Comments by "Republitarian" (@republitarian484) on "Russia attacks Ukraine" video.

@kregadeth5562 @ Zachary Cruz Tom Seller is right. WWII is not the victory you've been led to believe. We fought on behalf of Imperialist Nations with Colonies around the Globe (Britain & France) and Communist Dictatorships (Soviet Union & China "soon to be Communist"). General Patton. . . "we defeated the wrong enemy". Try to view WWII from the other perspective besides the winners and what you've been taught. I also used to believe that WWII was a great victory but I've started to learn the other perspective of WWII and the long-term consequences that the West is currently dealing with because of that "victory".
4
@DG-nk7jo . . .are you really this ignorant? Are you referring to the Zimmerman Note? That was in relation to WWI. Please just stop with your ignorance.
3
@CadillacJak . . . America should not have joined either of the world wars. I used to also think that WWI & especially WWII were great victories. I've since changed my mind. WWII was not the great victory we've been led to believe. Yeah. . . it sounds sort of nuts, but the more you research it from all perspectives you'll eventually come to this realization. The decline of the West started with WWII. Look at Britain and France. . . in decline. . . shadows of their former greatness. (but if their Imperialism wasn't great why did we fight on their side?). The United States is also in decline. If you look hard enough and put all the pieces together you'll see it goes back, in part, to WWI & WWII.
3
@DG-nk7jo . .you obviously only know the version of WWII from the victors perspective. What is a Nazi by the way? They never referred to themselves as that. Hitler wanted Lebensraum. . .more land for the Germanic people of Europe. England and France did not like that. They were the big boys that were colonizing the globe. They didn't want any competition from another European power. England especially liked to have the mainland European powers always divided. Germany also had to deal with the threat of France from the West and Russia from the East; Franco-Russian Pact. Hitler never wanted global domination. If you can cite the source of where he stated that please let me know. But I guess taking sides with two very powerful Imperialist nations with colonies around the globe that subjugated the indigenous peoples of those areas was just fine and dandy. And also pairing up with a Communist dictatorship that had ambitions to spread Communism throughout Europe and the rest of the world was just fine and dandy too. And by the 1930's it was well know of all the murder, gulags, imprisonment, starvation, etc. that was happening in the Soviet Union. (Side note. . . the increasing influence of Communism was in part what gave rise to Hitler. Which is also why Germany became ultra nationalistic as Communism seems to be more anti-nationalism and more global). And what part did the Treaty of Versailles play in the rise of Hitler? After all, Germany was punished for a war you could argue they did not start and severely punished for a war one could argue they only lost on paper. Germany was forced to cede lands to other nations, pay war reparations, and had many other sanctions imposed on them. On top of that, they had to fend off a Communist coup shortly after WWI by Spartacists. Their economy eventually collapsed and their currency suffered from hyper-inflation. Also, many historians blame WWII on the Treaty of Versailles. So do the people/countries that drafted and signed the Treaty of Versailles also share some responsibilities for WWII? Anyway, you really need to learn the other perspective of WWI and WWII.
2
@IzayaTijisPrincess . . . Much of the World Speaks English!!! Do you not see the irony in your comment! That alone should make you want to learn the other perspective of WWI and WWII. Germany did not want to take over the entire world. Why do people still believe that? They wanted Lebensraum. England, France, and Russia did not like that. European countries were always in competition for power. . . especially England and France. Why are they not evil? England loved the mainland powers being divided. It made their lives easier.
2
@michaelroot6064 . . . Jews have Israel. . . an ethno-religious nation where one, for all intents and purposes, must be Jewish to become a citizen. I thought an ideology coupled with race was bad?
2
@michaelroot6064 . . . seems like white people are being passively replaced with mass immigration. When does that passive replacement turn into violent replacement? I guess we shouldn't worry because "everything's going to be all white".
2
@DG-nk7jo . . . they never referred to themselves as Nazi. Their political adversaries used Nazi as a derogatory term. The fact that you do not know this should also make you wonder what else you do not know.
2
@DG-nk7jo . . . your citation is not in relation to Hitler or members of the NSDAP referring to themselves as Nazis. Please cite where they referred to themselves as Nazis? Now take the argument you're making and turn it around. How about we create a derogatory word to refer to a group of people with a that have an ideology and race that are intertwined? Can you think of a group that fits that description? I'm not arguing for support one way or another. All I'm asking is that people need to learn the other perspective and history of WWI and WWII.
2
@DG-nk7jo . . . "Gonzalez". . . have you been made to atone for your ancestors sins of Slavery and Colonialism? The Spanish Conquistadors were some of the worst colonizers to walk the earth. They also participated in the Atlantic Slave trade.
2
@CadillacJak . . . OK. . .so explain to me then why the United States had to involve itself in WWI and WWII. It should be easy right. Maybe first read some of my prior comments and then make your case.
2
@CadillacJak . . .what economic fallout? So going to war and making it even bigger and more destructive would have been better for our economy and the global economy? How about the fact that the United States benefited economically because we were probably the only large country and homeland was not affected by WWI or WWII. But then you have to ask yourself how much more would we have benefited by not wasting money on military spending, deployment, and American deaths while also benefiting from the same scenario of the world being in shambles after WWII. And if we stayed out of WWII Germany and the Soviet Union may have fought each other longer and the Soviet Union may not have taken 1/2 of Europe under their Iron Curtain and we may have prevented a 50 year Cold War and Nuclear Arms race. Maybe Hitler could have been our pawn and hammer to stop the spread of Communism in Europe. (Please refer back to my comment about Communism being partly responsible for the rise of Hitler along with the Treaty of Versailles). Can you elaborate on your economic fallout bro? LOL. I'm seriously not trying to be a smart A##. But all I want is for people to view WWI and WWII from a different perspective.
1
@CadillacJak . . .the main reason Japan attacked the United States was that they thought we would avoid getting into a conflict with them. It was a gamble they took and it was the wrong one. And Germany declared war on the United States for the same reason. Japan and Germany wanted the United States to stay out of the war. And technically the United States broke some treaty (can't think of it off the top of my head) but the United States supplying and supporting England and China was an act of aggression. Look it up. I'm tired and having a brain lapse right now. Do you not find it IRONIC that two of our greatest allies since WWII have been Germany and Japan? Do you not find it ironic that two of our greatest enemies have been the Soviet Union/Russian and China?
1
@IzayaTijisPrincess . . . How many more millions of white Europeans were killed above 6 million? England and France killed people all over the world. The Soviet Union and China have killed many more people. Why are we even having the Olympics in China with their history of 50+ million killed and current genocide? So I suppose you support the dissolution of Israel? An ethno-religious-ideological nation. Many see International Capitalism and Communism as two sides of the same coin. You can take it from there.
1
@IzayaTijisPrincess . . . I'm not sure Hitler would have killed every Jew. I think his main cause, at first, was to rid Germany and eventually Europe of Jews and give them a homeland. I believe the Transfer Agreement was in relation to this. He did not like the nature of the Jew and believed they were inherently different from native Europeans. He saw them as subversive along with other characteristics that ran against white Europeans. Also, the Balfour Declaration did not sit well with Germans. Hitler despised Communism as he saw it as one with Judaism. . . Jewish Bolshevism. He also did not trust International Capitalism as he also saw it as a means to undermine a nation's interest. This is where International Capitalism and Communism are referred to as different sides of the same coin.
1
@gumblodobbins4465 . . . it's not in line with the one sided history that you've been fed. I used to be the same way, but then I started lookin at WWI and WWII from different perspectives. I suggest you do the same. Maybe reread just a little of what I've posted and think about some of the things I've stated. Just remember that the victors write the history books.
1
The Holodomor was just as bad if not worse. Millions of Ukrainians starved on purpose by Communists/Soviets. And yet we did nothing to stop that even though our intelligence knew it was happening. Imagine starving so bad you have to watch your children die in front of you only to find yourself eating their dead corpse soon after. Imagine your farming community starving so bad you have to protect your children from being kidnapped and eaten. When are their stories going to be heard? How many college kids even know about the Holodomor? Communists need to pay for their crimes.
1
@gumblodobbins4465 . . . LOL. . . who cares about a degree. College is pretty much useless. I "earned" my degree from a prestigious private college over 25 years ago and even then I knew the curriculum was watered down. It's a joke. I also have a minor in history along with 2 other majors. Who cares. I'm the furthest thing from Russia or China. I absolutely hate Communism and Communists. I used to be almost a pure far right Libertarian until I realized there are so many flaws in that ideology from a practical standpoint. Long conversation. So you think it's a good idea to discount the German's perspective from the 1920's and 1930's? That seems very ignorant as to ignore what caused certain major historical events to happen. Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, China, Cambodia, Venezuela, etc etc. etc. Sure seems like the Left has a very good track record of human rights violations. And here we are having the Olympics in China. Communism is still looked at as a viable political/economic system when it has and does create misery and death. If fails miserably wherever it is tried. And it definitely won't work in the West unless they manage to replace "us" as it's not a system for "us". Why don't we chase down Communists that have committed crimes against humanity as there's no shortage of those crimes from the Left. Seems like you're just angry that the other perspective of WWI and WWII is being talked about more and more. Also, you don't sound too educated regardless of your degree. . . not sure but maybe it's how you structured your sentence or the limited amount of information you replied with.
1
@AtlisDe . . . and why was it any of our business on what Japan was doing in Manchuria? or what Germany was doing in Europe? Did we go to war with China when they started murdering 10's of millions of people? Heck, we're in China right now for the Olympics when they are committing genocide against the Uyghurs. Did we go to war with the Soviet Union when they purposefully starved millions of Ukrainians or were murdering millions of political prisoners or throwing them in the gulags? Did we declare war the the Soviet Union when they invaded Poland? So I guess it's fine for you to pick and choose who we need to save and which wars we need to involve ourselves in? Again, you bring a limited perspective to the table. And now it's 11 million people? 10 million Ukrainians were purposefully starved to death and the United States did nothing. Are you a Holodomor denier?
1
@gumblodobbins4465 . . . Not a boomer doofus. Looks like you can't do math either. I'm guessing you're low IQ. Modern "academia". . .LOL. . . where they've lowered their standards to where anyone can get accepted such as yourself. You seem to have a problem with people discussing another perspective to WWI and WWII. Heck, you don't even bring up any historical references to refute my claims even though you state you have your degree in history. General Patton. . ."we defeated the wrong enemy". Being that you have a history degree you should know of this quote. What do you think it means? After all. . .he was one of the top commanders in WWII. You do know who he is right? Ayo. . .I'm not looking to change your mind anyway.
1
@gumblodobbins4465 . . . and yet here you are responding LOL. I'm only defending "Nazis" to the extent that you side with Communists or the Imperialist Colonizers. I'm just arguing for the other perspective to be told and not just demonized as evil. Communism has killed many more people than any other radical ideology and yet it's still widely accepted as a viable political/economic system. I'm not arguing everyone is dumb. But many are ignorant on this subject, like I used to be, of the other perspective. You're the one that brought up your degree in history and then did not cite or state any historical fact. I brought it up almost in a sense to refute any value most college degrees have. Why is a young person such as yourself wasting your time arguing with some old dude on youtube comments section? Says more about you than me.
1
@CadillacJak . . . war is great for economies? Are they still feeding people that line of garbage? Please tell me how destroying things is good for the economy. So WWII was good but the Vietnam war was bad? Was the Cold War good? Good or bad, all I'm arguing is for people to look at WWI and WWII from another perspective. Anyway, gotta go. I'm tapped out of this discussion. Spent way too much time on it already.
1
@gumblodobbins4465 . . . my bro. There is plenty of historical perspective that supports what I'm saying. And I cite much of it in this thread. It is well argued and agreed upon that the Treaty of Versailles is what caused WWII along with Communist agitation. So are they saying that the punishment from the ToV on Germany was too severe and that the reactionary backlash that arose was inevitable? Hitler did not want to take over the world. He wanted Lebensraum. England and France did not like that as they were the power players in Europe. Russia/Soviet Union also did not like that either hence the Franco-Russian Pact. So it was OK for England and France to have colonies around the world, but when Germany wanted to expand their influence just among other countries in Europe of similar people that is not OK? It's OK for the Soviet Union to take over European countries and spread Communism (which eventually did happen) is OK but not Germany?
1
@gumblodobbins4465 . . .exclusion? Everyone already knows that side of the story. . .the victors story. Did you know that ethnic Germans were being persecuted in lands that were formerly German territory and that Hitler pleaded with Britain and France to put a stop to it. The Broomberg Massacre, also known as Bloody Sunday, is one example. Without revisiting and questioning history we would never have known that it was actually the Soviets that were responsible for the Katyn Forest Massacre. The Germans were blamed for it all the way up until the 1990s. You state you have a degree in history and yet fail to mention anything in relation to any historical events. Again, all I'm asking is for people to view WWI and WWII with an open mind and look at all perspectives. Do you ever question why did Woodrow Wilson (WWI) and FDR (WWII) both pushed for entry into the World Wars? WWI was a complete disaster. There was no reason for us to enter that war. . . it was basically a stalemate and pretty much over. The Zimmerman Note is questionable at best. . .more like an excuse. FDR was breaking international treaties by supplying England and China (I can't think of them off the top of my head) during war time. FDRs acts were seen as an act of aggression. Truman drops the atomic bomb and then proceeds to get us involved in the Korean war. Kennedy, along with France, gets us involved in Vietnam. Then LBJ doubles down with the Gulf of Tonkin incident to formalize our involvement in the Vietnam War. ALL Democrats.
1
@gumblodobbins4465 . . . take a look at what Tom Seller says in regards to Japan and Pearl Harbor. It's true. FDR wanted war just like Woodrow Wilson. I'm dumbfounded by it and in my earlier days would have brushed it off as like "yeah. . .sure buddy. . . why would an American President want us to go to war". Japan screwed up by attacking us. But they attacked us in hopes that we would then stay out of the war not enter it. It was a very big strategical mistake. It's discussed even to this day. And Germany doubled down by declaring war on the United States in hopes that we would stay out of the European conflict.
1
@gumblodobbins4465 . . .sorry. There's another guy posting on this thread. Tom Seller. He talks about Pearl Harbor and Japan and how FDR wanted war with Japan.
1