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

United States speedrun basically. Whereas it took the USA about 200 years to colonize the West, Germany planned on colonizing the East in about 50.
1100
Have you read Otto Wagner's "memoirs of a confidant". Quite interesting how in 1936 Hitler was talking abut setting up a Greater European Union with a customs union with Poland, Czechoslovakia and everyone else in Europe. Obviously 3 years later there'd be war, so basically I think Hitler's "plans" for the future changed every week. This video is a nice compilation, though probably far from definitive of all the various writings German leaders made about possible future configurations.
204
@danii-wz9dh Pretty much the same way the Americans cleared out the natives and rounded them up into reservations after a military defeat.
111
"Some German official vaguely mentioning that they should annex Iceland" is not proof that they "would have". Similarly ,look at the countless ideas written by the leaders of the Allies about what they should do with a conquered Germany and pretty much none of them were realized.
27
I mean it's not like ideas change over time is it ? Especially one of a scientific or academic nature like racial classifications. Common example people refer to these days is that Irish people in America weren't considered "White" for a long period of time.
12
It's hardly "absurd" given that the German colonisation of the East was influenced by the American colonisation of the West. The so-called "forever war" was merely a predicted state of conflict between Germans and the natives similar to the conflicts between the Americans and Native Indians from 1600-1900
11
@chtabarddumultien6075 if you go onto wikipedia page "invasion of poland" in the talk section you'll find a link to a Turkish website explaining the history of this alleged quote and basically it comes from some random press article in 1942 and that even the Nuremberg kangaroo court rejected its use as "evidence".
7
An interesting book to read is "Otto Wagner's Memoirs of a Confidant" particularly the chapter that recalls Hitler's conversations about the creation of a European Union and Customs Union.
5
@Ohlalatay13 Give that logic a 2 second thought. Moustache man considered Russian culture to be as inferior as Native American culture is to you and Anglos. Having said that he still wanted to conquer Russia for it's resources that would give Europe economic independence.
5
Why do you synonymize Germans with their political class but not Ukrainians or Poles ?
5
@Ohlalatay13 Yeah and Native Americans gave the world potatoes and uh... probably some other stuff.
3
@samwill7259 Was he as insane as Plutocrats who wrote about the genocide of Germans or partitioning Germany ?. Most allied propaganda films would say no. Writing about the partition of Germany is "fine" but Germans writing about annexing [x] is "insane".
3
That's pretty much what every other European empire in history did.
2
@guillermozalles9303 "Rome brought the rule of law to new territories, medicine, roads, architecture" You kinda missed the bit where the Romans genocided most of the inhabitants first also, right? One could say that Germany planned to bring roads, hygene and basically European civilization to the vast swathes of Eastern Europe/ Western Asia
2
@guillermozalles9303 Well they were planning to build roads, cities and the expansion of Europe. They weren't offering much to the natives in the same way the Americans didn't offer much to the Native Americans. Yet are you glad the America was colonized ? It's pretty funny how the same conservatives and Americophiles who say Germany was evil for wanting to colonize Russia are the same people that would also say "who can argue the colonization of America wasn't a good thing?" they argue "It's a good thing that a wasteland was turned into a multitrillion dollar civilization. Similarly had Germany successfully achieved it's goals we'd be saying "who can argue it wasn't a good thing that Germany colonized Russia, they turned a poohole into a multitrillion dollar extension of Europe?"
2
@HW-sw5gb "Accidentally made the reservations smaller and smaller" lool
2
@HW-sw5gb "There was never an industrialized process of mass murder" But there was still a deindustrialized process of mass murder through wars and atrocities. The first use of biological warfare was against Native Americans. I think the consensus is that most people are apathetic towards genocide when it is conducted, in America, Turkey, Germany or wherever. Of course when they get conquered by foreigners who show them how evil they've been, naturally they're all "oh yeah we totally were against this #GermanResistance" It's no coincidence that suddenly everyone is a resistance fighter or communist when the other army occupies their country.
2
it wasn't really "Anglo" relations, it was quite literally Churchill-American relations, it's why Churchill is such a big hero in America. Before the half-American came along Britain was a rival of America, as America even during the war treated them like an enemy more than an ally. It's why the Germans were so confused as to why Britain preferred to be treated this way than ally with Germany against the Americans.
2
No because the Americans won. So doing a video about all the different "crazy, insane, evil" plans that Americans had for Germany, doesn't work for our cause.
1
@DrScopey2 "The ideas to free up land for settlement and use of resources, access for transportation and to avoid confrontations." Interesting.
1
No the Brits don't really make any sense, "bro we literally want to ally with you, trade with you, protect your empire, why tf are you trying to wage a war that is ruinous to yourself ?"
1
@generaladvance5812 there's a difference between an anti-British hegemon like Napoleon and what Hitler wanted which was a pro-British hegemon. The alternative was what we got, a communist and American split Europe with a ruined Britain.
1
@achanneltruly5331 the pseudo history is your idea of "hitler was always gonna attack france" the actual history is that Hitler offered a 25 year peace pact with France in 1935 or 36 I believe it was.
1
@Jamesmac77 Difference was that the Soviets violated the pact by supplying arms to Yugoslav partisans. Of course, allied propaganda films never mention this bit. But for the sake of honesty I would also say, yes, it was no surprise. Germany had long wanted to expand eastwards. They never planned to expand westwards, so that is the key difference. You will not be able to find any writing or speech before WW2 where Germany plans to expand westwards.
1
It's almost like different people have different opinions. The Plutocrats were also contradictory on stuff like this i.e. the future configuration of Europe.
1
@HW-sw5gb I simply use "Plutocrats" because some folks prefer to use the political ideologies as a substitute to Axis or German, yet funnily enough never do this for the Allies/ Americans. "insanity" Kinda like the United States entire existence isn't it?
1
@HW-sw5gb "they mostly died of disease" big yikes. Imagine if someone said that about the thing that happened in the 1940s,, what would you call them? "morals were totally different in the 19th century" except they actually weren't when you read certain quotes from people who lived at the time.
1
If the Germans won before Italy switched to the allies then they would not have annexed the Italian territories lol On the contrary in many German writings in 1940 they spoke about Germany AND Italy being the masters of Europe, when the Italians were invaded and "switched" to the allies, then certain people starting writing about the treasonous Italians etc.
1
No more delusional than Roosevelt and other Plutocrats remarks about what to do with Germany
1
@jaredsheehan480 Stalin, Zhukov, Khrushchev and many others literally said they would have lost without the tanks, steel, food, fuel, boots and trains delivered in lend-lease, yet tankies still believe in, ironically, western propaganda that paints the USSR as a superpower behemoth.
1