Chamberlain was a weak old fool and Frances leader was no better. They stood idly by while Germany was rearming in violation of Versailles, the German army reoccupied the Rhineland, Hitler took over Austria and Hitler took over the Sudetenland. German Generals, it was found out after the war, complained to Hitler that they were not ready to take on the French or the British and in the event of a war Gernany would surely be crushed.
@repetitivemotion The Versailles Treaty was seen as illegal, The Allies gave Germany back its lands also its pride. Nobody wanted a repeat of 1914-1918 bloody war. Hitler was Austrian, Austria joined the Reich, Germany as ruled by Austrian dictator.
Rhineland & Sudenland were Germany, And given back to its People.
Also Britain-Frnace was not ready for war, The Germans were always more prepared thanks to Hitler, Most of all the Luftwaffe best in Europe.
Experts say the Czechs would've put up a good fight on their own for at least 6+ months; which is magnificent for a tiny landlocked nation surrounded by enemies (Germans, Russians, etc.) and regarded as the most successful autonomous economy in history, and also the most economically successful communist country by GDP per capita and hdi (development). Too bad the politicians are traitorous cheap whores; who don't give a damn about the country, because they themselves are Jewish foreigners!
Czechs should've fought, Hitler couldn't believe how well prepared Czechs were. The Czech defensive line was extremely hardcore; they had multiple fortified lines, bunkers every 50m, connected underground with rail systems. No joke, they even had underground barracks, hospitals, munitions factories; which, ended up being the jewel of Nazi research projects (anti gravity engines, etc.).Why else you think the last remaining German divisions were in Bohemia.
It's my opinion. Poland need czech equipment, Czech need polish hearts.
I think Germany will won war against Czechoslovakia but that wasn't easy war for Hitler, most hard than war against Poland. And mayby UK and France will did something.
Neville Chamberlain was a man of peace, He wanted to control Hitler and Germany and during the Munich Treaty, Hitler signed & agreed not to invade any free nation. However Hitler betrayed the Treaty and betrayed his word. Czech was then occupied it against the treaty and Hitler then pushed his luck in Poland, Only Britain would be the only nations to stand up against the Axis of evil.
@martynrobin121 Yes, Neville Chamberlain was a man of peace, he was also very naive. We now know what appeasement policies can lead to when dealing with a fanatical ideology. Hitler could of been stopped more than once: The refusal to respect the Versaille treaty, the marching into Alsace-Loraine, the Sudetenland, the invasion of Tchechoslovakia, the Anschluss. You can't trust and make deals with that sort of mindset. Appeasement and concessions will eventualy lead to the point of no return.
@caporalchef4 The British saw the Versaille Treaty as criminal & too harsh by France.
Also Germany had lost alot of territory after 1918. Hitler made it very clear his focus was in the East, The British hated Communism and hoped Germany would become a puppet to use against Soviet Union.
However when the Nazis-Soviets signed a Treaty that was the end and then Poland. Britain needed time to Re-Arm and could not do anything, France could have but got scared and went on defence.
Versaille Treaty was criminal only in war damages and other economic-militar limitations. Versaille borders was in mostly equity!
UK and France were two lying dogs. The could only bark to Germany but did nothing to help Poland who was defending independent. UK could use RAF, France all army. But UK bombed Germany "anti-nazi" leaflets, France wanted wanted hide behind Maginot Line.
Haha, France attacked Germans? They only concentrated army in german-french border and was waiting. In Abbeville they decided to didn't attack Gerrmany. Keitel and Jodl, german generals said: "If France and UK attacked Germany when they are fighting in Poland, the war will be fast and Germany lost war in 2 months". On the border was 110 french divisions and 23 german divions. Why Hitler didn't attack France first ...
French people were cowards. They fought great in 1914-1918 but they lost brave hearts.
However, Churchil after Monachium 1938 said: "Britain and France had to choose between war and dishonour. They chose dishonour but they will have war." Why the first minister was Neville "Pussy" Chamberlain ...
@PomeranianWolf What are you talking about fool? It was the French Goverment who were cowards, Not the People research!
Both Britain & France declared on Germany & the Axis for Freedom & Democracy, The only nations to stand up to the Axis Powers.
You said dishonour? The British and French could of had the same attitude as the American Yankees and done nothing apart from Trade and make profit from the war.
HOWEVER THE BRTISH STOOD UP AND WON, FRENCH GAVE AWAY THEIR FREEDOM!
Chamberlain was stupid! Hitler farted, Chamberlain smelled it. Only peace, peace, peace. Hitler annexated Austria, Czech and attacked Poland - he did NOTHING.
@PomeranianWolf That's exactly my thoughts. He waited until the point of no return to do something and even when he declared war on Germany, they didn't move. The Allies waited for Germany to attack in may 1940. By then, it was too late.
I am Czech, and personally I think that the Czechs should have fought back, no matter what the British and French told them. At that time, the Czechs could have held-off Hitler.
I see a parallel today between Czechs being pressured to give up Sudetenland in 1938 by the quartet of Germany, Italy, France and England,
And Israel being pressured by UN, EU, US and Russia.
In both cases there was a foreign minority living in the territories. In both cases the loss of the territories made/will make the country strategically indefensible.
In both cases there was the illusion that you can appease an ideological and genocidal enemy.
Agree. Had the Arabs had the resources to stop the massive influx of European jews from 1945 and not tried to live with them until they started slaughtering arabs the Middle East would have seen 65 years of peace right now.
The jews were a European problem and the Allies conspired to dump the problem on the Arabs instead putting their own house in order.
Israel rose from the blood of Arabs, so they should give back the land they stole.
Arabs stole all the land of the Middle East, not only Palestine, but Egypt, Iraq Syria etc.
In Palestine Arabs murdered Jews without provocation.
However the biggest LIE is that: "without the Jews Arabs and Muslims would have been living in peace with each other."
They have been slaughtering each other by the millions. Jews managed to kill less than 1% of their total death toll. Os we are writing they are slaughtering each other be the thousands in Syria, Yemen, Libya.
Are we supposed to be impressed that in 2000 years of history the artificial country known as Israel only managed to kill 1% of the total? We are not talking civilised people here, we are talking about a people that used area weapons such as mortars, incendry weapons, DIME explosives against CIVILIANS for gods sake.
If Hitler saw what they are doing today he would change his mind about them and give them SS uniforms.
I did not bring the Palestinian problem onto this vid but a number of nations are calling on Israel to conform to a long ago UN resolution for good reason. The last time they went in to sort out Hamas their conduct was appalling and there are plenty of sources that will back up my comments about weapons used.
I do agree about the Americans though.
There are no good guys and bad guys ...... sadly the whole world has the smear of innocents blood somewhere on its hands.
By the way DIME is exactly the opposite of what you think. It is advanced weapon designed to minimize civilian losses. The cost of DIME is much higher than the conventional explosives. No Arabs ever use it because they don't try to minimize civilian damage.
Dense Inert Metal Explosive (DIME) is an experimental type of explosive that has a relatively small but effective blast radius. It is manufactured by producing a homogeneous mixture of an explosive material (such as HMX or RDX) and small particles of a chemically inert material such as tungsten. It is intended to limit the distance at which the explosion causes damage, to AVOID COLLATERAL DAMAGE IN WARFARE.
Collateral damage is not an issue of humanity unless such things as water supply are targeted like in Palestine.
Injuries cause by dime explosives are extremely difficult if not impossible to treat. But then war has no rules and while dum dum bullets and using metal polish on a bayonet are banned by treaty we saw napalm and plastic fragmentation devices used against civvies in Vietnam.
Arab Water supplies were NEVER targeted by Israel.
Quite on the contrary, ISRAEL SUPPLIED WATER (AND FOOD) TO HER ENEMY population even during the Cast Lead war with Hamas.
Don't miss the point DIME is only used for one purpose => to save the lives of civilians. Otherwise it is much cheaper and more efficient to use traditional explosives.
Napalm is illegal.
It normal is to use white phosphorus for SMOKE SCREEN. It's made differently and smaller than anti-person weapon.
''It normal is to use white phosphorus for SMOKE SCREEN.''
Not when it is delivered in an artillery shell and explodes a hundred feet above the ground and spreads fragments over a large radius.
They attacked infrastructure including power plants and at least one school. Don't take my word for it. Do your own research and think outside the box. If you want links I will supply them but better you find your own sources and understand why others believe it really was that way.
Using phosphorus that way was to MAIM people not kill them. By filling the hospitals with people with deep and extremely painful burns they hoped to destroy moral of the population. Dammit have you not seen the pictures??
There was not a single person in any hospital with phosphorus burns.
I am just amazed by your commitment to Arab lies.
No I have not seen any pictures of phosphorus burn victims.
I have reviewed some pictures with a military expert who confirmed that they were of correctly and legally used phosphorus for lighting and for smoke cover.
I am just amazed at why do you hate the only civilized country in the whole M.E.
As I said I did investigate this thoroughly. I asked a military expert about it, and was informed that indeed this is normal to use white phosphorus like this, and that looking at the pictures any military expert can confirm that it was used for smoke cover.
There was no a single case of phosphorus burn.
About power plants: Israel is supplying power to Gaza and was doing it even during the war.
I have done extensive study of the subject and have access to sources.
The other use, as I explained is illumination of the area.
What do you mean by "thinking outside the box"??? I am really surprised, you are totally in the box, repeating the old anti-Israeli and antisemitic lies.
Israel is surrounded by the genocidal Muslim barbarians, who are very clear that their goal is to kill all Jews.
In my opinion Israel is far to kind to them. Every time Muslims attack Israel, Israel should kill 1027 Muslims, as per their own price.
''Israel is surrounded by the genocidal Muslim barbarians''
''Every time Muslims attack Israel, Israel should kill 1027 Muslims''
You prove my point and just spat on the memory of the six million. So from their ashes rose the same nazi ideology but under a different flag and to this day I bet you still have pictures of Fuhrer Ben Guron hanging in every government office.
You seem to be dense and don't not understand the 1027.
In exchange for one lousy Israeli soldier, Hamas demanded 1027 Arabs.
This is their own admission that that TO THEM the life and freedom of 1027 of their people is worse only one Jewish soldier.
Response must be proportional to the PERCEIVED value. Killing one Arab for one Jews, will not stop Arabs from killing Jews. They value their fellow Arabs very little.
So if Hamas terrorists let off a bomb and killed ten Israeli soldiers they should go out and murder 10,270 Palestinian civilians? Peaceful the Israelis aren't they ..... Hitler would have been proud of them, or at least Zionist zealots who speak in there name.
Whatever stops Arabs from attacking Israelis is fine with me. The exact ration must be found through the transactions. Perhaps even 50:1 would work. Any less than that probably would not. Arabs/Muslim just don't value life very much.
your comparison with Hitler is fallacy: Hitler's, goal to eradicate of all Jew and dominate all of Europe.
On the other hand the Zionists are very humble: Jews living in their ancestral home, no goal to exterminate Arabs.
''Jews living in their ancestral home, no goal to exterminate Arabs.''
Bullshit, they stole the land and turned Palestine into the biggest concentration camp on the planet. You vile idea of murdering 50 people AT RANDOM for every Israeli killed by terrorists only goes to tell me what a racist despotic state Israel has become. Hitler dehumanised the jew, and Israel is doing just that right now to the Arabs.
Israel IS a Nazi state, that is what you are telling me.
''And you LIAR, show me where did I say "AT RANDOM"
Israelis used mortars in a built up area. They are an indiscriminate and random area weapon used that way.
Sorry I misunderstood you, you were obviously promoting the idea of killing large numbers of people in reprisals in a more organised and systematic way.
I am intrigued how they would be selected, maybe get them to queue in front of a doctor who will point which way to go? Being Arabs they much be terrorists anyway?
Actually there is no state or army in the world who has transgressed international rule more than your beloved Israel! You can count resolution by resolution! You are siding with murderes here, that makes you an accomplice!
Israeli Army shoots palestinian civilians on purpose, takes children and puts them infront of tanks to hide themselves behind them, bomb schools. EVERYTHING protocolled by Int.Human Rights activists.
If you like to kill Arabs, then have the guts to say it!
In the entire history of all wars between Arabs and Israel less than 40,000 Arabs died and some 20,000 Israelis.
Even right now in this moment Syria is killing more civilians than Israel ever had.
In the same period China has killed 60 million, Soviets 40 million, Muslim have killed 10 million of each other, Turkey killed 250,000 Kurds, In Congo 5 million Sudan 2 million, N. Korea, 2 million, etc, etc. etc.
The important point to understand is that the goal of retaliation is to stop aggression.
Killing one Muslim for each Jew they kill, would be considered victory by the Muslims. There is 1 billion Muslims who were indoctrinated to hate Jews. Killing 6 million Jews =100% of Israel. Killing 6 million Muslims = 0.4% of the Muslim population. Anyway, all they need to do, is to let Jews be. Let them live in their land. Muslims have other and much bigger problems.
Besides, population transfer is not the same as extermination.
More Jews escaped Arab occupied countries then the other way round.
Yet, you Nazi-types, never decry the fate of the Jewish refugees, who lost 10 times more property than the Arabs, who had to move 100 times further than the Arabs.
The 600,000 Arabs who left Israel only had to relocate some 20 miles on average. Less than I used to drive to work every day.
My point is that you are an antisemite, you apply double standards:
You don't blame Arabs for nearly a million Jews escaping from the Arab occupied countries, but you blame Israel for 600,000 Arabs leaving Israel.
Even now, as you blame Israel, Syria, Lybia, Yemen are killing 1000 times more Arabs than Israel. Yet, you racist are fixated on the Jewish state as if this was the biggest problem.
Israel has been held to different standards than other nations?
Why? I can only think of one reason; antisemitism.
Why else does UN single out Israel, while other countries have MUCH worse human right situation?
And why does UN give 50 times more money per person to the Pal-Arabs than to the Sudanese, Congolese, and other needy people? I can only because of one reason: UN is dominated by the musloids, can you think of others?
facts? You talk of reprisals against arabs for the sins of a terrorist group. How bloody Nazi is that? You come over as just another dumb arsed yank that has never been out of his own country but is happy to repeat the same old dogma about Israel. What I sickening about your attitude is the notion that the life of some well fed kid in Israel is somehow more valuable than the life of a kid kicking a ball around in some back alley in Gaza.
Yes, because you apply double standards. Different for the Jewish state than for any other state in the world, and most importantly different than to the enemies of Israel.
All Arab states are indeed apartheid- states. Israel is not, but you accuse Israel. That's double standard.
All Arab states are religiously intolerant, etc.
Most importantly, Arab states except Jordan, treat Pals worse than Israel, yet you criticize only the Jewish state?
Old fashion antisemites did the same thing. They said "Jews are greedy", and guess what, they were right, Jews ARE greedy. The only thing they did not say is that Germans, English, Indians, Polish, Spanish, etc, etc. are all greedy, too. They were saying the truth, but they were applying double standards.
The modern antisemites such as your self, do the same thing with with the Jewish state.
''The modern antisemites such as your self, do the same thing with with the Jewish state.''
So anyone who is critical of Israel and wonders why the old school there learned no humility after the holucaust is automaticly guilty of antisemitism? Is that just playing the victim here? ..... it is bullshit. Maybe the ones with a number tattoo'd on their arms had a perfect right to do so but not todays generation.
Somehow you managed to miss the point. I did not say being critical of Jews, or of Israel is antisemitic in itself. I said that applying different standards IS antisemitic.
I said yes, indeed JEWS ARE GREEDY, this is true, but it is also true that ENGLISH, GERMAN, SPANISH, CHINESE, ARABS, MEXICANS, ETC ARE GREEDY.
If you apply different standards towards Jewish state than towards other states, only than it is antisemitic.
I am sad to see the blindness, that you cannot see this simple thing. ALL the Arab countries are 100 times more guilty of the things they are accusing Israel, yet you are singling out Israel for criticism.
Double standards are racist, just like the police giving 1000 times more traffic tickets to Blacks than to Whites for the same number of offenses.
''And why does UN give 50 times more money per person to the Pal-Arabs than to the Sudanese, Congolese, and other needy people?''
Because Israel will not let the Palestinians become part of the International community and develop its economy with any kind of trade. Without the UN aid they would starve.
''Yet, UN condemns Israel, not Sudan. Please tell me why?''
Maybe because of the support Israel gets from the Pro Zionist politicians in the US the world expects it to comply with resolutions going back decades. Maybe the world is sick of seeing Israeli soldier shoot at civilians. Maybe we are all worried that Israel will use those nukes. Israel is not worth the tempest that would follow.
1. Which legally binding UN resolutions is Israel not complying with? Please give specific name, number and date of just a few.
2. Why would the world have 1000 times highers standards for Israel because of the "Pro-Zionist US politicians". After all the US politicians are pro-US, but the world does not have similar expectations about the US?
3.Why would "the world" be especially sick of Israeli soldiers shooting civilians when the governments of other countries including the immediate neighbors have shot many times more civilians? Israel is at war, and Israeli civilian collateral damage is the the smallest of any military in the world. See the testimony of Colonel Kemp.
Be kind and watch this 3 min video on youtube NX6vyT8RzMo.
There is no analogy between nuclear weapons and machine guns.. In the hands of people driven by religion they become a threat to the planet. Thanks to the Bush/Blair destruction of Iraq in the near future we may see Iran join the club. Forget the names of their gods or the dogma they live by, a flash in the sky will result in all sides becoming at one with the dust.
I do not envy our kids and grandkids. You are right about proliferation and now is the time to make peace.
My only comparison with the Machine gun was that it too, was considered "inhuman", and unthinkable to use in the war. In fact the inventor was threatened with jail if he dared to propose it again to anyone.
We also share the concern for the kids and grand-kids generation.
As for religious fanatics, Israel is not one of them. It is an entirely secular country like most of Europe, with religious parties getting less then 10% of votes.
Especially dangerous are the nukes in the hands of those who believe that the real life is after death. That this life there does not matter at all. With people like this, the old fashion MAD deterrence won't work. Ahmedinajad has already declared that all of Iran would be a ridiculously small price to pay for establishing the rule of Allah on earth. So, unlike the Soviets he is willing to sacrifice his country.
As for making peace, there is only one way peace has ever been made in history:
By TOTAL DEFEAT of one side, and TOTAL VICTORY OF THE OTHER.
WWI did not en with unconditional surrender of Germany, and WWII was only a continuation of WWI, it was not a new war.
On the other hand after total surrender of Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany, we had peace with them for two generations - long time by standards of international conflicts.
The ME is not about a few million people squabbling it out any more. The region could (literally) blow up and the consequences change the lives of all of us in a way that could be our worst nightmare. ... where ever we may be on this tiny rock.
a.) Israel is not the key to the conflicts of he ME. Even if there was no Israel, there would be bloody conflicts there. The competition between the Iranians, Saudis, Iraqis, Egyptian is a renewal of the ancient struggle going on for thousands of years. Israel is being used by the Muslims as a propaganda tool.
Right now Iran is using hatred of Israel to gain support among Sunnis, likewise with al Qaeda, but it is not about Israel at all.
b.) "Peace" with Israel is best achieved by strengthening Israel, not by weakening it.
Israel, unlike the Muslims, have limited geopolitical ambitions. They want to rule over the 1/700th part of the region which they consider their national home. (And rightly so in my opinion.)
Muslims on the other hand, have the goal of word domination. This is commanded to them in their Quran.
In any war where the choice is between a total national defeat, and the use of nukes, the nukes will be used.
This is true for Israel, too. Therefore I'd prefer for Israel to have defensible borders and strong deterrence. This would postpone the time of nuclear war.
As far as I am aware, Israel is the only country who's very existence is threatened by its enemies.
Pakistan and India only stand to lose their part of Kashmir, not the whole country.
I asked you for examples of legally binding resolution.
Not just some condemnations from the antisemitic club under the direction of the automatic Muslim majority.
Binding resolutions are agreements that Israel is a party of.
Israel is bound to keep its agreements, it is not bound to follow every resolution by UN. They are not legally binding. And the shear number of them shows the UN bias.
Initially Arabs were, soon they succeeded in spreading their anti-Zionist ideology to the Muslim world. Then Soviet block made a deal with them in early 50s so that Muslims voted with the commies, and commies in return with the Muslims. Finally in 1973 Europe was blackmailed by the oil blockade to switch sides, which they did almost overnight. Israel was sold for oil.
@MsCrocodileTears Obesity!! HAHAHAHAHAHA! That's America if you haven't recently figure it out. Granted, Hamas is in power but the Palestinians voted for them because they're doing what the world and previous government is not doing; providing order and stability. Plus; it knows full well it can't go up against Israel for two reasons. 1) It has no financial support from the world and 2) for every attack committed by Hezbollah they and the civvies get blamed for it.
And to answer your question if kicking out 600,000 neighbors is OK:
The answer is that it is "OK" only in the historical context. Just like: Was it OK to expel 15 million Germans from Poland, Czech, Russia, and other countries after the WWII?
Was it OK to expel 15 million Muslims and Hindus from India/Pakistan? Then Greeks, Turks, Azeris, Armenians,
Etc, etc, etc. You racist are only aware of Israel, why?
Chamberline along with the League of Nations betrayed Emperor Haile Selassie I during this age of appeasement by allowing Mussolini/Italy to invade Ethiopia using illegal weapons like MUSTARD GAS all over northern Ethiopia...
They further betrayed Ethiopia by enacting an Arms Embargo on Italy/Ethiopia..Italy has been buying weapons since 1922 preparing for Ethiopian invasion secretly while Ethiopia wasn't...the ArmsEmbargo was a death sentence to Ethiopia & green light to Fascist Italy.
I forgot to mention that the sudden Italian invasion happened in 1936...thus, Fascist Italy had accumulated weapons for 14 years (since 1922) in preparation to invade Ethiopia
The League of Nation passing an Arms Embargo during the invasion was the STUPIDEST thing...Age of Appeasement cost close to 2 million Ethiopian lives thanks to Mustard Gas/Shelling & all other sorts of banned weapons at that time
Chamberlain was no appeaser. He knew Britains armed forces were hopelessly inadequate and when war did happen 300,000 of our best were driven into the sea at Dunkirk. He was playing for time as Spitfires and Hurricanes were rush into production to protect our land from the Luftwaffe.
History has judged this man wrong. Had the war started six months earlier there would have been a different outcome.
@TheSpiritof1969 if war happened after the Munich agreement then war would have ended quickly if stalin kept his promise to back the Czechs with a quick German defeat or possibly not even a war at all instead a coup since most of the German Generals were against a invasion of Czechoslovakia.
I don't think Stalin was in a position to fight the Germans. Two decades of his purges had wiped out the officer class within his armed forces and they needed to modernise fast.
Imagine for a moment that the war had been put off in Europe for 5 years, how do you think it would have ended? By 1945 the Germans might have had nuclear weapons and a second generation of rockets to deliver them.
@TheSpiritof1969 I think that the German Army too was quite inadequate at this time. If the Czechs had fought back against Hitler, and England and France launched a united invasion of Germany from the north and west, and Poland from the east... Hitler wouldn't have stood a chance.
Chamberlain failed to realise, that sooner or later, Hitler would have to be taken out.
Chamberlain had Hitlers number, he knew what was coming and that is why he stepped up the pressure on weapons production in the UK in 1938. We only had small numbers of modern fighters, not enough for even home defence. He had good reason to stall for time, the Nazis had a fully developed air force with battle experienced pilots who made their bones in the Spanish civil war.
At the end of the day be put home defense first and Dunkirk proved him right.
As a Czech, I am not blaming Chamberlain, he did what he though was good for his country, it is not my right to judge him. But also you must understand the depresion,grief and anger that came...we had to give up great part of our industry, 1/3 of our land and most of all we lost all hope at the time - we were prepared to fight and all we got from our allies was that they won´t do a thing...you can say whatever you want but from our point of view Munich 1938 always will be a giant betrayal.
"Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them." Sounds like those in positions of leadership in the U.S. (President Obama and remainder of executive branch, most of Congress, media, etc.,) probably should take a refresher course in order to learn the folly of appeasement.
@macboar In hindsight yes, it would seem he was spineless and provincial. But you've got to consider that at the time, people in Britain and in Europe were still reeling from the legacy of WWI and what damage it had done to their nations; public opinion was very much for a peaceful negotiation, something that Chamberlain must've recognised. So in the short term I tend to think that he was going with public opinion and preventing war. He was naive and acted immorally, but he wasn't spineless.
@macboar I've already replied but I wanted to add something lol.
And if you consider the Birmingham speech in March 1939, he did comment that 'no greater mistake could be made.... that this nation had so lost it's fibre that it will not take part to the utmost of it's power in resisting such a challenge if it were ever made.' Doesn't this kind of refute the idea that he was spineless, considering this is a subtle hint that Britain would go to war if necessary?
Appeasement is not for cowards. It's harder to gain peace and maintain it than it is to start war. So who's the bigger man? I personally think it's Chamberlain.
@PengugirlPolarchic But Chamberlain didn't gain peace, he only delay war and got one longer! Hitler got whole economic and armament power of Czechoslovakia at his disposal and it allowed him him to escalate his requirements.
No agreement is better than a bad agreement and this agreement didn't save peace.
I like how this video ends. If one had no knowledge of WW2, then maybe you'd think that peace was maintained and war between Germany and Britain never happened. If it hadn't, Britian would still have an empire and be a Superpower.
Check out the book MY COUSIN KILLED HITLER, based on the story of Marshal Zhukov. It tells a family secret about him. If only Hitler knew that one of those he hunted became the hunter instead.
What people don't seem to realize is that chamberlain actually took the gust out of hitlers sails. Hitler very badly wanted to go to war in 38, and tried hard to find his social licence to do so. Unfortunately for him, chamberlain denied him that. In 45 hitler lamented not starting the war in 38
@mockingbird83 It's just like Enoch Powell but Chamberlain was more in control of what people had to do in order to survive people say he was a failure but in another way he was a great man in a weird way Powell was ignored and look what we have got now IMMIGRANTS OVERLOAD!
Get off the Propaganda of Fox news & hate radio. After the fall of the Soviet Union the war makers needed a new enemy - guess who showed up... Sadam. Then Bin Laden (who we funded when he was fighting the Soviets) ....
Islam is not the @10,000 whackos that are trouble. Your way of thinking is the path to eternal war and hate. Follow the money to see who wants to cultivate your hatred. You are a pawn.
You know nothing about me and yet you start with "Right wing BS!!!" and "Fox News & hate radio" - neither of which I even watch/listen to. Tell me what they've said that is hateful/propaganda? Oh, wait. You can't. You don't watch/listen to it either, right?
@Yesica1993 but you know, I do agree with you. I don't know why and I wish I could stop it, but so many disgusting things happen in the middle east - especially commited by men. They always turn around and say "it's in the Koran" - wtf? - Then you have these islam leaders who validate what the dickhead down the street said. All I'm trying to say is. Let's not judge people by their religion but by their actions. I wish people would reason instead of following a 1000 year old book :(
It's because of appeasers like you that the tragedies of WWII occurred. As to Islam, you have no idea what it teaches. Have you read the Koran? Have you bothered to check into the Islam/Nazi connection? Of course not. But you'll defend this ideology to the death.
The only one spewing hatred (as well as ignorance of both history and the present time) is YOU. Thank you for doing so openly on the internet for all to see.
@historyvideos101 have YOU read the Bible? because just by your immediate unjust judgement and criticism of historyvideos101, i'd assume that the Bible means nothing to you.
The Bible is bad (though it does not justify as much evil as the Koran/Hadith), but you are clearly evading Yesica's point here.
You say appeasement of Islam is not taking place? You say that it is not a serious threat? Why are ARTISTS (filmmakers, cartoonists, writers) being arrested in some of the supposedly "freest" countries on earth for "insensitivity"?
No big deal; if it was on Fox News, I can uncritically proclaim it wrong.
@Yesica1993 I urge people to read the Second Sura, Section 15 to 17 in which the Prophet (Peace be Upon Him) rails against "the people of the Book", the "Children of Israel. Apparently the Prophet found it impossible to make headway with the Jews. They would not convert, and it got to him. He calls them hypocrites and says its the duty of Muslims to hunt them down and kill them. It's unbelievable! An advocacy of holocaust.
@Yesica1993 I am sure there are englightened mullahs who hate nobody and are able to explain that away. :"The Bible" is also full of anti-Jew comments. Moreover, it is a fact that in history is is the Christians who treated Jews far worse than the Muslims, who gave Jews the respect they hold for monotheists.
@Yesica1993 The whole point of the New Testament is to show that the Jews did not accept the Messiah, they mocked him, betrayed him, judged him, scouraged him, chose Barabas over him, crucified him. Not the Romans--Pilate said he found no guilt in him; the centurian said, surely you are the son of God. But not the Jews. The New Testament is antiJewish, and the early Church enacted dogma after dogma attacking Jews. They even locked Jews up in ghettos. Face it! Christians were antisemites!!
@mc0558 The first part of your statement is is correct. The Jews did not accept Jesus as Messiah. The Romans carried out the execution. And Scripture is clear that Jesus was crucified for the sins of mankind, therefore we ALL responsible.
How any of this translates in your mind as "The NT is anti-Jewish" is beyond me. Jesus was a Jew. So was Paul, who wrote so much of the NT.
What ANY of this has to do with Islam's teachings about Jews is also beyond me.
@Yesica1993 I am not talking about truth but about what is writeen and how it was interpreted by the early Christians. The Gospels were written by Jews in exile. The Chosen People had been tossed out of the Promised Land. They had lost their nations; they had followed a false Messiah. How was this possible? It was because Jesus was the true Messiah and the Jews had rejected him. Jesus had offered Jews a Hellenistic spiritisual kingdon, but they wanted an earthly one. Exile is their punishment.
@Yesica1993 To continue. The Gospels are about Jesus and his rejection by the wayward Jewish people. When things bad happen to Jews it is because they have rebelled against God. Jesus is God. This time their rebellion is so serious that they lose the Promise Land and their status as the chosen people. This status is transferred to Christians. Until them is given the keys to the kingdoms of heaven and hell. Those who follow Jesus become the children of God. Etc. etc. Jews are cashiered!
@Yesica1993 You seem not to get my point. I am not talking about YOUR interpretation of the New Testament. I am talking in a very literal way about what is actually in the narrative, how it depicts the Jews, and the crude, literal way Christians interpreted it for many centuries. I do not believe any of this stuff, and I am a friend of Israelis and of Jews in general. I am saying that somehow, Christians were until 60 years ago harder on Jews than Muslims were.
@Yesica1993 and what is the difference between the Nazi's hatred of Jew's and your blinded view on Islam? Nothing. It's people like you who allow prejudice and racism. I bet you if it was proposed for all Muslim's to be exterminated in a gas chamber you wouldn't lift a finger to stop it. It's people like you who allow prejudice thoughts which endanger future peace.
@loyalqueen What blinded view? My view of Islam is based on what the Koran says and what its warlord, child rapist prophet did.
Gee, let's see. The Nazis killed Jews. I have neither killed nor commanded others to kill nor suggested nor condoned killing of Muslims.
Are you capable of grasping that difference? I bet you're not. I bet in your sick and twisted mind, my saying facts about Islam is the same as Nazis killing Jews. Am I correct?
@Yesica1993 I'm not sure you understand the word "interpretation". The Koran was written hundreds of years ago, there are those that take every world literally & behave like cavemen and there are those that choose to interpret it differently to create a positive meaning for themselves. You may view the Koran to be corrupt, does not mean all Muslim's agree with the Kuran. I respect your opinion, but I don't agree with you demonising Islam. German's demonised Jews, you're doing the same. No?
@historyvideos101 Actually, I think he's right. Appeasement is not the fucking answer, and we're appeasing Islam. And don't defend them so much, I can guarantee they don't feel the same towards you. Now you're going to acuse of bigotry, go ahead, I really don't give a crap what you might think.
your absolutly right Yesica we are doing the exact same thing now with islam, we are allowing things we do not really want because we are in fear of violence or terrorists...
@TheBurkshire Living near muslims is entirely irrelevant. Islam is intrinsically evil; the penalty for apostasy is death (what kind of a peaceful religion is that). Christianity is somewhat more benign, yet the thought of a 24/7 dictator is of course a great evil.
@invictorium It is relevent, if you've interacted and intergrated with a Muslim community, then it is very clear to see that they are not evil. Us Western people have our own naive thoughts on how religions should morally act etc. Yet who are we to be dictating how somebody should conduct their religion. Christianity and western culture has enforced itself on the world to a much greater extent then Islam. Sadly it is only natural that conflict will arise from this.
@TheBurkshire If you don't think that death, for being an apostate is not evil, then you have no concept of morality. All religious organisations are evil, as they essentially condone and enforce a 24/7 north korean like dictator, in which even after death, you are being ruled. It's pathetic.
@Yesica1993 Not sure if you understand other cultures enough to make this comment.........Also not sure if you know your history enough boy, This also has no relevance to Islam in anyway, shape, or form. Perhaps if Britains involvement in the establishment of Israel were swung less towards their own political and economical interests. you have some kind of valid claim to your comment.
@Yesica1993 Then how can you call this appeasement when Chamberlain was following a programme of rearmament? To call this appeasement is a misnomer, these policies contradict one another . Had Chamberlain not bought Britain time to rearm, then the outcome of WW2 may well have been very different.
Hitler was plainly outnumbered even before the jew-funded USA joined forces with the jew-funded USSR. Normally down thru history the nation with the highest intelligence quotient prevails unless severely outnumbered such as what happened to the Germans. Hitler desired only the small conflict to solidify relations with Austria in the heroic struggle against the atheist-communist plague but then the criminal Churchill violated international law when he firebombed German civilians in early 1940.
Neville Chamberlain has been grossly misrepresented. Those shouting appeasement fail to note there wasn't a darn thing England or France could have done militarily to stop Hitler in the Sudetenland or Czechoslovakia. All knew that, later proven true by defeat of French & British forces on the continent.
At the time, negotiated settlement was the best hope for a positive outcome. The ultimate failure of that was not Chamberlain's fault. Increasing demands, by ALL parties, was more to blame.
Shame on Neville Chamberlain and shame on my whole country for this appalling, cowardly deed. Even though it bought 11 months, even though this brief time was used to re-arm, particularly to build Hurricanes and Spitfires and create a modern Fighter Command, who in 1940 saved Great Britain from slavery or death, even so, this stank worse than a dark alley in Soho.
Chamberlain was a weak old fool and Frances leader was no better. They stood idly by while Germany was rearming in violation of Versailles, the German army reoccupied the Rhineland, Hitler took over Austria and Hitler took over the Sudetenland. German Generals, it was found out after the war, complained to Hitler that they were not ready to take on the French or the British and in the event of a war Gernany would surely be crushed.
repetitivemotion 1 week ago
@repetitivemotion The Versailles Treaty was seen as illegal, The Allies gave Germany back its lands also its pride. Nobody wanted a repeat of 1914-1918 bloody war. Hitler was Austrian, Austria joined the Reich, Germany as ruled by Austrian dictator.
Rhineland & Sudenland were Germany, And given back to its People.
Also Britain-Frnace was not ready for war, The Germans were always more prepared thanks to Hitler, Most of all the Luftwaffe best in Europe.
martynrobin121 1 week ago
Experts say the Czechs would've put up a good fight on their own for at least 6+ months; which is magnificent for a tiny landlocked nation surrounded by enemies (Germans, Russians, etc.) and regarded as the most successful autonomous economy in history, and also the most economically successful communist country by GDP per capita and hdi (development). Too bad the politicians are traitorous cheap whores; who don't give a damn about the country, because they themselves are Jewish foreigners!
GoBlessYourSelf 3 weeks ago
@GoBlessYourSelf To clarify not all Jews are bad; its most of the politicians that are guilty; such as Madeleine Albright's parents.
GoBlessYourSelf 3 weeks ago
Czechs should've fought, Hitler couldn't believe how well prepared Czechs were. The Czech defensive line was extremely hardcore; they had multiple fortified lines, bunkers every 50m, connected underground with rail systems. No joke, they even had underground barracks, hospitals, munitions factories; which, ended up being the jewel of Nazi research projects (anti gravity engines, etc.).Why else you think the last remaining German divisions were in Bohemia.
GoBlessYourSelf 3 weeks ago
@GoBlessYourSelf
It's my opinion. Poland need czech equipment, Czech need polish hearts.
I think Germany will won war against Czechoslovakia but that wasn't easy war for Hitler, most hard than war against Poland. And mayby UK and France will did something.
PomeranianWolf 3 weeks ago
Chamberlain was big pussy.
GreaterPolish 3 weeks ago
Neville Chamberlain was a man of peace, He wanted to control Hitler and Germany and during the Munich Treaty, Hitler signed & agreed not to invade any free nation. However Hitler betrayed the Treaty and betrayed his word. Czech was then occupied it against the treaty and Hitler then pushed his luck in Poland, Only Britain would be the only nations to stand up against the Axis of evil.
martynrobin121 1 month ago
@martynrobin121 Yes, Neville Chamberlain was a man of peace, he was also very naive. We now know what appeasement policies can lead to when dealing with a fanatical ideology. Hitler could of been stopped more than once: The refusal to respect the Versaille treaty, the marching into Alsace-Loraine, the Sudetenland, the invasion of Tchechoslovakia, the Anschluss. You can't trust and make deals with that sort of mindset. Appeasement and concessions will eventualy lead to the point of no return.
caporalchef4 3 weeks ago
@caporalchef4 The British saw the Versaille Treaty as criminal & too harsh by France.
Also Germany had lost alot of territory after 1918. Hitler made it very clear his focus was in the East, The British hated Communism and hoped Germany would become a puppet to use against Soviet Union.
However when the Nazis-Soviets signed a Treaty that was the end and then Poland. Britain needed time to Re-Arm and could not do anything, France could have but got scared and went on defence.
martynrobin121 3 weeks ago
@martynrobin121
@martynrobin121
Versaille Treaty was criminal only in war damages and other economic-militar limitations. Versaille borders was in mostly equity!
UK and France were two lying dogs. The could only bark to Germany but did nothing to help Poland who was defending independent. UK could use RAF, France all army. But UK bombed Germany "anti-nazi" leaflets, France wanted wanted hide behind Maginot Line.
PomeranianWolf 3 weeks ago
@PomeranianWolf You obviously know nothing!
Poland was invaded & occupied before the British could do anything.
France did attack Germany 1939, Research the Saar advance?
The RAF started to bomb Northern Germany 1939.
Royal Navy started to blockade Europe 1939, BEF started to move into Europe 1939.
Both Britain & France declared war for Freedom & Democracy 1939.
The Versaille Treaty was Criminal, It was put right by 1938 at Munich.
The British wanted PEACE not more war!
martynrobin121 2 weeks ago
@martynrobin121
Haha, France attacked Germans? They only concentrated army in german-french border and was waiting. In Abbeville they decided to didn't attack Gerrmany. Keitel and Jodl, german generals said: "If France and UK attacked Germany when they are fighting in Poland, the war will be fast and Germany lost war in 2 months". On the border was 110 french divisions and 23 german divions. Why Hitler didn't attack France first ...
PomeranianWolf 2 weeks ago
@PomeranianWolf Yes, France attacked Germany 1939, Saar Advance.
However the French started to withdraw out of fear of the Nazi-Soviet Alliance.
The British started to bomb Northern Germany, And R.N blockade of Europe 1939.
That was the only way the British could attack Germany.
Hitler hoped the British-French would do nothing about the invasion/occupation of Poland, However both declared war to fight for freedom & democracy.
France was incapable and not prepared for anything
martynrobin121 2 weeks ago
@martynrobin121
French people were cowards. They fought great in 1914-1918 but they lost brave hearts.
However, Churchil after Monachium 1938 said: "Britain and France had to choose between war and dishonour. They chose dishonour but they will have war." Why the first minister was Neville "Pussy" Chamberlain ...
PomeranianWolf 2 weeks ago
@PomeranianWolf What are you talking about fool? It was the French Goverment who were cowards, Not the People research!
Both Britain & France declared on Germany & the Axis for Freedom & Democracy, The only nations to stand up to the Axis Powers.
You said dishonour? The British and French could of had the same attitude as the American Yankees and done nothing apart from Trade and make profit from the war.
HOWEVER THE BRTISH STOOD UP AND WON, FRENCH GAVE AWAY THEIR FREEDOM!
martynrobin121 1 week ago
@caporalchef4
Chamberlain was stupid! Hitler farted, Chamberlain smelled it. Only peace, peace, peace. Hitler annexated Austria, Czech and attacked Poland - he did NOTHING.
PomeranianWolf 3 weeks ago
@PomeranianWolf That's exactly my thoughts. He waited until the point of no return to do something and even when he declared war on Germany, they didn't move. The Allies waited for Germany to attack in may 1940. By then, it was too late.
caporalchef4 3 weeks ago
Question.....why is this whole page about Israel and Iraq THIS IS WORLD WAR 2 PEOPLE!!! pre world war 2 actually. Let's stay focused shall we :)
troubel911 1 month ago
You are such a sweetheart!!! Just before 30minutes you wrote in the other discussion "if Judaism is stupid does it make Islam right?"
And what are you doing here?. So if China is a murderous state, does it make the warcrimes of Israel good??
For every one Israeli it kills 25 Palestinians (UN 2007) honestly, I know u are happy but does this sound like fair to you?
And yes, Israel IS commiting warcrimes!!!! I dont want to google for every singe resolution now. Israel is the aggressor here!
Achatno1 2 months ago
A crude analysis of appeasement which doesn't quesion its real purpose to play for time.
cowerme 2 months ago
I am Czech, and personally I think that the Czechs should have fought back, no matter what the British and French told them. At that time, the Czechs could have held-off Hitler.
philipisphilip 3 months ago
@philipisphilip
I see a parallel today between Czechs being pressured to give up Sudetenland in 1938 by the quartet of Germany, Italy, France and England,
And Israel being pressured by UN, EU, US and Russia.
In both cases there was a foreign minority living in the territories. In both cases the loss of the territories made/will make the country strategically indefensible.
In both cases there was the illusion that you can appease an ideological and genocidal enemy.
MsCrocodileTears 3 months ago
@MsCrocodileTears
Agree. Had the Arabs had the resources to stop the massive influx of European jews from 1945 and not tried to live with them until they started slaughtering arabs the Middle East would have seen 65 years of peace right now.
The jews were a European problem and the Allies conspired to dump the problem on the Arabs instead putting their own house in order.
Israel rose from the blood of Arabs, so they should give back the land they stole.
TheSpiritof1969 3 months ago
@TheSpiritof1969
Arabs stole all the land of the Middle East, not only Palestine, but Egypt, Iraq Syria etc.
In Palestine Arabs murdered Jews without provocation.
However the biggest LIE is that: "without the Jews Arabs and Muslims would have been living in peace with each other."
They have been slaughtering each other by the millions. Jews managed to kill less than 1% of their total death toll. Os we are writing they are slaughtering each other be the thousands in Syria, Yemen, Libya.
MsCrocodileTears 3 months ago
@MsCrocodileTears
Are we supposed to be impressed that in 2000 years of history the artificial country known as Israel only managed to kill 1% of the total? We are not talking civilised people here, we are talking about a people that used area weapons such as mortars, incendry weapons, DIME explosives against CIVILIANS for gods sake.
If Hitler saw what they are doing today he would change his mind about them and give them SS uniforms.
Palestine is a consentration camp under Israel.
TheSpiritof1969 3 months ago
@TheSpiritof1969
I pointed out the fallacy of your claim that "without Israel Arabs would live in peace".
Secondly I am talking about the last millions killed in the 50 years not in the last 2000.
Thirdly, IDF does more then any military in the whole world to protect the enemy civilian population.
The ration of dead enemy civilian per militant is the lowest in the world. Half that of the US military.
So before you repeat Arab lies, check the facts.
MsCrocodileTears 3 months ago
@MsCrocodileTears
I did not bring the Palestinian problem onto this vid but a number of nations are calling on Israel to conform to a long ago UN resolution for good reason. The last time they went in to sort out Hamas their conduct was appalling and there are plenty of sources that will back up my comments about weapons used.
I do agree about the Americans though.
There are no good guys and bad guys ...... sadly the whole world has the smear of innocents blood somewhere on its hands.
TheSpiritof1969 3 months ago
@TheSpiritof1969
UN is an anti-Israeli Muslim club. Israel is keeping all its agreements with UN.
My mention of US, was not to condemn the United States.
On the contrary, US forces are going to great length to protect civilian lives, yet mistakes happens.
The Arabs and the Muslims are killing between 10 and 100 times more of their own people.
Likewise for Russia, China, and others.
US, and British have very high moral standards for any military in the world, still Israel has higher standards.
MsCrocodileTears 3 months ago
@TheSpiritof1969
My point was that the Israel is under the identical pressure as was Czechoslovakia in 1938.
Everyone is pressing them to give away their "Sudetenland", which they call "West-bank" to their enemies.
I hope Israel will never do that.
Rather they should do what Czechs did.
Expel all, or most Arabs to Jordan.
Just like Czechs finally expelled some 2.5 million Germans to Germany.
MsCrocodileTears 3 months ago
@TheSpiritof1969
By the way DIME is exactly the opposite of what you think. It is advanced weapon designed to minimize civilian losses. The cost of DIME is much higher than the conventional explosives. No Arabs ever use it because they don't try to minimize civilian damage.
MsCrocodileTears 3 months ago
@TheSpiritof1969
From Wikipedia:
Dense Inert Metal Explosive (DIME) is an experimental type of explosive that has a relatively small but effective blast radius. It is manufactured by producing a homogeneous mixture of an explosive material (such as HMX or RDX) and small particles of a chemically inert material such as tungsten. It is intended to limit the distance at which the explosion causes damage, to AVOID COLLATERAL DAMAGE IN WARFARE.
MsCrocodileTears 3 months ago
@MsCrocodileTears
Collateral damage is not an issue of humanity unless such things as water supply are targeted like in Palestine.
Injuries cause by dime explosives are extremely difficult if not impossible to treat. But then war has no rules and while dum dum bullets and using metal polish on a bayonet are banned by treaty we saw napalm and plastic fragmentation devices used against civvies in Vietnam.
And why phosphorus use there?
TheSpiritof1969 2 months ago
@TheSpiritof1969
Arab Water supplies were NEVER targeted by Israel.
Quite on the contrary, ISRAEL SUPPLIED WATER (AND FOOD) TO HER ENEMY population even during the Cast Lead war with Hamas.
Don't miss the point DIME is only used for one purpose => to save the lives of civilians. Otherwise it is much cheaper and more efficient to use traditional explosives.
Napalm is illegal.
It normal is to use white phosphorus for SMOKE SCREEN. It's made differently and smaller than anti-person weapon.
MsCrocodileTears 2 months ago
@MsCrocodileTears
''It normal is to use white phosphorus for SMOKE SCREEN.''
Not when it is delivered in an artillery shell and explodes a hundred feet above the ground and spreads fragments over a large radius.
They attacked infrastructure including power plants and at least one school. Don't take my word for it. Do your own research and think outside the box. If you want links I will supply them but better you find your own sources and understand why others believe it really was that way.
TheSpiritof1969 2 months ago
@TheSpiritof1969
Using phosphorus that way was to MAIM people not kill them. By filling the hospitals with people with deep and extremely painful burns they hoped to destroy moral of the population. Dammit have you not seen the pictures??
TheSpiritof1969 2 months ago
@TheSpiritof1969
Where do you get these lies from??
There was not a single person in any hospital with phosphorus burns.
I am just amazed by your commitment to Arab lies.
No I have not seen any pictures of phosphorus burn victims.
I have reviewed some pictures with a military expert who confirmed that they were of correctly and legally used phosphorus for lighting and for smoke cover.
I am just amazed at why do you hate the only civilized country in the whole M.E.
MsCrocodileTears 2 months ago
@TheSpiritof1969
As I said I did investigate this thoroughly. I asked a military expert about it, and was informed that indeed this is normal to use white phosphorus like this, and that looking at the pictures any military expert can confirm that it was used for smoke cover.
There was no a single case of phosphorus burn.
About power plants: Israel is supplying power to Gaza and was doing it even during the war.
I have done extensive study of the subject and have access to sources.
MsCrocodileTears 2 months ago
@MsCrocodileTears Yeah, Israeli and Pro Israeli sources that are half true or completely distorted.
crazydriver338 2 months ago
@TheSpiritof1969
The other use, as I explained is illumination of the area.
What do you mean by "thinking outside the box"??? I am really surprised, you are totally in the box, repeating the old anti-Israeli and antisemitic lies.
Israel is surrounded by the genocidal Muslim barbarians, who are very clear that their goal is to kill all Jews.
In my opinion Israel is far to kind to them. Every time Muslims attack Israel, Israel should kill 1027 Muslims, as per their own price.
MsCrocodileTears 2 months ago
@MsCrocodileTears
''Israel is surrounded by the genocidal Muslim barbarians''
''Every time Muslims attack Israel, Israel should kill 1027 Muslims''
You prove my point and just spat on the memory of the six million. So from their ashes rose the same nazi ideology but under a different flag and to this day I bet you still have pictures of Fuhrer Ben Guron hanging in every government office.
TheSpiritof1969 2 months ago
@TheSpiritof1969
You seem to be dense and don't not understand the 1027.
In exchange for one lousy Israeli soldier, Hamas demanded 1027 Arabs.
This is their own admission that that TO THEM the life and freedom of 1027 of their people is worse only one Jewish soldier.
Response must be proportional to the PERCEIVED value. Killing one Arab for one Jews, will not stop Arabs from killing Jews. They value their fellow Arabs very little.
To hard for you, to understand.
MsCrocodileTears 2 months ago
@MsCrocodileTears
So if Hamas terrorists let off a bomb and killed ten Israeli soldiers they should go out and murder 10,270 Palestinian civilians? Peaceful the Israelis aren't they ..... Hitler would have been proud of them, or at least Zionist zealots who speak in there name.
TheSpiritof1969 2 months ago
@TheSpiritof1969
Whatever stops Arabs from attacking Israelis is fine with me. The exact ration must be found through the transactions. Perhaps even 50:1 would work. Any less than that probably would not. Arabs/Muslim just don't value life very much.
your comparison with Hitler is fallacy: Hitler's, goal to eradicate of all Jew and dominate all of Europe.
On the other hand the Zionists are very humble: Jews living in their ancestral home, no goal to exterminate Arabs.
MsCrocodileTears 2 months ago
@MsCrocodileTears
''Jews living in their ancestral home, no goal to exterminate Arabs.''
Bullshit, they stole the land and turned Palestine into the biggest concentration camp on the planet. You vile idea of murdering 50 people AT RANDOM for every Israeli killed by terrorists only goes to tell me what a racist despotic state Israel has become. Hitler dehumanised the jew, and Israel is doing just that right now to the Arabs.
Israel IS a Nazi state, that is what you are telling me.
TheSpiritof1969 2 months ago
@TheSpiritof1969
Pals live better than surrounding Arabs states. Egyptians are sneaking into Gaza to get on the international dole.
Arab life expectancy has doubled under the "terrible Israeli occupation". Only and IDIOT would compare that with the Nazis.
And you LIAR, show me where did I say "AT RANDOM". You are making is a straw-man argument: a logical fallacy.
All surrounding states are RACIST and DESPOTIC. Israel is the oasis of freedom. That's why it is hated by the creeps like you.
MsCrocodileTears 2 months ago
@MsCrocodileTears
''And you LIAR, show me where did I say "AT RANDOM"
Israelis used mortars in a built up area. They are an indiscriminate and random area weapon used that way.
Sorry I misunderstood you, you were obviously promoting the idea of killing large numbers of people in reprisals in a more organised and systematic way.
I am intrigued how they would be selected, maybe get them to queue in front of a doctor who will point which way to go? Being Arabs they much be terrorists anyway?
TheSpiritof1969 2 months ago
@TheSpiritof1969
In war civilians are killed.
In retaliation for bombing London, British bombed German cities.
Many innocent civilians died. In Dresden almost everyone who died was civilian. Yet, this is normal in war.
Retaliation against civilians against attack on civilians is normal in war.
Yet, Israel never does that, they retaliate against soldiers, and take out-most care to minimize civilian losses. More than any other country EVER.
MsCrocodileTears 2 months ago
@MsCrocodileTears
Actually there is no state or army in the world who has transgressed international rule more than your beloved Israel! You can count resolution by resolution! You are siding with murderes here, that makes you an accomplice!
Israeli Army shoots palestinian civilians on purpose, takes children and puts them infront of tanks to hide themselves behind them, bomb schools. EVERYTHING protocolled by Int.Human Rights activists.
If you like to kill Arabs, then have the guts to say it!
Achatno1 2 months ago
@Achatno1
THIS IS COMPLETE LIE
In the entire history of all wars between Arabs and Israel less than 40,000 Arabs died and some 20,000 Israelis.
Even right now in this moment Syria is killing more civilians than Israel ever had.
In the same period China has killed 60 million, Soviets 40 million, Muslim have killed 10 million of each other, Turkey killed 250,000 Kurds, In Congo 5 million Sudan 2 million, N. Korea, 2 million, etc, etc. etc.
UN is a musloid dominated organization.
MsCrocodileTears 2 months ago
@TheSpiritof1969
The important point to understand is that the goal of retaliation is to stop aggression.
Killing one Muslim for each Jew they kill, would be considered victory by the Muslims. There is 1 billion Muslims who were indoctrinated to hate Jews. Killing 6 million Jews =100% of Israel. Killing 6 million Muslims = 0.4% of the Muslim population. Anyway, all they need to do, is to let Jews be. Let them live in their land. Muslims have other and much bigger problems.
MsCrocodileTears 2 months ago
@TheSpiritof1969
Actually Pals squatted on the Jewish land.
Besides, population transfer is not the same as extermination.
More Jews escaped Arab occupied countries then the other way round.
Yet, you Nazi-types, never decry the fate of the Jewish refugees, who lost 10 times more property than the Arabs, who had to move 100 times further than the Arabs.
The 600,000 Arabs who left Israel only had to relocate some 20 miles on average. Less than I used to drive to work every day.
MsCrocodileTears 2 months ago
@MsCrocodileTears
''The 600,000 Arabs who left Israel only had to relocate some 20 miles on average. Less than I used to drive to work every day.''
So if you and 600,000 of your neighbours were kicked put of your homes at gunpoint that would be OK the?
TheSpiritof1969 2 months ago
@TheSpiritof1969
You missed my point:
My point is that you are an antisemite, you apply double standards:
You don't blame Arabs for nearly a million Jews escaping from the Arab occupied countries, but you blame Israel for 600,000 Arabs leaving Israel.
Even now, as you blame Israel, Syria, Lybia, Yemen are killing 1000 times more Arabs than Israel. Yet, you racist are fixated on the Jewish state as if this was the biggest problem.
MsCrocodileTears 2 months ago
@MsCrocodileTears
LOL I wandered how long before you would come the antisemitism crap.
TheSpiritof1969 2 months ago
@TheSpiritof1969
I provided you with facts.
Israel has been held to different standards than other nations?
Why? I can only think of one reason; antisemitism.
Why else does UN single out Israel, while other countries have MUCH worse human right situation?
And why does UN give 50 times more money per person to the Pal-Arabs than to the Sudanese, Congolese, and other needy people? I can only because of one reason: UN is dominated by the musloids, can you think of others?
MsCrocodileTears 2 months ago
@MsCrocodileTears
facts? You talk of reprisals against arabs for the sins of a terrorist group. How bloody Nazi is that? You come over as just another dumb arsed yank that has never been out of his own country but is happy to repeat the same old dogma about Israel. What I sickening about your attitude is the notion that the life of some well fed kid in Israel is somehow more valuable than the life of a kid kicking a ball around in some back alley in Gaza.
TheSpiritof1969 2 months ago
@TheSpiritof1969
Yes, fact is that Israel is the only humanitarian country in the region.
*People in Gaza are suffering from obesity, more than in United States.
*People in Gaza democratically elected the terrorist organization, Hamas, and their government.
*Hamas charter of establishment calls for extermination of all Jews.
*Arabs deliberately target children and celebrate when Jewish kids are killed.
*Israelis kill far fewer civilians as collateral damage then others.
You are a Jew hater.
MsCrocodileTears 2 months ago
@MsCrocodileTears
''You are a Jew hater''
Because I critisize Israel? Yeah Right.
TheSpiritof1969 2 months ago
@TheSpiritof1969
Yes, because you apply double standards. Different for the Jewish state than for any other state in the world, and most importantly different than to the enemies of Israel.
All Arab states are indeed apartheid- states. Israel is not, but you accuse Israel. That's double standard.
All Arab states are religiously intolerant, etc.
Most importantly, Arab states except Jordan, treat Pals worse than Israel, yet you criticize only the Jewish state?
If not antisemitic, then why?
MsCrocodileTears 2 months ago
@MsCrocodileTears Israel is an apartheid state it's just it doesn't have discriminatory laws present in there law books.
crazydriver338 2 months ago
@TheSpiritof1969
Old fashion antisemites did the same thing. They said "Jews are greedy", and guess what, they were right, Jews ARE greedy. The only thing they did not say is that Germans, English, Indians, Polish, Spanish, etc, etc. are all greedy, too. They were saying the truth, but they were applying double standards.
The modern antisemites such as your self, do the same thing with with the Jewish state.
MsCrocodileTears 2 months ago
@MsCrocodileTears
''The modern antisemites such as your self, do the same thing with with the Jewish state.''
So anyone who is critical of Israel and wonders why the old school there learned no humility after the holucaust is automaticly guilty of antisemitism? Is that just playing the victim here? ..... it is bullshit. Maybe the ones with a number tattoo'd on their arms had a perfect right to do so but not todays generation.
TheSpiritof1969 2 months ago
@TheSpiritof1969
Somehow you managed to miss the point. I did not say being critical of Jews, or of Israel is antisemitic in itself. I said that applying different standards IS antisemitic.
I said yes, indeed JEWS ARE GREEDY, this is true, but it is also true that ENGLISH, GERMAN, SPANISH, CHINESE, ARABS, MEXICANS, ETC ARE GREEDY.
MsCrocodileTears 2 months ago
@TheSpiritof1969
Get my point.
If you apply different standards towards Jewish state than towards other states, only than it is antisemitic.
I am sad to see the blindness, that you cannot see this simple thing. ALL the Arab countries are 100 times more guilty of the things they are accusing Israel, yet you are singling out Israel for criticism.
Double standards are racist, just like the police giving 1000 times more traffic tickets to Blacks than to Whites for the same number of offenses.
MsCrocodileTears 2 months ago
@MsCrocodileTears Those are lies and so is your claim that you went to college.
crazydriver338 2 months ago
@MsCrocodileTears
''And why does UN give 50 times more money per person to the Pal-Arabs than to the Sudanese, Congolese, and other needy people?''
Because Israel will not let the Palestinians become part of the International community and develop its economy with any kind of trade. Without the UN aid they would starve.
TheSpiritof1969 2 months ago
@TheSpiritof1969
Oxplaine why a Palestinian is worth 50 times more than Sudanese, or Congolese.
Palestinians are suffering from obesity, while Congolese and Sudanese are starving.
Additionally Sudanese are being murdered by Arabs. 2 million have been murdered, 200,000 have been enslaved, majority women, enslaved as sex-slaves.
Yet, UN condemns Israel, not Sudan. Please tell me why?
Why are Sudanese risking their lives going through Egypt an Sinai, to get to Israel, if Israel is racist?
MsCrocodileTears 2 months ago
@MsCrocodileTears
''Yet, UN condemns Israel, not Sudan. Please tell me why?''
Maybe because of the support Israel gets from the Pro Zionist politicians in the US the world expects it to comply with resolutions going back decades. Maybe the world is sick of seeing Israeli soldier shoot at civilians. Maybe we are all worried that Israel will use those nukes. Israel is not worth the tempest that would follow.
TheSpiritof1969 2 months ago
@TheSpiritof1969
Good, finally we are beginning to think.
So please explain one by one:
1. Which legally binding UN resolutions is Israel not complying with? Please give specific name, number and date of just a few.
2. Why would the world have 1000 times highers standards for Israel because of the "Pro-Zionist US politicians". After all the US politicians are pro-US, but the world does not have similar expectations about the US?
MsCrocodileTears 2 months ago
@TheSpiritof1969
3.Why would "the world" be especially sick of Israeli soldiers shooting civilians when the governments of other countries including the immediate neighbors have shot many times more civilians? Israel is at war, and Israeli civilian collateral damage is the the smallest of any military in the world. See the testimony of Colonel Kemp.
Be kind and watch this 3 min video on youtube NX6vyT8RzMo.
MsCrocodileTears 2 months ago
@TheSpiritof1969
Finally I must agree with your last point: Israel will use nukes, as will other countries.
Historically all useful weapon systems have were used after beening rejected as "inhuman" :machine gun, dynamite, and other new weapons.
Within a decade terrorists will have nuclear weapons, supplied by Iran, or Pakistan, also Syria, Egypt, Saudi, etc, will develop nukes.
MsCrocodileTears 2 months ago
@MsCrocodileTears
There is no analogy between nuclear weapons and machine guns.. In the hands of people driven by religion they become a threat to the planet. Thanks to the Bush/Blair destruction of Iraq in the near future we may see Iran join the club. Forget the names of their gods or the dogma they live by, a flash in the sky will result in all sides becoming at one with the dust.
I do not envy our kids and grandkids. You are right about proliferation and now is the time to make peace.
TheSpiritof1969 2 months ago
@TheSpiritof1969
My only comparison with the Machine gun was that it too, was considered "inhuman", and unthinkable to use in the war. In fact the inventor was threatened with jail if he dared to propose it again to anyone.
We also share the concern for the kids and grand-kids generation.
As for religious fanatics, Israel is not one of them. It is an entirely secular country like most of Europe, with religious parties getting less then 10% of votes.
Muslim countries are becoming radicalized.
MsCrocodileTears 2 months ago
@TheSpiritof1969
Especially dangerous are the nukes in the hands of those who believe that the real life is after death. That this life there does not matter at all. With people like this, the old fashion MAD deterrence won't work. Ahmedinajad has already declared that all of Iran would be a ridiculously small price to pay for establishing the rule of Allah on earth. So, unlike the Soviets he is willing to sacrifice his country.
MsCrocodileTears 2 months ago
@TheSpiritof1969
I also agree that the occupation of Iraq was and still is stupid.
Defeating Saddam was quick, elegant and strengthened the US. But the subsequent occupation was destroyed all the benefits of the initial victory.
Iraq can only exist under a dictatorship, Bushes idiotic idea of making it an Western-style democracy, and free market was doomed from start.
Another option was to divide Iraq into 3 countries. Then at least the Kurds would be our unshakable allies like Israel.
MsCrocodileTears 2 months ago
@MsCrocodileTears We had no business to go to Iraq other than getting their oil.
crazydriver338 2 months ago
@TheSpiritof1969
As for making peace, there is only one way peace has ever been made in history:
By TOTAL DEFEAT of one side, and TOTAL VICTORY OF THE OTHER.
WWI did not en with unconditional surrender of Germany, and WWII was only a continuation of WWI, it was not a new war.
On the other hand after total surrender of Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany, we had peace with them for two generations - long time by standards of international conflicts.
MsCrocodileTears 2 months ago
@TheSpiritof1969
At the current stage of spiritual development of humanity the only peace we can hope for is "Pax-Romana". A total domination of one big power.
It could potentially be the United States, or Russia, China, or Allah-forbid Islamic Caliphate under Muslim Brotherhood.
Giving the choices, my preference would be for the US domination.
I am not stupid, I am aware that US is far from perfect. Still 1000 times better than the alternatives.
MsCrocodileTears 2 months ago
@MsCrocodileTears
The ME is not about a few million people squabbling it out any more. The region could (literally) blow up and the consequences change the lives of all of us in a way that could be our worst nightmare. ... where ever we may be on this tiny rock.
TheSpiritof1969 2 months ago
@TheSpiritof1969
I agree with you.
However
a.) Israel is not the key to the conflicts of he ME. Even if there was no Israel, there would be bloody conflicts there. The competition between the Iranians, Saudis, Iraqis, Egyptian is a renewal of the ancient struggle going on for thousands of years. Israel is being used by the Muslims as a propaganda tool.
Right now Iran is using hatred of Israel to gain support among Sunnis, likewise with al Qaeda, but it is not about Israel at all.
MsCrocodileTears 2 months ago
@TheSpiritof1969
b.) "Peace" with Israel is best achieved by strengthening Israel, not by weakening it.
Israel, unlike the Muslims, have limited geopolitical ambitions. They want to rule over the 1/700th part of the region which they consider their national home. (And rightly so in my opinion.)
Muslims on the other hand, have the goal of word domination. This is commanded to them in their Quran.
MsCrocodileTears 2 months ago
@TheSpiritof1969
In any war where the choice is between a total national defeat, and the use of nukes, the nukes will be used.
This is true for Israel, too. Therefore I'd prefer for Israel to have defensible borders and strong deterrence. This would postpone the time of nuclear war.
As far as I am aware, Israel is the only country who's very existence is threatened by its enemies.
Pakistan and India only stand to lose their part of Kashmir, not the whole country.
MsCrocodileTears 2 months ago
@MsCrocodileTears
Look at Wikipedia there is a list of 244 UN resolutions concerning Israel and the Palestinian Question. Many are openly critical of Israel.
Google '' UN resolutions Israel not complied with'' There are several up to date sources that list about a hundred resolutions not complied with.
TheSpiritof1969 2 months ago
@TheSpiritof1969
I asked you for examples of legally binding resolution.
Not just some condemnations from the antisemitic club under the direction of the automatic Muslim majority.
Binding resolutions are agreements that Israel is a party of.
Israel is bound to keep its agreements, it is not bound to follow every resolution by UN. They are not legally binding. And the shear number of them shows the UN bias.
MsCrocodileTears 2 months ago
@TheSpiritof1969
I tell you the secret why UN is anti-Israeli.
Initially Arabs were, soon they succeeded in spreading their anti-Zionist ideology to the Muslim world. Then Soviet block made a deal with them in early 50s so that Muslims voted with the commies, and commies in return with the Muslims. Finally in 1973 Europe was blackmailed by the oil blockade to switch sides, which they did almost overnight. Israel was sold for oil.
MsCrocodileTears 2 months ago
@MsCrocodileTears Obesity!! HAHAHAHAHAHA! That's America if you haven't recently figure it out. Granted, Hamas is in power but the Palestinians voted for them because they're doing what the world and previous government is not doing; providing order and stability. Plus; it knows full well it can't go up against Israel for two reasons. 1) It has no financial support from the world and 2) for every attack committed by Hezbollah they and the civvies get blamed for it.
Stop posting your lie.
crazydriver338 2 months ago
@TheSpiritof1969
And to answer your question if kicking out 600,000 neighbors is OK:
The answer is that it is "OK" only in the historical context. Just like: Was it OK to expel 15 million Germans from Poland, Czech, Russia, and other countries after the WWII?
Was it OK to expel 15 million Muslims and Hindus from India/Pakistan? Then Greeks, Turks, Azeris, Armenians,
Etc, etc, etc. You racist are only aware of Israel, why?
MsCrocodileTears 2 months ago
Comment removed
TheSpiritof1969 2 months ago
Chamberlain should have committed suicided for starting ww2.
why2lie 4 months ago
Chamberline along with the League of Nations betrayed Emperor Haile Selassie I during this age of appeasement by allowing Mussolini/Italy to invade Ethiopia using illegal weapons like MUSTARD GAS all over northern Ethiopia...
They further betrayed Ethiopia by enacting an Arms Embargo on Italy/Ethiopia..Italy has been buying weapons since 1922 preparing for Ethiopian invasion secretly while Ethiopia wasn't...the ArmsEmbargo was a death sentence to Ethiopia & green light to Fascist Italy.
EriPages 4 months ago
@EriPages
I forgot to mention that the sudden Italian invasion happened in 1936...thus, Fascist Italy had accumulated weapons for 14 years (since 1922) in preparation to invade Ethiopia
The League of Nation passing an Arms Embargo during the invasion was the STUPIDEST thing...Age of Appeasement cost close to 2 million Ethiopian lives thanks to Mustard Gas/Shelling & all other sorts of banned weapons at that time
EriPages 4 months ago
Chamberlain was no appeaser. He knew Britains armed forces were hopelessly inadequate and when war did happen 300,000 of our best were driven into the sea at Dunkirk. He was playing for time as Spitfires and Hurricanes were rush into production to protect our land from the Luftwaffe.
History has judged this man wrong. Had the war started six months earlier there would have been a different outcome.
TheSpiritof1969 4 months ago
@TheSpiritof1969 if war happened after the Munich agreement then war would have ended quickly if stalin kept his promise to back the Czechs with a quick German defeat or possibly not even a war at all instead a coup since most of the German Generals were against a invasion of Czechoslovakia.
ahnilator123 3 months ago
@ahnilator123
I don't think Stalin was in a position to fight the Germans. Two decades of his purges had wiped out the officer class within his armed forces and they needed to modernise fast.
Imagine for a moment that the war had been put off in Europe for 5 years, how do you think it would have ended? By 1945 the Germans might have had nuclear weapons and a second generation of rockets to deliver them.
TheSpiritof1969 3 months ago
@TheSpiritof1969 I think that the German Army too was quite inadequate at this time. If the Czechs had fought back against Hitler, and England and France launched a united invasion of Germany from the north and west, and Poland from the east... Hitler wouldn't have stood a chance.
Chamberlain failed to realise, that sooner or later, Hitler would have to be taken out.
philipisphilip 3 months ago
@philipisphilip
Chamberlain had Hitlers number, he knew what was coming and that is why he stepped up the pressure on weapons production in the UK in 1938. We only had small numbers of modern fighters, not enough for even home defence. He had good reason to stall for time, the Nazis had a fully developed air force with battle experienced pilots who made their bones in the Spanish civil war.
At the end of the day be put home defense first and Dunkirk proved him right.
TheSpiritof1969 3 months ago
Hey! Thank you for making this video because it really helped me with my History Report! Anyways, Thx a trillion! ^_^
MissFabForever 5 months ago
As a Czech, I am not blaming Chamberlain, he did what he though was good for his country, it is not my right to judge him. But also you must understand the depresion,grief and anger that came...we had to give up great part of our industry, 1/3 of our land and most of all we lost all hope at the time - we were prepared to fight and all we got from our allies was that they won´t do a thing...you can say whatever you want but from our point of view Munich 1938 always will be a giant betrayal.
MynickisMi88 6 months ago
"Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them." Sounds like those in positions of leadership in the U.S. (President Obama and remainder of executive branch, most of Congress, media, etc.,) probably should take a refresher course in order to learn the folly of appeasement.
ChristianTVArchive 7 months ago
in the 30s, they were appeasing Nazism. Today, in the 00s, they are appeasing islam.
jigglyfidda125 7 months ago
Chamberlain was spineless and provincial. He bears the blame (behind Hitler, of course) for WWII
macboar 7 months ago
@macboar In hindsight yes, it would seem he was spineless and provincial. But you've got to consider that at the time, people in Britain and in Europe were still reeling from the legacy of WWI and what damage it had done to their nations; public opinion was very much for a peaceful negotiation, something that Chamberlain must've recognised. So in the short term I tend to think that he was going with public opinion and preventing war. He was naive and acted immorally, but he wasn't spineless.
tallulahpaloosa 7 months ago
@tallulahpaloosa. Also, he gave Britain and France a year to prepare for possible war.
meotaku2 6 months ago
@meotaku2 Yeah, that to. Thanks :)
tallulahpaloosa 5 months ago
@macboar I've already replied but I wanted to add something lol.
And if you consider the Birmingham speech in March 1939, he did comment that 'no greater mistake could be made.... that this nation had so lost it's fibre that it will not take part to the utmost of it's power in resisting such a challenge if it were ever made.' Doesn't this kind of refute the idea that he was spineless, considering this is a subtle hint that Britain would go to war if necessary?
tallulahpaloosa 7 months ago
Appeasement is not for cowards. It's harder to gain peace and maintain it than it is to start war. So who's the bigger man? I personally think it's Chamberlain.
PengugirlPolarchic 9 months ago
@PengugirlPolarchic But Chamberlain didn't gain peace, he only delay war and got one longer! Hitler got whole economic and armament power of Czechoslovakia at his disposal and it allowed him him to escalate his requirements.
No agreement is better than a bad agreement and this agreement didn't save peace.
traplican 4 months ago
I like how this video ends. If one had no knowledge of WW2, then maybe you'd think that peace was maintained and war between Germany and Britain never happened. If it hadn't, Britian would still have an empire and be a Superpower.
neil73 10 months ago
@Yesica1993 No your wrong. the quran is not full of jewish hatred. your just making it up. give me proof, that the quran insults jews
Tanveer267 10 months ago
Poor you, Hitler should to taken pieces of Great Britain and French too, in order to try that consequences which happened after.
tominatorr 11 months ago
Luckily i found your video now i can work on my history homework
trintin123 1 year ago
Check out the book MY COUSIN KILLED HITLER, based on the story of Marshal Zhukov. It tells a family secret about him. If only Hitler knew that one of those he hunted became the hunter instead.
rajahbabe 1 year ago
thank you so much for posting this up! we watched this in social in which i was half dead and couldn't get any info in my head. THANK YOUUUU =)
yummiegreenapples 1 year ago
What people don't seem to realize is that chamberlain actually took the gust out of hitlers sails. Hitler very badly wanted to go to war in 38, and tried hard to find his social licence to do so. Unfortunately for him, chamberlain denied him that. In 45 hitler lamented not starting the war in 38
mockingbird83 1 year ago
@mockingbird83 It's just like Enoch Powell but Chamberlain was more in control of what people had to do in order to survive people say he was a failure but in another way he was a great man in a weird way Powell was ignored and look what we have got now IMMIGRANTS OVERLOAD!
xDm5x9tZpp 11 months ago
communist jew bastards.
NotAllGoyAreStupid 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
David Cameron = Neville Chamberlain
Lisbon Treaty 2009 = Munich Agreement 1938
Vote UKIP.
drs7773ify 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The same sort of appeasement and cowardice we're seeing toward Islam, all over the world.
Wake up, people!
Yesica1993 1 year ago
@Yesica1993
Right wing BS!
Get off the Propaganda of Fox news & hate radio. After the fall of the Soviet Union the war makers needed a new enemy - guess who showed up... Sadam. Then Bin Laden (who we funded when he was fighting the Soviets) ....
Islam is not the @10,000 whackos that are trouble. Your way of thinking is the path to eternal war and hate. Follow the money to see who wants to cultivate your hatred. You are a pawn.
historyvideos101 1 year ago 6
@historyvideos101 Part 1
You know nothing about me and yet you start with "Right wing BS!!!" and "Fox News & hate radio" - neither of which I even watch/listen to. Tell me what they've said that is hateful/propaganda? Oh, wait. You can't. You don't watch/listen to it either, right?
Yesica1993 1 year ago 2
@Yesica1993
I listen to enough hate-wing radio to know the bogus arguments when I see them.
historyvideos101 1 year ago 2
@Yesica1993 but you know, I do agree with you. I don't know why and I wish I could stop it, but so many disgusting things happen in the middle east - especially commited by men. They always turn around and say "it's in the Koran" - wtf? - Then you have these islam leaders who validate what the dickhead down the street said. All I'm trying to say is. Let's not judge people by their religion but by their actions. I wish people would reason instead of following a 1000 year old book :(
loyalqueen 10 months ago
@historyvideos101
Part 2
It's because of appeasers like you that the tragedies of WWII occurred. As to Islam, you have no idea what it teaches. Have you read the Koran? Have you bothered to check into the Islam/Nazi connection? Of course not. But you'll defend this ideology to the death.
The only one spewing hatred (as well as ignorance of both history and the present time) is YOU. Thank you for doing so openly on the internet for all to see.
Yesica1993 1 year ago
@Yesica1993
Have you read the Bible?
historyvideos101 1 year ago
@historyvideos101 have YOU read the Bible? because just by your immediate unjust judgement and criticism of historyvideos101, i'd assume that the Bible means nothing to you.
Hadeydeppio 1 year ago
@historyvideos101 "Have you read the Bible?"
The Bible is bad (though it does not justify as much evil as the Koran/Hadith), but you are clearly evading Yesica's point here.
You say appeasement of Islam is not taking place? You say that it is not a serious threat? Why are ARTISTS (filmmakers, cartoonists, writers) being arrested in some of the supposedly "freest" countries on earth for "insensitivity"?
No big deal; if it was on Fox News, I can uncritically proclaim it wrong.
sybo59 1 year ago
@Yesica1993 I urge people to read the Second Sura, Section 15 to 17 in which the Prophet (Peace be Upon Him) rails against "the people of the Book", the "Children of Israel. Apparently the Prophet found it impossible to make headway with the Jews. They would not convert, and it got to him. He calls them hypocrites and says its the duty of Muslims to hunt them down and kill them. It's unbelievable! An advocacy of holocaust.
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 Jew-hatred is all over the Quran. It is appalling.
Yesica1993 1 year ago
@Yesica1993 I am sure there are englightened mullahs who hate nobody and are able to explain that away. :"The Bible" is also full of anti-Jew comments. Moreover, it is a fact that in history is is the Christians who treated Jews far worse than the Muslims, who gave Jews the respect they hold for monotheists.
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 Nonsense. The Bible neither teaches nor condones Jew-hatred. In contrast, the Quran is full of it, from cover to cover.
Yesica1993 1 year ago
@Yesica1993 The whole point of the New Testament is to show that the Jews did not accept the Messiah, they mocked him, betrayed him, judged him, scouraged him, chose Barabas over him, crucified him. Not the Romans--Pilate said he found no guilt in him; the centurian said, surely you are the son of God. But not the Jews. The New Testament is antiJewish, and the early Church enacted dogma after dogma attacking Jews. They even locked Jews up in ghettos. Face it! Christians were antisemites!!
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 The first part of your statement is is correct. The Jews did not accept Jesus as Messiah. The Romans carried out the execution. And Scripture is clear that Jesus was crucified for the sins of mankind, therefore we ALL responsible.
How any of this translates in your mind as "The NT is anti-Jewish" is beyond me. Jesus was a Jew. So was Paul, who wrote so much of the NT.
What ANY of this has to do with Islam's teachings about Jews is also beyond me.
Yesica1993 1 year ago
@Yesica1993 I am not talking about truth but about what is writeen and how it was interpreted by the early Christians. The Gospels were written by Jews in exile. The Chosen People had been tossed out of the Promised Land. They had lost their nations; they had followed a false Messiah. How was this possible? It was because Jesus was the true Messiah and the Jews had rejected him. Jesus had offered Jews a Hellenistic spiritisual kingdon, but they wanted an earthly one. Exile is their punishment.
mc0558 1 year ago
@Yesica1993 To continue. The Gospels are about Jesus and his rejection by the wayward Jewish people. When things bad happen to Jews it is because they have rebelled against God. Jesus is God. This time their rebellion is so serious that they lose the Promise Land and their status as the chosen people. This status is transferred to Christians. Until them is given the keys to the kingdoms of heaven and hell. Those who follow Jesus become the children of God. Etc. etc. Jews are cashiered!
mc0558 1 year ago
@Yesica1993 You seem not to get my point. I am not talking about YOUR interpretation of the New Testament. I am talking in a very literal way about what is actually in the narrative, how it depicts the Jews, and the crude, literal way Christians interpreted it for many centuries. I do not believe any of this stuff, and I am a friend of Israelis and of Jews in general. I am saying that somehow, Christians were until 60 years ago harder on Jews than Muslims were.
mc0558 1 year ago
@Yesica1993 and what is the difference between the Nazi's hatred of Jew's and your blinded view on Islam? Nothing. It's people like you who allow prejudice and racism. I bet you if it was proposed for all Muslim's to be exterminated in a gas chamber you wouldn't lift a finger to stop it. It's people like you who allow prejudice thoughts which endanger future peace.
loyalqueen 10 months ago
@loyalqueen What blinded view? My view of Islam is based on what the Koran says and what its warlord, child rapist prophet did.
Gee, let's see. The Nazis killed Jews. I have neither killed nor commanded others to kill nor suggested nor condoned killing of Muslims.
Are you capable of grasping that difference? I bet you're not. I bet in your sick and twisted mind, my saying facts about Islam is the same as Nazis killing Jews. Am I correct?
Yesica1993 10 months ago
@Yesica1993 I'm not sure you understand the word "interpretation". The Koran was written hundreds of years ago, there are those that take every world literally & behave like cavemen and there are those that choose to interpret it differently to create a positive meaning for themselves. You may view the Koran to be corrupt, does not mean all Muslim's agree with the Kuran. I respect your opinion, but I don't agree with you demonising Islam. German's demonised Jews, you're doing the same. No?
loyalqueen 10 months ago
@loyalqueen Stop with the "Islam is/Muslims are being demonized" routine, and instead address the passage I gave from your own Islamic texts.
Yesica1993 10 months ago
@historyvideos101 Actually, I think he's right. Appeasement is not the fucking answer, and we're appeasing Islam. And don't defend them so much, I can guarantee they don't feel the same towards you. Now you're going to acuse of bigotry, go ahead, I really don't give a crap what you might think.
olvoro11 1 year ago
@historyvideos101
You're a twit and 'Yesica 1993' is absolutely correct. Islam is a disease.
BritonAgainstIslam 1 year ago
@Yesica1993
your absolutly right Yesica we are doing the exact same thing now with islam, we are allowing things we do not really want because we are in fear of violence or terrorists...
wikingnederland 1 year ago
@wikingnederland Yep. So much for learning from history.
Yesica1993 1 year ago
@Yesica1993 Not sure if you understand other cultures enough to make this comment.........Also not sure if you know your history enough boy,
TheBurkshire 10 months ago
@TheBurkshire Islam is intrinsically evil.
invictorium 7 months ago
@invictorium Go on.......Are you saying Christianity is not? Do you live near any Muslims?
TheBurkshire 7 months ago
@TheBurkshire Living near muslims is entirely irrelevant. Islam is intrinsically evil; the penalty for apostasy is death (what kind of a peaceful religion is that). Christianity is somewhat more benign, yet the thought of a 24/7 dictator is of course a great evil.
invictorium 7 months ago
@invictorium It is relevent, if you've interacted and intergrated with a Muslim community, then it is very clear to see that they are not evil. Us Western people have our own naive thoughts on how religions should morally act etc. Yet who are we to be dictating how somebody should conduct their religion. Christianity and western culture has enforced itself on the world to a much greater extent then Islam. Sadly it is only natural that conflict will arise from this.
TheBurkshire 7 months ago
@TheBurkshire If you don't think that death, for being an apostate is not evil, then you have no concept of morality. All religious organisations are evil, as they essentially condone and enforce a 24/7 north korean like dictator, in which even after death, you are being ruled. It's pathetic.
invictorium 7 months ago
@invictorium Agreed!!
TheBurkshire 7 months ago
@Yesica1993 Not sure if you understand other cultures enough to make this comment.........Also not sure if you know your history enough boy, This also has no relevance to Islam in anyway, shape, or form. Perhaps if Britains involvement in the establishment of Israel were swung less towards their own political and economical interests. you have some kind of valid claim to your comment.
TheBurkshire 10 months ago 2
@TheBurkshire Spare me your condescension. It's you who apparently doesn’t know history, current events, or what Islam teaches.
Yesica1993 10 months ago
@Yesica1993 Then how can you call this appeasement when Chamberlain was following a programme of rearmament? To call this appeasement is a misnomer, these policies contradict one another . Had Chamberlain not bought Britain time to rearm, then the outcome of WW2 may well have been very different.
TheBurkshire 7 months ago
@TheBurkshire
We learn from History-or we should!
Naturally the video is relevant to today.
Have you seen the video-Palestine never was a country it was a construct of the time-a Prof quotes'?
I am reading though " The Trojan Horse" Al-Hijra by a Ret Islamic Scholar............Making the video not only relevant but a stark warning too!
Fonyod2008 9 months ago
Hitler was plainly outnumbered even before the jew-funded USA joined forces with the jew-funded USSR. Normally down thru history the nation with the highest intelligence quotient prevails unless severely outnumbered such as what happened to the Germans. Hitler desired only the small conflict to solidify relations with Austria in the heroic struggle against the atheist-communist plague but then the criminal Churchill violated international law when he firebombed German civilians in early 1940.
NotAllGoyAreStupid 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NotAllGoyAreStupid
You really need to listen to the doctors and take your medications in a timely manner.
I'm sorry that you were an abused child. I hope that you will never have children if you ever get out.
Peace.
historyvideos101 1 year ago 4
the doctor is me you ignorant bastard.
NotAllGoyAreStupid 1 year ago
@NotAllGoyAreStupid it's you who is the twisted sick bastard. Shut up with your stupid nazi ranting.
DrZenith 1 year ago
@historyvideos101 Sterilize people who think logically!
FreeVonHelton 6 months ago
@NotAllGoyAreStupid Yet another Nazi piece of shit! Maggots, faggots and wankers, everyone of them!
mc0558 1 year ago
The road to hell...paved with gravestones of those with good intentions.
comms35 1 year ago
Neville Chamberlain has been grossly misrepresented. Those shouting appeasement fail to note there wasn't a darn thing England or France could have done militarily to stop Hitler in the Sudetenland or Czechoslovakia. All knew that, later proven true by defeat of French & British forces on the continent.
At the time, negotiated settlement was the best hope for a positive outcome. The ultimate failure of that was not Chamberlain's fault. Increasing demands, by ALL parties, was more to blame.
stewartx5 1 year ago
obama sucks
ChevyMan2195 1 year ago
Shame on Neville Chamberlain and shame on my whole country for this appalling, cowardly deed. Even though it bought 11 months, even though this brief time was used to re-arm, particularly to build Hurricanes and Spitfires and create a modern Fighter Command, who in 1940 saved Great Britain from slavery or death, even so, this stank worse than a dark alley in Soho.
Wobdifurousness 1 year ago