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

  1.  @richardvernon317  You're wrong with the helicopter bit, the first helicopter was the Focke-Wulf Fw 61
    3
  2.  @richardvernon317  Sure but it seems to be a stretch to add more conditions on what qualifies as a first lol
    3
  3. Some do actually, I witnessed this myself. And as many point out in the comments, we could say that Poland was the one bullying Danzig. So TIK's whole argument is entirely biased from the British perspective and therefore flawed.
    3
  4. "How X lengthened WW2" is always a funny argument, especially for pro-British authors given that Churchill extended WW2 by 5 years.
    3
  5.  @andrewpease3688  Not really. If that was the case then why did the French sign an armistice ?
    3
  6. National Socialists achieving more Socialism in 6 years than commies did in 50 really keeps them seething. Similarly; Jesse Owens saying he was treated better by Hitler than Roosevelt has Plutocrats seething to this day.
    3
  7. The entirety of history and pop culture is literally defined by what happens. If Stalin and Hitler did come to an agreement of alliance in late 1940 then everyone would view Hitler as a socialist and leftist. But since there was the whole German-Soviet war thing, the war time propaganda was Hitler being a sole far right madman. Conversely had the Soviets and Germans allied with each other then all the Anglo-American propaganda would paint Hitler as a socialist best friend of Stalin.
    3
  8.  Guantanamo Clay  Yes I posted a comment in the comment section, you did not have to post a rant at said comment. Who cares? Clearly you do lol
    3
  9. Read Simon Newman's 'March 1939 the British guarantee to Poland' for a look at how Britain unambiguously started it. Maliciously undermining German-Polish relations to the point of enabling Poland to make threats on Danzig and then obviously declaring war on Germany when Germany invaded. As an analogy, would the United States just sit back and cower from Mexican threats on El Paso or Cuban threats on Guantanamo simply because the Russians gave security guarantees to Mexico or Cuba ? I think not, and you know it wouldn't either, the US would do exactly as Germany did if not much earlier.
    3
  10.  @georgedrake1501  >Do you suggest the British just stand by as the Germans break more treaties and conquer more independent nations? Perhaps not, but in choosing to go to war with Germany, along with the evidence of planning such a thing, you can't then say "Britain tried to avoid war" when it played a large part in starting the war with its encirclement and power politics in eastern Europe. >respected a single treaty he signed this meme.
    3
  11. It didn't really though. It was the war which Britain unleashed against Germany which had major effects. For example if France wasn't defeated by Germany then Japan would not have 'invaded' Indochina, thus the USA would not have embargoed Japan's oil and thus Japan would not have bombed Pearl Harbor.
    3
  12. yeah peace in 1941 is ludicrous, why would you make peace when you're breaking world records on the number of armies smashed? peace after 1942 is also daft, how could Germany just go back to 1941 borders and pretend nothing happened?
    3
  13.  @TheImperatorKnight  Ah my bad, thought this was the one was from may 1939 Also Chamberlain never intended to appease Hitler, if he did, there simply wouldn't have been a war. He sympathized with reversing Versailles but was well against any German eastern empire.
    3
  14. And I highly reccomend you read Simon Newman's 'march 1939 the british guarantee to poland' for a good study on Britain's contribution to the conflict that unravelled (implication: had britain left germany alone then there wouldn't have even been a german-polsih war, much less a ww2)
    3
  15. Except if we do not attribute all deaths in the general war to Hitler and look at deaths during peace time, then Hitler is actually at the bottom of the death count list.
    3
  16. Because this one simple question fundamentally destroys the "Britain was only defending Poland" justification. That is even when we are totally ignorant of the scheming that went on during March 1939. I'm seriously thinking about doing a video that exposes the intrigues of the British and Americans from January to March 1939. For just a hint taken from James Forrestal's diary: "Neither the French, nor the British would have made Poland a case for war, had not been for the constant needling from Washington. Bullitt kept telling Roosevelt that the Germans wouldn't fight, Kennedy that they would, and that they would overrun Europe. Chamberlain, he says, stated that America had forced England into the war." this is corroborated by Polish embassy documents in Washington DC as well as Polish diplomatic documents published by the Germans in 1940. And when placed between the diplomatic documents published by the Allies themselves in DBFP and DGFP, along with other sources from government officials, you can start to get a picture bigger than simply "Britain was simply defending Poland from Germany that was clearly going to invade".
    3
  17.  @bolivar2153  "The Prime Minister said that 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." - Cabinet Minutes, 30th March.
    3
  18. if pat buchanan said "grass is green" would you disagree on principle ?
    3
  19. There's infinitely more context that people are not aware of when it comes to the German-Polish war, namely all the pressure Poland put on Danzig, particularly after receiving the guarantee from Britain. The primary one which tipped Germany into military action was the Ultimatum of August 4th. 80 years later most 'historians' would have you think nothing happened until one day Germany did a false flag and then invaded Poland and wholesome Britain came to their rescue (which we know they didn't).
    3
  20.  @junfour  Why don't you ? Poland is mentioned 3 times in MK and 3 times in a positive light.
    3
  21.  @Kanovskiy  yeah i know, which is why i kinda guessed he hasn't done it yet
    2
  22. to think Britain was also not responsible would be ignorant also. You should read "March 1939 The British Guarantee to Poland" by Simon Newman
    2
  23.  @alexandredelneste270  yeah and Poland would experience the British guarantee lol (I'm sure you know that the British gave Poland away to the Soviets) after using them as a trojan horse against Germany.
    2
  24.  @electronworld4996  given his numerous attempts at getting one, yes. See his conversation with Beck on January 5th 1939 in Documents on German Foreign Policy.
    2
  25.  @electronworld4996  He "invaded" Czechia in March 1939, he made a few offers to Poland before that, his offer of January 5th 1939 was Danzig re-joining Germany whilst Poland retaining special economic rights in Danzig and the Polish corridor being guaranteed to Poland. Basically Hitler offered to be the most pro-Polish German statesman in history. Yet Poland for whatever reason rejected these offers. >He wanted to take territory, period. He was not particularly bothered about Polish territory, contrary to popular belief as I have mentioned he offered to renounce German claims to the Corridor, which would annoy millions of Germans had he done that.
    2
  26. yeah didn't Mosley in speeches and in print come out against anti-semitism ? So uh, unlike every other anti-semite at the time that would definitely be a weird form of "anti-semitism".
    2
  27.  @marekmazurek8459  except they did, read "POLAND AND HITLER'S OFFERS OF ALLIANCE" and pretty much any decent book about foreign relations before WW2
    2
  28. WW2 was such a disaster for Britain that we've basically made up myths to make it seem that it wasn't too bad. "special relationship", "allies", "victory" etc. Not many "victorious" countries get occupied by millions of foreign soldiers and in financial servitude to them.
    2
  29.  @Biggestfoo  "TIK DESTROYS REDDITORS" 2m views
    2
  30.  @samsonsoturian6013  the point is that Unions these days do nothing but waste people's time, whereas in the 1930s things like paid for holidays, working hours, and minimum wages were a brilliant new idea. People take these things for granted these days and just think they had always existed.
    2
  31. Yeah but this is the right kind of banning /s
    2
  32.  @paulrevere2379  No submersible is the correct word, it is generally assumed by most people that by "submersible" we mean submersible and in a usable or functional condition afterwards. Everything is submersible in the sense it can go to the bottom of the sea.
    2
  33. Halder was the perfect capitalist actually. Took all the credit and socialized all the blame.
    2
  34. thanks to lend lease
    2
  35.  @sky_professor3051  someone didn't watch the video
    2
  36. How and why wars start are entirely opinions and government propaganda. Most people say "WW2 started when Germany invaded Poland". Few would say it started when Poland threatened war with Danzig on August 4th, and anyone that does would be branded a heretic, given that the side that supported Danzig was vanquished.
    2
  37. Indeed, Germany's plans in 1939 at most was a German-Polish war against the USSR and upon successful completion Germany would then demand the return of German colonies stolen after WW1. However of course the paranoid British believed that Germany "wanted to take over the world" after Germany seized.... Czechia. And Chamberlain subsequently stumbled whether maliciously or incompetently into a war which could have seen Germany actually dominate Eurafrasia rather than simply East Europe - a region which accounted for 2% of British trade.
    2
  38. " what does one call a "war of aggression?"" any war involving america
    2
  39.  @71kimg  you might want to rephrase that, I have no idea what you tried to say.
    2
  40.  @coachhannah2403  you should probably use quotes when joining a months old 140+ post thread
    2
  41. Any intelligent person wouldn't blame Churchill for starting the war, they could indeed point out, as literally everyone at the time did, that Churchill was a major lobbyist for starting war against Germany. But it was ultimately Chamberlain who was the one in government, who made the decision to "do something about Germany" leading to the guarantee of March 31st, his "Peace Front policy" and ultimately declaring war on Germany. Historians like TIK however simply ignore everything the British did and only focus on what the Germans did, at least on the worst interpretations.
    2
  42.  @TheImperatorKnight  Yeah but my version of [insert ideology] won't lead to [bad thing]
    2
  43. and then gave the victim to the other bully that was beating up the victim along with your chosen targeted 'bully'
    2
  44.  @DavidNaval  Yes. Just like How Churchill left Ireland alone after invading Iran, Iceland, Portugal, Lybia, Tunisia, Italy etc. etc.
    2
  45.  @Saeronor  the one on the 30th, as Henderson telegrammed on the 31st "If nothing happens in the next two or three hours, Germany will declare war in view of Polish general mobilization and their conviction that Poland prefers to fight rather than negotiate."
    2
  46.  @officeofpeaceinformation5094  Except it is though if you actually read books about the politics and the outbreak of WW2. If Germany just wanted to invade Poland then explain the extensive German-Polish discussions over resolving their disputes peacefully, particularly from 1938-April 1939 ?
    2
  47. It's funny how foreign ministers have always been the cause of war, yet the narrative is that WW2 was solely Hitler's fault? I think WW2 is no different to any other war in this regard and that it was indeed another war caused by foreign ministers Ribbentrop, Beck, Bonnet and Halifax. Ribbentrop is accused by many diplomats of aggressively urging Hitler to go to war with Poland. Halifax created the "Peace Front". Bonnet gave Halifax the idea of a guarantee to Poland. Beck refused to return to negotiations with Germany after the British guarantee.
    2
  48. WW2 started when Britain declared war on Germany, its as simple as that. British apologists like to say "but Austria" or "but Czechia" yet no one declared war on Britain when it was colonizing half the world or America in the 20th century with its aggressions against Cuba, Panama, Somalia, Vietnam etc. etc.
    2
  49. Exactly but TIK and British apologists just can't fathom the concept. Doesn't matter how much you justify it, Britain still started WW2. You could easily justify starting WW3 against Russia for its invasion of Ukraine. Thus far we haven't and thus Russia hasn't started WW3. So therefore Germany wouldn't have been able to "start WW2" if Britain didn't declare war.
    2
  50.  @TheImperatorKnight  The Polish position over Danzig was by a few ambassadors, seen as aggressive, Burckhardt and Henderson to name two, the Americans also seemed confused as to why Poland was threatening war over any form of reunion with Germany, even if it was one voted for by the Danzig people.
    2