Comments by "AFGuidesHD" (@AFGuidesHD) on "TIKhistory" channel.

  1. because "fascist" these days is used as a synonym for "baddie", "authoritarian" or "person i don't like"
    3900
  2. Vegetarian, Dog lover, Man of the year and Nobel peace prize nominee.
    2200
  3. "Why didn't Poland just ally with the commies" has the same answer as to "Why didn't Poland ally with Germany against the commies".
    1700
  4. what a hot take that wikipedia page is "fascists mobilize the nation to prepare it for war" because Italy was famous for spending its 20+ years preparing and trying its best to start a war.
    1300
  5. "The Germans viewed private property as conditional" I mean you could argue that is the case for every country in the world. How often do plutocrat governments seize private property for their own uses? In fact Britain did it quite a lot in 1939. There's no such thing as "fundamental rights" especially not given by a government.
    1200
  6. Hitler: Gives orders explaining the strategic value of the city and that the name has nothing to do with the objectives. Revisionist Historians: Hitler was obsessed with the name.
    553
  7.  @TheImperatorKnight  Compare Starmer and co. passionately calling British people "far right thugs" to Hitler's "There shall come a time when you can proudly state that you are German". I can't ever think why people might appreciate passionate promotion of one's nation vs passionate hatred of it.
    505
  8. Why didn't Germany just continue to fight the RAF instead of giving up during BoB ?
    432
  9. Pretty important, the USA might have built thousands of Shermans but these were not submersible.
    286
  10. What are the implications of a economic collapse ? All the soldiers just pack their bags and go home? What would it actually look like ?
    217
  11. "socialism becomes fascism" except the majority of "socialists" these days are of the internationalist type and therefore would never be fascists, no ?
    205
  12.  @TheImperatorKnight  and yet also Hitler in his speeches says "we are determined to tear down the hinderances that are placed on the individual striving to fulfil his potential". So, this is the rhetoric he gives, both collectivist as well as individualist at times. As you point out that National Socialism promotes collectivism, but also respects private property.
    203
  13. 26:08 "Life as slave labourers in Germany had been better than life in Commie Russia" lmao
    194
  14.  @Ismael_Malikshahi  Like most people i'm not right or left. mix of both.
    186
  15. Next up "how effective was the English resistance"
    183
  16. >Be Estonian >seek refuge in Sweden >get blown up on transport ship >seek refuge in Germany >yay, end of war, allies can't be worse than Germans right? >get repatriated at gunpoint to gulag
    169
  17. 33:27 so basically Romania started WW2
    167
  18. 5:05 big oof, that chap just outed himself as a National Socialist
    164
  19. Starmer and Cooper's reactions to the 2020 riots were wildly different to these ones. It's their double standards which is creating the problem.
    153
  20. 1:06 love that image "Germany wants to take over the world" says the British and French Empires .
    110
  21. "Every single second is a turning point in history" - Me.
    110
  22. Peace in 1941: Germany "lol why?" Peace in 1943: Germany free to defend its European hegemony but NS state takes big political hit in failing to destroy communism Peace in 1944: Soviets "lol why?"
    101
  23. "who was to blame?" The brave and stoic resistance of the defenders ?
    87
  24. "Germany had to go to war because of the economy" Funnily enough this is also why Britain went to war, I believe in one of the Cabinet meetings the treasury minister basically said "go to war in 1939 or not at all" because the British rearmament campaign would have broken the British economy in 1940.
    85
  25. 20:29 imagine the outrage if someone made a movie with this scene.
    83
  26. "England is advising France that they should both go along regardless of Poland " - Joseph Kennedy telegram to Washington after a conversation with Halifax. I believe this is the war plan Hoggan could be referring to. I also like another quote from Halifax: "the alternative policy of assisting Germany in developing Eastern Europe is not feasible so long as the current economic system is maintained". Was changing the economic system of Germany a factor in Britain going to war?
    82
  27. "Normal non biased history, back to Dr Felton I guess" lmfao
    71
  28. Indeed the great myth is that "Britain won WW2" we went broke in 1941, military occupied in 43, surrendered the Pound Sterling in 1944 and ultimately the Empire in 45. But lets all celebrate how Churchill refused to give Germany a slightly better trade deal in 1940.
    64
  29.  @Ismael_Malikshahi  should have added an /s then because alot of people take words seriously.
    62
  30. "in relation to the general cause of British victory to which we are committed" - Ambassador in Spain to the Secretary of State, Jan .29 1941 B-but why would Germany attack the neutral, benevolent and peace loving US of A ?
    55
  31. meanwhile the Indy Neidell team "trust us bro we're the experts - YOU VILL NOT KWESTION ZE SOURCE"
    54
  32. "When an economic system is incapable of feeding and clothing a people, then it is bad, regardless of whether rich people say it is good 'the stock market is doing excellent' " - Adolf Corbyn
    49
  33. The problem is that WW2 is presented as a single war and not simply an encapsulating concept for a collection of wars. On Wikipedia it says "World War II or the Second World War (1 September 1939 – 2 September 1945) was a global conflict".
    47
  34.  @tisFrancesfault  Yes revisionism is good. But these "historians" regularly use "revisionist" as an insult. I am merely using their own insults against them.
    46
  35. Quoting mein kampf isn't ballsy, however if he made a video titles "the british 'peace front' and why britain started ww2" now that would be ballsy
    41
  36.  @nonomnismoriar9051  supplying a belligerent state with weapons, certainly is an act of war, certainly removes the laws on neutrality. The USA declared war on Germany in WW1 over a mere offer of supplying weapons to Mexico lol
    37
  37. With that logic you're saying anyone that has a big army is instantly an aggressor
    35
  38. "We're nothing like those fascist countries who brainwash their kids" also plutocrats: 1:10
    33
  39.  @TheLastSliceOfPie  Except the original italian fascists used to be socialists and mostly come from working class backgrounds, I don't think they suddenly became aristocrats
    29
  40. How can it be argued that British intentions were wholesome and pure when Chamberlain said to his cabinet on 20th March "we should attack Germany" and on the 30th March "he was somewhat uneasy at the fact that our Ambassador in Warsaw could obtain no information as to the progress of the negotiations between Germany and Poland. One possible, but very distasteful, explanation of this was that Polish negotiators were, in fact, giving way to Germany" if more evidence is needed for such a British conspiracy for war, Joseph Kennedy reported to Washington after his conversation with the foreign minister; "England is advising France that they should both go to war regardless of Poland." on 22nd March and; "Halifax felt that the inevitability of war sooner or later should be met right now" on 24th March. If their intentions were so wholesome to merely defend Poland from big bad Germany that clearly was planning to invade them, why did Georges Bonnet feel the need to say "We should go to the utmost limit including the use of threats to bring in Poland" ? After actually looking at all the evidence from the British side, Simon Newman concluded: What finally convinced the British Government that this policy had to be adopted was the fear that Poland might give in to pressure from Germany to remain neutral in return for some acceptable solution of the Danzig problem. The British had to prevent this eventuality because they considered that it would be detrimental to their interests; so detrimental, in fact, that they were prepared to risk a war to prevent it. Such an agreement, coming in the wake of a long string of German successes culminating in the occupation of Prague, the annexation of Memel, and treaties with Slovakia and Romania, would represent a further blow to Britain's prestige and influence and seriously undermine her power to organize resistance against Germany in the future. Furthermore, it would mean the loss of the eastern front which strategically was essential in a war with Germany. These were the options which the Foreign Office had all along been trying to keep open. Rather than accept their foreclosure, the British preferred to go to war. Robert Vansittart was somewhat more open and honest about the outbreak of war, rather than any "n-nooo Germany started it" mythology nonsense. He was indeed honest and said "yes we started it to prevent Germany from becoming a hegemon" that means, even if they were to become a hegemon peacefully through treaties with Romania, Slovakia, Hungary, Italy, Finland, Poland and so on.
    28
  41. "I have held from the very beginning that the poles were utterly foolish and unwise" "I can only urge the importance of Poland accepting the proposal for direct negotiations and thereby putting herself right in the eyes of the world" "The Poles must put themselves in the right by making a gesture of some kind, or else we must all fight" "Heaven knows what Poland will cost us" "In old days British statesmen were not handicapped by a propagandist press" luv me some quotes from are Nevile Henderson.
    28
  42. Not too impossible when you're subsidized by the biggest industrial economy on earth
    26
  43.  @KidoKoin  well thanks for the detailed reply
    26
  44.  @therealspeedwagon1451  I wasn't talking about the concentration camps.
    26
  45. Turning points are a nonsense theory in my opinion. You could say that lend-lease in march 1941 was the "turning point" yet if the germans actually captured leningrad and encircled moscow, or whatever else they could have done militarily to defeat the USSR then it wouldn't have been a turning point. The debacle that was Stalingrad is argued to be a turning point because it totally prevented a german victory, yet there was still the prospect of the war becoming a stalemate.
    25
  46. People say they were overstretched and needed rest etc. yet how does 2 days change anything in the grand scheme of things, especially that the panzers and infantry still had weeks more combat and distance to travel after dunkirk
    25
  47.  @zxbzxbzxb1  They weren't. They may have been able to float in really shallow water but were not submersible.
    24
  48. Peace in such a war just wasn't possible as one side had to admit defeat and after such losses how could Hitler have defended going back to 1941 borders? Nor could the soviet union afford to give away ukraine or the caucuses but since they just kicked the germans out of the caucuses i don't think they were ever on the table.
    24
  49.  @therealspeedwagon1451  I suspect a lot of these slave labourers were accommodated quite well, living with normal civilians in a first world country. But then again I'm only basing that on a photo I saw of well dressed Polish labourers in a German city after Allied conquest and the quote TIK used in this video.
    24
  50.  @fredoctober292  >Fascism; industry controls government That's just wrong though. Pretty sure the whole point of fascism was to have a strong government and therefore country, having industry work in the interests of the state and therefore the people rather than the people working for industry and industry working for capital
    23