Comments by "Samson Soturian" (@samsonsoturian6013) on "No, the Treaty of Versailles did NOT lead to hyperinflation OR the Nazis" video.

  1. No one that needs to see it will bother watching it.
    11
  2. You mind making sense?
    3
  3. Come on. We all know the west would blame itself for world problems no matter how absurd.
    2
  4.  @jamesbeeching4341  a buggy algorithm and an apathetic contractor.
    2
  5.  @inurmomsbedroom123  because Mein Kampf is far harder to wade through since it rambles and meanders. Not even the Nazis that kept it displayed on their coffee tables actually read it.
    1
  6.  @inurmomsbedroom123  as if it isn't easy to fake you read that stuff simply because you could repeat what you suppose to be true. But again keep in mind that few people read Mein Kampf. And more importantly, the book itself doesn't really explain much of Nazi thought as it's the ramblings of a then coup-plotter in prison for his crimes. It's loaded with jargon and weird equivalency that make major portions incomprehensible unless you already know what the man is thinking.
    1
  7.  @inurmomsbedroom123  You sure as hell haven't read Mein Kampf. TIK has. And my specialty is in the Levant. I read from men like TIK and Henrik Lunde for WWII.
    1
  8.  @inurmomsbedroom123  You're talking to a doctoral student whose been subscribed to this channel since his sophomore year. We sure as hell ain't the lazy ones, you just don't like some of the weird stuff TIK said about socialism.
    1
  9.  @inurmomsbedroom123  is that your way of saying you flunked history?
    1
  10.  @inurmomsbedroom123  You never studied history beyond high school, got it.
    1
  11.  @inurmomsbedroom123  liar
    1
  12.  @inurmomsbedroom123  You haven't explicitly said so but I have a strong feeling you're a holocaust denier. If so, your life expectancy is dropping as we speak.
    1
  13.  @lightdampsweetenough2065  TIK is equating a lot of these idiots with various modern Socialists. While there certainly is some overlap (neo-nutzis gotta shift blame sonehow), I personally think he was too quick to equate the views.
    1
  14. We want to believe it. Economics says minimal regs are most efficient, but we'll follow this idiot and intervene however we feels like anyway.
    1
  15. Governments are one and the same with countries. Does this surprise you?
    1
  16.  @varvarith3090  Like... you? Get drafted, greedo
    1
  17.  @varvarith3090  Shut up, liar.
    1
  18. If that were entirely the case, Japan should be America's enemy #1 post-WWII
    1
  19.  @alexzero3736  not entire the case and by your logic it shouldn't have mattered since Japan begrudged the mass hanging of officers. But yet, they had a baseball craze instead. Likewise, Jordan should have eternally swore vengeance on Israel after 1967 instead of peacing out like they did. It seems that fines and blame shifting is the least of anyone's problems, even if idiots at the time wouldn't shut up about it
    1
  20. I fail to see the equivalency. It's pretty natural for a modern historian to overemphasize oil, but lack of gasoline was definitely a major factor in many major battles.
    1
  21. The rise of the US would occur with or without a war
    1
  22. It isn't actually libel, is a deliberately cynical view of Anglophone state's intentions. Something the Brits picked up from the Americans.
    1
  23. Middle class living a symptom of internal peace, not the cause. And middle class was neither created nor destroyed in Nazi Germany.
    1
  24. Was he really a nance or are you trying to call TIK homophobic? BTW, he's British left moderate (I think).
    1
  25.  @trystdodge6177  your assumption involves assuming a gay man existed in Britain before 1950. That is a very dubious assertion.
    1
  26. Idiot rebels don't care. All they care about is ridiculing their bosses
    1
  27. They paid off the last of the WWI debt some years ago
    1
  28. Who cares? Not even relevant
    1
  29. It took a century to pay back the WWI reparations
    1
  30. Even "Carthaginian peace" is a massive misconception as Rome did not annex any part of Carthage but instead stripped away its alliance networks and foreign garisons and navy. Carthage was besieged and taken decades later for unrelated reasons as Rome intervened in a border war between Carthage and immediate neighbors.
    1
  31.  @theeccentrictripper3863  These weren't actually annexations as there was no permanent governments above the municipal level back then. There were certain massive treaty organizations that varied in size and composition with the decades, so saying Rome conquered these areas is like saying NATO conquered the parts of the USSR that are not currently part of the CSTO.
    1
  32.  @theeccentrictripper3863  The Republic referred to the area that elected Senators which included much of Italy, but not the whole empire. Some towns had Rome appointed admins because occupation government, and Roman commanders were allowed to act as judges outside of Rome. Again, all sorts of treaty networks with obvious senior partner, but not officially one state. Noteworthy is that Roman commanders believed the preponderance of all forces in a given expedition should be Roman citizens because their allies might be called away over matters that did not concern Rome. This is also why Hannibal thought his Italian campaign would be more effective than it was. Because Carthaginian propagandists deluded themselves into thinking the Latins were all unwilling servile states that would desert/defect given the first opportunity.
    1
  33.  @theeccentrictripper3863  except during the Carthaginian wars you had to be a Roman citizen to join the legions. Other towns in the empire had their own armies referred to as the auxiliaries. Much of the expansion of Rome was driven by Rome intervening in independent wars between their allies and outsiders. These include all three Punic Wars.
    1
  34.  @theeccentrictripper3863  the details varied from place to place and time to time. Roman colonization of Spain was a literal colonization, not the distorted idea of colonies we have today, with enclave towns directly loyal to Rome while neighbors had their own governments. The Basque region was never really Roman controlled even at the height of the empire, while much of the country was Latinized to the point they didn't even bother garrisoning them. Of course, this happened over several centuries, so a lot of people were born, lived, and died as independent allies of Rome. I personally find all the lines on a map showing who owns what are pretty meaningless. Some places are under one government only on paper while others are independent only on paper. You rightly point out that big chunks of the empire were functionally one government but that doesn't mean they wouldn't lose their junk if you said so. Also, officially there wasn't even an emperor as we would think of it for the first 3 centuries worth of emperors. There was a whole "corporation with an army with a state" sort of thing going.
    1
  35. No one cares
    1
  36. Except that wasn't connected to this argument
    1
  37.  @AmbianEagleheart  what does that have to do with the idea the treaty itself was Germany's casus belli?
    1