Comments by "John Brereton" (@johnbrereton5229) on "Zoomer Historian" channel.

Its interesting to hear an alternative view on history, but unfortunately its not convincing. Hitler had been building up his military in breach of thd Versailles treaty for years, why would he do that if not to fight ? Also the Versailles treaty was not as harsh as the one the Germans had forced the Russians to sign earlier in WW1. In some ways WW2 was merely a continuation of WW1. Though I do agree that Chamberlain has gone down in history as a weak appeaser, yet all he was doing was trying to prevent a war only 20 years after the bloody WW1. I also find your points about Churchill and the bankers rather interesting too. Financiers and industrialists always make a fortune during war supplying all the arms, so its not hard to see they would be interested in starting one. The Rothschilds made their fortune after the battle of Waterloo by spreading a false rumour in the London financial centre that Napoleon had won, causing the market to collapse. The Rothschilds then bought all the stocks cheap and later when the actual victory was announced, the stock rose and they became very wealthy. A similar thing happened in WW2 and even the Americans became very rich supplying both sides of the conflict. So probably thd truth lies somewhere in between both these extremes.
4
@HomeByTheSeas Yes you are correct, what you have written is indeed a 'stupid comment'. And how can mine be a 'straw man comment' when it's all based on solid historical facts? Whereas yours is just your own fact free opinion dripping with vitriolic contempt.
1