Comments by "Not Today" (@nottoday3817) on "Did Poland bring on her own Destruction in 1939 because of her Aggressive Foreign Policy?" video.

  1. Ah, nothing gives better joy than having a nice can of beer and proving people wrong on the internet (/s) 5:00 You are building a false narrative. (really need to refresh my knwoledge with standard names for logical falacies). Putin saying Poland is to blame for what happened at the start of WW2 does not mean he's defending Hitler. On the contrary, he's doing the exact opposite. He's painting both Poland and Germany as 'accomplices' in the crimes which led to WW2 start the way it started. His speech comes in the wake of many declarations from European leaders trying to paint USSR and Germany as 'one and the same', 'sharing the blame for the start of WW2'. His statements are meant to show that not only did USSR not desire the outcome of the events in late 30s, but it had actually fought against them in an uphill battle. So your commenters are actually right: Putin never said Hitler was not responsible for WW2. That's an argument you made up yourself based on flawed, incomplete logic and twisting of words. Why would you do that? I do not know. But I assume it must have something to do with MI5 and 6 and some other defamation divisions. 14:00 (and earlier) As a Romanian here, I would have to strongly refute those statements. Romania did not double up in territory in order to create such a big state to hold against USSR (even that ideea, hold it for a moment, cause it might come back later, depending on my energy). The territories which Romania received are inhabited by Romanians were generally inhabitted by a Romanian majority (saying generally because you had enclaves). And it's not an issue of 'now it's 1918, identify with this'. Anti-romanian policies existed in Hungary since 15th century in official acts (Unio Trium Nationum). So, no, the people like that did not start to identify as romanians in 1918. In fact, the course of events is exactly the opposite. Romania deceided to join WW1 in order to unite those territories inhabitted by Romanians and their annexation was a huge issue in the negotiation talks and an even bigger one in the post-war border establishments (because we took more than what was promised, aka Bessarabia which was part of the Russian empire and annexed by them in 19th century) Overall, the whole point that you make here is almost bullcrap. Where you might have gotten that false ideea from is actually 2 separate events/ideeas. First was the Intermarium project, proposed by Britain in early 1920s, which envisioned a megastate between the 2 Seas in E Europe (Baltic and Black), based on the model of UK (England, Scotland, Ireland) or US. Another one was the Little Entente alliance between Yugoslavia, Romania and the last one should have been Czechoslovakia (IIRC) 25:20. This is basically the whole point of his speech. His speech is aimed at Polish claims against Russia (as if there wasn't a Ukrainian SSR and a Belarusian SSR in USSR as well, but you cannot milk them, right?) because Poland claimed USSR was on the same side as Hitler. Putin twists the facts in their face and asks them: So, what's it, either we are in this together, two sides that tried to play with fire and got incinerated or we are both victims? 26:16. Yeah, Putin already adressed your argument. We know of the 'secret' protocol because it got declassified. And he asks the others to declassify their archives as well. And then you have historical facts which support him. Poland DID block the attempts to save Czechoslovakia and Poland DID annex land from Czechoslovakia. This means that Poland and Hitler were allies in all, but papers and even that can be debated as we are unsure of what's happening. In fact, the course of the splitting of Eastern Europe in 1939 is exactly the same as the one done by the Great Powers following Munich. And Munich was set on paper. And why do you think 'it must be true only because Putin said so'. How about we look at the Western and German relations in 1930s? US companies were trading with Hitlers Germany. Ford was a personal supporter of Hitlers anti-semitism. You had English Ladies and Lords being photographed among nazi officials. You had the Olympics of 1936. Are we really going to argue that no talks were occuring between the horrible nazis and the honorable British people that popularised concentration camps in the Boer Wars, starved indians and wiped out entire communities in the Middle East? Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of Poland during and after the Betrayal of Munich speak the same volume as the Ribentrop Molotov Pact, regardless of how their build up was worded. Oh, and just one final thing. As mentioned USSR DID TRY TO FIGHT THE NAZIS before signing that pact. Poland did not. Around 30:00 I think it's explained earlier by Putin. USSR had to sign an agreement with Germany becasue a two front war. And this is not something you can deny or twist. USSR just signed a feeble peace treaty with Japan. And Japan always maintained a considerable force in continental East Asia. Also, that's not all. I'm surprised TIK of all people (because he claims to be a Historian and he has ALREADY DONE VIDEOS on the state of Soviet Military in 1930-early 1940's) would dare to bring up that argument of 'Why would USSR do this?' . First of all, as previously mentioned USSR DID TRY TO STAND UP AT THE NAZIS. TWICE. Once for the elected Spanish Gouvernment in the Spanish Civil War and then they tried to help Czechoslovakia. What they got in return? The first time indifference from the West and then BROKEN PROMISES AND DIRECT INTERFERENCE FROM THE WEST. Secondly USSR faced the Germans in Spain. They knew their strengths. They were also expanding their army and trying to figure out their deep battle doctrine. SO WHY ON EARTH WOULD THEY TAKE ON THE GERMAN BLITZKRIEG? ESPECIALLY WITH JAPAN IN THEIR BACK? 33:00 Ok, I'm writing this as I am watching and now I am even more (unplesantly) surprised by the audacity of this video. So TIK spent the previous 5-10 minutes trying to convince us that there is no evidence of Poland siding with Hitler/Germany or of Poland being anti-Soviet. Then casually brings up Poland and Germany conspiring together to overthrow an official in a third country, Romania -which would also push a pro-German, pro-fascist movement with disastrous consequences-in order to prevent USSR from fighting Germany in aid of a country, which out sheer ****ing coincidence (as you want us to believe) was split among Poland and Germany (and a few others) 34:00 'It doesn't meant Poland was working for the Germans' Dear reader. Here we are talking international politics and geostrategy. NO SANE NATION ON EARTH would turn itself into a slave for another nation. POLAND HELPED HITLER AND POLAND WAS PURSUING IT'S INTERESTS. THOSE ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE STATEMENTS. In lack of a contradictory or contrary proof (which it's impossible to bring since Polands actions allowed Hitler to capture the industrial base of Czechia for free) they are complementary. 35:00 The ideea of that 'if' does not mean the Soviets were unwilling to attack without France. It actually has a double meaning, which you hide for the sake of your propaganda. First, USSR was a junior partner in that Alliance. This means that for an intervention to be legal, FRANCE had to deceide help was needed first. This was done specifically to prevent USSR from intervening on a much larger scale in Europe. Second, how about you look at the map first? Where do you see a common border beyond USSR and Czechoslovakia? In the quantum realm? This meant that in order for USSR to fight Germany, without invading Poland or Romania they had to either rely on French diplomatic pressure on these countries to allow troop transports or to send troops all the way to France (like they did with Spain). It's not a matter of 'I want <<peace in our times>> as well' It's a matter of physical impossibility. 35:41 Oh, so earlier the video is like 'Why they didn't do nothing in 1939', now it's 'Do you think they would have done better in 1938?'. The goalposts are almost broken from all this movement. And no, the units still had 'commanders', inexperienced, but they were there.
    4
  2. 36:50 Yes, because USSR helping a state in need would mean that they were going to invade all of Europe and no one is going to say no to them. Wait a minute, didn't the video just say the Red Army was useless (bloody nose from Finland and stuff like that? ) Soo.... why would Poland and Romania and Yugoslavia and Greece be afraid of it? 37:00 'Western allies were trying to prevent a war'. One has realise that Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia BECAUSE ALLIES WERE TRYING NTO TO START A WAR? Maybe, just maybe, putting pressure on the side that actually DOES TRY to start a war would deter them from gambling with the lives of their soldiers? 37:47 You cannot say 'Correctly guessed' since the scenario presented in the premise did not happen. Poland did not allow Soviet troops to assist Czechs (and not only 'for Poland' since they actively interferred in Romania as well) so you would never know if they would have left or not. As for the Warsaw Pact? Is TIK mental? First of all, Soviet troops were out of Yugoslavia after the war. They were also out of Romania and Austria after 1955. Is this relevant? NO. Because we are talking about political blocks. USA did not leave Europe until 1989 either.. Acutally, not only did it not leave Europe until this day, but it actually moved in even more, even with the use of armed forces (like in Yugoslavia after refusing to host a NATO base). And towards the end, when talking about 1940: WHY WOULD THEY HELP THE FRENCH? The French betrayed Czechoslovakia and USSR. Then, you have the Saar Offensive (I could make a whole theory based only on that offensive and talk about the decisions of Stalin). Everyone, everyone, expected a long, drawn out war between Germany and France. Who would be to say that if USSR deceided to strike, the Germans wouldn't redeploy, France back out of the war and thus USSR be left with the burden of the whole German army? The French pulled out twice, why not a third? Finally, some 'meta arguments'. TIK seems to have a hobby in this video with citing Hobbs instead of Putin. He literally tells us to go read Putins speach (perhaps thinking we wouldn't), but starts citing Hobbs, a completly differnt guy. Just a matter of logic. Why would Putin and his aids, who have the Soviet narrative, official history, Russian authors and soviet archives with complete intelligence details go on and cite Hobbs? Because there are similarities? Yeah, there are similarities between everything. TIK has 2 arms, tow feet and a head. So does a monkey. Does it mean he's a monkey? Doubt. I'm a human. He's a human. Does it mean I'm a Brit? No. I'm European (yes, I'm so pissed at this obvious piece of propaganda that I had to make a Brexit joke) Also, if there is a question of why I bring up Munich. It's coloquial name is so grim for a reason. When it was time for Munich, neither USSR, nor CZECHOSLOVAKIA (the country whose future was to be deceided) were invited. You could make any argument you wish to defend France or England (or Poland for the matter), either in terms of personalities or as nations, however no such argument or chain of arguments leads to a logical conclusion in which a nation is not allowed to negociate its own future. The Munich Betrayal is called like that because the West and Poland CHOSE HITLER over anything else. It wasn't about peace, about 'doing the best for all' (since you cannot do the best for someone you don't even ask), it was simply about siding with Hitler. And in conclusion: One does not have to agree with Putins views of USSRs decisions. They are mostly based on a conviction of security deeply rooted inside Russian culture and mentality, conviction which, unfortunetly, has been proven correct times and times again throughout history and even that does not excuse the crimes committed under Stalin. However, from the same objective view one has to agree with Putin about Poland. If you cannot excuse USSR, you cannot excuse Poland. Poland tried to see to its national interests (like every country) , but in doing so they turn into allies of nazi Germany, delluding themselves in a gamble that if anything goes wrong, a Western saviour would put Poland above himself and rescuse their nation.
    3