There is no evidence that the destruction of the Al-Shifa plant "killed thousands". None of the people who were tracking Sudanese mortality have provided any support for these allegations.(the sources Chomsky cited didn't present any documentation to back up their claims of mass death) Leo Casey showed that the Sudanese regime was quite capable of replacing any medicine that was lost.
I'm a huge fan of the Hitch and Hanson; however, the point that Ferguson was quite clear on was that the allies were just as bad because the Soviet Union was part of the Allies.
3:53- Hansen is a lier as well. Britain, France and the US did not invade Germany to "stop atrocity", they invaded over Germany bringing Germans from under Polish rule. It was never about the domestic policies of Germany. Hansen is a warmongering lier.
5:55- The British-US invasion led to the Stalinization of Europe of a half century! Fool!
@qwertypoiu4321 Free City of Danzig was NOT under Polish rule, but under the League of Nations.
To belive that this was a serious reason for the German invasion you just have to be naive or simply a beliver of German war propaganda. The aim of Germans and soviets was to rewise the Versaillese treaty, particulary to destroy Poland again, split Romania and take over or set satellite states in the region.
The "etchnic German" excuse didn`t worked since Germany broke the Munich treaty in march `39.
@MaximusProteus German-Danzig was under external and economic control by Poland. Tiso came to Hitler, and Hitler did not annex Prague; that is hardly expanding west, never mind taking over the earth.
@qwertypoiu4321 In a way it was, until the national socialist party took power and... ruined its economy and public order. A toll union was profitable, since Poland was the City`s biggest trading partner.
Tiso was given an ultimatum, secession or a takeover. I don`t mind the legal status Germans issue in thier administrative divisions, that was a vivid violation of the Munich treaty and de facto annexation of Bohemia. Does the west direction make any difference? Soon it expanded in every.
1:53- Hitchens is such a fool. Germany never annexed France or Britain etc, he occupied them to stop their unsolicited invasion of Germany. He did not even demand their fleet, which both France and Britain demanded of the Kaiser in WWI. Hitler is a thug lier.
@MrSalamander7 No it is not. It is a perfectly good point, for anyone who wants to properly understand history to keep in mind. It doesn't do any good to simply read back your own personal morality, and comfortable hindsight, on to people in the past who had to make tough decisions and who fighting against a much greater evil than themselves. The point of studying history is to understand the past, not to simply gratify your own ego with sanctimonious expectations of perfectibility.
plus the liberation over Nazi Germany and his control were also from bombing heavy civilian locations like in Normandy the Allies and there own bombings killed a high number of civilians because of that a small % of civilians in France sided with the Nazis. rather be under control by people they don't really like or get your house blown up and your family killed in the cost of liberation
Tokyo fire bombing by the Americans killed over 100,000 people in a period of hours (the bombing was meant for factorys but instead hit high density of civilian population) heavy civilian locations were also bombed in Germany and the Soviets that were in Berlin had total chaos as in some civilians were targeted on purpose also POWs being shit by Soviets and even woman being raped.
The holocaust was targeted at certain groups, Allied bombings much like the bombings of London was targeted at the Nationality it didn't matter what ethnic group you were from but if you are living in that country targeted (Jewish, Christian etc) you would be killed, the atomic bomb killed 70,000-100,000 instantly (as in casualties of civilians of the same location around the same time) and left radiation to kill another 140,000 people by 1950-60s and that's just one of the atomic bombings.
I believe that the relatively mild peaceful world we enjoyed in the period after WWII (roughly in the "50s & half way through the '60s) was a pure accident. We are simply lucky that someone (probably Beria) took the initiative to poison Stalin. He was cooking up the "Doctors Plot" as a pretext for a new anti-semitic oriented purge. If Stalin had lived, WWIII would have occurred in the '50s. Instead the Soviets simply withered away under somnolent aparatchiks.
I will add one detail to the discussion of why America and the allies were better than the axis powers:
The town that my father grew up in housed a German POW camp. They were treated with respect and decency and regularly held Christmas pagents and other celebratory events.
Allies were treated a little differently when captured.
This is one of the reasons, by the way, why the GITMO issue is so important. We are Americans, we're better than detention and torture.
German POWs in East European (not including the Soviet Union) hands 32.9%[67]
German soldiers held by Soviet Union: 15-33%[67])
Japanese POWs held by Soviet Union: 10%
German POWs in British hands 0.03%[67]
German POWs in American hands 0.15%[67]
German POWs in French hands 2.58%[67]
Japanese POWs held by U.S.: relatively low, mainly suicides according to James D. Morrow[69] or according to Ulrich Straus high as many prisoners were shot by front line troops.[45]
In WW II, we also had laws on how spies and saboteurs were to be treated. By those rules, they should have been interrogated, evaluated for their value to the war effort, and used so long as they were valuable - after which they would be summarily executed.
See the Supreme Court case, "Ex parte Richard Quirin", 317 U.S. 1 (1942).
I think the US (and in particular myself) are better than other countries. Thats why we should not have entered WW2. Let the parasites kill each other. Then trade with who ever wins.
As much as I admire and respect these two historians, I must admit that they should not critique Ferguson with out understanding the thesis, as I have read the book and the purpose of the War of the World is to understand why the 20th century was so violent. He says its because of ethnic disintegration, economic volatility, and empires-in-decline. Also he states that World Wars 1&2+the Cold War, saw the descent of the west and the ascendency of China and the east.
Peter Robinson is such a worm, he just had to throw in that his grandfather fought in World War II as if it gives him any added insight. I love that Hansen one-ups him with the 'my namesake was killed there.'
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
omg,of course the allies were no better than germany ie america.ok camps were terrible no doubt about it, however equally so was both atomic bombs omfg are they serious,it was certainly a victory over germany,but thank god us v ussr did not occur or i firmly believe europe including england would be commies now and the us when they got to us as russia cannot be defeated
I expected to see Rush/Limbaugh/ and G Spot under the tags for this video, but nay! It's a very 'specialist' youtube viewer that taps that into the search window.
Does it feel like anyone else that Furgeson is constantly almost making a point, almost finishing his sentence and thought, then switchies over to a side thought? Very frustrated for me to listen to him... not necessarily because I disgree, just the structure of his argument.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The fire bombings of Tokyo and other cities (in both Germany and Japan) were "incidental"? Somebody revoke Hanson's historian's license. He has proved himself time and again to be no more than a partisan, neoconservative hack.
As Hanson explained, the strategic bombings of German and Tokyo were NOT specifically targeted to exterminate populations.
Now, if we imagine a German or Japanese victory, we have little trouble envisioning the ethnic cleansing that would occur as those acts are inherent in their ideologues.
@AngrySkeptic The Dresden and Hamburg bombings are clear examples counter to your point. The RAF and the USAAF clearly bombed many cities that were not "strategic military" targets at all. But I agree that an Axis victory would have produced much worse results after the war. War is war.
It was incidental. The atrocities committed by the Allies were attempts to break their enemies and win the war. That people would die as a result of allied bombing was incidental in that killing loads of people happened to be an effective way to win. On the other hand, atrocities such as the holocaust gained Germany and Japan little to no tactical or political advantage over the Allies. For the totalitarians, the genocides were the ends, not the means. It's an important distinction.
You're argument, Dan Moore, is this: They committed irrational atrocities; we committed rational atrocities. Our's served a higher, noble purpose; theirs (the Japanese and the Germans) did not. My argument is that the atrocities committed by the Japanese-- the terror bombing of Shanghai, the murder of over 10 million Chinese civilians-- was as rational as our firebombings of cities. It was done to break the back of the enemy, or, as you put it, was "an effective way to win." The holocaust,
Renaldo, you're ignoring the distinction between atrocities committed for expansionist or racist ends and atrocities committed whilst attempting self defense or the defense of other sovereign entities. Painting me as black and white on the issue by putting the words "rational atrocities" and "irrational atrocities" in my mouth is a poor tactic.
A more proper distinction would be between calculated, horribly irrational acts vs heat of the moment acts that in hindsight may have been avoided.
A helpful example may be to look at how many justice systems approach killing. There isn't just "rational killing" and "irrational killing", but there are grades and we have to make decisions on which are better or worse than others.
Murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, imperfect self-defense, assisted suicide, execution. Declaring that all of these are the exact same severity would be foolish, yet you seem to be willing to do so when it comes to nation-states.
All these arguments are missing the point: an atrocity is an atrocity, implemented as tools to subdue the enemy. The Axis, to impose their hegemony on their victims, the Allies, to stop the Axis from achieving their goals.
This is a similar argument used against Clinton and the bombing of the Al Shifa chemical plant. Yes, it killed thousands, but they (The Americans) believed, with good measure, that Al Qaeda members were hiding out there. Did they *plan* to murder innocent civilians? No. Try telling that to Noam Chomsky and his apologetic terms towards Islamic fundamentalism. Imperfect? Yes, but there is no moral equivalency here whatsoever between the West and fascism, past or present.
@renaldo999 You're fucking retarded. The strategic bombing campaigns were necessary strategic decisions that were made to bring about allied victory sooner. And it is an indisputable fact that the allied strategic bomber campaigns against the axis was the most decisive factor in the war. While without a doubt some acts were brutal and could even be considered war crimes (Dresden comes to mind), the allies were not trying to exterminate the axis. But the axis were trying to exterminate the allies
There is no evidence that the destruction of the Al-Shifa plant "killed thousands". None of the people who were tracking Sudanese mortality have provided any support for these allegations.(the sources Chomsky cited didn't present any documentation to back up their claims of mass death) Leo Casey showed that the Sudanese regime was quite capable of replacing any medicine that was lost.
MrAcarine 7 months ago
I'm a huge fan of the Hitch and Hanson; however, the point that Ferguson was quite clear on was that the allies were just as bad because the Soviet Union was part of the Allies.
spader49 11 months ago
8:05- They initiated the most useless, horrid, deadly war in human history, and should be thought of as such.
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
3:53- Hansen is a lier as well. Britain, France and the US did not invade Germany to "stop atrocity", they invaded over Germany bringing Germans from under Polish rule. It was never about the domestic policies of Germany. Hansen is a warmongering lier.
5:55- The British-US invasion led to the Stalinization of Europe of a half century! Fool!
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
@qwertypoiu4321 "they invaded over Germany bringing Germans from under Polish rule." What?!
UCBfan1 11 months ago
@UCBfan1 Britain/France gave a war guarantee and declared war on Germany in order to keep German-Danzig under Polish rule.
qwertypoiu4321 11 months ago
@qwertypoiu4321 Free City of Danzig was NOT under Polish rule, but under the League of Nations.
To belive that this was a serious reason for the German invasion you just have to be naive or simply a beliver of German war propaganda. The aim of Germans and soviets was to rewise the Versaillese treaty, particulary to destroy Poland again, split Romania and take over or set satellite states in the region.
The "etchnic German" excuse didn`t worked since Germany broke the Munich treaty in march `39.
MaximusProteus 9 months ago
@MaximusProteus German-Danzig was under external and economic control by Poland. Tiso came to Hitler, and Hitler did not annex Prague; that is hardly expanding west, never mind taking over the earth.
qwertypoiu4321 9 months ago
@qwertypoiu4321 In a way it was, until the national socialist party took power and... ruined its economy and public order. A toll union was profitable, since Poland was the City`s biggest trading partner.
Tiso was given an ultimatum, secession or a takeover. I don`t mind the legal status Germans issue in thier administrative divisions, that was a vivid violation of the Munich treaty and de facto annexation of Bohemia. Does the west direction make any difference? Soon it expanded in every.
MaximusProteus 9 months ago
1:53- Hitchens is such a fool. Germany never annexed France or Britain etc, he occupied them to stop their unsolicited invasion of Germany. He did not even demand their fleet, which both France and Britain demanded of the Kaiser in WWI. Hitler is a thug lier.
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
what's with the fluttering eye lids on the posh sounding limey?
andrelebaron 1 year ago
Hanson's last point is incredibly stupid.
MrSalamander7 1 year ago
@MrSalamander7 No it is not. It is a perfectly good point, for anyone who wants to properly understand history to keep in mind. It doesn't do any good to simply read back your own personal morality, and comfortable hindsight, on to people in the past who had to make tough decisions and who fighting against a much greater evil than themselves. The point of studying history is to understand the past, not to simply gratify your own ego with sanctimonious expectations of perfectibility.
UCBfan1 11 months ago
I also would say there is no good or bad in war.. but there are good and bad causes worth fighting for.
RazorCell7 1 year ago
My opinion in the end is that targeting nationality and ethnic groups is worse then targeting one group specifically
RazorCell7 1 year ago
same with Holland and Market Garden after the Operation collapsed 8,000 civilians starved to death if not killed by the bombings itself.
RazorCell7 1 year ago
plus the liberation over Nazi Germany and his control were also from bombing heavy civilian locations like in Normandy the Allies and there own bombings killed a high number of civilians because of that a small % of civilians in France sided with the Nazis. rather be under control by people they don't really like or get your house blown up and your family killed in the cost of liberation
RazorCell7 1 year ago
Tokyo fire bombing by the Americans killed over 100,000 people in a period of hours (the bombing was meant for factorys but instead hit high density of civilian population) heavy civilian locations were also bombed in Germany and the Soviets that were in Berlin had total chaos as in some civilians were targeted on purpose also POWs being shit by Soviets and even woman being raped.
RazorCell7 1 year ago
The holocaust was targeted at certain groups, Allied bombings much like the bombings of London was targeted at the Nationality it didn't matter what ethnic group you were from but if you are living in that country targeted (Jewish, Christian etc) you would be killed, the atomic bomb killed 70,000-100,000 instantly (as in casualties of civilians of the same location around the same time) and left radiation to kill another 140,000 people by 1950-60s and that's just one of the atomic bombings.
RazorCell7 1 year ago
War? wake up the allies did do these things such as war all of which is wrong
mobilechief 2 years ago
I believe that the relatively mild peaceful world we enjoyed in the period after WWII (roughly in the "50s & half way through the '60s) was a pure accident. We are simply lucky that someone (probably Beria) took the initiative to poison Stalin. He was cooking up the "Doctors Plot" as a pretext for a new anti-semitic oriented purge. If Stalin had lived, WWIII would have occurred in the '50s. Instead the Soviets simply withered away under somnolent aparatchiks.
VictorLepanto 2 years ago
yeah, long term is 50 years of comunist tyranny of east europe, and much more millions killed
andi332 2 years ago
I will add one detail to the discussion of why America and the allies were better than the axis powers:
The town that my father grew up in housed a German POW camp. They were treated with respect and decency and regularly held Christmas pagents and other celebratory events.
Allies were treated a little differently when captured.
This is one of the reasons, by the way, why the GITMO issue is so important. We are Americans, we're better than detention and torture.
TBlake34 2 years ago
Death rates of POWs held by Axis powers
Chinese POWs held by Japan: > 99%[citation needed] (only 56 survivors at the end of the war)[66]
U.S. and British Commonwealth POWs held by Germany: ~4% [65]
Soviet POWs held by Germany: 57.5% [67]
Western Allied POWs held by Japan: 27% [68]
smoochym 2 years ago
German POWs in East European (not including the Soviet Union) hands 32.9%[67]
German soldiers held by Soviet Union: 15-33%[67])
Japanese POWs held by Soviet Union: 10%
German POWs in British hands 0.03%[67]
German POWs in American hands 0.15%[67]
German POWs in French hands 2.58%[67]
Japanese POWs held by U.S.: relatively low, mainly suicides according to James D. Morrow[69] or according to Ulrich Straus high as many prisoners were shot by front line troops.[45]
smoochym 2 years ago
In WW II, we also had laws on how spies and saboteurs were to be treated. By those rules, they should have been interrogated, evaluated for their value to the war effort, and used so long as they were valuable - after which they would be summarily executed.
See the Supreme Court case, "Ex parte Richard Quirin", 317 U.S. 1 (1942).
DrCruel 2 years ago
I think the US (and in particular myself) are better than other countries. Thats why we should not have entered WW2. Let the parasites kill each other. Then trade with who ever wins.
tonylee1973 2 years ago
well, then you lose the one thing that would make you better.
Sanderniet 2 years ago
As much as I admire and respect these two historians, I must admit that they should not critique Ferguson with out understanding the thesis, as I have read the book and the purpose of the War of the World is to understand why the 20th century was so violent. He says its because of ethnic disintegration, economic volatility, and empires-in-decline. Also he states that World Wars 1&2+the Cold War, saw the descent of the west and the ascendency of China and the east.
sennis12 2 years ago
Peter Robinson is such a worm, he just had to throw in that his grandfather fought in World War II as if it gives him any added insight. I love that Hansen one-ups him with the 'my namesake was killed there.'
TomPiltoff 2 years ago
Somebody should put Furgeson and Hitchens together and see what happens - there appears to be no video of it up on youtube.
Moredread25 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
omg,of course the allies were no better than germany ie america.ok camps were terrible no doubt about it, however equally so was both atomic bombs omfg are they serious,it was certainly a victory over germany,but thank god us v ussr did not occur or i firmly believe europe including england would be commies now and the us when they got to us as russia cannot be defeated
celtic02170 3 years ago
thanks for this video both men are great speakers.
davidatheist 3 years ago 2
Hanson at 6:13: "The world that we see today, thats free of both communism and nazism"
is this true?
I feel thats important to point out.
Danni4815162342 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hitchens is a JEW. It is crucial that all understand this.
Hitler had no hatred for Britain. He wanted PEACE with Britain. He considered the British to be kinsmen with Germans.
Hitchens is a JEW hack.
NiggaJimBob 3 years ago
Christ Almighty. Who let the Neo-Nazi in here?
Go read "The Poisonous Mushroom" to your children, why don't you. Or "The Turner Diaries." I'm sure they both work.
soapfiction 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Don't be offended by such truthful talk. For heavens sake, my friend, Mr. Hitchens' mother is a Jew - therefore he is a Jew.
Not a word I wrote is incorrect. But sure it shocks the ignorant and disturbs the liar.
NiggaJimBob 3 years ago
Nigga JimBob,
You are obviously trying to get a rise out of everyone.
You are banished.
I've been tolerant, but you haven't made an argument.
Goodbye now.
AngrySkeptic 3 years ago
these guys are retarded, they annalyse history with good guy and bad guy terms.
DimitrisKs 3 years ago
"Try as he may, he cannot find my G-Spot"
Hitchens
I can't wait to use that in a sentence.
RobGoth100 3 years ago 8
I expected to see Rush/Limbaugh/ and G Spot under the tags for this video, but nay! It's a very 'specialist' youtube viewer that taps that into the search window.
cancerparty 3 years ago
Does it feel like anyone else that Furgeson is constantly almost making a point, almost finishing his sentence and thought, then switchies over to a side thought? Very frustrated for me to listen to him... not necessarily because I disgree, just the structure of his argument.
-Drew
adknerr 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The fire bombings of Tokyo and other cities (in both Germany and Japan) were "incidental"? Somebody revoke Hanson's historian's license. He has proved himself time and again to be no more than a partisan, neoconservative hack.
renaldo999 3 years ago
As Hanson explained, the strategic bombings of German and Tokyo were NOT specifically targeted to exterminate populations.
Now, if we imagine a German or Japanese victory, we have little trouble envisioning the ethnic cleansing that would occur as those acts are inherent in their ideologues.
AngrySkeptic 3 years ago 3
@AngrySkeptic The Dresden and Hamburg bombings are clear examples counter to your point. The RAF and the USAAF clearly bombed many cities that were not "strategic military" targets at all. But I agree that an Axis victory would have produced much worse results after the war. War is war.
spartan0187 1 month ago
It was incidental. The atrocities committed by the Allies were attempts to break their enemies and win the war. That people would die as a result of allied bombing was incidental in that killing loads of people happened to be an effective way to win. On the other hand, atrocities such as the holocaust gained Germany and Japan little to no tactical or political advantage over the Allies. For the totalitarians, the genocides were the ends, not the means. It's an important distinction.
danmoore5000 3 years ago 2
You're argument, Dan Moore, is this: They committed irrational atrocities; we committed rational atrocities. Our's served a higher, noble purpose; theirs (the Japanese and the Germans) did not. My argument is that the atrocities committed by the Japanese-- the terror bombing of Shanghai, the murder of over 10 million Chinese civilians-- was as rational as our firebombings of cities. It was done to break the back of the enemy, or, as you put it, was "an effective way to win." The holocaust,
renaldo999 3 years ago
Renaldo, you're ignoring the distinction between atrocities committed for expansionist or racist ends and atrocities committed whilst attempting self defense or the defense of other sovereign entities. Painting me as black and white on the issue by putting the words "rational atrocities" and "irrational atrocities" in my mouth is a poor tactic.
A more proper distinction would be between calculated, horribly irrational acts vs heat of the moment acts that in hindsight may have been avoided.
danmoore5000 3 years ago
A helpful example may be to look at how many justice systems approach killing. There isn't just "rational killing" and "irrational killing", but there are grades and we have to make decisions on which are better or worse than others.
Murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, imperfect self-defense, assisted suicide, execution. Declaring that all of these are the exact same severity would be foolish, yet you seem to be willing to do so when it comes to nation-states.
danmoore5000 3 years ago 2
All these arguments are missing the point: an atrocity is an atrocity, implemented as tools to subdue the enemy. The Axis, to impose their hegemony on their victims, the Allies, to stop the Axis from achieving their goals.
Boazhorribilis 3 years ago
This is a similar argument used against Clinton and the bombing of the Al Shifa chemical plant. Yes, it killed thousands, but they (The Americans) believed, with good measure, that Al Qaeda members were hiding out there. Did they *plan* to murder innocent civilians? No. Try telling that to Noam Chomsky and his apologetic terms towards Islamic fundamentalism. Imperfect? Yes, but there is no moral equivalency here whatsoever between the West and fascism, past or present.
cancerparty 3 years ago
I don't disagree, but you do know that Hitchens declared the bombing you mention a war crime?
AllenbysEyes 3 years ago
Apparently they did not, in fact, feel confident about the Al Shifa medicine factory.
That's why they bombed it at night.
AngrySkeptic 3 years ago
@renaldo999 You're fucking retarded. The strategic bombing campaigns were necessary strategic decisions that were made to bring about allied victory sooner. And it is an indisputable fact that the allied strategic bomber campaigns against the axis was the most decisive factor in the war. While without a doubt some acts were brutal and could even be considered war crimes (Dresden comes to mind), the allies were not trying to exterminate the axis. But the axis were trying to exterminate the allies
PkayerZxz2 8 months ago