US. I don't believe in "turning the other cheek".
1