Comments by "dragosstanciu" (@dragosstanciu9866) on "Why Britain wouldn’t just let Hitler go East" video.

  1. It would have been suicide for Britain to fight Germany and the USSR at the same time after they invaded Poland in September 1939.
    458
  2.  @punishedgloyperstormtroope8098  Germany had a racial agenda for Europe, thus Germany was a bigger threat.
    100
  3. The EU is peaceful. The EU is not waging any war.
    8
  4. Seriously? Germany wanted European domination and genocide see Generalplan Ost.
    5
  5.  @Shad0wack  Germany wanted more than an empire, she wanted genocide, see Generalplan Ost.
    5
  6. Impossible, Germany and the USSR had no common border, Poland was in the way. Look at a map of Europe in 1939.
    5
  7.  @konstantinkelekhsaev302  Some 7 to 10 million killed in the Holodomor, some 1,5 million killed in the Gulag.
    5
  8.  @HolyLegion12  A Marxist revolutionary agenda is a threat, but not as big as racial genocide.
    5
  9.  @WillyEckaslike  What did you want? For Britain to fight Germany and the USSR at the same time?
    4
  10. Germany invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Yugoslavia, Greece. These countries were not a threat to Germany.
    4
  11. Losing the empire was inevitable, nationalist movements were increasing in Africa, India, the Middle East even before WW2.
    3
  12. Relax, it is just a metaphor.
    3
  13.  @Rob46373  Britain did not have the power to fight both Germany and the USSR at the same time. Britain would lose the war in such a scenario.
    3
  14.  @HolyLegion12  My point is that Britain could not fight both Germany and the USSR at the same time. Also my point is that Germany was the bigger threat and she had to be defeated.
    3
  15. The USSR already controlled half of continental Europe in 1940. But Nazi Germany was the bigger threat for Britain and had to be eliminated.
    2
  16. But Germany would not have lost if it had only the USSR as enemy. Germany would conquer eastern Europe and become a superpower. Eastern Europe would become the site of a far greater genocide.
    2
  17. Without going to war Germany would not obtain living space in eastern Europe, war was on Hitler's agenda.
    2
  18. Germany had to be stopped, see Generalplan Ost Germany's plan for ethnic cleansing and genocide in Europe.
    2
  19. If the USSR was the real threat, why did Germany invade neutral Yugoslavia, Greece, entire Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium. These countries were neutral and independent and were no threat to Germany.
    2
  20. It wasn't alright, but it was better than what the Nazis planned for eastern Europe, see Generalplan Ost, a nightmare scenario.
    2
  21.  @fallingfallingfallingfalli500  That doesn't make any sense. Why would Britain plan to destroy its own empire?
    2
  22. Watch the video again and maybe you will understand why Britain didn't declare war on the USSR.
    2
  23. Yes, but Hitler's Germany wasn't supposed to be just strong, but also to implement a gruesome racial agenda in Europe, thus Germany had to be stopped.
    2
  24. Why didn't Hitler respect the Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, Yugoslavia, Denmark, Norway since they were neutral and didn't want war?
    2
  25. But Chamberlain declared war on Germany, not Churchill. Chamberlain fought Hitler in Norway and in France.
    2
  26. No, no , no, you are wrong, it was impossible for Britain to declare war on the Soviet Union in 1945, Britain was at the end of its war effort, it was in a financial crisis, Britain would have been defeated.
    2
  27.  @unnamed776-m9h  Maybe that group is only in your brain. You are searching for scapegoats, like the nazis did.
    2
  28.  @DODO-vy6sf  And yet the Germans tried, see Operation Sea Lion.
    2
  29. Wars are not started by referendum.
    2
  30.  @benh5366  Yes, it was, Nazi Germany was much worse than the British Empire.
    2
  31. Seriously? What about Generalplan Ost?
    2
  32. If England truly wanted Germany to fight the USSR then it made no sense for England to declare war on Germany and get herself involved in the war and later bomb Germany and fight in North Africa and the Atlantic.
    2
  33. Even if the EU would create its own army that army would not be a threat to Britain, it makes no sense to be a threat to Britain.
    2
  34.  @HolyLegion12  Stalin went West only after some 30 million Soviet soldiers and civilians were sacrificed in the war. There was a price the USSR payed for going West, the price of victory.
    2
  35.  @HolyLegion12  Germany was the bigger threat because she had a racial agenda for Europe (Generalplan Ost).
    2
  36.  @user-qe3qs9bv2r  No, I did not forget Austria. Austria is Germany.
    2
  37. The British Empire's days were numbered even if Britain remained neutral, nationalist movements in Africa and India were growing even before 1939, there was no way for Britain to keep control of its empire.
    2
  38.  @jackalexander8021  My point is that Britain had nothing to gain if Germany became a superpower. Germany would dominate continental Europe (and make some genocides), while Britain would remain with her crumbling empire. There was no way for Britain to keep alive her empire even allied with the nazis.
    2
  39. But Chamberlain declared war on Germany, not Churchill, Chamberlain fought Hitler in Norway and France.
    2
  40. The British Empire was already beginning to collapse even before WW2, the Indians, Arabs and the Africans started nationalist movements and demanded independence. So Britain did not sacrifice its empire.
    1
  41.  @Geotonrike  Giving up imperialism was inevitable, even without the US demanding it to the UK.
    1
  42. Because Franz Halder modified the plans for Barbarossa and made Moscow the first target, not the Caucasus.
    1
  43. What is so hard to understand? The Allies were already at war with Germany when the Soviets invaded Poland (17 September). Germany was seen as the bigger threat that had to be defeated. It would have been suicide for the Allies to fight Germany and the USSR at the same time, the Allies would have lost the war.
    1
  44. But what would have happened to Poland, Belarus, Ukraine if Germany was allowed to gain living space in eastern Europe?
    1
  45.  @sirtalkalot3211  Watch the video. TIK explains why.
    1
  46.  @Samuel070793  Where do the Jesuits live? Do they have names, an address?
    1
  47. Technically WW2 started on September 1, the USSR invaded Poland on September 17, two weeks after the war started. But the USSR can be an instigator of war because she and Germany had a secret pact to invade Poland and other countries.
    1
  48.  @fallingfallingfallingfalli500  Yes, it looks like that, but in actuality there was no way for France and Britain to fight both Germany and the USSR at the same time, Britain and France would lose the war. A German-Soviet alliance was too powerful.
    1
  49. A united Europe under a conservative government that encouraged genocide? Why?
    1
  50. The British Empire's days were numbered even without FDR involving the USA in the war, more and more nations in the empire were demanding independence, freedom, and Britain alone would not be capable of keeping control for a long time.
    1
  51. Britain is cooked and Europe remains under the nazi boot for a very long time.
    1
  52.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  It makes no sense for the EU to become a threat to the UK, no matter how long the EU would last.
    1
  53. Revisionist? How so?
    1
  54. Germany was the bigger threat because she had a racial agenda (ethnic cleansing, genocide) for Europe and wanted European domination.
    1
  55. War with the USA was inevitable for Germany, even if he didn't declare war on the USA. The Kriegsmarine was insisting on attacking American ships going to Britain and attacks already occurred, thus casus belli already existed.
    1
  56. The same thing can be said about nazi Germany, the main focus was the German people while the rest of European nations would become slaves or be exterminated.
    1
  57. Tartarian buildings? What are you talking about?
    1
  58. It's complicated. A peace treaty in western Europe in 1940 would alarm Stalin, perhaps the USSR would attack first before the Germans could move troops on the Soviet border.
    1
  59. The British Empire's days were numbered even before 1939. But a Nazi German Empire dominating Europe would not be a good thing for anyone (except the Nazis), such an empire would last for a long time after the British Empire would collapse and Europe would be traumatized.
    1
  60.  @bobbest1611  Nationalism was on the rise in the Empire, every nation in Africa, India wanted independence, revolutions were inevitable. That is why the Empire's days were numbered.
    1
  61.  @bobbest1611  The breakup of such a huge empire was inevitable, the British army would not be able to keep control for a long time in the face of increasing nationalist movements. The British were not invincible either in Africa or in India.
    1
  62. An ally, not a vassal. Britain is still independent in its foreign policy.
    1
  63. The Soviet-German pact of 1939 allowed Hitler to go east, Poland was split between Germany and the USSR and they had a common border.
    1
  64. No, the Nazis hated the USA.
    1
  65. It wasn't just about learning Russian or German, the Nazis had a racial agenda for eastern Europe, a gruesome racial agenda. That made Germany far worse than the USSR.
    1
  66. Conquering the British Isles would have been a very difficult job for Germany. They would have to eliminate the Royal Navy, the RAF, to fight for every town, every village and millions of Germans would die and be wounded in battle. Meanwhile the USSR would not wait, the Red Army would prepare for war.
    1
  67. Look on the bright side, the Nazis were defeated, the genocide in Europe was stopped.
    1
  68. Germany invaded independent countries and initiated mass genocide, there is no comparison between what Britain and Germany did. Obviously the Nazis had to be destroyed no matter the cost.
    1
  69.  @msc8090  Yes there were other invasions, but not like the ones the Nazis did with the precise purpose of making ethnic cleansing.
    1
  70.  @msc8090  Germany's best interest was not to start a world war by invading independent countries, or to try to achieve European domination by antagonizing the great powers of the day. Thus what the Nazis did wasn't in Germany's best interest, it was all a nightmarish illusion that was transformed into a horrific reality.
    1
  71.  @jussim.konttinen4981  Millions of Germans died during the war or were deported after the war from Poland, East Prussia, Silesia, Pomerania. That is not irrelevant at all.
    1
  72.  @msc8090  Yes, they started the war to win it and then to make some genocide, see Generalplan Ost.
    1
  73.  @TheImperatorKnight  Is the EU a bad thing for Britain?
    1
  74.  @Bingo_Bango_  I understand. We shall see if Britain will be better now that it is out of the EU.
    1
  75.  @electronworld4996  I understand.
    1
  76. Britain losing her empire was inevitable, nationalist movements in Africa and India were growing, nations demanded freedom, independence.
    1
  77. The EU is not a threat for Russia, the EU doesn't even have an army.
    1
  78. And how exactly could Britain fight both Germany and the USSR at the same time? Impossible, Britain would have lost the war.
    1
  79.  @history9034  So what? The USSR had the biggest army in the world in 1939, the biggest air force in the world and the biggest industrial base in the world while Germany had the most modern army in the world. Even Britain and her Navy would not stand a chance against a German-Soviet alliance.
    1
  80.  @history9034  The Germans had advanced aircraft too and better trained pilots. The British Navy alone cannot win such a huge war for Britain. A combined German-Soviet force would crush Britain on land and put enormous pressure on her Navy. The British-Polish alliance was more like a bluff in hope of deterring Germany from invading Poland, unfortunately it didn't work mainly because the French and the British were not ready for total war against Germany in 1939.
    1
  81.  @history9034  The British Navy alone cannot win a big war. And the British industrial base was much smaller than the US industrial base, the British could not built many aircraft carriers and other ships as fast as the US did. Eventually the Royal Navy would be forced to fight defensively while the Atlantic would be full of German U-Boats and Soviet destroyers.
    1
  82.  @history9034  The Czechs saw it as a betrayal too, however it was inevitable since in 1938-1939 the French and the British people were unprepared to go to war again, especially for foreign countries like Czechoslovakia and Poland.
    1
  83.  @history9034  That alliance was more like a bluff, to deter Germany from further land grabs, unfortunately it didn't work.
    1
  84. But why did Germany invade neutral Yugoslavia, Greece, entire Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium. These countries were neutral and independent and were no threat to Germany.
    1
  85. Britain could not do that, in 1941 military analysts were certain that the USSR will be defeated fast, then Britain would be alone against the German juggernaut.
    1
  86.  @flamingoxe5984  At that time, in 1940-1941, no one knew that Germany will not defeat the USSR. We have the power of hindsight, but those living in 1940-1941 did not have this luxury.
    1
  87.  @jussim.konttinen4981  Vietnam is covered by jungle, Ukraine is a huge plain ideal for Blitzkrieg.
    1
  88.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  Exactly.
    1
  89.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  And that is why the Germans used pontoon bridges.
    1
  90.  @thefrenchareharlequins2743  The Germans would be shooting too, they had artillery and aerial superiority in 1941.
    1
  91. Yes, it is criminal tyranny, see Generalplan Ost and you will find out what the Nazis wanted for Europe.
    1
  92.  @canemcave  The Nazis were much worse than the British, they wanted not just European domination but also ethnic cleansing.
    1
  93. A greater Germany meant the end of independent Czechoslovakia and Poland. Don't you know that Nazi Germany occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939?
    1
  94. What about China?
    1
  95. But Chamberlain declared war on Germany, not Churchill.
    1
  96. There is no big threat on the continent, the EU is not a threat to Britain.
    1
  97. Perhaps Britain and France hoped that by promising help to Poland this will persuade Hitler not to invade. It was something between a bluff and a serious initiative, even though neither Britain nor France were ready for war yet. Perhaps they were trying to buy more time.
    1
  98. Seriously? What about Generalplan Ost?
    1
  99.  @egonjensen7667  You put too much faith in the atomic bomb, the atomic bomb would not have stopped the Soviets from crushing the US and British armies in Europe.
    1
  100.  @egonjensen7667  The Soviets would not give up until victory is achieved. The atomic bomb would not scare the mighty Red Army.
    1
  101.  @egonjensen7667  The Red Army was much stronger than the Japanese, the Soviets would not be stopped by some atomic bombs, the USA would need many bombs to make a difference and it was very difficult to make many atomic bombs fast. The Red Army would conquer Europe and force the USA to sign an armistice.
    1
  102. The British Empire's days were numbered even if Britain became a satellite of Germany. There were more and more nationalist movements inside the empire, African nations and India wanted freedom, independence and Britain alone would not be capable of keeping the empire alive much longer.
    1
  103.  @dIRECTOR259  We don't know if Hitler's offers to Britain were sincere, or if those offers would be respected after Hitler died and someone else became Fuhrer of Germany. In any case, there was no way for Britain, even with German help, to maintain control of so many nations in India, Africa, the Middle East for the next 100 years.
    1
  104.  @dIRECTOR259  I've read your deleted comment. But you must realize that by suppressing the Indian, African and Arab nationalist movements by use of force Britain would commit genocide, crimes against humanity.
    1
  105.  @dIRECTOR259  The nationalist movements in Africa and India started in the 19th century, long before there was any USSR or US support. In any case, why should the British Empire continue to exist? Did Britain deserve to rule over so many nations and deny them freedom?
    1
  106. If Germany fought only the USSR perhaps Germany would have won because it had a better army in 1940-1941, but that would have made Eastern Europe a German land where genocide would happen, see Generalplan Ost, a nightmare scenario.
    1
  107. What we have now is better than what we've had before 1991 when Moscow subjugated Warsaw, Prague, Budapest, Bucharest, Sofia and Berlin. Remember the Warsaw Pact and communist eastern Europe?
    1
  108.  @ThisHandleWasTheOnly1Available  People are leaving our countries because poverty is bigger in former communist countries and people wanted a better life in western Europe.
    1
  109.  @ThisHandleWasTheOnly1Available  Yes, they are poorer because the communists remained in power but disguised as capitalists.
    1
  110.  @ThisHandleWasTheOnly1Available  I am 36 years old. In communist Romania in the 1980's there was food shortage, fuel shortage and no heat in winter in the cities. In all communist countries there was censorship and political police. People were hunted and put in prison if they opposed the communists.
    1
  111.  @ThisHandleWasTheOnly1Available  No, we are now much better, no censorship, no political police, no cult of personality, more food, new houses, more cars.
    1
  112.  @ThisHandleWasTheOnly1Available  Things have changed, the young people don't care about Ceausescu.
    1
  113.  @ThisHandleWasTheOnly1Available  Or maybe young people do not want a return to communism and dictatorship.
    1
  114.  @ThisHandleWasTheOnly1Available  Not only Romania, also Hungary, Slovakia, Croatia and Finland fought against the USSR.
    1
  115.  @ThisHandleWasTheOnly1Available  They didn't get off easy, they were occupied (except Finland) and made into communist countries.
    1
  116. The British Empire was already faced with more and more nationalist movements from the nations of the empire. India, African nations were demanding freedom, independence. Britain alone would have been incapable of keeping control of its empire even if a gentleman's agreement with Germany was achieved.
    1
  117.  @somerandomvertebrate9262  Exactly.
    1
  118. But Chamberlain declared war on Germany, not Churchill, Chamberlain fought Hitler in Norway before Churchill came to power.
    1
  119. Britain and the USSR had a common enemy that had to be destroyed, that is why Britain colluded with the USSR.
    1
  120. A Nazi Europe cannot be allowed to exist.
    1
  121. Times change, people change, Germany today is not a threat to Britain and that's why Britain has no interest in a weak Germany.
    1
  122.  @SmotritelMayaka29  England may not have expected a German invasion of France, but France herself was getting ready for the German invasion, France had plans in case Germany invaded. England herself sent an expeditionary force in France to bolster the defense.
    1
  123. It wasn't just about getting rid of communism, it simply was not normal to let Germany conquer and control central and eastern Europe at the expense of many nations. Also Germany had a racial agenda, genocide, reserved for eastern Europe.
    1
  124. What could Britain have done? It was impossible for Britain to fight both Germany and the USSR.
    1
  125.  @yingyang1008  If Britain supported the Nazis against the USSR, then the Nazis would win and become masters of continental Europe, that would have been horrific.
    1
  126.  @yingyang1008  Of course it wasn't ok for Stalin to invade other countries but there was nothing Britain and France could do, they could not fight both Germany and the USSR, it was too much.
    1
  127. Why? The EU is not a threat to the UK.
    1
  128.  @andrew.r.lukasik  We shall see what will happen.
    1
  129. No, it was not okay, but there was nothing Britain could do about it.
    1
  130.  @jussim.konttinen4981  Fighting the USSR at a different time was impossible for Britain because after 1945 the USSR became a nuclear power.
    1
  131.  @jussim.konttinen4981  If Britain supported the Axis then the USSR would be defeated and the Axis would become master of continental Europe, a nightmare scenario.
    1
  132.  @jussim.konttinen4981  What are you trying to say? That Britain could defeat the USSR? In 1945 the USSR had the strongest land army in the world.
    1
  133. Seriously? The world is chaotic? Then why is communist China so powerful? Why are Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the EU so rich?
    1
  134.  @konstantinkelekhsaev302  In communist China, North Korea, communist Cambodia, in the USSR (Holodomor)
    1
  135.  @konstantinkelekhsaev302  No, more like 8 to 12 million for the whole USSR, not counting WW2, exact numbers are still disputed.
    1
  136.  @konstantinkelekhsaev302  You ask "Where are they"? Maybe the USSR archives have the answer, the NKVD's archives may have the answer if they are available.
    1
  137.  @konstantinkelekhsaev302  https://holodomormuseum.org.ua/en/the-history-of-the-holodomor/ The numbers are still in conflict, some say 4 million, others up to 7 million.
    1
  138.  @HolyLegion12  I know about the Holodomor in the USSR. We are talking in hindsight, but in 1939-1940 no one knew that the communists would make bigger genocides than the Nazis, in any case the Nazis were no better than the communists.
    1
  139.  @ivokantarski6220  Pax Germanica would mean genocide in eastern Europe, see Generalplan Ost, a nightmare scenario.
    1
  140.  @GAndreC  Yes, the USSR would have been a threat to the Empire, the USSR would invade Afghanistan, then India. The British Empire would cease to exist if Britain declared war on the USSR. Also the Soviets would cooperate with the Germans to defeat Britain and France in Europe.
    1
  141.  @kosta5706  Laughable? It is laughable only in your mind.
    1
  142.  @lucone2937  Yes, the USSR had a communist agenda for Europe, while Germany had a racist agenda for Europe. Both agendas were horrible.
    1
  143.  @markuhlig8626  No, the British Empire's days were numbered even if Britain would not have declared war on Germany. There were more and more nationalist movements inside the empire, African nations and India wanted freedom, independence and Britain alone would not be capable of keeping the empire alive much longer.
    1
  144.  @markuhlig8626  Wrong, the Indian nationalist movement started way before the Nazis even existed, the same is true for Arab and African nationalist movements.
    1
  145. The British Empire was already on the decline even before the war, its days were numbered, there were independence movements in India and Africa. The 3rd Reich however was a threat to humanity because of its racial agenda.
    1
  146.  @jayhawk9267  Even so, it was not normal to let Germany dominate Europe. Germany had to be stopped by any means possible.
    1
  147.  @jayhawk9267  Yes, the USSR, Japan, Italy and Germany did not accept a British and French dominated world. But that is not a good reason to accept a German dominated Europe and racial cleansing.
    1
  148. Relax, no one will start a civil war, the army will take control.
    1
  149. Seriously? Germany tried to conquer continental Europe and implemented a racial agenda that was unprecedented and horrified the world. Clearly Germany had to be stopped.
    1
  150. And in all this the Poles, Belorussians and Ukrainians will end up without a country and without freedom.
    1
  151.  @jackalexander8021  If Germany became a superpower she would have control of eastern Europe and a huge genocide would begin there, see Generalplan Ost, a nightmare scenario. How would that benefit Britain? The British empire would crumble anyway, even if Germany became a superpower.
    1
  152.  @jackalexander8021  Britain could not have kept her empire even if Germany won . Even if Britain would have had a colonial deal with Germany, that would not have stopped the disintegration of the British Empire. India, Arab and African nations wanted freedom, nationalist movements were rising, it would have been impossible for Britain to keep control and force all those nations to continue to submit to British rule.
    1
  153.  @jackalexander8021  All the power of the British Empire was in the resources and manpower of India, Africa, the oil of Iraq, without these vassal nations there was no Empire. A federation made of Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand was a pale substitute for an empire.
    1
  154.  @jackalexander8021  So your point is that Britain should have sided with Nazi Germany in order to keep her empire, even if that would have meant for continental Europe to be controlled by the Nazis. That is a very big price European nations would have had to pay just so Britain could keep her empire.
    1
  155.  @jackalexander8021  I understand. Well, as I already stated I believe that even if Britain remained neutral or sided with Nazi Germany and somehow the Nazis won, the Empire would have been lost anyway. The nations of the empire wanted freedom, they had enough of British rule.
    1
  156. @lati long It is not a surprise that some Romanians, Hungarians and Baltics have pro-Nazi views, since their countries suffered a lot under communist regimes brought by the Soviets.
    1
  157. You were wrong.
    1
  158.  @manichaean1888  What are you talking about? Comparing the Third Reich with the EU is idiotic at best.
    1
  159.  @manichaean1888  Yes, you are right.
    1
  160.  @jasonjason6525  Seriously? Where did you learn this?
    1
  161. No, the EU is not a military threat for the UK.
    1
  162. The Luftwaffe was overstretched, it had to fight on three fronts (USSR, North Africa and western Europe), it was too much, it has little to do with Goering's ineptitude.
    1
  163. Well, it is not as if Japan and Germany could have conquered and control entire Asia, Europe and Africa, this is not the Man in the High Castle universe, even so Germany and Japan were ideological enemies of the USA and had to be defeated.
    1
  164.  @duerandaggi  Asia is much bigger than China, there was no way for Japan to conquer Asia. As for Africa, only a small part (Ethiopia, Tunisia and Libya) of this continent came under Axis control.
    1
  165.  @duerandaggi  I am not giving you a break. Japan and Germany would not have been capable of controlling entire Asia and Africa, they would have been overwhelmed by resistance everywhere. India would not accept to come under Japanese rule, the same goes for Iran and the Arabs. As for Africa, the Germans would be busy controlling Europe and would be left with far too few troops to control Africa.
    1
  166.  @duerandaggi  Bye bye.
    1
  167. Germany was actually Nazi Germany and a Nazi empire in Europe would have been a nightmare for Europe.That is why such an empire had to be destroyed.
    1
  168.  @shad0w1599  Of course I know, I live in Romania a former communist country. I didn't say that communism wasn't a nightmare for eastern Europe, but that does not change the fact that the Nazis were not better.
    1
  169. How so?
    1
  170. The Third Reich wasn't protestant, it was nazi, it wasn't a Christian country.
    1