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

  1. TLDW; because Hitler wasn't mad
    1
  2. have you heard of the Polish Ultimatum to Danzig of August 4th ? 99.999% of people have not. Remember all the cries for war when a Russian drone flew over Polish territory for about 2 minutes ? Now imagine the war cries if Russia sent an official note threatening to flatten Warsaw.
    1
  3. Maybe not actually, they would have welcomed Trump's protectionism actually. The Germans were against American exports and in favour of such controls.
    1
  4. No. No, sorry. In order to have been 'in the right' Germany should have done whatever the Anglo-Americans wanted them to do, this would have meant disinteresting themselves in the welfare of the German minority in Poland and the democratic wishes of the people of Danzig. Germany had no right to protect Danzigers or its minority left after the Versailles Treaty. Meanwhile the Anglo-Americans in every war since 1945: invades country xyz because they don't like its leader.
    1
  5. No one in particular "wanted war" but in March 1939 the British are the ones that wanted war from the Cabinet meetings to British General's letters demanding war. "War, and war now with a near eastern front. Without war our desired results may never be acheived" says one such Noel Mason MacFarlane "we must have a war, we cannot lose it" says Henry Pownall "we should attack Germany" says Chamberlain and i'm sure you can dig up many other quotes.
    1
  6. Germany had a land army, and land armies aren't much use against the English Channel. So they used it against Russia. Conquering Russia was a long time goal for Germany. So Hitler took the chance in 1941.
    1
  7. yeah it's always ironic when propagandists talk about other "propaganda" like bruh. I'm not saying TIK is a propagandists but still in this instance he's spouting propaganda "Germany started WW2" um, no. You can argue they started the German-Polish war but it was quite clearly Britain who started the conflagration later known as WW2.
    1
  8. and that's the fantastic thing about WW2, had it not been for Britain's guarantee of Poland, there might not have even been a German-Polish war. But, here we are with "Germany started ww2".
    1
  9.  @BasedGauncho  Obviously. When people ask "who was the best general" they are really asking "who was the 2nd best general of the war"
    1
  10.  @BasedGauncho  I clearly mean that Manstein was the best General
    1
  11. @walterCronkitesleftshoe6684 The Truth is far from the one you imagine, in May 1940, far from demanding "extermination camps in Lincolnshire", the Germans were planning on asking us for a breach in the imperial preference system. In 1945 the United States demanded it's complete abolition. For your education, because I highly doubt you know what it is, the Imperial Preference system was the British Empire's system of trade and economics. Our independent economic policy, the US demanded we pin our economy to theirs. Read Peter Hitchen's "The Phoney Victory", and you will be shocked at how much the Americans treated us like 'The Nazis' do in your imagined alternate history.
    1
  12. @walterCronkitesleftshoe6684 In the same way we've been vassalized by America and forced to accept American laws like gun ownership rights, self defence rights etc. etc. ?
    1
  13. TIK, what are your opinions on Hitler's attempts to gain a deal with Poland from 1938 to April 1939. How does this fact fit with your "he had to go to war because of the economy" narrative, also what did the Germans gain economically from a poor agrarian country like Poland anyway ?
    1
  14.  @ukkev7290  what is it titled ?
    1
  15. They might not have been mass produced (I dunno, maybe because Germany was losing the war and being bombed into oblivion) yet they still produced the technology. Hence the argument being they were technologically superior. Weather or not they had the ability to mass produce or make these creations effective.
    1
  16.  @rankoorovic7904  I don't see how production numbers relate to technological advancement really. You can make the same arguments with contemporary tech. Are 10,000 Intel Celeron processors better than a Ryzen Threadripper 3990X ?
    1
  17. It's kinda difficult to just stop war unilaterally. Hitler tried to gain an entante with Britain, nor did he want war with Britain or France and then tried to end it at every juncture (October 1939, June 1940 among many others). However it was Britain that did want to fight and destroy Germany and under the insane leadership of madman Churchill, they didn't want to compromise on anything other than complete destruction of Europe or Britain.
    1
  18. Yeah this seemed a poor video by TIK standards. He just dismisses SAMs, cruise missiles, space craft etc. as "just rockets". And not the futuristic pioneering technologies that are still used today.
    1
  19.  @collinwood6573  nah its like being 2nd in a race and saying "I was the first to use nike shoes"
    1
  20.  @Bingo_Bango_  no it was the poles that Broke off negotiations, even after March Hitler made personal attempts to negotiate with Warsaw. With Beck reiterating to the British on August 1st "The best chance of maintaining peace is for us to remain calm and firm without any sign whatsoever of compromise or inclination, official or otherwise, to negotiate about Danzig."
    1
  21.  @Bingo_Bango_  >anecdotes and quotes, by Germans, from Germans is it not a valid source? or do you only accept anecdotes about Germany by Britons >Both of those ideas were utter fabrications well shit, the nazis were geniuses then, they got everything right, right down to the polish press demanding the shelling of danzig. If Hitler wanted to frame Poland then he would have ordered Danzig to establish a customs union with Germany which would have "provoked" a Polish invasion, yet Danzig in July wanted to ease relations, why's that? There are plenty of documents from Danzig diplomats about the efforts they went through to reach a rapprochement with Poland and most of them say the same thing, that it was Poland obstructing any peaceful negotiations. There was no effort by them to resolve the dispute peacefully. Can you blame Hitler for resorting to war if that is the only option he is given? As Henderson points out.
    1
  22.  @Saeronor  there's plenty of his reports and Burckhardts from the previous months saying the same thing, as i've just mentioned above
    1
  23.  @Bingo_Bango_  >You're the one who keeps promoting them Actually i've only been using British and Swiss sources in this thread >I'm not even sure what you're getting at. your point about Hitler always wanting war with Germany and trying to frame poland as the "aggressor", I gave an easy option of how he could have achieved that, he didn't. > no Poland did not invade Germany. don't think i've ever claimed such a thing, I did say that Poland threatened numerous times to invade Danzig (which they did). >No one had a gun to Hitler's head apart from Lord Halifax's power politics and the constant warmongering by western press. Sure Hitler could have just embarrassed himself and give the initiative to the west but we'll never know what would happen. >I repeat: are you delusional? not at all. >muddied attention probably the case, i'm not a redditor and don't partake in many long winded internet debates. But I have read many books, including primary sources i.e. DGFP, DBFP and DUSFP etc. There is a clear view of diplomats of the time that Poland was refusing peaceful solutions the Germans are portrayed by British and American diplomats as reasonable folk who want Poland to come to the negotiations but Poland never did. You can't deny that fact, had Poland in fact made efforts to preserve peace then people like von Hassel and Nevile Henderson wouldn't have gotten stressed about the intransigent Poles.
    1
  24.  @Bingo_Bango_  > the foggiest hint what's going on in the conversation so far. because i presume your whole general argument is the usual "it was a long planned war by hitler" yet the facts just do not add up. Why then had Germany cancelled its planned attack on Poland and then went back to negotiations, as Martin Winstone writes "The clearest evidence that Hitler was not pursuing a predetermined plan towards Poland lay in what he actually did." ... "Precisley because Hitler's ambitions in the East were so much greater - Lebensraum at the expense of the USSR rather than the restoration of the pre 1914 borders - he was less fixated on Poland. This enabled him to pursue a more pragmatic course, despite resistance from his conservative allies." ... "The German government still went through the motions of negotiation even on the eve of war. Their motivation no doubt was to try and avoid war with France and Britain if Poland could be induced to follow the German line". >Poland did not invade Danzig again, I never claimed they did. >Not an invasion of Poland by Germany. No. Because Poland never even contemplated the most basic and universally accepted solution to the problem, championed by basically everyone with common sense i.e. the return of Danzig to Germany. Instead Poland said "fight me" and Germany responded with "alright then". Yet this is all Germany's fault of course. >Say, could I have everything you own? More like "Say can I have back this city which itself wants to come back to me and was mine until it was given to you by the allies"
    1
  25.  @Bingo_Bango_  So you think Poland "did nothing wrong" then ? >You are not permitted to renege on treaties Unless you're country is called the United States or Britain of course. >May he be absolved of guilt in his eyes, I don't think anyone is absolving him of any guilt but equally you can't absolve Poland of all guilt.
    1
  26.  @Bingo_Bango_  >the only thing Poland did "wrong" was not give in to pressure from the USSR to annex and go to war with Germany You're saying it was wrong for Poland to not give part of its country in order to fight against the other ?
    1
  27.  @Bingo_Bango_  > per the Soviet-German 1939 agreement. nowhere in that agreement did it "carve up poland" contrary to british apologists like yourself. spheres of influences "in the event of" are not set in stone territory assignments. >German negotiations were fair and reasonable how were they not ? Henderson certainly said they were moderate, though of course, as we all know according to "the correct historians" he was a famous nazi. >As an aside, it's always fascinating how vehement revisionists like you guys always come out when it's to the benefit of violent extremists and Churchill wasn't a violent extremist? sure. >Germany did nothing wrong I've never implied such a thing. >Where's the revisionists swarming to conclusions that can only be used to justify peace and sensibility? I don't understand your point in this?
    1
  28.  @Bingo_Bango_  >you have to be an absolute imbecile to believe Oh but Britain decided that Poland was suddenly an important strategic partner and in total ignorance decided to military guarantee it? sure. >hypothetically yes, hypothetically, had Poland returned to negotiations or better yet offered to unilaterally give back Danzig as a gesture of their good faith, war may have been avoided. >or if Poland "asked for it" In the eyes of outside diplomats, they did indeed ask for it, just read this. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1939v01/d227 Looking forward to how you dismiss this one.
    1
  29.  @Bingo_Bango_  The general idea that Poland's position was unreasonable. How can it be reasonable for the daily tensions with Danzig and refusing the right of self determination to those people? Whilst telling everyone that they will go to war with Germany over it. >Britain became interested in defending Poland Or making sure Poland didn't give way to Germany, as we have already seen in March 1939 with Lord Halifax's meetings and Chamberlain's comments in the Cabinet meetings. You may or may not have read Simon Newman's book about the British guarantee? >you quoted a Briton in a way that implied that Poland was somehow wrong to hold Danzig Yes, here's another lovley quote by the British "it is recognized in Great Britain that Danzig is a German city and that British public opinion would welcome a peaceful solution based on the recognition of this fact" - Ashton Gwaktin >You have not addressed the fact that Germany had a policy of sabotaging negotiations How could they sabotage negotiations that never took place because the Polish didn't want them? They never took place despite the best efforts of Henderson and others to get the Poles to negotiate.
    1
  30.  @Bingo_Bango_  > it's not this one No because as I said Danzig wanted a detente with Poland but then the Polish ultimatum of August 4th "shattered any hope" in the words of Burckhardt, though again i'm sure he's another nazi sympathizing diplomat to you, interesting that the diplomats of the time were all nazis isn't it? > By refusing to even attempt to seek common ground with Polish negotiators Would you not apply this to the Poles as well? >German troops at the border Both sides had been bolstering their borders for months, would you say Polish movements in February or March ruined the chances for a peaceful settlement ? I don't think you would. >I will continue to trust the private and authenticated communications of Germans declaring what Germany must and should do, And I will continue to trust the private and authenticated communications of Britons declaring what Britain must and should do >the victimization of the Polish Why do you just ignore the victimization of the Germans ?
    1
  31. ​ @Bingo_Bango_  >came months prior if not years prior, everyone knew that Danzig was to return to Germany sooner or later and it was Poland who refused to let this happen hence why people also say Versailles started WW2 because it should never have been given in the first place. >usual argument about it being a planned and cunning plan to start a war I find it amazing that the only time the nazis were true geniuses and showed true cunning was in starting the war. Again do you think Poland was right to go along with the "die for Danzig" policy as supported by warmongers like Churchill and the Eden group. >no one gives a fuck about what Britain must and should do in relations to this topic except the British had a large part in this conflict though. Many contemperaries blamed Polish intransigence on the military guarantee, such as the King of Italy, Prince Regent of Hungary etc. not to mention Britain literally went around Europe asking countries to fight with them in a preventative war "regardless of Poland" not sure if i've already linked you to that document. "Beck is more than happy to have England’s support given in the way that it was, i. e., that Poland is the one to determine when England is to come to her rescue." - Joseph Kennedy "The Polish view was that now that they had france and Great Britain behind them, they could not concede in full demands which they had refused in March last." "Provided we could ensure Germany having to face a war on two fronts, there was much less likelihood of war" - Cabinet meetings minutes But do tell me how Britain had nothing to do with the start of WW2
    1
  32. Germany: Ahead in technology and research UK: Ahead in lies and deception. Yep, can confirm as a brit myself.
    1
  33. I really don't think he at all "liked" the aristocracy, he was simply practical, knowing he had to work with them in order to achieve his goals.
    1
  34.  @ajsimo2677  "i like differences apart from differences i don't like"
    1
  35. because by 1938, Germany had an army. Unlike the times in 1919 and 1931 when Germany and Austria wanted a reunion and the French and British forbade it.
    1
  36.  @andrewpease3688  What are you confused about ?
    1
  37.  @andrewpease3688  He was indeed PM in Late May/ June 1940. Most would call it "surrender" but, yes he could have ended the war by negotiations in partnership with the French when they asked the British government to join them in ending the war.
    1
  38.  @andrewpease3688  "Remind me, how did that work out?" Well as the war continued, not too great obviously. Being invaded and bombed isn't usually a great thing.
    1
  39. Hitler was so bothered about people having a good life it literally cost him the war lol Meanwhile in the plutocracies people suffered terrible deprivations as soon as 1939 in order to wage war against Germany.
    1
  40. No historian is unquestionable
    1
  41. well volk in english is folk, so there is that reason.
    1
  42.  @colder5465  I can't seem to find this book "wonder by moscow" what is the author called ?
    1
  43.  @TheImperatorKnight  The Hossbach Memorandum doesn't prove at all that Germany started WW2, much less does it prove that Germany is culpable for the actions of the Chamberlain government or the Polish government. Even if we assume the conspiracy is true (that Germany had long planned for war with Poland) it doesn't negate the choices made by Chamberlain or his government (namely starting war against Germany). As Simon Newman said: If we accept that political adjustment to take account of changing power relationships is both necessary and desirable, then, as E. H. Carr has argued, 'the use or threatened use of force to maintain the status quo may be morally more culpable than the use or threatened use of force to alter it'. Even if we accept that the distinction between 'aggressive' and 'defensive' wars should be made, it is seldom possible in practice to do so with clear-cut precision. It is certainly arguable that German hegemony in central and south-eastern Europe did not represent a threat to Britain's independence. Halifax had to counter such thinking in the Cabinet, and Cadogan always had his doubts. In any case, even on the worst interpretation, the threat was only a contingent one and did not arise mechanically or necessarily from the mere fact of a shift in the European balance.
    1
  44. "this may be a long comment" writes a book
    1
  45. "If I'm told that some countries want to remain democrats — very well, they must remain democrats at all costs" is this paradoxical quote in German accurate ?
    1
  46.  @tyronebiggums285  I mean, that's basically the same sentence as the English version. Perhaps with less correct grammar or phrasing e.g. "When one says, the others are remaining democrats after all, good," is like something from google translate .
    1
  47. he was clearly being diplomatic, a soviet offensive, never mind victory, would have been impossible without lend lease
    1
  48. "The Foreign Secretary said that he had been reflecting on the anxieties which had been voiced by the Minister for Co-ordination of Defence. He agreed that there was probably no way in which France and ourselves could prevent Poland from being overrun. We were faced with the dilemma of doing nothing, or entering into a devastating war. If we did nothing, this would mean a great accession to Germany's strength and a great loss to ourselves of sympathy and support in the United States, and in other parts of the world. If we had to choose between two great evils, he favoured our going to war." - Cabinet Meeting, 27th March. In all these cabinet meetings, Poland was explicitly a pretext to start a war against Germany.
    1
  49.  @Raphael4722  >Versailles wasn't harsh that's not the argument, the argument is that certain points of it i.e. territory was badly handled and caused future conflicts between nations. Germany also surrendered on the basis of the 14 points which were ignored at the paris peace conference
    1
  50.  @Edax_Royeaux  the problem is geopolitics, it would have been idiocy of the highest magnitude for Germany to just hope france doesn't invade Germany whilst Germany fights a war against France's ally in Russia.
    1