Comments by "AFGuidesHD" (@AFGuidesHD) on "It Worked? The Treaty of Versailles won WW2!?" video.

Somehow I don't think the British wanted Versailles to bankrupt them and make them lose their empire.
701
@sahrazad8213 despite the general incompetence of the British team and government the Prime Minister David Lloyd George is known to argue that the whole point of Versailles was not to start another war, as he said "what is the use in setting up alot of Alsace-Lorraines?" in relation to the dividing of Germany, and rightly predicted conflict would arise from these areas i.e Danzig.
6
@dandare2586 why thank germany? you should be thanking Chamberlain or Poland
2
@dandare2586 Yes probably, depends what the deal is.
1
@dandare2586 British propaganda lol
1
@fguocokgyloeu4817 "it worked?" is the question in the title
1
@aBoughtLemon Britain was crucial to both wars. No British involvement in WW1 would have meant France losing in 1914. Even if France still managed to defeat the Germans in 1914, they would not have been able to resist the German offensives throughout the next 2-3 years. Even with millions of British soldiers launching offensives to alleviate French positions at Verdun, the French still nearly revolted in 1917. And WW2 of course without Britain, there's no WW2.
1
@aBoughtLemon >but British army power was next to nothing. I've never said anything on the contrary
1
@aBoughtLemon >Churchill you mean Chamberlain. >That war-winning strategy belongs to the Soviet Union That's just ridiculous given that the Soviets only started winning with lend-lease and the Germans making big mistakes like splitting Army Group South, if you want to see "war winning strategies" do not look at Operation Mars, Second Kharkov and the whole of 1941. Chamberlain's original strategy was mostly an economic war against Germany, he was told and urged by the warmongers that Germany would revolt and collapse if only Britain declared war, as we saw it didn't. He then planned on invading Norway and Sweden to choke Germany of its war supplies whilst France would fight off the German attack. As we saw also, the Germans beat the British to Norway by a few days if not hours. As the commander of the invading force boasted about how "the Germans missed the bus".
1
@aBoughtLemon Except even Glantz says Germany could have won in 1941 no? >almost yeah almost, but something like 40% of soviet tanks in Moscow were of the heavier armored Matilda type. >Stalin could have done Operation Uranus down in the Caucuses instead How? I don't think there was much down there to begin with. > outproducing Germany in tanks using materials from lend-lease, without having to divert manpower or resources for other things
1
@aBoughtLemon I believe the source was "USSR and total war, why didn't the soviet economy collapse in 1942"
1