Comments by "AFGuidesHD" (@AFGuidesHD) on "Did WW2 start in 1937 or 1939?" video.

  1. 1:06 love that image "Germany wants to take over the world" says the British and French Empires .
    110
  2. 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
  3. and seven years war
    19
  4. Anglo centric history likes to forget Russia's role prior to June 22 1941, given that Russia played a critical role in destroying Germany after Germany defeated Anglo-French forces in 1940.
    4
  5. broke: britain started ww2 because it declared war on germany woke: britain started ww2 because it didn't declare war on germany earlier
    3
  6. I don't know what logic you are on about but 'WW2', commonly a misnomer for the Second Anglo-German war literally did not start until 3rd September 1939. Contrary to revisionist history, there was no state of war between Germany and Britain on 1st or 2nd September.
    3
  7.  @tylerbozinovski427  I see what you mean. However he's still basing his logic on Anglo-Centric history which likes to say it started on 1st September because it relinquishes culpability of the conflict from themselves, even though Chamberlain points out in his speech of 3rd September "a state of war would exist between us" meaning there was indeed no state of war between us on 1st and 2nd.
    3
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Indeed, it is 100% anglo-centric history. Ask anyone in Britain, has WW3 started ? They would tell you no, of course not. Zelensky in his bunker in Kiev on the other hand, would hope otherwise. Similarly in 1940 ask any American has WW2 started ? They'd say no, of course not. Churchill in his bunker in London would hope otherwise.
    2
  11. those who argue 1 September 1939 could argue WW3 started on 24 February 2022
    2
  12. I mean, at the time there was considerable blame given to Russia for "betraying" Chamberlain's Peace Front policy, and 'allowing' Germany to invade Poland. Naturally all of this discussion and blame was ended on June 22 1941 and has been since memory holed.
    1
  13.  @waynedonoghue4071  Yes, just like how the USA 'stopped' at California and Texas. Albeit having discussions about annexing the whole of Mexico, did anyone apart from maybe Napoleon III consider the USA be a menace and threat to world peace for conquering the territory it did ?
    1
  14. There was indeed plans and documents that support Zhukov's claims about Stalin planning for war with Germany, presumably around 1943. Funnily enough the same people who say there isn't much evidence for this claim, are also the same people that like to talk about the Gleiwitz False Flag incident.
    1
  15.  @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
  16. Hungary invaded Slovakia and its not even a distant thought in anyone's memories.
    1
  17.  @TheImperatorKnight  Have you read Simon Newman's 'March 1939 the British Guarantee to Poland' ?
    1