The Six Months That Changed the World | John V. Denson

[CivilizedMan444]

… Rubbish.

… Intelligent commentators would start by defining “Economics”, which must be “the Science of Fulfilling Consumer Desires Efficiently”.

… That would indicate that Socialistic Slavery and primitive Money Barter and Market Capitalism are NOT economic topics and should be ignored.

… Start your economic education by reviewing “The Revolutionary ConsumerCard Article”, then "The Great Pyramid, Why Was It Built".

[paulojeaga]

Hitler Caused World War 2 He could have renegotiated the Versailles treaty from a position of strength

[TheSmithDorian]

1/2

Germany had no right to complain about the ToV. They were still more intent on victory than peace right up to June 1918. When Germany thought it had a chance of winning it continued to pursue an invasion of France - regardless of the human cost.

Germany was supposedly fighting the Alllies to support Austro-Hungary. Yet by the end of 1917 A-H had effectively collapsed and Russia was beaten. That would've been the time to cease hostlilities if they had really wanted peace.

[TheSmithDorian]

2/2

On 31st Dec 1917 Germany had acquired Russian assets and had most of the Eastern Army available. At this point when they were strong, Germany should have retreated to its borders and declared that they would take no more offensive actions.

The combined East/West Armies would have been a formidable defensive force and a serious deterrent to an Allied invasion of Germany.

Instead they launched the Spring Offensive against the Allies - total defeat came just a few months later.

[RadioactiveBraunMan]

@TheSmithDorian Agreed, a more defensive stance might have been wiser, just on a point of note, the spring offensive was actually not supported by the troops from the east. Scuddlebud has it that someone sabotaged the train tracks and thus, delayed the redeployment by several weeks, but its hard to distinguish fact from myth on that.

Yet, the problem with the first, and even the second world war, was the fact that everyone wanted it to happen, the Germans, the English, the French and the Russ..

[TheSmithDorian]

@RadioactiveBraunMan 1/3

Yeah, as regards the causes of WW1 I think there was a feeling that conflict was inevitable at some time and each of the parties, for different reasons, thought that it was better to have it out then rather than later.

.

France saw a strong Germany only getting stronger over time and threatening its borders.

.

Britain saw Germany's naval build up as a threat and didn't relish the idea of a French defeat leaving German forces only 20 miles away the English coast..

[TheSmithDorian]

@RadioactiveBraunMan 2/3

Russia also saw Germany's strength growing and their increasingly expansionist outlook threatening its borders. They also had severe domestic social problems and saw a war as a much needed diversion for the masses.

.

Germany was strong and wanted to expand. It felt hemmed in on land by Russia and France and at sea by Britain and thought Russia with its huge resouces might grow too powerful if not checked quickly.

.

Austro-Hungary was just dying and desperate.

[TheSmithDorian]

@RadioactiveBraunMan 3/3

On top of all this there were the historical grievences between the parties that had built up over the previous centuries of European conflict. And of course there was a total lack of appreciation from all the parties going into it, of just how completely devasting the war would actually be - to winner and loser alike

[RadioactiveBraunMan]

@TheSmithDorian Exactly, the european powers (which the united states is a part of...) really got blinded by their immense technological advantage over the "non-white" world.

Lets be honest, the "whites" were centuries ahead in case of asia and millenia ahead from africa and the americas. Unfortunately, this lead to a unjustified sense of racial superiority which in turn spawned further nationalistic discrimination.

(1/2)

[RadioactiveBraunMan]

@RadioactiveBraunMan The thing that is most ironic however, is the fact that through the events of ww1 the europeans sealed their own global decline. (More complicated than that, but I am not writing a paper on youtube :-) )

From a more global perspective it might have been favorable for the majority of people to see the decline of european dominance (which is now ending completely with the demise of the united states).

However, one is but left to shake ones head in disbelief (2/2)

[RadioactiveBraunMan]

@RadioactiveBraunMan ... of the great opportunity wasted.

But as history has shown us many a times this is hardly uncommon. Remember the 14th century chinese emperor that decided that the chinese should not colonize and explore the world? Well, in-arguably the chinese paid dearly for the mistake of one man.

The world is full of such missed opportunities.

Anyway, staying closer to the issue at hand, theres a german video about 1939 /watch?v=G0ePTKIidL0&feature=r­elated

...man never changes...

[Corricopat]

( As Faulkner remarked, “The past is not past, we are living what was created in the past.” ) For that we need a unit of value that is fixed. So far, gold has served as a reliable material that is already a world-wide-recognized unit of monetary exchange. Paper money without being backed by a unit of gold is a unit that can be used for political purposes.

[Corricopat]

The advancement of Homo Sapiens sapiens has been shown to be dependent upon exchange of goods and of ideas. We can see this in the material and philosophical advancement of the Cultures of Archaic and Classical Greece, the Phoenicians, and others that are reflected now in our global economy,with the exchange of ideas in the Library of Alexandria with reference to our internet today.

[AKAKArnott]

Denson's take on the military situation at the end of WW1 is a bit off here. He makes it sound as though Germany was not on the brink of defeat in Nov 1918, and that the Germans were right to be expecting more equal treatment in Paris.

This is simply not the case. They had been losing battles and retreating like no point in the war before in Aug - Oct 1918. The Hindenberg line had been breached and invasion was right around the corner.

[Bloodstryke]

I'm all for peace and avoiding entangling alliances as a foreign policy goal but if every country just minded their own business when an aggressive strong country started taking over smaller weaker countries, that country would grow in size and strength until it was the strongest nation in the world and could then take over all other countries. I don't understand how libertarian isolationist advocates can reconcile this problem.

[darski2007]

I cannot believe you bought the lies about Sudetenland. Read some history - this is what cost Ron Paul the nomination.

[dlix]

is it no surprise that Keynes brokered this deal that favored Britain? So Keynes really did start WWII.

[TwelveBells]

so who is this guy? is he a prof somewhere?

[JojahBoy]

MOE435

"In fact "Stimulus" is not meant to do as you claim, it actually supposed to be obtained via securities, loans...NOT via "the productive part of the economy " that is the basic idea! to create money flow via an extraneous source!"

How does the government eventually pay back these loans.........ONLY via the productive part of the economy. Governments dont actually HAVE money. The can borrow, print or tax and that's it. The rest of the world isn't going to finance this idiocy.

[JojahBoy]

Sorry Mr.Rommel,

"Nonsense...Keynesianism is what got us out of the Great Depression."

Keynesianism is what caused the great depression to BE great. You should perhaps check out Thomas Woods expose or read a bit of Rothbard/Hazlitt. Supply side Chicago School didn't work either. Why? Cut taxes, increase spending. Recipe for disaster. Got to cut taxes AND spending. Stimulus doesn't work because it takes the money out of the productive part of the economy thereby weakening the whole lot.

[MOE435]

In fact "Stimulus" is not meant to do as you claim, it actually supposed to be obtained via securities, loans...NOT via "the productive part of the economy " that is the basic idea! to create money flow via an extraneous source!

[Section102Row1]

AJP Taylor in his 1961 book "Origins of the Second World War" wrote that Hitler was not the terrible figure of popular imagination but was a normal Western leader. WWII was not the result of any plan by Hitler whose foreign policy was much the same as The Weimar Republic. WWII happened because the WWI victors decided in 1939 to destroy Germany's ability to be a great power which they had hoped Versailles Treaty of 1918 would do. Hitler's take on the jews was widely shared among europeans.

[EdwardRommel]

I might agree with you if I thought that Germany had not started WW1...but the evidence against Germany is overwhelming that they did indeed start WW1....so naturally if you start a war that lasts 4 years long and kills 10 millin men and maims another 20 million....there will be hell to pay.

Hitler was trying to atleast reverse the Versailles Treaty(if not gain more territory than the 1914 borders).....

Hitler told two huge lies to the German people and they believed them.

[AKAKArnott]

@EdwardRommel

Agree 100%. If Germany didn't actually start WW1 then they certainly changed a simple conflict into a World War - and did so knowingly and willingly because they felt that they had the strength to win it.

I can't see why so many people seem to think that Versailles was so unfair on Germany. They were lucky that Germany wasn't taken and occupied by the Allies as might well have happened in centuries past.

[EdwardRommel]

@AKAKArnott ....an interesting website to examine is archie,org...check out these books...

1. Evidence in the Case by James M Beck.

2. The Vandal of Europe by Muhlon.

3. The guilt of Germany by Lichnowsky

4. J'accuse.....

Versailles was harsh but 10 million men did die and Europe was bankrupted by it....so there was going to be hell to pay...

Also examine what Germany charged France in the Franco-Prussian war as far as reparations for a short war with all the damage in France..

[EdwardRommel]

A. Germany did not start WW1

B. Germany did not lose WW1.

The German people believed both lies ...hook, line and sinker.

There's a sucker born every minute.

[MvonRichthofen1918]

A. true.

B. false.

no one power is wholly responsible for WWI.

[ladynw777]

11.14secret aims of the french and british?what about secret aims of usa?

[thomasst2]

USA? JP Morgan, the Rockefellers, Harriman, Keun &Loeb had massive loans and investments to England and France. Their investments were in danger of default due to Germany's technological and economic advantage over their enemies. The US entry into the war bailed out the banks, which controlled over 80% of the debt in the US.

[thomasst2]

Standard Oil also had major interest in Middle Eastern oil reserves, to which Germany had been an impediment, given their trade relations with the Ottoman Empire, which controlled the Middle East at the time (see Berlin to Baghdad Railway construction).

[czlen]

His purported policy of how nonintervention may have applied during times of Americas foundational constructionalist, if it was so then, its not so now with Americas economic loss of the Gold Standard, and dependency on out sourcing, and opening Americas borders to illegal immigrants.

[Loserido]

Since he's a member of the Mises Institute, it's a given that he's not too keen on any of those things either.

[Mateorayo]

This is a regrettable falsification of history. Academically poor, full of historical inaccuracies and logical contradictions. Goal: as with any other academic amateur, to rewrite history here and there, slice by slice, so it fits their petty and frail pseudo-academic hypothesis, and eventually - bring them recognition and some pathetic fame.

[Campolin27]

Hey, some big words there; you sound smart, and since you so effectively proved him wrong you must be right. "regrettable... poor... amateur... petty... frail... pathetic..." yeah you pretty much won that debate, congrats fella.

[painisanillusion7]

Well put

[barrywinehousexp]

You're on Youtube buddy, and he's published and associated with an independent scholarly apparatus.

[averageworkinggal]

The biggest mistake the Allies made was not occupying all of Germany in 1919 to show the Germans unequivocally that they lost the war.

That allowed Hitler and others to make the 'Dolchstoss' argument - the undefeated army stabbed in the back by politicians - to gin up nationalistic hatred in the Germans.

[blueprophet9]

They were stabbed in the back.

[averageworkinggal]

The German armies in the West begged for Armistice in the Fall of 1918, bubba.

They were defeated.

They could have continued to fight but they chose surrender.

All the Central Powers collapsed and asked for Armistice (surrender) in 1918.

[blueprophet9]

The does this have to do with my comment? I think you missed the point.

[mahasamoot]

No the mistake was the nasty treaty with the "war guilt" clause that so harsh on the Germans. Remember the WWI Germans were no more wrong than the Allies. If the treaty had been gracious and instituted free trade among the former belligerents, it would have created a durable peace.

The two big factors that got Hitler into power were:

1. The "War Guilt" Clause

2. The Hyper-inflation (see 1.)

Check out /Wilson's War/ by Jim Powell

Cheers,

~Thomas

[EdwardRommel]

You are compltetely wrong;

1. The Germans DEFINATELY started WW1. Italy, Britain, France, Russia and Serbia all wanted to take the Austrian Ultimatum to either the Hague Tribunal or to a 4 power conference but Germany and Austria refused to even consider the idea.

The Hyper-inflation had nothing to do with the Versailles treaty because the Germans only paid 13% of the 130 billion they were supposed to pay(and much of that 13% was paid with American loans that Germany never paid back)

[mahasamoot]

You are correct, the Germans gave Austria a blank check. However, there were many other counties making bad decisions at the time, and in the years leading up to the war. "In this sense, all the European countries, in a greater or less degree, were responsible. One must abandon the dictum ... that Germany and her allies were solely responsible." Page 153-154 of /Wilson's War/ by Jim Powell.

It's appealing to blame Germany, and think ourselves righteous--to bad that doesn't make it true.

[EdwardRommel]

You should read "Europe's Last Summer" by Fromkin. The evidence against Germany was overwhelming.

It's like how some people claim that the U.S started the war with Japan by cutting off Japan's oil supplies..an embargo....but Japan had been terrorizing Korea and China for years before that embargo.

Both Germany and Japan had bad goverrnments that took reckless risks...total gamblers...and gambler always face ruin.

[mahasamoot]

You should read /Wilson's War/ by Jim Powell, the evidence against Germany, Austria, Russia, France, Britain and America is overwhelming.

It's like how some people love every war in the history books, because it's such an exciting story to tell--after the fact.

Both the Allied and Central Powers had bad governments that took reckless risks... total gamblers... that gambled away the lives of their citizens and achieved nothing.

[thomasst2]

And what did Korea and China have to do with the US?...Nothing...well other than that Rockefeller and the Council on Foreign Relations wanted to acquire Asia's agricultural resources for investment (Coincidence we had the Korean and Vietnam Wars following WWII under the pretext of the Cold War? I think not. Rinse, wash, repeat for CIA involvement in Central and South America and the Middle East as well).

[EdwardRommel]

Better go back to high school

North Korea started the Korean war by invading South Korea. Korea was a UN action.

North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam.

Everything is NOT a Cia conspiracy...you watch too many movies!

[thomasst2]

How far back for Vietnam did you go? French attempted to monopolize their rubber tree plantations and agricultural resources post WWI & post WWII. The US had been supporting France's second takeover since 1946. When they failed, the US tried a more direct approach in the late 1950's, attempting an "advisory" role in training South Vietnamese troops against the Viet Cong. As that failed, we took a much more direct approach and used our own troops. The gold standard forced us later to withdraw.

[EdwardRommel]

The UN recognized a division of Vietnam into two countries, north and south.

The North was infiltrating the South. Of course the US should have viewed the Vietnam war as a civil war...but at that time everyone was afraid of the Dominoe Theory.

Most likely Vietnam would have been better off if the South took over the North...since the North apparently like China has abandoned communism.

[thomasst2]

The French had been supporting the South against the Viet Cong in trying to take over their resources. This had virtually nothing to do with political ideologies. This was about investment expansion and resource acquisition. The story's the same in the Congo, Central & South America, the Middle East, etc. As far as Vietnam itself was concerned, they can handle their own issues. I don't like Communism myself (its not economically viable), but Vietnam needed to figure that out on their own.

[EdwardRommel]

You might be partially right....but why do so many countries of the former British Commonwealth still have the British monarch's face on their money or on their stamps?

There are good colonial powers like the British or Americans, or Portugeuse.

And there are bad colonial powers like the Germans or the Belgians.

I'm not sure about Vietnam...but I know that Korea was a noble war....It was UN authorized, it was successful, and the Koreans today thank god that they are not N. Korea.

[MvonRichthofen1918]

the portuguese were good? what have you been smoking?

read von lettow-vorbek's "my reminiscences of east africa".

[EdwardRommel]

Oops...Portuguese were bad..they belong with the germans and the belgians.

that was a typo

[MarxistHarpoMarxist0]

The iberians of Portuguese & Spaniards are by far the worse europeans to ever exist.

They took the most slaves, killed the most during colonialization.

Yet, Unlike England, Dutch and French Counterparts who fueled industriali revolution progression.

Iberians pretty much just had bull fights and lived their lives like a bunch of rodeo clowns instead of progressing.

Of, Course the Portuguese and Spaniards funded hitler during WWII yet did not have the balls to get involved.! Trash!

[thomasst2]

I'm not sure Vietnam would have been better off. I think they would have become fascist (or corporatist) rather than communist. Communism may be a bit worse but not by much. And it's almost inevitable that fascism leads to socialism. Govt intervention causes dislocations in an economy, for which the usual solution is more and more intervention until the Govt just gives up and nationalizes everything. I guess it buys more time.

[EdwardRommel]

I had a high school math teacher in 1982 who was Russian...and we used to tease him about being a communist.

He said to us one day "You don't want to live in Russia...they have to spend a whole month's wages for a pair of shoes"

I was in the USSR in 1987....it was bad...nothing in the stores...no selection.

All the Russian young people were very "unpatriotic" I thought...all they wanted was to trade a Russian army uniform for a pair of Levis.

I

[thomasst2]

Second, the US had the world reserve currency at Bretton Woods, was one of the initiators of the UN (hell everyone in the UN owed us money from the Marshall Plan), and actually drew up the agreement for Korea's split and Russia's involvement, completely disregarding Korea's desire for no foreign intervention (hmm...sounds like Vietnam..or anywhere else that doesn't concern us for that matter..other than industrial interests)

[EdwardRommel]

I've known many Koreans who absolutely hate the communist North Koreans...

[thomasst2]

But PRIOR to the partition. THERE WAS NO NORTH AND SOUTH KOREA. JUST KOREA. Korea wanted no foreign intervention whatsoever after decades of Japanese Imperialism. The US gave them the finger and intervened anyway and brought the Russians in (We made the suggestion the year prior and the UN approved). Now we have the situation we have today.

[EdwardRommel]

You are completely wrong...

It was a UN action...not a US action...read some history on the korean war...or watch MASH!

Korea was re-established by the UN...there was no Korea for many years...it was part of the Japanese Empire.

No Foregin Intervention=Japanese Korea.

WW2 was foreign intervention....and it took foreign intervention to protect Korea's freedom....freedom is never free.

Without US and UN intervention S. Korea would be about as prosperous as N. Korea is today!

[EdwardRommel]

I wonder how much of the Marshall plan money was ever paid back to America...or maybe it was never meant to be a loan...but just a gift to help get the world back up and running.

I need to research that Mashall Plan....if the US wasn't paid back....then the American people are a truly a magnanimous people

[thomasst2]

The US was paid back by all countries within 10 years. The Marshall Plan was the catalyst for implementing the dollar as the world reserve currency, though it was agreed at Bretton Woods in 1944. Europe would receive dollars, pyramid their currency on top of dollars, produce using US funds, sell exports to the US, get dollars in return and pay their debt. The world would suffer from US exported inflation for the next 63 years. Today China is doing most of it to prop up our economy.

[EdwardRommel]

There was no inflation in the US until the late 60's. For many years the Bretton woods agreement was a success.

The Marshall Plan money was never paid back because Europe was broke.

Just like Germany never paid any reparations in the Versailles Treaty.. They paid only 13% of what the VT required...and most of that 13% was paid for with US loans in the Dawes Plan...money that Germany never paid back one penny.i

[thomasst2]

That's the point of EXPORTED inflation. If your dollars go overseas, inflation is not YOUR problem, it's THEIR problem.

Due to exported inflation, the London Gold Pool and the Feds collaborated to force the global price of gold down from $43 back to $35 to keep the US inflating. The Pool later broke, Europe lost faith in the dollar and redeemed in the late 60's. Then WE had inflation.

The US was paid back. But money went from the US Govt to Europe to US rebuilding corporations to Govt taxes.

[thomasst2]

That's why the European funds "disappeared" into the Govt debt column, but the US had gotten all its money back already.

A prelude to the IMF and World Bank. Poor countries are loaned funds. Western rebuilding corporations recoup the funds and pay back the contributing Govts with taxes while the debt remains on the foreign Govt's books. The scam of scams. You have to follow the money or you'll completely miss the boat.

[EdwardRommel]

Read the Wikepedia article on Marshall Plan

Most of the participating ERP governments were aware from the beginning that they would never have to return the counterpart fund money to the U.S.; it was eventually absorbed into their national budgets and "disappeared.

Also...the money that the US loaned to Britain, france and others during WW! was not paid back to the US because those countries could not collect much money from Germany after WW1

No one ever pays back the US.except Finlan.

[thomasst2]

THAT"S THE POINT! If US corporations delivering the necessary supplies for reconstruction had ALREADY BEEN PAID WITH the Marshall Plan funds, the beneficiary has nothing to pay back! The US used a Govt-corporation loop to take back the funds and the recipients had no money to repay! But then still had debt on the books (forgiven for "favors"!) That's how you keep foreign countries on a financial and political leash! The IMF does it all the time!

[thomasst2]

Why do you think Ecuador (an OPEC country) allows Exxon and Chevron to drill and profit from 80% of their oil production while 1,000 citizens a year die from water pollution? They owe the IMF $200 billion. And unless they hope to get additional funds, they have no choice but to allow our oil companies to continue drilling. Argentina was smart and repudiated the IMF debt and Western control (unfortunately the US military is a little too occupied to address the problem right now).

[EdwardRommel]

South America is not a good example of responsible government. Brazil and Argentina had massive inflation and Argentina defaulted on its word of honor...so its credit is worthless. If you borrow money you have a duty to pay it back.

The corruption in those banana republics is enormous. They have coups all the time and can't seem to have a stable democracy.

The USA has never had a military coup. In the US the military respects the civil govt.

[thomasst2]

Unfortunately the US is the primary contributor to Central and South America's demise. We overthrew the Guatemalan Govt for Chiquita Inc., tried to overthrow Castro for control of Cuba's sugar cane crops, conducted OPERATION CONDOR, in which the CIA trained and supported military dictatorships and counterinsurgency ops throughout the continent in the 60's and 70's, supported Noriega's coup in Panama, funded the Contras in Nicaragua, and currently support dictators in Honduras and Columbia.

[EdwardRommel]

That's nonsense because if not for the US Govt. and the monroe Doctrine ...European powers would have colonized S. America like they did Africa. The US protected them from Europe so that they could try to develop their own economies. American banks loaned them huge amounts of money and they mismanaged the money and defaulted on the loans which hurt the US banks and US investors.

[thomasst2]

One word. Read.

[thomasst2]

Two more words: A lot.

Not just history, but SOUND economics, philosophy, political science, sociology, law, etc. If you study human action with from one perspective, you will be thoroughly misguided. For example, Paul Krugman, Keynesian economics professor and Nobel Prize winner from Princeton, is anti-war, yet he's completely unaware the very economic policies he advocates creates the very geopolitical conditions he is against due to his lack of THOROUGH understanding of human action.

[EdwardRommel]

Paul Krugman is a gifted economist who predicted the housing collapse.

You may have a jaded view because of some life experience...but that doesn't change the facts.

Economists never agree on anything...that's why they call it the "Dismal Science"

[thomasst2]

There are countless articles in 2001 of Krugman ADVOCATING a housing bubble since the business sector was demolished after the NASDAQ bubble. Austrian Economists identified the bubble in 2001 and the bust in 2005. Those years, Greenspan artificially lowered then raised interest rates. Krugman called a recession in late 2007 when the recession had already started in mid 2006.

My experience isn't jaded. I study theories of human action (social sciences) prior to reviewing human action.

[thomasst2]

Understanding differences between involuntary and involuntary exchange, praxeology, democracy vs republicanism vs feudalism vs socialism, monetary and capital theory, elasticity of demand, subjective theory of value, "neutral" taxes (which don't exist), production vs saving vs investment vs consumption (both capital and consumer goods), comparative advantage, cause and effect of Govt regulation and who lobbies for it, Govt spending vs private spending, etc. Then I review history and it's clear.

[thomasst2]

voluntary and involuntary exchange

[dpod916]

EdwardRommel your a moron, learn how to read, and then read Rothbard's great depression

[dpod916]

and then read Crash Proof by Peter Schiff to see a "gifted economist that predicted the collapse" you are so ill informed and mentally infantile it upsets me.

[JojahBoy]

EdwardRommel

"Paul Krugman is a gifted economist who predicted the housing collapse."

Actually, he advocated the Fed blowing a housing bubble on numerous occasions, which basically shows that he KNOWS the Fed can and does blow bubbles resulting in the boom/bust cycles that keep getting larger as the years progress.

Gifted Economist & Keynesianism aren't words that go together very well.

[EdwardRommel]

Nonsense...Keynesianism is what got us out of the Great Depression.

Keynesianism certainly works better than Reaganomics...aka trickle down ...aka supply side economics.

[manoman0]

@EdwardRommel - hahahahahaha...yeahh..right..h­ahahahahahaha...you make me laugh..no wonder the country's going down the drain..hahahahaha

[EdwardRommel]

Hitler called Switzerland "the pimple on the face of Europe"

[manoman0]

@EdwardRommel --- Oh yes, so Hitler said that, uh? Ì think he had a very similar opinion towards Jews. Damn, you're so lost somehow....I pity you. I really do.

[consumerproducts]

Okay, so you guys basically stole some revisionist history, inserted politics into it and try to push it as a serious history lesson and then SPAM it.

Well done, it almost IS 1918 again.

[andygavin]

How is this revisionist? This doesn't seem that far from accepted history. The idea of German supremacy has it's roots in Treaty of Versailles isn't exactly radical. You can read Germany's objections to the treaty online.

[consumerproducts]

I can hardly be faulted that you don't know what revisionist history is.

[andygavin]

No but you could be more informative.

[iggyme1992]

how does something 68 minutes long make it on youtube....????, anyways good xtra credit!!

[marxbitesall]

Hitler rose from a nationalistic socialist bent against communism & the atrocities of Versailles and it's necessitation of WW2 as planned by the bankers & their merchants of death.

Go to mises dot org for more great mp3 lectures and videos concerning the rise of Euro-statism that Mises & Hayek tried to warn the world about, except that the American progressives were eating it up and copying it.

[marxbitesall]

Mankind's only impediments to peace, economic cooperation and prosperity is Governments themselves, and no other. Govt produces nothing - it gives nothing it does not first take from others - Power is Govt's sole ideology, and the founders knew it.

The Brits blockaded German shipping - THEY started the war, then conned us into it.

[okiedokies]

@marxbitesall What biggoted BS. America was more than happy to continue to supply Britain with infinite capital goods while it was at war, American's kept out and ONLY came in when their hand was forced. Typical MARXbitsall.

[marxbitesall]

The overwhelming bulk of historians and economists are purposely enlisted as apologists and obfuscators of state criminality, or of business's use of the state for same.

[marxbitesall]

This video is 100% correct, Zahn is just sadly under-educated like most of the state indoctrinated dupes produced this past century by putting their state collective ahead of our individual freedom.

[PrinceMaxVonBaden]

I don't know about this. It's interesting enough but when he says it's impossible to blame it on the Germans, that goes against much evidence and many historians

[merrett]

The German people did not deserve to starve. They believed they were acting in defense.

[butifarra61]

merret, remember that germany asked quite a lot from russia after the defeat. they took a good amount of industrial russia and even asked for more money than required.

[merrett]

I know, and of course the Russian people suffered catastrophic poverty and starvation, but that's not what I was talking about.

[scottfl007]

Very enlightening. I was amazed to learn so much in such a short time.

[e9trustno1]

This lecture is interesting but thoroughly shocking in terms of academic quality. I say this because since the opening of the most important archives (French and British) took place in the 1970s and led to a substantial revision of the standard view of the peace treaties, namely that they were too harsh and revengeful, laying the foundation for Nazism, etc.

[mydogsteve]

Agreed. He seems to dismiss the many reversals of the Versailles treaty done by Locarno. Hitler's emergence on the political landscape was a result of Germany's internal political instability not a response to external international pressures.

[merrett]

Germany's internal political instability was a result of the imposed democracy by the Entente powers. Hitler used the embitterment of the Treaty of Versailles to his full advantage when coming to power and winning the support of the conservative institutions who held power and were against the Republic.

[TracyII77]

It was not an imposed democracy. Germany held its own revolution following WWI, but like China's revolutionary government, was very corrupt and inneficient.

Hitler's genius lie in 3 simple facts.

1.) He abandoned the treaty of Versaille, keeping money from flowing out of Germany.

2.) He invaded Poland, stealing its vast resources (especially from its mines).

3.) He inspired the German people to do all that they did, good and bad.

[merrett]

TracyII77, please don't refer to Hitler as a genius. He was a disgruntled painter and a mass-murdering fuckhead, as many important historians have said.

[stealthswimmer]

"genius" is really independent of whether you agree or disagree with someone's views and is independent of whether what they did was good or bad. People just tend to associate it with positive things, but it's not always the case.

[merrett]

k, well I disagree.

[stealthswimmer]

fair enough

=)

[murphycline]

It's not what's true, it's what's perceived. If you can show that the average German felt that they had been unfairly burdened by the Versailles Treaty then you might have a point. Public perception is more important than actual facts.

[e9trustno1]

And to claim that Germany fought WWI in self-defence is a gross misinterpretation of the facts: it was the German high command that consciously issued Austria with a blank cheque for war against Serbia, which in turn triggered (though not entirely automatically) the subsequent mobilisations and declarations of war. The Germans, it has been convincingly argued, took a large yet calculated risk of a European war in order to finally achieve their "place in the sun".

[zzu1]

great analysis. thx for sharing

[Zahn]

This video is such bullshit. The Jews controlled international banking and were pissed at Hitler for eliminating the debt-finance style of banking, and replacing it with labor-finance, which did not have debt and the value of the German monetary unit was based on human labor, not gold. Everything in this video is fabricated disinformation.

[marxbitesall]

Zahn - wrong. Rothschilds sacrificed the Jews to grab Palestine to protect their oil interests. Hitler, a Jew, was one of them. Jewishness isn't the issue, only power and greed is. Before Hilter there was no German anti-semitism manifest. And it was the Bankers that created the USSR communism Hitler opposed.

[BrettCelinski]

Too bad both the 'left and right' are too naive to get any of this... what made our nation such a great place to live and be safe was free people with free decisions, not war.

[marxbitesall]

The CFR is rotten to the core - they have chosen and placed almost all presidents and their cabinets since Wilson. They are the "finishing/NWO mind control school" for elites for the top slots in Govt, media and academic. They created their cash cow the Fed'l Reserve for themselves.