Interesting question is why nobody care about atittudes of german socialists, communists, jews, members of agrarian and cristian party. Sudeten German Party got 60 %, but the rest was againts them and didnt want to get to nazi state and nazi concentrate camps.
So im glad i live in this time :). Czech-german relations are quite good. Even czech and german neonazi cooperates :(
Chamberlain and the British govt. seemed to live in another world apart from the reality of Nazi Germany. They were 19th century politicians who seemed unable to understand the truly evil nature of the new totalitarianism ideology embodied in Hitler and Nazisim. When Hitler said he was going to exterminate the Jews, he meant it LITERALLY. When he declared he wanted to turn the whole of Europe into a German colony, he really meant it. Chamberlain & Co. just couldn't seem to grasp this.
think about this stalin was a drunk opressor, churchill was a drunk and roosevelt was a crippled old week man, so there`s the promoters for demorcracy and bolshevism, they must have been pleased when they got together and created future hobo states,how glorius times we live now when allies won
Compare this to what is going on today with the Palestinians clamoring over Jewish land they claim that has been "stolen" from them while the Arab nations are calling for the complete annihilation of Israel. Then look at many on the Mexican border shouting that Texas was "stolen" from them as well. Then, to add to this madness, America's own children are being taught in schools and colleges that
Capitalism is "evil" and that America is the oppressor. Is it 1937 again? Time to wake up!
Compare this to what is going on today with the Palestinians clamoring over Jewish land they claim that has been "stolen" from them while the Arab nations are calling for the complete annihilation of Israel. Then look at many on the Mexican border shouting that Texas was "stolen" from them as well. Then, to add to this madness, America's own children are being taught in schools and colleges that Capitalism is "evil" and that America is the oppressor. Is it 1937 again? Time to wake up!
@gr8cool1 capitilism is evil, america is an opressor which annihilates other nations and murders millions of innocent people so that the corporations which control the government can get at it's soverign resources through good old "democracy". we have woken up, now you need to do the same.no one here is fooled. just because some old fashioned, retard politicians from the 1930's came up against a dictator doesn't mean it's time to love america. governments are the problems, they dont speak for us
It´s true Czecho-Slovakian rep. didn´t had any military treaty with UK at that time, but still - we were acknowledged as independent and democratic nation and yet all we got was a note that says: "Hitler can have Sudets, if you want to defend it you are on your own." Few months later he takes over the rest of the country anyways.
Although CSR was a small coutry it had a very strong industry which helped Nazis in conquest through Europe and slaughtering milions, way to go Appeasement!
This video is an annoying American propaganda film and has almost nothing to do with Neville Chamberlain's return from Munich and the "Peace in Our Time" speech.
rollsstanna2, very funny (sad). Religious freedom in America means worshipping whatever god you choose, or indeed choosing to be non-religious at all? No, it doesn't. Most american politicians give lip service to being bible-bashers because they are afraid of the consequences of not being seen to do that. That's freedom is it?
How about if they just pledged to be honest themselves with taxpayers, and left god out of it? Religious justification for bullshit is in every country. USA included.
Why do people leave out the fact that islam is not a religion like other religions in America? Islam is total takeover of all aspects of life. Sharia law is integral to Islam and diametrically opposd to US law.
No religious freedom
Women are considered less important then men
Men can beat and kill women at their descretion
Women can not refuse sex
Anyone who does not accept Allah as god is to be killed.
Do you really want this for your daughters and grand daughters?
"We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills, we shall never surrender!"
The Brits deserved all the bombing and everything, I repeat everything they got from the Germans because of this unbelievable betrayal of their ally, friend and the only democratic country in central Europe - Czechoslovakia
@Slivarci You are mistaken! Czechoslovakia was the ally of France and of the USSR. It was NOT Britain's ally. Maybe it should have been, but it wasn't. Besides, one wonders--where is Czechoslovakia today? It was made up of Czechs, Slovaks, Germans and Poles. The Czechs loved it (them) but the Slovaks and Germans were NOT happy in it. I can't speak for the Poles. At any rate, we did not betray an ally, because for better or worse Cz wasn't an ally then.
@bigal2761 The Brits deserved all the bombing and everything, I repeat everything they got from the Germans because of this unbelievable betrayal of their ally, friend and the only democratic country in central Europe - Czechoslovakia
@bigal2761 I think you are mistaken! By showing that piece of paper all over the place, Chamberlain boxed Hitler in. He got Hitler to say that with the Sudetenland his last territorial demand in Europe was satisfied, but Hitler had many more territorial ambitions. Thus, when Hitler seized Bohemia and Moravia, too Klaipeda and began with demands on Poland, Chamberlain's piece of paper proved that Hitler's signature wasn't worth a damn because Hitler was a liar. So, I don't agree with you!
@bigal2761 You miss my point. Chamberlain got Hitler to sign a document in which he said that, having got the Sudetenland, he--Hitler, leader of the German people--had NO FURTHER TERRITORIAL DEMANDS IN EUROPE. Chamberlain showed that document to the world. So when Hitler immediatey began demanding territory and seized Bohemia & Moravia. the world saw that Hitler's signature on a treaty was worthless and turned against him. Cham looked dumb, but Hitler lost the propaganda war and he knew it.
@bigal2761 "Which only proves that appeasment does not work and never will"
Thank you! There are so many idiots on Youtube who think that Neville Chamberlain was right to try and deal with Hitler, despite what eventually happened. The majority of my History class was in favor of Nevilles decision while reading about it in our history books. The Next page however showed a picture of Pearl Harbor and German tanks invading Poland with the title "WWII".....well that will never happen again right?
@TheyHearUsNow Chamberlain may not have been right to try and appease Hitler, but with the USA isolationist, Russia ruled by bolshevik terrorists and France and his own country virtually bankrupt, he could not very well rush into war. A war that Britain could not afford to fight and which it might very well lose. Appeasement was buying time in which to prepare defenses, as well as trying to get Hitler to see reason. As he was as mad as the hatter, there was no hope of that.
@mc0558 Well you either fight him before he takes over Poland and the West Balkans or you wait till he makes the first move. Winstin Churchill knew this before hand but they didn't listen to him and thought he was just a war mongerer. As one of the greatest men in History who was destined to do great things, he was laughed at and casted aside by morons and amatures. Thats how I see it.
@bigal2761 Certainly appeasement does not work with someone whose ambition is conquest. Nazism was all about two things: the German conquest of "living space" in Eastern Europe and the extermination of the Jewish race. Such an ideology needs to be stopped immediately by whatever means necessary. Any effort to appease people like that is useless and wrong.
The selling out the Country of Czechoslovakia in order to have Peace with a corrupt Dictator shows the true meaning of Appeasement! After one year of so called peace that PM Chamberlain signed with Hitler Nazi Germany went on a blitzkrieg rampage thru out Europe and nearly destroyed England!
Those who do not stand against petty Dictators and corrupt Tyrants deserve to be Attack or worse CONQUERED!
@ssgduke56 During that year, Chamberlain built more fighter aircraft than Hitler did. This was appeasement BUT. . . . There where-with-all to fight was hurredly thrown together. Don't underestimate Chamberlain! Hitler's translater said that he never heard Hitler talked to the way Chamberlain did. Chamberlain looked like milktoast, but he was a steely, hard-headed politician. Churchill was scared of him. Chamberlain cornered Hitler, prepared for the war, and declared war. Don't forget that!
@ssgduke56 Where is Czechoslovakia today? In 1939, it was a republic of Germans (Sudetenlanders), Slovaks, Poles, Ruthenians and Czechs. None of the indigenous people were happy with the way it was working except the Czechs, who dominated government and the army. Now they may have been the best of the lot, and Hitler was worse than what was in place, but it was a highly flawed country. Anyway, I can tell you that Stalin was ready to defend it alone if necessary, but Benes turned him down.
@mc0558 I agree with you. Czechoslovakia was indeed a flawed country for these reasons. Wilson's whole policy of self determination was ridiculous. It was impossible to create separate countries for every ethnic group in Europe. Czechoslovakia was a prime example of how this couldn't work. It would have been absurd for Chamberlain to declare war on Germany over that country as Churchill wanted. Britain had no way to defend them. They also had no way to defend Poland.
@LSDNY Yes, but! By the time we get to Poland, Hitler has established a pattern of using threats and force to change the boundaries of Europe and proven himself a liar -- as when he swore to respect the independence of Czechoslovakia. Hitler thought his alliance with the USSR meant Britain and France were powerless to stop him, but events proved him sorely mistaken! Those who summon the courage to stand up to a bully nearly always find a way to pull it off. We rallied the world against Hitler.
@LSDNY While Czechoslovakia was made upon self determination right, it was not completely artificial state. Bohemia (or Land of the Czech Crown) were there since 10th century. They remained in their borders as the biggest part of Holy Roman Empire, and then Bohemia (+ Moravia + Silesia) was part of Austro-Hungarian empire, still maintaining its borders. The state from 1918 reflected its historical borders. Slovakia on the other hand...
@andro89 Saddam was no threat to America or any of its allies. Indeed, Saddam was a check on Iran and a guarantor of Sunni secularism in Iraq. He was a bastard as well, but that is not the point. He was no threat to us!
English LORDS did not fear Hitler. They were glad he attacked all the communist party members in and put them in work/concentration camps.
US Elites approved, so did French Elites, many others.
Hitler was a hero to the Aristocracy, with some reservations. I'm sure Neville saw them as Gentlemen and allies, and v.v., not as aggressors until later.
Many of the British aristocracy believed fascism and National Socialism in particular to be far too crude and brutish. They saw communism as the greater threat, but so did the European middle class. Now the German aristocracy took to it like a duck to water, but Germany had always been a very militaristic nation.
dilbert -- 1. you make a mistake to over-emphasize GB aristocratic enchantment with Hitler. Remember that in WWI most had come to dislike the Germans as Germans. A militarily revive German was a threat to the balance of power in Europe and therefore to GB security. 2. with India tittering towards independence, a renewed WWI would end the Empire. Br hadn't the money to fight WWI. 3. a renewed war would spread Communism far and wide.
mc0558 says dilbert -- 1. you make a mistake to over-emphasize GB aristocratic enchantment with Hitler.
Maybe so. I don't mean 100%. Lord Halifax praised Nazis, found them delightful, convinced his friend Chamberlain.
Some support in the US for Nazis, both from Amer 'brownshirts' + other groups like Silver Shirts, Christian Action, etc. and from Wall Street. I assume + read that some English colleagues agreed. Banker's Coup plotters liked Croix de Feu more than Nazis.
@dilbertgeg I know no evidence that Halifax found Nazis delightful. Please give me your source. Halifax "knew" that GB could not afford to fight another world war and wd probably lose one. Chamberlain was an odd duck. When Hitler totally outmaneuvered him by signing the Pact with Stalin and attacking Poland, C up the ante, declaring war. What he thought as he did so is a matter of speculation.
Pro Nazis in the US were an insignificant fringe. Americans loved FDR and FDR hated Hitler.
@mc0558 "Americans loved FDR and FDR hated Hitler." Actually only about 55% of Americans "loved" FDR, but in fact most Americans were isolationist in their leanings and wanted no part of a "European" war. Pearl Harbor was used skillfully and predictably to get the U.S. into the war. I'm not suggesting that was a bad decision as both Germany and Japan had to be stopped and only the United States could do so. But U.S. opinion of the war was not based on "love" for FDR.
@Kram6298 I think it was far more than 55%. It is a long time since I've seen the figures, but I remember that for some months leading up to the start of hostilities, the majority of Americans wanted to enter the war on Britain's side and an overwhelming majority wanted to support Britain's war effort. The March, 41 Lend Lease Bill passed the Senate 60 to 31 and more narrowly in theHouse, 113 to 100..
@Kram6298 Yes, I know that was your point. In 36 FDR carried every state but two. In 40, Wilkie did well running on basically an FDR platform and with some people upset about abandoning the 2 term tradition established by Washington. In 44, Dewey did well with FDR not campaigning at all. I believe he made one speech, the Fala speech. Of course, the super-rich hated his guts even though he saved their precious "free enterprise" system for them. But I think the overwhelming majority admired him.
@mc0558 Remember that it was the establishment led Conservative and Unionist Party that pushed Chamberlain to declare war on Hitler and it was they who forced Chamberlain to resign after the Norwegian campaign went sour. The Labour Party and the Liberal Party of course supported these Conservatives, but they had a small minority in the House of Commons at that time. Can you imagine any Brit with brains who would want Hitler to control Germany AND Russia? Britain would be overwhelmed!!!
Religion seemed to fail humanity in the Great War ... . Thus the politico-religion of fascism took hold because religion could not absorb the sorrow and suffering of the Great War and new religions had to be invented to cope with de post Great War negativity. Hitler had been a psychiatric patient because of the Great War. Herr Hitler´s speeches were full of Christian analogies. And of course, ¨Heil!¨ has religious overtones.
Surprise, surprise, historians debating historical matters over a historical video.
What next???
Aviators discussing flying on a video about planes, football fans arguing over the best football team on a football video or worst still, Elvis fans discussing Elvis things on a youtube video about the Elvis!!!!
Historians have been debating just about every historical matter long before videos appeared. This debate too began long before videos.
I too have a part in this debate. I do think that there is something to learn from history, and that means that mistakes were made, that there were other opportunities, that it's not all explainable in context.
In this particular case, Sudetan Germans could've been expelled (they were later anyway), or even England, France, Czechoslovakia, the U.S. and possibly even Soviet Union could've made war on on Germany and finished with Hitler (they did later anyway).
Churchill and his supporters saw thing more clearly.
Thank you so much for uploading this vid. One of the most important in YT.
You are invited to visit my channel too: I explained there why a Palestinian state in Smaria is equivalent in some ways to the handing over of Sudetenland to Hitler in 1938, and what is the true reason Muslim leaders are pushing so hard to achieve it. It is mortal danger to Israel and Jordan, but also to Europe.
I am not muslim. Read my comment again with Patience: I am against a Pal. state and explaining why. From what I saw in your channel, our views are very similar
@mc0558 Lol ok seriously I think Saddam was an evil man and regardless of what anyone thinks of the war I believe he got what he deserved and i believe it was right to let the Iraqis give him the trial and the sentence.
Its curious to see the similarities of those past events today. Iran in the middle east and Venezuela in Latin America. They both have an aggressive rhetoric against Jews and both have been arming, specially Venezuela, a poor country that just bought $2 billion in weapons from Russia and has threatened Colombia various times with war. Our generation's Chamberlain lives in the White House today. God forbid war erupts, but if it does History will cease to have utility, for man ignores it.
Pius XII defanged Bruning's Center Party, the only organized democratic opposition. France let Hitler march into the Saar with troops on horseback for want of trucks. The Nazis propagated the myth that were ready for war and nothing was further from the truth. The Allies (and you with hindsight even) bougth the myth. At every step Hitler could have been stopped and he wasn't.
@conchscooter Of course Cardinal Pacelli did not become Pope until 39, wasn't it?, and Bruening fell in 32. In the end, of course, the Catholic Center Party voted FOR the March 33 Enabling Act that gave Hitler's coalition government dictatorial power (of course Hitler used these powers as though they were his alone and got away with it). The centre-right parties were terrified of the KPD coming to power and with good reason. Throughout 32, its vote for Reichstag deputies increased.
Hindsight is a very dangerous thing. Psychologically, militarily and financially Britain was not ready for war. The avoidance of a full-scale war was the upmost priority.
What other opportunities were there? Hitler was appointed Chancellor by the democratically elected President. He assumed the position as Fuhrer and supreme leader via an election in the Reichstag. Austria was annexed without bloodshed or any real opposition from Austrians. The Sudetenland was 90% German. Yes perhaps the Allies should have acted in March 1939 when Hitler invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia. But I fail to see where all these other opportunities lie?
@philosopherking34 His position as Fuhrer and Chancellor was confirmed by a plebiscite in a country where dissent and opposition had already been broken. Vis the Sudetenland, the point is that he was just given it--they were not asked to vote in a free election.He seized Austria, THEN held a plebiscite--they could have been opposed.The time to have stopped him was when he remilitarized the Rhineland, breaking the Versailles Treaty AND the Locarno Pact, which Germany signed of its own free will.
We must all remember that the policy of appeasement was not Chamberlain's. It was the previous prime ministers' before him after the Great War. Chamberlain continued to follow this policy because he had already lived through a war, he did not want another, he sympathised with Germany for the harshness of the Treaty of Versailles. Also, the British public hoped that the policy of appeasement would work.
If Chamberlain hadn't given Poland (a dictatorship by the way) a war guarantee Britain could have stayed out of this completely and it would likely have ended up being a war primarily between Germany & USSR with Western Europe spared. France & Britain went to war with Germany to save Poland, but they never made any attempt at defending Poland and after the war they handed Poland over to the Soviets anyway. The whole thing was pointless.
Britain wasn't ready for war in 38' and Chamberlain knew it. And Britain didn't go to war with Germany to 'save Poland' as such. They did it because of their own years old foreign policy of not allowing one power to dominate the continent. For British interests if you like, after all as you say Poland was a dictatorship.
I agree with you that Britain's real motivation for declaring war wasn't their concern for the welfare of Poland. However, if Chamberlain hadn't given Poland a war guarantee perhaps Poland would have been willing to give up the port city of Danzig which was populated almost entirely by Germans anyway. It's at least possible then that Hitler wouldn't have invaded Poland and at any rate Britain wouldn't have felt compelled to declare war before they were ready to fight it.
@LSDNY When will you learn that Danzig did NOT belong to Poland? It was a Free City under the control and protection of the League of Nations. If Germany was to get Danzig, it had to get the League of Nations to hand it over to her! Danzig was set up to serve as a non-German controlled major port for the Poles, but after Danswegian dockers sided with the Reds in the Polish-Soviet War of 1919-21 (refusing to unload war supplies), Poland developed the Polish port Gdinya as a preferred alternative.
So, what? Britain should have stayed out until Germany had conquered all of Europe and gassed every non-Aryan ethnic group with it? Don't forget that Hitler marched all the way up to Moscow before winter came, and that itself was because Mussolini needed German help conquering Greece, which delayed Operation Barbarosa (if memory serves me correctly). Germany would have decimated Russia, and they then would probably have been too big even for Britain and the US to beat.
I think you're overestimating Germany's ability to rule a conquered Europe. There would certainly have been resistance movements for them to deal with. The majority of the killing of Jews & other minorities happened after Germany began losing. If France & England could have avoided war then all the Jews in Western Europe would have been spared. Besides it's not as if Britain or the US fought the war to protect Jews or did anything to stop the holocaust prior to the last few weeks of the war.
Oh, I agree that altruism was never too high a motivating factor (the Roma are still treaty badly), but German CCs were being being built in 1938: I absolutely disagree that the Jews/Roma/disabled would have been spared persecution had Poland not been "guaranteed" independence.
"Rule" is different from "conquer": all empires crumble, but Alexander the Great and Napoleon have both shown that an individual with enough military and political power and influence in their immediate vicinity can rule a vast empire (for at least a generation, unopposed). I DO agree that Britain could have avoided war with Germany (the Nazis from high command to foot-soldier admired the British), but the ethical cost was unacceptable to most British...
Hitler had already set out before 1939 what he thought of the Jews, the future of humanity (his Aryan theory), and what part Russia could play (his "living space" suggestion).
OK, suppose there is no agreement with Poland: what happens next? Hitler and Stalin have already signed the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact and Eastern Europe becomes part of either Germany or Russia. Hitler wont stop there (Mein Kampf already tells us his ambitions are much more than just Eastern territory). Hitler already...
has the Worlds most advanced military and the Balkans and Middle East contain huge oil reserves -- it's the next logical step: Germany invades before Russia has a chance to. Italy, Mussolini already fanatical about re-establishing another Roman empire, would probably start attacking targets around the Mediterranean (as he already demanded French territory in 1938). Now, it gets hard to say what happens next; but in a straight Germany vs Russia fight, I still contend that Germany would win.
And besides, even if Germany would have been "crippled" by a victory in Russia, what would have stopped them from re-arming? Man-power would have been a short-term loss for the Nazis that was only decisive in reality because Germany had a second front to fight on. Without another enemy to fight Germany would have re-armed very quickly. And a Germany that large would have had a War-machine twice the size of its next largest rival -- the US.
I don't see how they would have had a military that would have threatned the US. They would have lost millions conquering Russia and they arleady had fewer men than the US. It's doubtful many citizens of the conquered nations would have been useful soldiers to them. Invading the Mideast would have been impossible after suffering so many casualties and trying to put down the resistance movements throughout Europe. I know the Nazis would have persecuted Jews no matter what, but it's not entirely
clear that they would have slaughtered them on such a large scale since most of that began after 1941. If Britain had stayed out of the war maybe France wouldn't have rushed to declare war. Then it's possible that Germany would have focused on Eastern expansion rather than invade Western Europe which would have spared the Jews in Western Europe.
I don't know exact man-power figures, but it's not just about pure numbers: the German army was the most well-drilled and professional army in the world, and the World was shocked how easily Poland and then the Netherlands and France fell. The Atlantic would certainly play its part in restricting Germany's threat to the US but I wouldn't say that I couldn't see how they would threaten the US: A former Nazi soldier remarked that Britain and Germany should have divided the World between them.
That was just how fanatical the German attitude was at the time. German military output was the highest of any nation in 1938 if I recall correctly, and the Russia had almost as much resources and productive capability as the US (again, if I recall correctly). If Germany had captured Soviet factories and resources, I'm not sure that even peak wartime US production capabilities would have matched that.
The Nazis were truly frightening, both militarily and ideologically. Stalin and the Russian generals underestimated how good they were, and it was only the Russian winter that saved them. I just don't believe that letting Germany and Russia fight each other would have worked: German tactics and capability were unmatched before the Allies began to learn and improve. The one thing that Hitler did consistently before 1942 was surprise the World in what he could do and was capable of.
Well I disagree that Germany could have realistically invaded the US since they didn't even try to invade England & WWII era bombers couldn't have flown across the Atlantic Ocean & back so the military threat to the US was minimal. Considering how many lives were lost & the fact that the holocaust happened while we were at war with Germany, I'm not sure the whole thing was beneficial to the US. But Germany did declare war on the US so I'm not suggesting we didn't have a right to fight them
I think you'd probably agree however the criticizms of Chamberlain for the Munich agreement tend to be somewhat misguided. His only other option was to sit back and do nothing or issue a statement condemning Hitler. Britain had absolutely no way of defending Chezckoslovakia in 1938. He should be criticized more for failing to mobilize his country for war once he had made the decision to declare war over Poland. It's as if he thought his war guarantee would scare Hitler into submission
Yes, I sympathize with Chamberlain. Following his, and many other people's, preference for appeasement in order to prevent another war (especially so soon after the Great War) he had little option on the Sudetenland: I think he truly believed that Hitler and Germany's grievances could be assuaged. Maybe he could have done more following his guarantee to Poland, but it was also on his orders that the RAF budget was heavily bolstered -- and it was because the RAF had defeated the Luftwaffe that...
Germany aborted their plans to invade England. Britain just didn't have the finances to beat Germany, Italy and Japan; and probably nobody in the military or parliament had the stomach to swagger aggressively to Germany either (after the horrors of 1914). Financially, I don't think Chamberlain could have done much more, and certainly the British population (like the American population too) abhorred the idea of war, and any suggestions of it would have been criticized.
The problem is that if Britain didn't have the means or the will in 1939 to fight Germany & the axis powers than I would argue it was foolish to issue a war guarantee to Poland. Even if you think they needed to stop Germany at any cost I don't think it helped their casue to rush into it the way they did. You should also remember Britain's hippocritical moral stands on Japan's & Italy's empire building in the 30's helped push them into the Axis powers in the first place.
In the 1930s, though, one man's hypocrisy was another man's fear; and that applied to all the developed nations and ultimately also to the League of Nations, and not just Britain.
My view is that things would only have gotten harder for Britain and France to prevent German and Italian aggression, and inevitable that the US and/or Russia would exert some sort of military pressure on Japan's aggression; but, maybe you're right: maybe Hitler and Stalin's mutual lust would have destroyed them both.
@LSDNY We had no direct way to defend Poland either, but we declared war on Germany anyway. The point is that he went too far, and as Chamberlain said in his September 3rd speech to the nation, "we have decided to put an end to it". First and foremost, that was a decision made by the British people and imposed on its politicians, and despite all his failings they made Churchill because Churchill made it clear he would fight it out to the end. Thank God we succeeded!
@LSDNY What an incredible load of nonsense. Hitler said in Mein Kampf that before conquering Lebensraum in the East, Germany must secure its rear by "settling accounts" with France. First France THEN Russia. As for sparing the Jews of Western Europe, aren't German Jews Western Europeans? Mamma mia!
@mc0558 The vast majority of the slaughtering of Jews and other groups occurred after the war started and mostly after Germany started losing. Prior to that it was mainly persecution that was leading to Jews leaving Germany. It can hardly be said that the allies saved the European Jews when 6 million of them were killed. The war was not fought to save Jews anyway. That's just justification for the war after the fact.
@LSDNY The Germans put together detailed plans for the development and economic exploitations of conquered Russia. Their plans were incredible! It would have been the swiftest and most dramatic economic development of any territory of this size in history. Oil, steel and grain were the priorities. There was even to be10 railroad lines linking up with the Japanese in China. And do you think the Nazis were incapable of achieving this? I tell you we would have been overwhelmed!
@mc0558 So if the Nazis occuppied European Russia (it's hard to believe they would have had the manpower to occuppy half of Asia) and built a railroad that somehow would overwhelm England?
@LSDNY Oh brilliant! So Hitler would have conquered Russia and added its resources--oil, iron ore, food production--to Germany's own resources, and Britain's position in the world would have been immeasurably strengthened. Or better still, Russian would have defeated Germany and Stalin's troops would have been occupying everything East of the Rhine! You, sir, are a strategic genius! Mamma mia!
@LSDNY "We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills, we shall never surrender!"
@LSDNY Russia did defeat Germany IN COMBINATION with the United States, the UK and a dozen others. So we all met up in the middle of Germany. I agree with you, that was bad enough, but the cause of it was Herr Hitler not us. We were fortunate Hitler did attack the USSR as they destroyed 80% of his Army, which when it came our time to take him on in Europe saved millions of British and American lives.
@mc0558 I'm not sure why you think it was worth hundreds of thousands of dead Americans and Brits to make sure Stalin could rule Eastern Europe instead of Hitler. I'm also not sure why people assume Hitler wanted to invade Great Britain. If he wanted to do that, then why did he decide to invade the Soviet Union instead? And why didn't he build up his Navy which would be necessary to invade an island.
@LSDNY Hitler never wanted war with Britain. He wanted us to join in his Aryan fantasy and acquiesse in his conquest of Eastern Europe and obliteration of the Jewish people. NEVER! In the battle against Hitler, we had no choice but to accept Stalin as an ally. No doubt many idealists underestimated the evil of his system, and it was evil. But we had to chose. I would have chosen Stalin's 1984 over Hitler's murderous racialism then and now if I had to do it all over again. Awy, we survived both.
@mc0558 Yes Hitler never wanted war with Britain. There you said it. Yet Britain declared war on Germany. Eastern Europe was conquered by Stalin instead who was a bigger mass murderer than Hitler. And Britain did not go to war to save any Jews. You say you would choose Stalin, who had killed tens of millions prior to 1939 over Hitler whose death toll at that point dwarfed in comparison. And while we're at it let's not forget your blockade of Germany in 1919 that killed hundred of thousands.
@LSDNY I don't agree with you that the nature of Stalin's evil is equivalent to Hitler's or that he was worse or murdered more people than Hitler. I think the cold war enabled scholars to enhance their careers by grossly overstating the number of his victims. People went to the labour gulags (which were not murder factories), serve their sentences, were released and went home. It was a hard life; many died there, but most didn't.
@mc0558 You haven't mentioned the famine in Ukraine which was caused mainly by Stalin's policies. That's estimated to have killed over 6 million people. Then after the war the Soviets forcibly removed millions of German civilians from their ancestral homes. Estimates of deaths from that are as high as 2 million.
@LSDNY Which famine? There was one in 1919 too. Anyway, I put the blame more on the Bolsheviks generally, Stalin INCLUDED. I do not see Stalin as an overriding satanic figure. I see the Bolsheviks as a whole as being responsible for what happened to Russia. They were a terrorist Party. Anyone who stuck his head up to whisper opposition had it blown off. But is that not to a greater or lesser degree characteristic of state power? Certainly the Bolsheviks thought it was.
@mc0558 How was Britain's position in the world strengthened by rushing into WWII over Poland? Their empire collapsed shortly after. They were completely broke. They soon became a client state to the USA. Their main enemy, Germany, was immediately replaced by another powerful enemy with even more people, the Soviet Union.
@LSDNY "We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender!"
@LSDNY He was not only one of the allies, he was THE principal ally. The Red Army polished off +80% of the Wehrmacht. If it hadn't have been for them, we may never have won the war and certainly many more of our boys would have been killed in the effort. Stalin is a considerable figure and presents a considerable dilemma for those who need moral questions to be easy and congruent.
@LSDNY "We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills, we shall never surrender!" Winston Churchill
@LSDNY We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills, we shall never surrender! Winston Churchill
@LSDNY Maintaining the balance of power has always been our method of handling security problems. When Hitler went berserk we had the USSR and USA as allies to offset him. When Stalin good too big for his britches, we had the USA to offset Stalin. The USA made our world more secure for us and paid all the costs. And you think WE were the client state. Amusing! Wake up!!
@mc0558 None of that explains how Great Britain's position in the world was strengthened by declaring war on Germany in 1939. You also seem to think the Americans were just suckers to get involved in Europe's war, pay for the Marshall plan, and then fund Nato for 60 years. If so I might agree with you there.
@LSDNY In the midst of our imperial "glory" so to speak, there was always in the heart of the British nation the feeling that to be a simple country, modest, content within its own boundaries, productive, prosperous, civilised and decent was the real formula for national happiness and in a way true greatness. That latent belief always offset the imperial pageant, so to speak. As for Americans being suckers, you said that, not I. I said that we encouraged you to offset Stalin for our benefit.
@mc0558 If maintaining the balance of power was so important, then why did Churchill insist on unconditional surrender of Germany? That would leave Europe to Stalin if the US packed up and left like they did after WWI. I know that was Roosevelt's policy as well, but it's not like Churchill ever considered a negotiated peace.
@LSDNY Roosevelt insisted on unconditional surrender. The inspiration behind this was the opaque circumstance in which the First World War ended, which enabled, Ludendorf and Groener to claim that the genius generals had not really lost the war; Germany had been stabbed in the back by the SPD (later the SPD Jews). Roosevelt wanted to prevent that happening a second tme--German generals would beg for peace. Churchill went along with grave reservations.
@LSDNY Churchill's concern as the war drew to a close was that once again America would withdraw into isolationism, leaving Britain to face Stalin alone in Europe. So he would have liked in 1944 to have made a deal with German generals, ousted the Nazis and kept Germany as strong as possible. Roosevelt, whose country had EVERYTHING, thought he could handle Stalin. Well, we did handle Stalin: the Soviet system fell of its own contradictions without a war, as Truman predicted it would.
Thank you for this history video which somehow people still seem to want to deny it's truth. We are all for peace and nonviolence, but when a group of people (like today's Isamic world view) decides its us or them, it's time to take up arms.
I noticed that the Stalinist running this site is censoring my comments. The same moron claiming to fight for "freedom" censors comments on his own youtube page. What a joke you are.
Hi... I am from Czech Republic and I want to say that France forsaked our Republic. We had contract about help. And you... Great Britain and France didn´t observe it. If we protected with you. We won the war and we destroyed Adolf Hitler. It´ s your mistake and we are small state. Only Czech. We could be nice Czechoslovakia republic and we could be famous.
Yes Britain and France let you down but you must realise that A, The French president told the British prime minister that he would not help us in a war to defend Czechoslovakia so it would of been foolish for us (Brits) too go to war alone too defend you. We are sorry for that as we did break the agreement. However doing this gave us valuable time to re-arm ourselves. We went in over Poland!
To say that you won the war and you alone is just shear stupidity. There for I cannot thumbs up nor down
Yes I agree with you that French president said it. But you you´ve had to observed our contract. It was dirty trick from you. We could win if you would help.. It´s not stupidity. We had 1 200 000 soldiers ready to war. Hitler had only 1 100 00 but we had not any air forces. But it is history. We could to have better relations. And what do you thing about our presidency in EU ? I must go...
@botikatit Who is "we"? Because if "we" is the Czech Republic, "you" didn't defeat anyone much less "destroy" Hitler. Czechoslovakia was weak and therefore they became cannon fodder between those who were strong.
Czechoslovakia had 1 200 000 soldiers ready to defent against Germany. But Hungarians and Poles wanted attack Czechoslovakia too. Zbabělci. Chamberlain a Daladier zapříčinili 2. světovou válku. A Poláci se nám diví, že jsme se nebránili. KDO NÁM SEBRAL TĚŠÍNSKO?! Poláci. Tak aŤ držej hubu. Sláva Československu! Vlasti zdar! :)
Czech factory Skoda Works in Sudetenland was the 2nd biggest manufacturer of arms (Panzer tanks) in Europe. Hitler wanted it very badly and covard Chamberlain gave it to him to appease him.
Evil prevails when good men do nothing. Thanks Chamberlian for providing a clear example of trying to appease dictators.
steve41557 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Interesting question is why nobody care about atittudes of german socialists, communists, jews, members of agrarian and cristian party. Sudeten German Party got 60 %, but the rest was againts them and didnt want to get to nazi state and nazi concentrate camps.
So im glad i live in this time :). Czech-german relations are quite good. Even czech and german neonazi cooperates :(
swoshik 1 month ago
@swoshik election of germans in CS on wiki Germans_in_Czechoslovakia_(1918-1938)
swoshik 1 month ago
Comment removed
swoshik 1 month ago
Chamberlain and the British govt. seemed to live in another world apart from the reality of Nazi Germany. They were 19th century politicians who seemed unable to understand the truly evil nature of the new totalitarianism ideology embodied in Hitler and Nazisim. When Hitler said he was going to exterminate the Jews, he meant it LITERALLY. When he declared he wanted to turn the whole of Europe into a German colony, he really meant it. Chamberlain & Co. just couldn't seem to grasp this.
zooeyhall 2 months ago 2
Britain had to rearm, and therefore Appeasement was the only solution
NeoHarris 3 months ago
Oh how history is repeats itself ..
lowslowflyer77 8 months ago
think about this stalin was a drunk opressor, churchill was a drunk and roosevelt was a crippled old week man, so there`s the promoters for demorcracy and bolshevism, they must have been pleased when they got together and created future hobo states,how glorius times we live now when allies won
samullel 8 months ago
The Sunshine Policy.
TheTollundWoman 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Compare this to what is going on today with the Palestinians clamoring over Jewish land they claim that has been "stolen" from them while the Arab nations are calling for the complete annihilation of Israel. Then look at many on the Mexican border shouting that Texas was "stolen" from them as well. Then, to add to this madness, America's own children are being taught in schools and colleges that
Capitalism is "evil" and that America is the oppressor. Is it 1937 again? Time to wake up!
gr8cool1 9 months ago
Compare this to what is going on today with the Palestinians clamoring over Jewish land they claim that has been "stolen" from them while the Arab nations are calling for the complete annihilation of Israel. Then look at many on the Mexican border shouting that Texas was "stolen" from them as well. Then, to add to this madness, America's own children are being taught in schools and colleges that Capitalism is "evil" and that America is the oppressor. Is it 1937 again? Time to wake up!
gr8cool1 9 months ago
@gr8cool1 capitilism is evil, america is an opressor which annihilates other nations and murders millions of innocent people so that the corporations which control the government can get at it's soverign resources through good old "democracy". we have woken up, now you need to do the same.no one here is fooled. just because some old fashioned, retard politicians from the 1930's came up against a dictator doesn't mean it's time to love america. governments are the problems, they dont speak for us
The300x300 7 months ago
@gr8cool1 Seems like *you* haven't learned much from 1937...
jgrab1 5 months ago
important vid
history is repeating
this time the nazis are...
JusticeVSpropaganda 10 months ago
It´s true Czecho-Slovakian rep. didn´t had any military treaty with UK at that time, but still - we were acknowledged as independent and democratic nation and yet all we got was a note that says: "Hitler can have Sudets, if you want to defend it you are on your own." Few months later he takes over the rest of the country anyways.
Although CSR was a small coutry it had a very strong industry which helped Nazis in conquest through Europe and slaughtering milions, way to go Appeasement!
MynickisMi88 10 months ago
What is the name of this video overall? Where can it be found??
kingdom2legacy 10 months ago
This was been betrayal Czechoslovakia people
Chaostrp 11 months ago
I may be drunk now maam but soon I will be sober...and you will still be ugly.
Winston Churchill LOL
myday96 1 year ago
This video is an annoying American propaganda film and has almost nothing to do with Neville Chamberlain's return from Munich and the "Peace in Our Time" speech.
creatorexplorer 1 year ago
As Winston Churchill said:
"An appeaser is someone who feeds others to a a crocodile, hoping they will be last..."
speedbanana2008 1 year ago 21
rollsstanna2, very funny (sad). Religious freedom in America means worshipping whatever god you choose, or indeed choosing to be non-religious at all? No, it doesn't. Most american politicians give lip service to being bible-bashers because they are afraid of the consequences of not being seen to do that. That's freedom is it?
How about if they just pledged to be honest themselves with taxpayers, and left god out of it? Religious justification for bullshit is in every country. USA included.
trevorx1960 1 year ago
I love watching these kinds of videos. Compelling stuff.
DonKangolJones 1 year ago
You dumbass naive politician, neville.
loyaldude10 1 year ago
I agree. Britain made another mistake in 2002 appeasing an evil dictator, George W. Bush!
dupagedem 1 year ago
Why do people leave out the fact that islam is not a religion like other religions in America? Islam is total takeover of all aspects of life. Sharia law is integral to Islam and diametrically opposd to US law.
No religious freedom
Women are considered less important then men
Men can beat and kill women at their descretion
Women can not refuse sex
Anyone who does not accept Allah as god is to be killed.
Do you really want this for your daughters and grand daughters?
rolsstanna2 1 year ago
@rolsstanna2 As a completely neutral (English catholic) party, I have decided that You are clearly an idiot!
themajorgeneral88 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills, we shall never surrender!"
-Winston Churchill
TheyHearUsNow 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Isn't it barack hussein obama?
0xFFF0 1 year ago
The Brits deserved all the bombing and everything, I repeat everything they got from the Germans because of this unbelievable betrayal of their ally, friend and the only democratic country in central Europe - Czechoslovakia
Slivarci 1 year ago
@Slivarci You are mistaken! Czechoslovakia was the ally of France and of the USSR. It was NOT Britain's ally. Maybe it should have been, but it wasn't. Besides, one wonders--where is Czechoslovakia today? It was made up of Czechs, Slovaks, Germans and Poles. The Czechs loved it (them) but the Slovaks and Germans were NOT happy in it. I can't speak for the Poles. At any rate, we did not betray an ally, because for better or worse Cz wasn't an ally then.
mc0558 1 year ago
Peace in our time? That sheet of paper was only good for wiping Chamberlain's ass the following year.
bigal2761 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bigal2761 The Brits deserved all the bombing and everything, I repeat everything they got from the Germans because of this unbelievable betrayal of their ally, friend and the only democratic country in central Europe - Czechoslovakia
Slivarci 1 year ago
@bigal2761 I think you are mistaken! By showing that piece of paper all over the place, Chamberlain boxed Hitler in. He got Hitler to say that with the Sudetenland his last territorial demand in Europe was satisfied, but Hitler had many more territorial ambitions. Thus, when Hitler seized Bohemia and Moravia, too Klaipeda and began with demands on Poland, Chamberlain's piece of paper proved that Hitler's signature wasn't worth a damn because Hitler was a liar. So, I don't agree with you!
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 No I'm not. that paper was worthless in the following year.
bigal2761 1 year ago
@bigal2761 You miss my point. Chamberlain got Hitler to sign a document in which he said that, having got the Sudetenland, he--Hitler, leader of the German people--had NO FURTHER TERRITORIAL DEMANDS IN EUROPE. Chamberlain showed that document to the world. So when Hitler immediatey began demanding territory and seized Bohemia & Moravia. the world saw that Hitler's signature on a treaty was worthless and turned against him. Cham looked dumb, but Hitler lost the propaganda war and he knew it.
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 Which only proves that appeasment does not work and never will
bigal2761 1 year ago
@bigal2761 "Which only proves that appeasment does not work and never will"
Thank you! There are so many idiots on Youtube who think that Neville Chamberlain was right to try and deal with Hitler, despite what eventually happened. The majority of my History class was in favor of Nevilles decision while reading about it in our history books. The Next page however showed a picture of Pearl Harbor and German tanks invading Poland with the title "WWII".....well that will never happen again right?
TheyHearUsNow 1 year ago
@TheyHearUsNow Chamberlain may not have been right to try and appease Hitler, but with the USA isolationist, Russia ruled by bolshevik terrorists and France and his own country virtually bankrupt, he could not very well rush into war. A war that Britain could not afford to fight and which it might very well lose. Appeasement was buying time in which to prepare defenses, as well as trying to get Hitler to see reason. As he was as mad as the hatter, there was no hope of that.
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 Well you either fight him before he takes over Poland and the West Balkans or you wait till he makes the first move. Winstin Churchill knew this before hand but they didn't listen to him and thought he was just a war mongerer. As one of the greatest men in History who was destined to do great things, he was laughed at and casted aside by morons and amatures. Thats how I see it.
TheyHearUsNow 1 year ago
@bigal2761 Certainly appeasement does not work with someone whose ambition is conquest. Nazism was all about two things: the German conquest of "living space" in Eastern Europe and the extermination of the Jewish race. Such an ideology needs to be stopped immediately by whatever means necessary. Any effort to appease people like that is useless and wrong.
mc0558 1 year ago
The selling out the Country of Czechoslovakia in order to have Peace with a corrupt Dictator shows the true meaning of Appeasement! After one year of so called peace that PM Chamberlain signed with Hitler Nazi Germany went on a blitzkrieg rampage thru out Europe and nearly destroyed England!
Those who do not stand against petty Dictators and corrupt Tyrants deserve to be Attack or worse CONQUERED!
ssgduke56 1 year ago
@ssgduke56 During that year, Chamberlain built more fighter aircraft than Hitler did. This was appeasement BUT. . . . There where-with-all to fight was hurredly thrown together. Don't underestimate Chamberlain! Hitler's translater said that he never heard Hitler talked to the way Chamberlain did. Chamberlain looked like milktoast, but he was a steely, hard-headed politician. Churchill was scared of him. Chamberlain cornered Hitler, prepared for the war, and declared war. Don't forget that!
mc0558 1 year ago
@ssgduke56 Where is Czechoslovakia today? In 1939, it was a republic of Germans (Sudetenlanders), Slovaks, Poles, Ruthenians and Czechs. None of the indigenous people were happy with the way it was working except the Czechs, who dominated government and the army. Now they may have been the best of the lot, and Hitler was worse than what was in place, but it was a highly flawed country. Anyway, I can tell you that Stalin was ready to defend it alone if necessary, but Benes turned him down.
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 I agree with you. Czechoslovakia was indeed a flawed country for these reasons. Wilson's whole policy of self determination was ridiculous. It was impossible to create separate countries for every ethnic group in Europe. Czechoslovakia was a prime example of how this couldn't work. It would have been absurd for Chamberlain to declare war on Germany over that country as Churchill wanted. Britain had no way to defend them. They also had no way to defend Poland.
LSDNY 1 year ago
@LSDNY Yes, but! By the time we get to Poland, Hitler has established a pattern of using threats and force to change the boundaries of Europe and proven himself a liar -- as when he swore to respect the independence of Czechoslovakia. Hitler thought his alliance with the USSR meant Britain and France were powerless to stop him, but events proved him sorely mistaken! Those who summon the courage to stand up to a bully nearly always find a way to pull it off. We rallied the world against Hitler.
mc0558 1 year ago
@LSDNY While Czechoslovakia was made upon self determination right, it was not completely artificial state. Bohemia (or Land of the Czech Crown) were there since 10th century. They remained in their borders as the biggest part of Holy Roman Empire, and then Bohemia (+ Moravia + Silesia) was part of Austro-Hungarian empire, still maintaining its borders. The state from 1918 reflected its historical borders. Slovakia on the other hand...
BenKenobi92 1 year ago
Thank god Bush learnt this lesson from history and stopped Saddam, now if only Obama would do the same for iran
andro89 1 year ago
@andro89 Saddam was no threat to America or any of its allies. Indeed, Saddam was a check on Iran and a guarantor of Sunni secularism in Iraq. He was a bastard as well, but that is not the point. He was no threat to us!
mc0558 1 year ago
I want to have Nevile chamberilan's babies
TheNaomiengland 1 year ago
English LORDS did not fear Hitler. They were glad he attacked all the communist party members in and put them in work/concentration camps.
US Elites approved, so did French Elites, many others.
Hitler was a hero to the Aristocracy, with some reservations. I'm sure Neville saw them as Gentlemen and allies, and v.v., not as aggressors until later.
dilbertgeg 1 year ago
Many of the British aristocracy believed fascism and National Socialism in particular to be far too crude and brutish. They saw communism as the greater threat, but so did the European middle class. Now the German aristocracy took to it like a duck to water, but Germany had always been a very militaristic nation.
thebigJM92 1 year ago
dilbert -- 1. you make a mistake to over-emphasize GB aristocratic enchantment with Hitler. Remember that in WWI most had come to dislike the Germans as Germans. A militarily revive German was a threat to the balance of power in Europe and therefore to GB security. 2. with India tittering towards independence, a renewed WWI would end the Empire. Br hadn't the money to fight WWI. 3. a renewed war would spread Communism far and wide.
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558
mc0558 says dilbert -- 1. you make a mistake to over-emphasize GB aristocratic enchantment with Hitler.
Maybe so. I don't mean 100%. Lord Halifax praised Nazis, found them delightful, convinced his friend Chamberlain.
Some support in the US for Nazis, both from Amer 'brownshirts' + other groups like Silver Shirts, Christian Action, etc. and from Wall Street. I assume + read that some English colleagues agreed. Banker's Coup plotters liked Croix de Feu more than Nazis.
dilbertgeg 1 year ago
@dilbertgeg I know no evidence that Halifax found Nazis delightful. Please give me your source. Halifax "knew" that GB could not afford to fight another world war and wd probably lose one. Chamberlain was an odd duck. When Hitler totally outmaneuvered him by signing the Pact with Stalin and attacking Poland, C up the ante, declaring war. What he thought as he did so is a matter of speculation.
Pro Nazis in the US were an insignificant fringe. Americans loved FDR and FDR hated Hitler.
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 "Americans loved FDR and FDR hated Hitler." Actually only about 55% of Americans "loved" FDR, but in fact most Americans were isolationist in their leanings and wanted no part of a "European" war. Pearl Harbor was used skillfully and predictably to get the U.S. into the war. I'm not suggesting that was a bad decision as both Germany and Japan had to be stopped and only the United States could do so. But U.S. opinion of the war was not based on "love" for FDR.
Kram6298 1 year ago
@Kram6298 I think it was far more than 55%. It is a long time since I've seen the figures, but I remember that for some months leading up to the start of hostilities, the majority of Americans wanted to enter the war on Britain's side and an overwhelming majority wanted to support Britain's war effort. The March, 41 Lend Lease Bill passed the Senate 60 to 31 and more narrowly in theHouse, 113 to 100..
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 The 55% I mentioned dealt with what % of Americans "loved" FDR. By 1940-41 I suspect a majority of Americans did favor helping the allies.
Kram6298 1 year ago
@Kram6298 Yes, I know that was your point. In 36 FDR carried every state but two. In 40, Wilkie did well running on basically an FDR platform and with some people upset about abandoning the 2 term tradition established by Washington. In 44, Dewey did well with FDR not campaigning at all. I believe he made one speech, the Fala speech. Of course, the super-rich hated his guts even though he saved their precious "free enterprise" system for them. But I think the overwhelming majority admired him.
mc0558 1 year ago
@dilbertgeg You NOTHING about Britain. Hitler was NOT a hero to the Britiish aristocracy or to any other segment of the British nation.
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 Remember that it was the establishment led Conservative and Unionist Party that pushed Chamberlain to declare war on Hitler and it was they who forced Chamberlain to resign after the Norwegian campaign went sour. The Labour Party and the Liberal Party of course supported these Conservatives, but they had a small minority in the House of Commons at that time. Can you imagine any Brit with brains who would want Hitler to control Germany AND Russia? Britain would be overwhelmed!!!
mc0558 1 year ago
Religion seemed to fail humanity in the Great War ... . Thus the politico-religion of fascism took hold because religion could not absorb the sorrow and suffering of the Great War and new religions had to be invented to cope with de post Great War negativity. Hitler had been a psychiatric patient because of the Great War. Herr Hitler´s speeches were full of Christian analogies. And of course, ¨Heil!¨ has religious overtones.
3NUNS 2 years ago
@PumaOPumaOPumaO
Surprise, surprise, historians debating historical matters over a historical video.
What next???
Aviators discussing flying on a video about planes, football fans arguing over the best football team on a football video or worst still, Elvis fans discussing Elvis things on a youtube video about the Elvis!!!!
frankophille 2 years ago
Historians have been debating just about every historical matter long before videos appeared. This debate too began long before videos.
I too have a part in this debate. I do think that there is something to learn from history, and that means that mistakes were made, that there were other opportunities, that it's not all explainable in context.
(cont.)
Kurtlane 1 year ago
In this particular case, Sudetan Germans could've been expelled (they were later anyway), or even England, France, Czechoslovakia, the U.S. and possibly even Soviet Union could've made war on on Germany and finished with Hitler (they did later anyway).
Churchill and his supporters saw thing more clearly.
Alas, appeasement madness ruled.
Kurtlane 1 year ago
I hate when people who think they know everything about history fight on youtube
PumaOPumaOPumaO 2 years ago 15
I know! Some White supremist told me that Hitler won and tthe Holocaust was "Justified!" O_o
TheyHearUsNow 2 years ago
@PumaOPumaOPumaO Completely agree with you> I hate people arguing with people they dont know
Thehangman101 11 months ago
Thank you so much for uploading this vid. One of the most important in YT.
You are invited to visit my channel too: I explained there why a Palestinian state in Smaria is equivalent in some ways to the handing over of Sudetenland to Hitler in 1938, and what is the true reason Muslim leaders are pushing so hard to achieve it. It is mortal danger to Israel and Jordan, but also to Europe.
JusticeVSpropaganda 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheyHearUsNow 2 years ago
@TheyHearUsNow
I am not muslim. Read my comment again with Patience: I am against a Pal. state and explaining why. From what I saw in your channel, our views are very similar
JusticeVSpropaganda 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheyHearUsNow 2 years ago
@TheyHearUsNow You're an ignorant bugger, aren't you? Justicevpropaganda is anything but a Muslim!
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 yes I know that you idiot, maybe if you read my later comments you would know that.
TheyHearUsNow 1 year ago
@TheyHearUsNow Read them and still think you're an ignorant bugger! Say something balanced and sane to change my mind.
mc0558 1 year ago
box, toaster, aluminum, and maple syrup........
TheyHearUsNow 1 year ago
@TheyHearUsNow very clever!
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 Lol ok seriously I think Saddam was an evil man and regardless of what anyone thinks of the war I believe he got what he deserved and i believe it was right to let the Iraqis give him the trial and the sentence.
TheyHearUsNow 1 year ago
Its curious to see the similarities of those past events today. Iran in the middle east and Venezuela in Latin America. They both have an aggressive rhetoric against Jews and both have been arming, specially Venezuela, a poor country that just bought $2 billion in weapons from Russia and has threatened Colombia various times with war. Our generation's Chamberlain lives in the White House today. God forbid war erupts, but if it does History will cease to have utility, for man ignores it.
dongato11 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheyHearUsNow 2 years ago
Pius XII defanged Bruning's Center Party, the only organized democratic opposition. France let Hitler march into the Saar with troops on horseback for want of trucks. The Nazis propagated the myth that were ready for war and nothing was further from the truth. The Allies (and you with hindsight even) bougth the myth. At every step Hitler could have been stopped and he wasn't.
conchscooter 2 years ago
@conchscooter : Sorry I accidently hit the ´thumbs down´ button. You are so right!
3NUNS 2 years ago
@conchscooter Of course Cardinal Pacelli did not become Pope until 39, wasn't it?, and Bruening fell in 32. In the end, of course, the Catholic Center Party voted FOR the March 33 Enabling Act that gave Hitler's coalition government dictatorial power (of course Hitler used these powers as though they were his alone and got away with it). The centre-right parties were terrified of the KPD coming to power and with good reason. Throughout 32, its vote for Reichstag deputies increased.
mc0558 1 year ago
There were opportunities all through the 1930s and no one stood up to the blackshirts.
conchscooter 2 years ago
Hindsight is a very dangerous thing. Psychologically, militarily and financially Britain was not ready for war. The avoidance of a full-scale war was the upmost priority.
philosopherking34 2 years ago 4
@philosopherking34 Britain no, but neither was Germany. On the other hand Czechoslovakia was and France could be in a short time.
BenKenobi92 1 year ago
What other opportunities were there? Hitler was appointed Chancellor by the democratically elected President. He assumed the position as Fuhrer and supreme leader via an election in the Reichstag. Austria was annexed without bloodshed or any real opposition from Austrians. The Sudetenland was 90% German. Yes perhaps the Allies should have acted in March 1939 when Hitler invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia. But I fail to see where all these other opportunities lie?
philosopherking34 2 years ago
@philosopherking34 His position as Fuhrer and Chancellor was confirmed by a plebiscite in a country where dissent and opposition had already been broken. Vis the Sudetenland, the point is that he was just given it--they were not asked to vote in a free election.He seized Austria, THEN held a plebiscite--they could have been opposed.The time to have stopped him was when he remilitarized the Rhineland, breaking the Versailles Treaty AND the Locarno Pact, which Germany signed of its own free will.
mc0558 1 year ago
We must all remember that the policy of appeasement was not Chamberlain's. It was the previous prime ministers' before him after the Great War. Chamberlain continued to follow this policy because he had already lived through a war, he did not want another, he sympathised with Germany for the harshness of the Treaty of Versailles. Also, the British public hoped that the policy of appeasement would work.
UsagiDreams 2 years ago
1:32 Who's the big guy?
mickety2001 2 years ago
despite this the quest for peace is an honourable one
RandlesBear 2 years ago
This Chamberlain guy reminds me of some guy who's a leader today...... can anyone help me out here? Who am I thinking of?
BlackpeopleLOL 2 years ago
Obama?
weikko79 2 years ago
A brit pig
ss90ss444 2 years ago
If Chamberlain hadn't given Poland (a dictatorship by the way) a war guarantee Britain could have stayed out of this completely and it would likely have ended up being a war primarily between Germany & USSR with Western Europe spared. France & Britain went to war with Germany to save Poland, but they never made any attempt at defending Poland and after the war they handed Poland over to the Soviets anyway. The whole thing was pointless.
LSDNY 2 years ago
Britain wasn't ready for war in 38' and Chamberlain knew it. And Britain didn't go to war with Germany to 'save Poland' as such. They did it because of their own years old foreign policy of not allowing one power to dominate the continent. For British interests if you like, after all as you say Poland was a dictatorship.
madbob73 2 years ago
I agree with you that Britain's real motivation for declaring war wasn't their concern for the welfare of Poland. However, if Chamberlain hadn't given Poland a war guarantee perhaps Poland would have been willing to give up the port city of Danzig which was populated almost entirely by Germans anyway. It's at least possible then that Hitler wouldn't have invaded Poland and at any rate Britain wouldn't have felt compelled to declare war before they were ready to fight it.
LSDNY 2 years ago
@LSDNY When will you learn that Danzig did NOT belong to Poland? It was a Free City under the control and protection of the League of Nations. If Germany was to get Danzig, it had to get the League of Nations to hand it over to her! Danzig was set up to serve as a non-German controlled major port for the Poles, but after Danswegian dockers sided with the Reds in the Polish-Soviet War of 1919-21 (refusing to unload war supplies), Poland developed the Polish port Gdinya as a preferred alternative.
mc0558 1 year ago
@madbob73 Absolutely! Hitler had to be stopped or Britain's position in Europe would have been untenable.
mc0558 1 year ago
So, what? Britain should have stayed out until Germany had conquered all of Europe and gassed every non-Aryan ethnic group with it? Don't forget that Hitler marched all the way up to Moscow before winter came, and that itself was because Mussolini needed German help conquering Greece, which delayed Operation Barbarosa (if memory serves me correctly). Germany would have decimated Russia, and they then would probably have been too big even for Britain and the US to beat.
akav7 2 years ago
I think you're overestimating Germany's ability to rule a conquered Europe. There would certainly have been resistance movements for them to deal with. The majority of the killing of Jews & other minorities happened after Germany began losing. If France & England could have avoided war then all the Jews in Western Europe would have been spared. Besides it's not as if Britain or the US fought the war to protect Jews or did anything to stop the holocaust prior to the last few weeks of the war.
LSDNY 2 years ago
Oh, I agree that altruism was never too high a motivating factor (the Roma are still treaty badly), but German CCs were being being built in 1938: I absolutely disagree that the Jews/Roma/disabled would have been spared persecution had Poland not been "guaranteed" independence.
akav7 2 years ago
"Rule" is different from "conquer": all empires crumble, but Alexander the Great and Napoleon have both shown that an individual with enough military and political power and influence in their immediate vicinity can rule a vast empire (for at least a generation, unopposed). I DO agree that Britain could have avoided war with Germany (the Nazis from high command to foot-soldier admired the British), but the ethical cost was unacceptable to most British...
akav7 2 years ago
Hitler had already set out before 1939 what he thought of the Jews, the future of humanity (his Aryan theory), and what part Russia could play (his "living space" suggestion).
OK, suppose there is no agreement with Poland: what happens next? Hitler and Stalin have already signed the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact and Eastern Europe becomes part of either Germany or Russia. Hitler wont stop there (Mein Kampf already tells us his ambitions are much more than just Eastern territory). Hitler already...
akav7 2 years ago
has the Worlds most advanced military and the Balkans and Middle East contain huge oil reserves -- it's the next logical step: Germany invades before Russia has a chance to. Italy, Mussolini already fanatical about re-establishing another Roman empire, would probably start attacking targets around the Mediterranean (as he already demanded French territory in 1938). Now, it gets hard to say what happens next; but in a straight Germany vs Russia fight, I still contend that Germany would win.
akav7 2 years ago
And besides, even if Germany would have been "crippled" by a victory in Russia, what would have stopped them from re-arming? Man-power would have been a short-term loss for the Nazis that was only decisive in reality because Germany had a second front to fight on. Without another enemy to fight Germany would have re-armed very quickly. And a Germany that large would have had a War-machine twice the size of its next largest rival -- the US.
akav7 2 years ago
I don't see how they would have had a military that would have threatned the US. They would have lost millions conquering Russia and they arleady had fewer men than the US. It's doubtful many citizens of the conquered nations would have been useful soldiers to them. Invading the Mideast would have been impossible after suffering so many casualties and trying to put down the resistance movements throughout Europe. I know the Nazis would have persecuted Jews no matter what, but it's not entirely
LSDNY 2 years ago
clear that they would have slaughtered them on such a large scale since most of that began after 1941. If Britain had stayed out of the war maybe France wouldn't have rushed to declare war. Then it's possible that Germany would have focused on Eastern expansion rather than invade Western Europe which would have spared the Jews in Western Europe.
LSDNY 2 years ago
I don't know exact man-power figures, but it's not just about pure numbers: the German army was the most well-drilled and professional army in the world, and the World was shocked how easily Poland and then the Netherlands and France fell. The Atlantic would certainly play its part in restricting Germany's threat to the US but I wouldn't say that I couldn't see how they would threaten the US: A former Nazi soldier remarked that Britain and Germany should have divided the World between them.
akav7 2 years ago
That was just how fanatical the German attitude was at the time. German military output was the highest of any nation in 1938 if I recall correctly, and the Russia had almost as much resources and productive capability as the US (again, if I recall correctly). If Germany had captured Soviet factories and resources, I'm not sure that even peak wartime US production capabilities would have matched that.
akav7 2 years ago
The Nazis were truly frightening, both militarily and ideologically. Stalin and the Russian generals underestimated how good they were, and it was only the Russian winter that saved them. I just don't believe that letting Germany and Russia fight each other would have worked: German tactics and capability were unmatched before the Allies began to learn and improve. The one thing that Hitler did consistently before 1942 was surprise the World in what he could do and was capable of.
akav7 2 years ago
Well I disagree that Germany could have realistically invaded the US since they didn't even try to invade England & WWII era bombers couldn't have flown across the Atlantic Ocean & back so the military threat to the US was minimal. Considering how many lives were lost & the fact that the holocaust happened while we were at war with Germany, I'm not sure the whole thing was beneficial to the US. But Germany did declare war on the US so I'm not suggesting we didn't have a right to fight them
LSDNY 2 years ago
I think you'd probably agree however the criticizms of Chamberlain for the Munich agreement tend to be somewhat misguided. His only other option was to sit back and do nothing or issue a statement condemning Hitler. Britain had absolutely no way of defending Chezckoslovakia in 1938. He should be criticized more for failing to mobilize his country for war once he had made the decision to declare war over Poland. It's as if he thought his war guarantee would scare Hitler into submission
LSDNY 2 years ago
Yes, I sympathize with Chamberlain. Following his, and many other people's, preference for appeasement in order to prevent another war (especially so soon after the Great War) he had little option on the Sudetenland: I think he truly believed that Hitler and Germany's grievances could be assuaged. Maybe he could have done more following his guarantee to Poland, but it was also on his orders that the RAF budget was heavily bolstered -- and it was because the RAF had defeated the Luftwaffe that...
akav7 2 years ago
Germany aborted their plans to invade England. Britain just didn't have the finances to beat Germany, Italy and Japan; and probably nobody in the military or parliament had the stomach to swagger aggressively to Germany either (after the horrors of 1914). Financially, I don't think Chamberlain could have done much more, and certainly the British population (like the American population too) abhorred the idea of war, and any suggestions of it would have been criticized.
akav7 2 years ago
The problem is that if Britain didn't have the means or the will in 1939 to fight Germany & the axis powers than I would argue it was foolish to issue a war guarantee to Poland. Even if you think they needed to stop Germany at any cost I don't think it helped their casue to rush into it the way they did. You should also remember Britain's hippocritical moral stands on Japan's & Italy's empire building in the 30's helped push them into the Axis powers in the first place.
LSDNY 2 years ago
In the 1930s, though, one man's hypocrisy was another man's fear; and that applied to all the developed nations and ultimately also to the League of Nations, and not just Britain.
My view is that things would only have gotten harder for Britain and France to prevent German and Italian aggression, and inevitable that the US and/or Russia would exert some sort of military pressure on Japan's aggression; but, maybe you're right: maybe Hitler and Stalin's mutual lust would have destroyed them both.
akav7 2 years ago
@LSDNY We had no direct way to defend Poland either, but we declared war on Germany anyway. The point is that he went too far, and as Chamberlain said in his September 3rd speech to the nation, "we have decided to put an end to it". First and foremost, that was a decision made by the British people and imposed on its politicians, and despite all his failings they made Churchill because Churchill made it clear he would fight it out to the end. Thank God we succeeded!
mc0558 1 year ago
@LSDNY What an incredible load of nonsense. Hitler said in Mein Kampf that before conquering Lebensraum in the East, Germany must secure its rear by "settling accounts" with France. First France THEN Russia. As for sparing the Jews of Western Europe, aren't German Jews Western Europeans? Mamma mia!
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 The vast majority of the slaughtering of Jews and other groups occurred after the war started and mostly after Germany started losing. Prior to that it was mainly persecution that was leading to Jews leaving Germany. It can hardly be said that the allies saved the European Jews when 6 million of them were killed. The war was not fought to save Jews anyway. That's just justification for the war after the fact.
LSDNY 1 year ago
@LSDNY The Germans put together detailed plans for the development and economic exploitations of conquered Russia. Their plans were incredible! It would have been the swiftest and most dramatic economic development of any territory of this size in history. Oil, steel and grain were the priorities. There was even to be10 railroad lines linking up with the Japanese in China. And do you think the Nazis were incapable of achieving this? I tell you we would have been overwhelmed!
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 So if the Nazis occuppied European Russia (it's hard to believe they would have had the manpower to occuppy half of Asia) and built a railroad that somehow would overwhelm England?
LSDNY 1 year ago
@LSDNY Oh brilliant! So Hitler would have conquered Russia and added its resources--oil, iron ore, food production--to Germany's own resources, and Britain's position in the world would have been immeasurably strengthened. Or better still, Russian would have defeated Germany and Stalin's troops would have been occupying everything East of the Rhine! You, sir, are a strategic genius! Mamma mia!
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 Russia did defeat Germany and Stalin's troops did occupy most of Eastern Europe.
LSDNY 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LSDNY "We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills, we shall never surrender!"
-Winston Churchill
TheyHearUsNow 1 year ago
@LSDNY Russia did defeat Germany IN COMBINATION with the United States, the UK and a dozen others. So we all met up in the middle of Germany. I agree with you, that was bad enough, but the cause of it was Herr Hitler not us. We were fortunate Hitler did attack the USSR as they destroyed 80% of his Army, which when it came our time to take him on in Europe saved millions of British and American lives.
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 I'm not sure why you think it was worth hundreds of thousands of dead Americans and Brits to make sure Stalin could rule Eastern Europe instead of Hitler. I'm also not sure why people assume Hitler wanted to invade Great Britain. If he wanted to do that, then why did he decide to invade the Soviet Union instead? And why didn't he build up his Navy which would be necessary to invade an island.
LSDNY 1 year ago
@LSDNY Hitler never wanted war with Britain. He wanted us to join in his Aryan fantasy and acquiesse in his conquest of Eastern Europe and obliteration of the Jewish people. NEVER! In the battle against Hitler, we had no choice but to accept Stalin as an ally. No doubt many idealists underestimated the evil of his system, and it was evil. But we had to chose. I would have chosen Stalin's 1984 over Hitler's murderous racialism then and now if I had to do it all over again. Awy, we survived both.
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 Yes Hitler never wanted war with Britain. There you said it. Yet Britain declared war on Germany. Eastern Europe was conquered by Stalin instead who was a bigger mass murderer than Hitler. And Britain did not go to war to save any Jews. You say you would choose Stalin, who had killed tens of millions prior to 1939 over Hitler whose death toll at that point dwarfed in comparison. And while we're at it let's not forget your blockade of Germany in 1919 that killed hundred of thousands.
LSDNY 1 year ago
@LSDNY I don't agree with you that the nature of Stalin's evil is equivalent to Hitler's or that he was worse or murdered more people than Hitler. I think the cold war enabled scholars to enhance their careers by grossly overstating the number of his victims. People went to the labour gulags (which were not murder factories), serve their sentences, were released and went home. It was a hard life; many died there, but most didn't.
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 You haven't mentioned the famine in Ukraine which was caused mainly by Stalin's policies. That's estimated to have killed over 6 million people. Then after the war the Soviets forcibly removed millions of German civilians from their ancestral homes. Estimates of deaths from that are as high as 2 million.
LSDNY 1 year ago
@LSDNY Which famine? There was one in 1919 too. Anyway, I put the blame more on the Bolsheviks generally, Stalin INCLUDED. I do not see Stalin as an overriding satanic figure. I see the Bolsheviks as a whole as being responsible for what happened to Russia. They were a terrorist Party. Anyone who stuck his head up to whisper opposition had it blown off. But is that not to a greater or lesser degree characteristic of state power? Certainly the Bolsheviks thought it was.
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 How was Britain's position in the world strengthened by rushing into WWII over Poland? Their empire collapsed shortly after. They were completely broke. They soon became a client state to the USA. Their main enemy, Germany, was immediately replaced by another powerful enemy with even more people, the Soviet Union.
LSDNY 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LSDNY "We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender!"
-Winston Churchill
TheyHearUsNow 1 year ago
@LSDNY Yeah, why don't you show some respect for the Allies!
TheyHearUsNow 1 year ago
@TheyHearUsNow Do you have a lot of respect for Stalin?
LSDNY 1 year ago
@LSDNY Not at all, Stalin sucks because he was a thug and a mass murderer.
TheyHearUsNow 1 year ago
@TheyHearUsNow Well he was one of the allies that I'm supposed to show respect for according to you.
LSDNY 1 year ago
@LSDNY He was not only one of the allies, he was THE principal ally. The Red Army polished off +80% of the Wehrmacht. If it hadn't have been for them, we may never have won the war and certainly many more of our boys would have been killed in the effort. Stalin is a considerable figure and presents a considerable dilemma for those who need moral questions to be easy and congruent.
mc0558 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LSDNY "We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France,
we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender" -Winston Churchill
TheyHearUsNow 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LSDNY "We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills, we shall never surrender!" Winston Churchill
TheyHearUsNow 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LSDNY We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills, we shall never surrender! Winston Churchill
TheyHearUsNow 1 year ago
@LSDNY Maintaining the balance of power has always been our method of handling security problems. When Hitler went berserk we had the USSR and USA as allies to offset him. When Stalin good too big for his britches, we had the USA to offset Stalin. The USA made our world more secure for us and paid all the costs. And you think WE were the client state. Amusing! Wake up!!
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 None of that explains how Great Britain's position in the world was strengthened by declaring war on Germany in 1939. You also seem to think the Americans were just suckers to get involved in Europe's war, pay for the Marshall plan, and then fund Nato for 60 years. If so I might agree with you there.
LSDNY 1 year ago
@LSDNY In the midst of our imperial "glory" so to speak, there was always in the heart of the British nation the feeling that to be a simple country, modest, content within its own boundaries, productive, prosperous, civilised and decent was the real formula for national happiness and in a way true greatness. That latent belief always offset the imperial pageant, so to speak. As for Americans being suckers, you said that, not I. I said that we encouraged you to offset Stalin for our benefit.
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 If maintaining the balance of power was so important, then why did Churchill insist on unconditional surrender of Germany? That would leave Europe to Stalin if the US packed up and left like they did after WWI. I know that was Roosevelt's policy as well, but it's not like Churchill ever considered a negotiated peace.
LSDNY 1 year ago
@LSDNY Roosevelt insisted on unconditional surrender. The inspiration behind this was the opaque circumstance in which the First World War ended, which enabled, Ludendorf and Groener to claim that the genius generals had not really lost the war; Germany had been stabbed in the back by the SPD (later the SPD Jews). Roosevelt wanted to prevent that happening a second tme--German generals would beg for peace. Churchill went along with grave reservations.
mc0558 1 year ago
@mc0558 By the way I have enjoyed debating you on this topic despite our disagreements.
LSDNY 1 year ago
@LSDNY Sorry you sounded like one of those people who supports Stalin and hates the Western Allies like the US and UK.
TheyHearUsNow 1 year ago
@LSDNY Churchill's concern as the war drew to a close was that once again America would withdraw into isolationism, leaving Britain to face Stalin alone in Europe. So he would have liked in 1944 to have made a deal with German generals, ousted the Nazis and kept Germany as strong as possible. Roosevelt, whose country had EVERYTHING, thought he could handle Stalin. Well, we did handle Stalin: the Soviet system fell of its own contradictions without a war, as Truman predicted it would.
mc0558 1 year ago
Thank you for this history video which somehow people still seem to want to deny it's truth. We are all for peace and nonviolence, but when a group of people (like today's Isamic world view) decides its us or them, it's time to take up arms.
paelth 2 years ago
I noticed that the Stalinist running this site is censoring my comments. The same moron claiming to fight for "freedom" censors comments on his own youtube page. What a joke you are.
JimmySmers 2 years ago
Britain and France just sold their allies cowardly to Hitler instead of standing with them side to side against germany. Shame.......
gilergil 3 years ago
What allies?
Pommit 2 years ago
Hi... I am from Czech Republic and I want to say that France forsaked our Republic. We had contract about help. And you... Great Britain and France didn´t observe it. If we protected with you. We won the war and we destroyed Adolf Hitler. It´ s your mistake and we are small state. Only Czech. We could be nice Czechoslovakia republic and we could be famous.
botikatit 3 years ago 5
Yes Britain and France let you down but you must realise that A, The French president told the British prime minister that he would not help us in a war to defend Czechoslovakia so it would of been foolish for us (Brits) too go to war alone too defend you. We are sorry for that as we did break the agreement. However doing this gave us valuable time to re-arm ourselves. We went in over Poland!
To say that you won the war and you alone is just shear stupidity. There for I cannot thumbs up nor down
draculapw 3 years ago
Yes I agree with you that French president said it. But you you´ve had to observed our contract. It was dirty trick from you. We could win if you would help.. It´s not stupidity. We had 1 200 000 soldiers ready to war. Hitler had only 1 100 00 but we had not any air forces. But it is history. We could to have better relations. And what do you thing about our presidency in EU ? I must go...
botikatit 3 years ago
@botikatit Who is "we"? Because if "we" is the Czech Republic, "you" didn't defeat anyone much less "destroy" Hitler. Czechoslovakia was weak and therefore they became cannon fodder between those who were strong.
Kram6298 1 year ago
The parallels between Obama and Chamberlain in regard to appeasement are shocking. How come nobody pointed this out earlier?
cewuzie 3 years ago
They did. The argument was and is,
It gave Britain time to re-arm. However they don't seem too tell people that the French decided not too help the Czechs first.
draculapw 3 years ago
Because it is a ridiculous comparison.
Pommit 2 years ago
Czechoslovakia had 1 200 000 soldiers ready to defent against Germany. But Hungarians and Poles wanted attack Czechoslovakia too. Zbabělci. Chamberlain a Daladier zapříčinili 2. světovou válku. A Poláci se nám diví, že jsme se nebránili. KDO NÁM SEBRAL TĚŠÍNSKO?! Poláci. Tak aŤ držej hubu. Sláva Československu! Vlasti zdar! :)
petufo 3 years ago 2
Why did you take Tchesin from Poland by force in 1919 when it was involved in the war with Bolshevik Russia?
mach3b 3 years ago
Czech factory Skoda Works in Sudetenland was the 2nd biggest manufacturer of arms (Panzer tanks) in Europe. Hitler wanted it very badly and covard Chamberlain gave it to him to appease him.
xgalba00 3 years ago