Why Britain wouldn’t just let Hitler go East

Рет қаралды 343,758

3 жыл бұрын

Some people (including people like David Hoggan) can’t understand why Britain would declare war on Germany in 1939. They argue that it was a secret plot to bully Germany, and that Britain was the instigator of the war, and that they should have just let Germany go East. Well, this argument quickly falls apart when we look at the map of Europe and think critically, which this video will show.
Correction: As many people have pointed out, I said 1938 instead of 1939 at 9:20 in the video. It was 1939, not 1938. Sorry about that.
🔔 Subscribe for more History content: / @theimperatorknight
⏲️ Videos EVERY Monday at 5pm GMT (depending on season, check for British Summer Time).
The thumbnail for this video was created by Terri Young, and some of the icons used in the video were made by her too. Need graphics? Check out her website www.terriyoungdesigns.co.uk/
- - - - -
📚 BIBLIOGRAPHY / SOURCES 📚
Full list of all my sources docs.google.com/spreadsheets/...
- - - - -
⭐ SUPPORT TIK ⭐
This video isn't sponsored. My income comes purely from my Patreons and SubscribeStars, and from KZfaq ad revenue. So, if you'd like to support this channel and make these videos possible, please consider becoming a Patreon or SubscribeStar. All supporters who pledge $1 or more will have their names listed in the videos. For $5 or more you can ask questions which I will answer in future Q&A videos (note: I'm behind with the Q&A's right now, and have a lot of research to do to catch up, so there will be a delay in answering questions). There are higher tiers too with additional perks, so check out the links below for more details.
/ tikhistory
www.subscribestar.com/tikhistory
Thank you to my current supporters! You're AWESOME!
- - - - -
📽️ RELATED VIDEO LINKS 📽️
The REAL Reason why Hitler HAD to go to War in WW2 • The REAL Reason why Hi...
The MAIN Reason Why Germany Lost WW2 - OIL • The MAIN Reason Why Ge...
History Theory 101 • [Out of Date, see desc...
- - - - -
ABOUT TIK 📝
History isn’t as boring as some people think, and my goal is to get people talking about it. I also want to dispel the myths and distortions that ruin our perception of the past by asking a simple question - “But is this really the case?”. I have a 2:1 Degree in History and a passion for early 20th Century conflicts (mainly WW2). I’m therefore approaching this like I would an academic essay. Lots of sources, quotes, references and so on. Only the truth will do.
This video is discussing events or concepts that are academic, educational and historical in nature. This video is for informational purposes and was created so we may better understand the past and learn from the mistakes others have made.

Пікірлер: 3 700

@TheImperatorKnight 3 жыл бұрын

Thank you for all your messages of support last week. I was very tempted to take a week off after many of you suggested that I should, but I decided to plod on and do this video anyway. It felt ‘wrong’ for me to make a short video for a Monday like this, but as I explained last week I needed to do it. Also, there wasn’t enough room to put the Patron list into the video, so I apologize to my Patreons and SubscribeStars for that. The list of names will, of course, return in the future EDIT: As many people have pointed out, I said 1938 instead of 1939 at 9:20 in the video. It was 1939, not 1938. Sorry about that.

@altaiaurelius 3 жыл бұрын

But we especially love the short videos!

@sof5858 3 жыл бұрын

Hapoy days 👍🏻

@TheImperatorKnight 3 жыл бұрын

@@altaiaurelius Do you? Maybe I need more feedback on this. I always assumed that longer videos were good

@ianc8266 3 жыл бұрын

I think a mix of both is good. If a point can be addressed in ten minutes, then by all means do so, don't stretch it out longer for its own sake. Other topics need an hour, so give them an hour.

@julianshepherd2038 3 жыл бұрын

Strategically. Can't help wondering if leaving a (mostly) United Europe isn't a bit of a mistake.

@amerigo88 3 жыл бұрын

“England has no eternal friends, England has no perpetual enemies, England has only eternal and perpetual interests”. -Lord Palmerston

@TheImperatorKnight 3 жыл бұрын

Huh, two people posted the same quote at the same time

@amerigo88 3 жыл бұрын

@@TheImperatorKnight if the shoe fits...

@tsaoh5572 3 жыл бұрын

Then why is the English-Portuguese alliance the longest one in human history?

@XtReMz98 3 жыл бұрын

@TIK it’s nothing personal about that quote, it’s just business!

@richardcutts196 3 жыл бұрын

@@tsaoh5572 Just in case Britain needs leverage against Spain. Came in useful during WW2.

@trinxty6099 3 жыл бұрын

"A United European is a threat to British Sovereignty" _Shows EU flag_ Peak trolling TIK

@Azraiel213 3 жыл бұрын

Peak honesty. 😉

@jjquinn295 3 жыл бұрын

If the EU ever started being a single state with any sort of unified armed force and foreign policy aims you would likely see some odd bed fellows opposing them. The British and Russians are in agreement that a unified Europe is a treat to their sovereignty, and the US has had a grand strategy of never allowing one power to dominate any region for the past 100 years or so. Could be a rather quick d day and eastern front round 2.

@Tallorian 3 жыл бұрын

@@jjquinn295 Russia in the past decades never considered a unified independent Europe as a threat (unless such Europe decides to march on Russia like Napoleon and Hitler, both great "unifiers", did - but those times are probably in the past thanks to the nuclear weapons). But currently the EU, especially in its supra-national organs, is completely dominated by the Americans, so it is not reliable whatsoever. If you want to achieve something of substance, you would not talk with a puppet but rather with the puppeteer, right?

@jjquinn295 3 жыл бұрын

@@Tallorian yes, but that is why the condition was that the EU would have to become a real state with its own foreign policy. You don't get that as a puppet. Also while Russia had issues stopping European unification in the 1990s, when Georgia and Ukraine were in negotiation to try and enter nato and the EU, they invaded and froze the war. They don't actually want to end those wars, because you can't join nato while you are at war.

@ilyamosin3090 3 жыл бұрын

@@jjquinn295 Cases of Georgia and Ukraine has nothing to do with fear of unified Europe. It's all about Putins fear of NATO members at Russian borders. And in case of Crimea he managed to not only jeopardize Ukrainian membership - and therefore denied NATO fleet presence in Crimean ports - he also got to station Russian Black sea fleet there for free

@chriswatkin5476 Жыл бұрын

When Britain declared war on Germany Hitler said " l have always had a love affair with England, unfortunately that love was never reciprocated".

@Dpw20001 29 күн бұрын

Shame when you look at the state of both countries today

@oscarmccoy9102 14 күн бұрын

@@Dpw20001better than being under a nazi regime. Listen to yourself 😂

@fredericksaxton3991 13 күн бұрын

Pre-war Hitler had more admirers in Britain than he guessed. In the1930's, more people in Britain were terrified of the Soviet Bolshevicks than Hitler. It is only post war that Hitler gets fully monstered.

@benweaver5042 13 күн бұрын

Yeah he was probably lying. Something Hitler did for his entire political career.

@zoch9797 11 күн бұрын

@@oscarmccoy9102 The total control over my people or the outright replacement of them. 🤔 I'm gonna go with the former.

@jimtaylor294 3 жыл бұрын

"Is it a conspiracy?. No. It's just Britain being Britain." *Everybody agreed with that* (especially the British :D )

@stuartgmk 3 жыл бұрын

It,s what we do. .......... Rule Britannia

@angamaitesangahyando685 3 жыл бұрын

The British siding with their enemy the US out of a fear of a hypothetical threat from the Continent. Result: lost the Empire, lost sovereignty, but Germany is dead. Grats. - Adûnâi

@ottomeyer6928 2 жыл бұрын

@@stuartgmk rule with your behind?

@dudebro3250 Жыл бұрын

Europa the last battle explains this so much better.

@jimtaylor294 Жыл бұрын

^×3 Clearly *Real Politic* is a concept beyond you 😒 . The threat of one nation / a group of nations monopolizing "europe" was only too *real* (not "hypothetical"), anfld the UK had seen it happen before during the Napoleonic Wars, as France briefly had a monopoly over the region, requiring great expense in men, treasure & time to break it up again. The UK also opposed breaking up France after Napoleon's defeat, because while seeing France dismembered would have been amusing, it would only further complicated the regional balance of power. Germany was no different in being a threat to the status quo, as was the Soviet Union after the Germans were neutered. In short: better to prevent a regional rival from getting too strong, than be forced to fight them *after* they've gained regional hegemony. In this the UK's only mistakes with Germany was expecting France to hold up its side of the pact (it didn't), and having given Germany too much leeway in the years preceding the bucketheads frogmarching into Poland.

@goebbledup1835 3 жыл бұрын

"I was a business man, doing Business"

@TheImperatorKnight 3 жыл бұрын

Not under lockdown you weren't

@go2mikerenzi 3 жыл бұрын

TIK take care of yourself. Don't let this burn you out. Then we'd all be fucked. Pick up a little lady and fly to Florida. You can stay at my house. There are great blues bars down here. You will have a good old time.

@thorshammer7883 3 жыл бұрын

@@TheImperatorKnight I have two Ww2 questions that could make for interesting videos to do about. First question: "How brutal and violent was Imperial Japan's military when compared to National Socialism Germany's military and how many people did they harm?" Second question: "What did the national debt of the allies, soviets, and axis nations look like before, during, and after Ww2 and did it affect the outcome of the war and the economies?"

@robertmarks2384 3 жыл бұрын

underrated

@Perkelenaattori 3 жыл бұрын

Britain is the Vincent Adultman of the world.

@michaelwier1222 3 жыл бұрын

"Nations don't have friends, nations have interests" - Winston Churchill

@sjsupa 3 жыл бұрын

So what Britain did to unsteady Hong Kong in the last 3 years were strictly for self-interest. Don't ever try to claim the moral high ground of human rights and democracy.

@den343 3 жыл бұрын

Yea and that's why it's a shame to talk about morale when acting solely by interests.

@thefrenchareharlequins2743 3 жыл бұрын

@@sjsupa "Alright Mr - ahem - Comrade Xi, I said it, please give me back my family"

@sjsupa 3 жыл бұрын

@@thefrenchareharlequins2743 Whatever Comrade Xi does is strictly by the national self-interest as well, just like Sir. Winston Churchill . Your family is in the least of his consideration.

@thefrenchareharlequins2743 3 жыл бұрын

@@sjsupa Still doesn't make the side that does things like the social credit system and the thing with the Uighurs right.

@nameless688 Жыл бұрын

According to Hitler he respected the British empire and wanted it to prosper, he had no plans to dismantle it

@dragosstanciu9866 Жыл бұрын

Why didn't Hitler respect the Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, Yugoslavia, Denmark, Norway since they were neutral and didn't want war?

@Overwatch9 17 күн бұрын

But the Americans did have such plans and they succeeded.

@Dpw20001 14 күн бұрын

@@Overwatch9 not without help from the French and Spanish

@frixxer87 13 күн бұрын

But he was a liar, appeasement policy with Czechoslovakia and Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is are examples of many.

@dezonstudios2985 13 күн бұрын

@@frixxer87All politicians are liars

@nunodasilva5449 3 жыл бұрын

The alliance with Portugal made sense for centuries. They always kept an ally in continental Europe and one that had one of the largest coast in the Atlantic. A coast where British ships passed from and to their colonies. For Portugal it made sense too, being allied with a nation that had a strong navy and that navigated the same waters. I know that the alliance was made pre age of discovery (and colonization), but had it's ripe fruits in that era.

@He_who_rides_many_winds 3 жыл бұрын

And tea.

@shahstormaggedoni5854 3 жыл бұрын

@@He_who_rides_many_winds Don't forget the Port

@He_who_rides_many_winds 3 жыл бұрын

@@shahstormaggedoni5854 Yes.

@deiselucibragabraga9259 3 жыл бұрын

E se você olhar as terras que Portugal descobriu você percebe que a Inglaterra se aproveitou de muito as custas da navegação lusitana

@Schinshikss 2 жыл бұрын

But for sheer mining and railroading interests in southern Africa Britain betrayed Portugal and practically ended the centuries-old alliance.

@thefrenchareharlequins2743 3 жыл бұрын

You know a KZfaqr is good when he can get you to watch 10 minutes of him pointing at maps

@TheImperatorKnight 3 жыл бұрын

I see you've changed your name to include the hashtag. What's the meaning behind it?

@thefrenchareharlequins2743 3 жыл бұрын

@@TheImperatorKnight It is support for the Scottish Libertarian Party candidate for the constituency of Motherwell and Wishaw and (because of the very complex Scottish voting system where everybody gets two votes) the electoral region of Central Scotland, Mark Meechan. Scottish elections are in three days, their ambition is to beat the Greens.

@iconsumedmt1350 3 жыл бұрын

@@thefrenchareharlequins2743 I saw dankulas video, the slp aren’t real libertarians

@thefrenchareharlequins2743 3 жыл бұрын

@@iconsumedmt1350 And Uncle Angus isn't a real Scotsman.

@taufiqutomo 3 жыл бұрын

Let me introduce to you .......... Krebs.

@TexasTimeLord 13 күн бұрын

Germany invades Poland. Britain: this means war ! Russia invades Poland Britain: *crickets*

@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 13 күн бұрын

Luckily people more intelligent than yourself were running the "show".

@TonyZlatko 4 күн бұрын

Russia didn't invade Poland. Just only took back lands recognized as Russian after WW1. Borders between newly formed postwar states weredetermined on the basis of nations living in those areas by international commission. Two Russian revolutions mixed political cards heavily. First Germany before end of war was able to renew claims on Baltic shores and securing eastern lines signing Brest- Litovsk treaty before the end of war. (After Versailles all those deals and treaties were nullified). But borders between Poland and Russia were same after collapse of Poland ( from now part of Germany) as was originally settled by Versailles. Because Russia after revolution totally neglected Western parts of Russian territory( being busy to secure their power in central areas, Poland swiftly stepped in. Several years of neglecting western parts Poland asked for recognition of new status quo. I was promptly accepted. Situation was also complicated by creation of National Ukrainian state ( actually 3 different states with very short lived existence). So funny history but with thousands of casualties....

@sakkra93 5 ай бұрын

Many British people in the 1930s would have been happy to just let him. Many were sympathetic to Germany's plight and were impressed at how he had built a strong and nationalist Germany out of the ashes of the chaos of the 1920s, and viewed him as a bulwark against the Bolshevists.

@joninator7858 3 ай бұрын

The vast majority if Brits did not support Hitler.

@ftlfrog8738 10 күн бұрын

So true. It’s extremely sad that we live in a timeline where the west betrayed Germany and ultimately the entirety of Eastern Europe to communism.

@communismenslavesmurders5774 3 жыл бұрын

So Britain is the source of 500 years of European instability.... I have a Sister-In-Law like that.

@willforest5302 3 жыл бұрын

just good buisness

@thunderbird1921 3 жыл бұрын

100+ years of instability in North America as well. Don't forget after the War of 1812, the British built warships for the Confederacy (the CSS Alabama and Laird Rams) and even considered direct intervention in the American Civil War until the Russian Navy under Czar Alexander II sailed into American ports to protect them from any foreign attacks. At that point, the British called their potential plans off. The "Special Relationship" is NOT historical, it only started in like the 1930s.

@dennisvisser3910 3 жыл бұрын

america of the habsburgs. bouth verry mutch like the balkans.

@daltonastbury5568 3 жыл бұрын

@@thunderbird1921 ur so wrong i can’t even be bothered to correct u. and i’m the type to correct people.

@aaronstorey9712 3 жыл бұрын

We wre directly responsible for the pax britannica in the 1800s.

@dragosstanciu9866 3 жыл бұрын

It would have been suicide for Britain to fight Germany and the USSR at the same time after they invaded Poland in September 1939.

@TheImperatorKnight 3 жыл бұрын

Yes. It sucks for Poland, but this is true

@punishedgloyperstormtroope8098 3 жыл бұрын

The USSR was a far greater threat and Germany was far more similar to Britain

@dragosstanciu9866 3 жыл бұрын

@@punishedgloyperstormtroope8098 Germany had a racial agenda for Europe, thus Germany was a bigger threat.

@Bingo_Bango_ 3 жыл бұрын

@@TheImperatorKnight What's your take on preventative measures as opposed to Sept 1939? I think you touched on it loosely in the Poland video, but If it weren't for appeasement delaying the French and British response, Poland seems like it would have had a fighting chance against a lone Germany, or even as a bulwark against the USSR while French & British troops harass Germany, assuming they get their assaults in prior to Polish collapse.

@Koelebig 3 жыл бұрын

@@dragosstanciu9866 that's some nonsensical logic. I would argue that having a social/class agenda like the soviets did would be a much bigger threat than the racial agenda in Europe at that time. Though, you're better off with neither.

@zendengade4170 3 жыл бұрын

Essentially, Britain's foreign policy (throughout history) is to use its indominable position as an island nation (large navy) to prevent any hegemon in Europe to maintain the classic balance of power without ever being threaten by invasion itself.

@ddc2957 Жыл бұрын

Long gone now. They’ve been invaded by the third world

@frenzalrhomb6919 Жыл бұрын

Are you just summarising the video for us, or are you trying to show us that you have the required English language skills to do so?

@masterclass3941 Жыл бұрын

@@frenzalrhomb6919 why are you mad bro

@frenzalrhomb6919 Жыл бұрын

@@masterclass3941 Do you honestly care? Or are you just hanging around to interject with your boring little "bro" opinion? This is an A and B conversation, please C your way out!!

@Alexander..69 Жыл бұрын

@@frenzalrhomb6919 why are you bro

@marksheen4873 3 ай бұрын

Churchill and the other hawks wanted a war

@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 2 ай бұрын

"The other hawks" such as Hitler, Mussolini?

@PerPress 2 ай бұрын

Germany is becoming too strong (1936). Churchill quote: You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism, but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless of whether it is in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit Priest. Hitler had never wanted war with Britain. Hitler had also never planned for a world war. He wanted to invade Russia (Lebensraum).

@maxpower3990 2 ай бұрын

⁠⁠@@PerPressso your argument is that Hitler didn’t want a World War, just a little war to conquer, enslave and exterminate only a few countries and a few tens of millions of people. It’s not the fact that Germany is strong, it’s the fact that it uses that strength to keep trying to attack its neighbours, take their land and get larger and stronger. Such as in 1848, 1864, 1866, 1870 and 1914.

@marksheen4873 2 ай бұрын

@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 didn’t say they weren’t but they certainly were not hawkish to uk unlike Churchill to Germany

@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 2 ай бұрын

@@marksheen4873 So you think the UK and France should have just ignored a powerful European nation with a history of loathing for France & trouble making within Europe, that had just engulfed, Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland?

@strtsak12 3 жыл бұрын

Britain: Trying for centuries to maintain a disunited Europe European Union: Threatening to create a disunited Britain Reverse Uno card

@mrcaboosevg6089 3 жыл бұрын

It's okay, the EU can't last in its current form

@GAndreC 3 жыл бұрын

The thing is the existence of the EU is to the benefit of NATO so big papa won’t let England do their plays. Now if the EU was dumb enough to think it can go it’s own way it would be surprising to see it remain as a cohesive unit for a decade or even one election cycle. As it stands a disunited England is less harmful than a disjointed europa but a uk is more beneficial than the alternative. As long as Europe continues to nip at the heels of the used to be power in the east and yip at it from a safe distance things will be a ok

@raptorxxl1904 3 жыл бұрын

Scotland must become independent.

@Haiden.Ambrose 3 жыл бұрын

@@raptorxxl1904 why

@Wanderer628 3 жыл бұрын

@@Haiden.Ambrose You can't support remaining in the EU but then in the same breath demand indepdence from the UK when literally every argument to stay in the EU can be used to even greater effect in the argument to stay in the UK. But the loony Scottish secessionists still manage those mental gymnastics.

@lolypopNL 3 жыл бұрын

Britain's foreign policy has always been to keep European nations/states fighting eachother. That was the whole point, keep the continentals divided so they can't gang up. This has been the policy with variations for a thousand years give or take. This was also the policy for a lot of European countries but they didn't have the luxury of being on an Island.

@sjsupa 3 жыл бұрын

In that case, why not attacked Germany from the West and forced Hitler to spit out Poland?

@hjalmar4565 3 жыл бұрын

"divide and rule"

@gwtpictgwtpict4214 3 жыл бұрын

@@sjsupa Primarily a Naval power so we had a small standing army. Plus how do we get there?

@brucetucker4847 3 жыл бұрын

About 600 years. before that the Anglo-Norman kings' main objective was to unite Britain, France, and Ireland under their rule.

@jimtaylor294 3 жыл бұрын

@@brucetucker4847 Debatable. Snuffing out France - as a rival - has long been a British passtime.

@themodernwarfarehistorian825 3 жыл бұрын

(Insert "Yes Prime Minister" quote on why England is in the EU)

@Karlsson1976 3 жыл бұрын

Well actually it is a yes minister quote. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/kLyJpKVh2rqvnHk.html Yes I know I will go back to the salt mines now :D

@stephenlarson9422 3 жыл бұрын

Sir Humphrey: "Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?"

@hjalmar4565 3 жыл бұрын

@@stephenlarson9422 And now Scotland might want it's indepence and join the EU. See, it still works, but it seems the other European countries learned their lesson by now.

@paulohagan3309 3 жыл бұрын

@@hjalmar4565 Especially when TIK explains it so clearly

@hjalmar4565 3 жыл бұрын

@@paulohagan3309 And the mighty EU doesn't even have to cross the North Sea with an invasion fleet, because they will have a border with England by then.

@Heimtun86 Жыл бұрын

Well, technically you can say that they did this because they didn't want Germany to get all of eastern Europe. Though the result was that Soviet got it instead.

@Overwatch9 17 күн бұрын

Yep, no win. Yet the modern "historians" pretend that it was an epic struggle that achieved something. It was an epic struggle that achieved nothing.

@collinleecrawford 10 күн бұрын

@@Overwatch9I feel like the fact the Germans were also occupying Western Europe is being overlooked

@collinleecrawford 10 күн бұрын

@@ftlfrog8738nah China would’ve fallen to communism entire reason it did was due to Japanese war in China and it’s consequences

@Youtubechannel-po8cz Жыл бұрын

The only ‘large’ thing the UK has now is debt.

@Overwatch9 17 күн бұрын

And the number of immigrants in their cities.

@brucetucker4847 3 жыл бұрын

Chamberlain: Tell Adolf it was only business. I always liked him. Ribbentrop: He understands that. Chamberlain: Can you get me off the hook, Joachim? For old times' sake? Ribbentrop: Can't do it, Neville.

@mvfc7637 3 жыл бұрын

I can’t believe this is the only reference to that film, bloody millenials.

@robertgoss4842 3 жыл бұрын

Bruce Tucker: That is a scream. Well done.

@EndOfSmallSanctuary97 3 жыл бұрын

Top-tier reference

@rutger5000 2 жыл бұрын

sauce?

@stephenc.4319 2 жыл бұрын

@@rutger5000 The Godfather.

@danielmatsui4336 3 жыл бұрын

European nation has continental ambitions* Britain: *OI M8, GOTTA STOP YOU THERE*

@fatherelijahcal9620 3 жыл бұрын

Germany didn't need to expand it's borders in order to develop a naval strength that could rival Britain's supremacy. That was the goal of Germany's Plan Z which was underway with Germany's pre-war borders. It would have taken until 1948 to be completed, though. Hitler never wanted a war with Britain and he made it clear in Mein Kampf when he regretted that Germany and Britain had fought in the first world war. Hitler considered the British fellow Germanic. Nazi propaganda described the British declaration of war as being "racial treachery".

@niweshlekhak9646 3 жыл бұрын

British RF are from Germany.

@ApeX-pj4mq 3 жыл бұрын

@@niweshlekhak9646 Not just Germany

@armandoeng 3 жыл бұрын

For more that you could believe on Hitler, sooner than later a war would happen, probably because France (France would never accept a Strong Germany), and Britain would join.

@ivanbro1208 14 күн бұрын

@@armandoengand? It was just like in ww2 a defensive war against the brits and french. The german wanted to be left alone from the world

@largebubbahubba 11 күн бұрын

@@ivanbro1208then why did they orient their entire economy around war and invade Poland

@grandadmiralzaarin4962 3 жыл бұрын

“We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."-Prime Minister Henry Palmerstone

@TheImperatorKnight 3 жыл бұрын

Huh, two people posted the same quote at the same time

@Arkantos117 3 жыл бұрын

But Portugal is sorta our bro.

@grandadmiralzaarin4962 3 жыл бұрын

@@TheImperatorKnight Great minds think alike it would seem.

@grandadmiralzaarin4962 3 жыл бұрын

@@TheImperatorKnight until it takes over the continent...

@chrislambert9435 3 жыл бұрын

Thats why I voted for Brexit !

@SaveTheKidsD2P 2 жыл бұрын

This I’ll disagree with, Britain let the Soviets take Eastern Europe after WW2 and did nothing.

@dovetonsturdee7033 2 жыл бұрын

You think that Britain, or Britain, the US, and Canada, should have attacked the Soviet Union? How would you have sold that to their populations, after having sold Genial Uncle Joe as a gallant & noble ally for four years?

@alexhodskins8426 3 жыл бұрын

Love how clinical you described Britain’s perspectives on the conflict. Great job TIK can’t wait to see what’s next.

@belisariolll5111 Жыл бұрын

"Nothing personal, its only business" That expreses british and later American external policies, pretty despicable

@maxpower3990 8 ай бұрын

It’s not just them, it’s all nations. Britain and the US where just more successful at it.

@user-in8qh3zf9d 15 күн бұрын

Stop being such a wetwipe. Thats how all countries operate.

@jaffa3717 14 күн бұрын

Despicable Me

@mnk9073 3 жыл бұрын

Sooo, the EU now lowkey supporting the unification of Ireland and Scottish independence is the continent pulling a late Uno-reverse card on Britain?

@guidobolke5618 3 жыл бұрын

No, it's not personal, it's business :-)

@Swift-mr5zi 3 жыл бұрын

The EU doesn't support Scottish indepdence at all...there a loads of separatist movements in Europe...the Spanish especially would never allow it

@shorewall 3 жыл бұрын

@@Swift-mr5zi yeah, that's a can of worms for Europe.

@mnk9073 3 жыл бұрын

@@Swift-mr5zi Obviously not officially but there's quite the subtext. And Spain? Spain is the same mess it's always been and let's be honest here, about as relevant to EU policy as Greece...

@guidobolke5618 3 жыл бұрын

@@mnk9073 That sounds so much like the russians. Interesting how powerful and united the EU seems to be from the outside.

@TheStrossicro 3 жыл бұрын

Balance of Power; the Perfidious Albion...

@TheImperatorKnight 3 жыл бұрын

Yes, Stalin said exactly that to the Germans during the Molotov-Ribbentrop negotiations

@propagandalf577 3 жыл бұрын

Same thing with Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan. But it that isn't important to your argument anyway.

@AFGuidesHD 3 жыл бұрын

"England is advising France that they should both go along *regardless of Poland* " - Joseph Kennedy telegram to Washington after a conversation with Halifax. I believe this is the war plan Hoggan could be referring to. I also like another quote from Halifax: "the alternative policy of assisting Germany in developing Eastern Europe is not feasible so long as the current economic system is maintained". Was changing the economic system of Germany a factor in Britain going to war?

@IrishCarney 3 жыл бұрын

TIK has shown Hoggan to be a liar many times. Why he mentioned him this time I don't know. It gives an obscure Nazi nut more exposure and credibility than he deserves. It's like seriously discussing the ravings of a reeking street bum.

@zoompt-lm5xw 7 ай бұрын

"Changing the economic system of Germany" is code to "turn them into a pastoral state of deaf musicians and beer producers"

@sakkra93 5 ай бұрын

"The unforgivable sin of Hitler's Germany was to develop a new economic system by which the international bankers were deprived of their profits." - Winston Churchill Hmmm. Sounds highly suspicious to me.

@archangel3285 9 ай бұрын

Buchanan makes a solid case for exactly what you claim to discredit in his book Churchill hitler and the unnecessary war. Hitler had, until 1939, adhered to an agreement with britain, to limit their own navy to 1/3 of the british. As well as relinquishing all claim to overseas colonies. Nazis and fascists fighting communism to a stalemate is clearly a boon for Britain. Instead they courted disaster and would not have made it without the USA and hitlers error to turn east. The truth is germany was never a real threat to the british empire, but making them one ruined all of Europe, placing half of it in stalins hands and toppling the british empire in the process.

@tylerhiggins3522 2 ай бұрын

The Zoomer Historian blows this mainstream hack out of the water.

@MeatGoblin88 3 жыл бұрын

Britain thwarts France over and over again: cheeky banter lmao Britain thwarts Germany twice: zionist judeo-bolshevik conspiracy

@shorewall 3 жыл бұрын

😀 Well, UK French relations had improved, they fought in the same side in the last couple of wars. Just like the US. 😀

@jimtaylor294 3 жыл бұрын

@@shorewall Well... apart from the frenchies that collaborated with the Germans... but essentially yes.

@jakublulek3261 3 жыл бұрын

Maybe Germans are sore losers with no sense of humour?

@ludvighansson2586 3 жыл бұрын

In what world has the UK thwarted anything. All it has done is destory its own empire, and now stands today on the brink of dissolution.

@pawelnowak5633 3 жыл бұрын

@@ludvighansson2586 like 70% of the world m8

@maciejniedzielski7496 3 жыл бұрын

01:57 I am a Pole but living in France, some Frenchmen say : Angleterre = "Perfid Albion"

@billbolton 3 жыл бұрын

Perfidious Albion, yes, that's us.

@lawrieflowers8314 3 жыл бұрын

Haha - Perfidious Albion - that old chestnut :) The way things seem over here in England is that now Brexit has actually happened the EU - often spearheaded by Macron - is reacting with as much difficulty and duplicity as it possibly can, whenever it can…

@billbolton 3 жыл бұрын

@@lawrieflowers8314 England expects...I don't think that surprised anyone.

@AlbertComelles1970 3 жыл бұрын

I was told once that nickname is given because of the white cliffs of Dover.

@jimtaylor294 3 жыл бұрын

Ah those French; they can't even get our island's name right XD. (That one being a few thousand years out of date... and Greek)

@MakeMeThinkAgain 3 жыл бұрын

Appeasement also had the virtue of buying some time. Britain was marginally better prepared in 1939 than they had been in 1938. Both the Brits and the French needed more time, but German didn't give it to them because -- as you've pointed out -- they couldn't. The US Navy was looking to be ready for war around 1946.

@nikke2404 Жыл бұрын

The Soviet Union attacked Poland about 2 weeks after Germany in September 1939, but Great Britain and France did not declare war against them. The Soviet Union also attacked here in Finland on November 30 of the same year, but still they did not act. That's pretty hypocritical in my opinion

@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 Жыл бұрын

Why declare war on a nation that you have NO practical way of attacking? The only REAL effect of the British declaring war on the USSR would be to push the soviets further into a pact with the nazis.... the world's largest "resource pool" pushed into a potentially unbeatable solid pact with the world's pre eminent military power in 1940? It was better to declare war ONLY on the "clear and present danger" of nazi Germany and leave USSR alone, doing so drove the nazis and communists even further apart, weakened their temporary "alliance of convenience" and helped set the stage for "Barbarossa".

@maxpower3990 8 ай бұрын

These decisions aren’t based on morality but practically. Hypocrisy is endemic to geopolitics.

@cocktailpost 3 жыл бұрын

"El NO" you just made me spit my coffee hahaha

@TheImperatorKnight 3 жыл бұрын

I was hoping someone would get that

@thefrenchareharlequins2743 3 жыл бұрын

Nigel Askey style?

@davidburroughs2244 3 жыл бұрын

I got it and laughed and showed it to my spouse. She laughed, but they would really say "que no,!" and that Is funny to us, too, but my mexicana spouse got a big kick from yet another gringo joke on idioma.

@arsenal-slr9552 3 жыл бұрын

Thank you for all your hard work TIK!

@mikecain6947 3 жыл бұрын

A great history lesson for me and congratulations on your honesty and integrity in producing this.

@uverpro3598 Жыл бұрын

That was the biggest blunder for Britain. Lost its empire and lost its sovereignty.

@grandcanyon-pg2px Жыл бұрын

Empires fall

@ivanbro1208 14 күн бұрын

@@grandcanyon-pg2pxchina, india, russia, none of them fell yet

@KekWeren 14 күн бұрын

⁠⁠@@ivanbro1208because the countries you listed has achieved their own living space or manifest destiny in American language they are not a colonial empire they are self sustained countries who want to be the major power in their region and eventually other regions too

@ivanbro1208 13 күн бұрын

@@KekWeren mate, they did colonize, they were succeful at it. russia in siberia, china across its western lands, and india over to the north

@douglasturner6153 3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for a coherent explanation of British policy that many people get confused about. Also explains British policy against Spain and Louis XIV. Churchill wrote a book about his ancestor Marlborough that clearly shows this pattern. Napoleon also got frustrated with Britain not accepting him and constantly working to thwart him and entangle him in weakening conflicts with others. Hitler got a mirror image treatment in WWII. More than one frustrated European has railed about "Perfidious Albion"! But it was "just business" as you say.

@matthiuskoenig3378 3 жыл бұрын

it all started with the french changeing their laws of succession to prevent being inherented by a Norman king, were it not for french perdidiousness they might not have created perfidious albion

@douglasturner6153 3 жыл бұрын

You're going way back. But I knew it had to be those treacherous Frog's all along. Britain's rep has been unfairly sullied.

@yc6018 2 жыл бұрын

@@matthiuskoenig3378 that's the wrong reading of history the french feudal lords didn't change the law, the law did not specified who was the succeed the king if he had no mal heir. that is because of the Capetian Miracle (the first 13 kings had a male heir who survived to take the crown) and it changed the law of succession from the traditional frankish elective succession to a hereditary one. There were no jurisprudence in the succession law to prevent to crown going to Philippe de Valois.

@caractacusbrittania7442 2 жыл бұрын

Napoleon's continental system, a forerunner of the eu, excluded britain From trade with Europe. This was not Britain's choice, this was napoleon's attempt at the economic destruction of his perceived strongest adversary.

@yc6018 2 жыл бұрын

@@caractacusbrittania7442 it was Britain choice to support 7 european military coalitions against France between 1792 and 1815

@marinanguish9928 3 жыл бұрын

2:46 I enjoyed the reference to the fact that German Shepards were called "Alsatians" for a time.

@TheImperatorKnight 3 жыл бұрын

I know a dog trainer who is passionate about this issue. Some still call them Alsatians, but she demands everyone calls them German Shepards

@ANWRocketMan 3 жыл бұрын

@@TheImperatorKnight They're very commonly still called "Alsatians" in South Africa.

@xaph5575 3 жыл бұрын

I honestly didn’t know they were separate

@marinanguish9928 3 жыл бұрын

@@TheImperatorKnight Haha wow I had no idea that they were still called Alsatians by some, though I suppose it isn't too surprising given that everyone still calls German Mastiffs "Great Danes"

@edwinparker6732 3 жыл бұрын

100 years on and it's still a great way to annoy their owners.

@niedrichFrietzsche 3 ай бұрын

I get your point but to be honest... Britain did end up in vassal status to the US after the war and lost her empire due to that relationship. They achieved exactly what they wanted to avoid by fighting the war.

@Reactionary_Harkonnen 3 жыл бұрын

Yet the British Empire fell anyways and the English ethnic group is endangered from existing. Now Britain is becoming less European. In the end what was all this for?

@bottleofwatero1 3 жыл бұрын

Love the maps! It makes things clearer!

@TheImperatorKnight 3 жыл бұрын

I spent the whole of yesterday (well over 8 hours) expanding the maps and updating them. They're not 100% accurate, but they're getting there. So, I'm glad to hear you like them 👍

@bottleofwatero1 3 жыл бұрын

@@TheImperatorKnight The best one is the subtle anti EU one at 1:22. Judging from that and your past videos espousing libertarian-conservative political opinions, are you pro Brexit also?

@Exodus26.13Pi 3 жыл бұрын

20 minutes equals 2000 views... That means in a few days the whole world will see this... Genius

@user-fx9rw7xc1e 3 жыл бұрын

By your logic, "few days" equals 54.604 days (almost 150 years)

@Exodus26.13Pi 3 жыл бұрын

@@user-fx9rw7xc1e I thank you math person.

@user-fx9rw7xc1e 3 жыл бұрын

@@Exodus26.13Pi The pleasure was mine!

@fatherelijahcal9620 3 жыл бұрын

Most views a video will ever receive usually happen in the first 3 days or so and then tend to sharply drop off after that.

@norrinradd3549 3 жыл бұрын

@@user-fx9rw7xc1e. For your logic and math, you’re saying that the population is not going to be getting bigger each and every day, which is the only way that your numbers are going to be correct, isn’t it.?.?.?.?.?. Or did you account for growth of the population, and therefore come to the right conclusion, that the whole of the population could never get to watch the video......... But, you decided to ignore this fact, and gave the wrong answer, just to show the other person that they were just as wrong as you are????? It’s like the question, that asks if you are in the middle, of a twelve foot circle, and you can only take one step each day, and your first step is three feet, but each step is half of the preceding step, how long will it take you to get outside of the circle ⭕️?????? And, while many people will say x number of days, they’re all wrong, because the correct answer is never, because technically, you can infinitely halve a distance...........

@dandcdiecast2664 2 жыл бұрын

Your research and attention to detail in these videos is absolutely amazing, keep up these great videos I enjoy them thoroughly.

@mvfc7637 3 жыл бұрын

In the words of a famous consigliere, “it’s not personal Sonny, it’s strictly business”

@IliyanStoychev 3 жыл бұрын

michael was not a consigliere

@mvfc7637 3 жыл бұрын

@@IliyanStoychev it was spoken by Robert Duvall who was playing the role of Consigliere as Tom Hagen.

@IliyanStoychev 3 жыл бұрын

@@mvfc7637 i guess u are right, but the same words were spoken by mike after the cop punched him in the eye, in the scene right after

@David-il9xw 3 жыл бұрын

Love European Union on the map to illustrate a threat. TIK, you are King of the Trolls.

@joaodorjmanolo 3 жыл бұрын

I can see some people getting pissed at this 👀 haha

@hjalmar4565 3 жыл бұрын

@@joaodorjmanolo Yes, mosly the Irish, because TIK forgot they are still in the EU.

@deralte4527 3 жыл бұрын

Funny map though. Some People think Ireland still as a colony of the UK?

@yugster78 3 жыл бұрын

The EU is a legitimate threat to the UK though.

@Azraiel213 3 жыл бұрын

EU: We don't want to create a superstate. Also EU: Lays out legal framework to centralise military control.

@djoumine3648 3 жыл бұрын

Very interesting. I'm French, and there's an historian named Jacques Bainville who also analysed the aftermath of the treaty of Versailles in an essay : "The Political Consequences of Peace" (1920) with the same type of reflexion. Even if it's old and historiography has evolved, this book is one of my favorite. He predicts almost all that will happen in the next 20 years : the Anschluss, annexion of the Sudentenland, the war's cassus belli on Dantzig, the alliance between Italy and Germany or the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact. One of his main argument striked me at 7:36 because for Bainville, the destruction of Austria-Hungary meaned German predominance in Central Europe. The new and somewhat weak states of Central Europe would rapidly fall into Germany's hands, thanks to their economic dependance on Germany + their German diaspora. He advised for the partition of Germany : he saw that the Treaty created a homogeneous German state inhabited by 60M people, untouched by the war on its soil against a 39M devastated France. The result is clear : Germany is less powerful in absolute but more powerful in relative. He blamed this situation on British diplomacy, Wilson 14 points which he describes as unrealistic, and on Georges Clemenceau with his will to destroy Austria (this will be nuanced in the Treaty's historiography). There's some much more to say about this book, I advise everyone to read it for understanding the French perspective on Versailles, far from the "Versailles was too harsh on Germany" simplification.

@David-il9xw 3 жыл бұрын

What really sunk the continent wasn’t the strategy of the UK to keep European powers neatly balanced against each other, but the appeasement of Hitler’s territorial acquisitions.

@shorewall 3 жыл бұрын

Those are some very interesting points, especially about the dismantling of Austria Hungary. I have never heard anyone mention that, yet it makes a lot of sense. The idea of partitioning Germany seems to come up a lot. And while, as an American, I don't really like the idea, it would remove Germany as an issue at that time.

@djoumine3648 3 жыл бұрын

@@David-il9xw I see your point, and it's true in a sense. But Hitler's territorial acquisitions are a consequence of what happened 15 years before he took power. He would have never dared to annex the Sudentenland if Germany wasn't "naturally attracted" by it. But it's true that the Allies should have been more severe with Germany when Hitler arrived in power. Then again, it's very difficult to say this considering we know what happened next. From what I saw, France was ready to intervene in 1936 but some generals said it was not a good idea, plus Stanley Baldwin's government refused to back up France.

@djoumine3648 3 жыл бұрын

@@shorewall Glad I could help someone discover Bainville lol. As a French, you can understand that for me, partitioning Germany was the most secure option after WW1. Different perspectives I guess : Germany's demographic and industrial superiority over France is a key point to understand French defeat in WW2. With a lot of nuances of course

@David-il9xw 3 жыл бұрын

@@djoumine3648 remember that France had one hundred divisions against 10 German in 1936. Hitler sent his troops over the bridges into the Rhineland with no ammunition for fear they might shoot someone and precipitate a military reaction. Churchill accurately predicted that Czechoslovakia would follow the Anschluss, but by that time Germany was far more powerful. Churchill also got it right by saying that the western powers would sacrifice their honor, over abandoning the Czechs, and get war. True, hindsight leads us to conclusions which fit the historical narrative, but some people did know what was going on and what the remedies were for such a predicament.

@dwaynebronson870 Жыл бұрын

The eternal anglo

@rickl.1603 3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the enlightening info!

@Ian8008 3 жыл бұрын

That was a great summary - good stuff!

@alih6953 3 жыл бұрын

Great work mate! Your channel is very efficient 190K subs but 1000 on Patreon amazing!

@TheImperatorKnight 3 жыл бұрын

I'm really lucky to have such great support from my patrons. It's just a shame this video was too short to put the list of names in

@alih6953 3 жыл бұрын

@@TheImperatorKnight Nice mate you should do a reaction video to this one kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qciZoJWcrN3MoJc.html&ab_channel=PotentialHistory

@TheImperatorKnight 3 жыл бұрын

@@alih6953 I saw that video when it came out. In fact, I commented on it thanking him for the shout-out in the video. Not sure I need to do a reaction to it since I agree with all of it

@alih6953 3 жыл бұрын

@@TheImperatorKnight It is accurate, I agree it was just to boost your views and awareness of the channel

@emie9858 2 жыл бұрын

I mean I despise nationalism but I can see what Imperial Japan meant when they said the UK was an international bully who wouldn't let them expand their colonies lmfao

@johnf7683 3 жыл бұрын

"The Romans, observing troubles from afar, always found remedies for them and never allowed them to develop in order to avoid a war, for they knew that war does not go away, but is merely deferred to the advantage of others. " Also: "If two powerful neighbors of yours come to blows, either they are such that if one of them wins, you will have to fear the victor, or you will not. In either of these two cases, it will be more useful for you to declare yourself and wage an honest war." Churchill, unlike Chamberlain, was no doubt influenced by Machiavelli and the power politics of "The Art of War", and knew the lessons of those nations who were guided by that philosophy and those who went another way. There are reasons why Machiavelli is still read today by wise leaders.

@mpersad 3 жыл бұрын

Terrific video, with excellent graphics and maps!

@Lqx.14 3 жыл бұрын

TIK, glad to see you back.

@jussim.konttinen4981 3 жыл бұрын

Poland declare war on Japan. Japanese PM Tojo: I'm gonna pretend I didn't see that.

@metphmet 3 жыл бұрын

This video summerizes everything that I have been taught about the british foreign policy . Joining the EU was a strategical pragmatic choice ( what you call business) : better inside than outside. There was no idealism. After the Brexit the strategy has changed: Hope that EU fails. Don’t expect the conflicts and disputes between EU and UK to stop.

@Bingo_Bango_ 3 жыл бұрын

It's rather telling when someone claims that the most rational strategy is to allow a foreign tyrant to claim endless territory "as is their right." Even if it were, in this strange hypothetical world, what does that do *for me* or *for you*? Why would Britain ever want to throw away her sovereignty, and why would British citizens ever ask her to, when it would mean economic exploitation and repression by German citizens? Because they want to be the German citizens, of course. Similar movements and propaganda campaigns ongoing in China and SEA and with Russia and the Baltic states to this day.

@TheImperatorKnight 3 жыл бұрын

Exactly. They're only seeing it from one point of view, and not thinking about how others may react

@DF-ss5ep Жыл бұрын

Because wars kill innocent people. As you know, millions died in WWII, much more than one would expect to die if Germany was appeased. That is why a conspiracy to push for war with Germany would have been basically a crime against humanity, were it not to stop some graver crime. That is why the question is interesting, because one has to ponder what was gained or prevented if the cost was so high. Britain itself, despite winning, was left a shadow of its former self.

@dwaynebronson870 2 ай бұрын

British sovereignty was not at risk. And British peoples would not have been exploited by Germany. Both of these things however, occur now in post-war Britain.

@Bingo_Bango_ 2 ай бұрын

@@dwaynebronson870 Your assertions are both unfounded and unreasonable. German ambitions in Poland were incompatible with both French and British foreign policy, and German thinkers were well aware of this prior to the invasion. Germans regularly regarded Britain as part of the greater Germanic peoples and had no intention of allowing her to retain an independent foreign policy, but instead as a vassal and lesser party to the greater Reich, though they did try to outright annex the Channel Islands when they got a chance so who knows what constituted the truer, deeper desires. This is all well corroborated by contemporary writing and reputable historians.

@dwaynebronson870 2 ай бұрын

@@Bingo_Bango_ I don't think Hitler believed that the allies intended to go to war over Poland. My own reasoning being his 'now what' comment towards Ribbentrop. What is your reasoning that Germany intended to have Great Britain as a vassal state or restrict her on foreign policy? If that's the cause then what was the point of the Naval agreement the two countries made? Also, I would to like your thoughts to this particular question. What made German ambitions in Poland incompatible with Allied foreign policy and Soviet ambitions compatible?

@billcallahan9303 3 жыл бұрын

"a short video" as you say TIK. Well, you deserve a break my friend. The dedication & devilishly hard work you put into your intensely researched videos is nothing less than a series of stupendous achievements! We treasure them all...even the short ones! Now go find a cold Guiness, a big fat expensive cigar & an easy chair!

@TheImperatorKnight 3 жыл бұрын

I prefer ale to Guiness, and will be having some ale tomorrow night with some friends, so I'll wait until then 😉

@billcallahan9303 3 жыл бұрын

@@TheImperatorKnight hmm? Ale! I gotta' try it. But don't forget that cigar TIK. If it's expensive, it's good, that's all you need to know. Do one on Hitler's secretary Trudle Junge & how she escaped the bunker. My good friend Artie Jung ('e' dropped) was her relative. He knew her well!

@vdanger7669 3 жыл бұрын

As soon as I saw the title I remembered the #1 classic vital national interest: No Hegemon in Eurasia.

@NoFuture396 10 күн бұрын

Actually Britain stopped being an Empire after WW2 and is barely a country now, more like a business. Germany on the other hand had an existential imperative to find resources and liberate its people so they had to be aggressive. So Britain not only did not *have* to go to war, they destroyed themselves for the profit of certain .. interests.

@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 10 күн бұрын

Not only did Britain have to go to war to prevent the nazi ideology from spreading across Europe unchecked, it was the catalyst that saw it destroyed and prevented Hitler's dream of 1000 years of death camps and genocide from becoming a reality.

@kallekonttinen1738 3 жыл бұрын

Petsamo strip is still part of Finland in EU map. Finland lost that in 1944.

@Kenfren 3 жыл бұрын

Not in our hearts, not in our hearts

@dermajor4472 3 жыл бұрын

Good catch

@dermajor4472 3 жыл бұрын

@BOOBS as we aren't able or willing to retake it yes

@kallekonttinen1738 3 жыл бұрын

@BOOBS are you asking me? And if you are asking, why are you asking?

@MarcoBonechi 3 жыл бұрын

So Ireland should pursue a divided Britain policy. Go independent Wales and Scotland.

@SmilingIbis 3 жыл бұрын

I have no doubt they will go. We'll move from Great Britain to teensy England.

@gumdeo 2 жыл бұрын

Scotland is likely to leave at some point, Wales rather less so.

@morganwheeleryear1123 Жыл бұрын

@@SmilingIbis I wouldn’t say teensy. England dominates the UK economically and has a gdp of over 1 trillion. It wouldn’t be a massive loss, and England won’t get confused with the UK anymore. It’s kinda a win situation

@josephniehaus9082 3 жыл бұрын

Big fan of this video format, hope you do more

@jannepellonpaa 3 жыл бұрын

Finland: Sweden's meat shield since forever.

@lajos76nagy 3 жыл бұрын

Cool video, as always. One tiny suggestion: for the map with the 'Cold War where SU dominated Europe', Finland would have *definitely* been incorporated into the SU. That was a given in any such scenario.

@zerefsunlimitedshipworks Жыл бұрын

That would've pissed off Sweden. The Soviets wanted to keep Sweden neutral.

@lajos76nagy Жыл бұрын

@@zerefsunlimitedshipworks What would a 'pissed off' Sweden do? I guess they were pissed off back when Russia took Finland from them back in 1815.

@orangekayak78 3 жыл бұрын

Didn't Humphrey explain that in Yes Minister?

@Azraiel213 3 жыл бұрын

Indeed, and very well!

@adamtal7569 3 жыл бұрын

i posted before reading this!

@filmsandmovies988 3 жыл бұрын

Drinking game: Take a shot every time TIK says "it's just business."

@TruthWillOutOnline 3 жыл бұрын

Germany had no intentions of starting a war against the rest of the world. However, it felt threatened by a belligerent Soviet Union that touted World Revolution, armed itself aggressively at a rate over 10 times faster than Germany ever did. Add to that the Soviet Union’s actions, such as the Winter War against Finland and its support of Communists all over Europe, not only in Spain and Italy, then Germany’s fear of an imminent Soviet attack was perfectly rational.

@dragosstanciu9866 3 жыл бұрын

If the USSR was the real threat, why did Germany invade neutral Yugoslavia, Greece, entire Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium. These countries were neutral and independent and were no threat to Germany.

@jussim.konttinen4981 3 жыл бұрын

@@dragosstanciu9866 Reasons vary by country. A bit like asking why Britain invaded the world. Yugoslavia was pro-Axis though.

@jussim.konttinen4981 3 жыл бұрын

@lati long I like how Russians make this same argument. Probably 6% were Benito's fans. Only 0,5% joined the Nazies after the Winter War.

@TruthWillOutOnline 3 жыл бұрын

@@dragosstanciu9866 Good question! Always remember: 99% of what we are being taught about history by the establishment is lies. Victors write history. Read/Watch "The Bad War" by Mike King and "Hellstorm" by Thomas Goodrich. In short, every single German invasion was forced upon it by the Allies. Netherlands and Belgium because these countries were used by France and England to invade Germany. Yes, there were Allied troops on German soil at the start of WW2. France and England attacked Germany first, including the bombing of civilian targets, e.g. in Freiburg. Czechoslovakia and Poland, to protect the ethnic German population in those countries against Communist terrorists who were brutally raping, torturing and murdering them by the tens of thousands. Their governments did nothing to prevent it because they colluded with the Allies who wanted to engineer a war with Germany. Greece and Yugoslavia to make it harder for the Brits to bomb the Rumanian oil fields which were Germany's only source of fuel. (Germany was so desperately short of fuel due to an international embargo that its military had to use horses for transport.) Denmark and Norway, because the British were preparing to invade Norway to stop the supply of steel to Germany, which was critical for the German weapon manufacturing.

@czechpatriot2230 3 жыл бұрын

@@TruthWillOutOnline Communist terrorists in Czechoslovakia and Poland? Polish communist party was banned and Czechoslovakian was nearly disbanded because their leader run off from the country.

@homunculous007 3 жыл бұрын

"Its not personal, Sonny. Its strictly business." - Michael Corelone

@shorewall 3 жыл бұрын

It's nothing personal, Germany (France, Spain, India, Netherlands, Russia, Ottomans, Denmark, France again, USA, China), it's just business. - UK

@Swift-mr5zi 3 жыл бұрын

@@shorewall You can add the other 60 countries who got independence from Britain to that list

@brucetucker4847 3 жыл бұрын

@@Swift-mr5zi With Ireland it was personal.

@Swift-mr5zi 3 жыл бұрын

@@brucetucker4847 1- The French aristocrats invaded them at the start not us 2- The really bad conflict in the 1600's was definitely personal, especially considering the French were there en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Boyne but that came from religion and we are really past that era now so lets forget about that. I'm not sure that the Irish famine was on purpose at all...exploitation, mismanagement and negligence maybe but It wasn't on purpose.

@brucetucker4847 3 жыл бұрын

@@Swift-mr5zi By "French aristocrats" do you mean the Normans who controlled England at that time? Because IIRC they first invaded Ireland around the 12th century.

@matijabuljan3420 3 жыл бұрын

I watched just about all your videos on ideologies and I am curious do you have plan on video on anarchism (both on theory and on spanish civil war)? Or maybe a video about less known ideologies that had some support? Other question I have is about Italian navy in ww2. How well did it perform and could it affect the North African (and other Mediterranean) campaigns if used differently?

@f4ust85 Жыл бұрын

"Its nothing personal, just business" - yeah, the business of dividing, bullying, stirring up national unrests and sending other states against one another. It being a long-term strategy and not a one off "conspiracy" doesnt change its nature.

@Deano-Dron81 10 ай бұрын

It’s still business🤷🏻‍♀️ Just like many nations are doing on earth to this very day…

@f4ust85 10 ай бұрын

@@Deano-Dron81 Thats prure whataboutism. Doesnt make it less immoral or shameful because "others do it" or "its purely for gain" - yeah it better be, what else, pure nation-wide sadism?

@alanrobertson9790 Ай бұрын

Don't all powers behave like that? For example the coalitions against Napoleons France or Europe's support for Ukraine or USA supporting China against Japan prior to WW2. The nature you talk about is human and universal.

@f4ust85 Ай бұрын

@@alanrobertson9790 No, they dont, only those imperialist in nature, or more accurately, its the politicians like Kissinger driven by a foreign policy doctrine dubbed "realism" that pretends you can play chess with national interests and keep things shitty but "balanced" - in reality, it has been proven wrong again and again, showing that people will simply want to be happy and are willing to fight for it, while autistic "analysts" like Kissinger shake their heads in disbelief: why dont they simply subdue and live under someones shoe for generations, just because Britain or Germany or Russia needs it in order to "balance things out" on a greater scale!

@Tallorian 3 жыл бұрын

Thank you for saying out loud something that rarely (if ever) can be heard in the political discourse: Britain for centuries has been sowing discord and instigating conflicts in Europe for her own benefit (just business). However, when you look at this matter from the perspective of others, it suddenly becomes very logical, reasonable and tempting to think that in order to finally bring peace to Europe it must be united under one rule and Britain disposed of :) P.S. This same policy was eventually inherited by the US, and British Empire fell one of the first victims to the American rise to world domination by the same means. Oh the irony...

@jimtaylor294 3 жыл бұрын

"peace" is a relative term. Tyranny can be called a "peace" of sorts, and the only way to "unite" said region of western-Eurasia - and area with little common cultural commonality - is via tyranny. The British have always been anti-authoritarian; whilst many of their southern neighbors have long histories of such regimes.

@RonSill1986 Жыл бұрын

This tacitic wasn't invented by the British. In fact, it was used on the British people by the Romans and used by many empires and nations throughout history. There's nothing unusual. This is just history repeating itself.

@billbolton 3 жыл бұрын

'The British people didn't want another war to end all wars' nice juxtaposition.

@alanpennie8013 3 жыл бұрын

They just hate a logical contradiction.

@Juan-wx5xz 3 жыл бұрын

@@alanpennie8013 Britain : Ww1 was bloodiest as hell. We should better not get involved in another war. A Few seconds later : Britain had just declared war on Germany. WW2 Has Started🤡🤡

@Pullapitko 3 жыл бұрын

Britain's usual response to any threat is to send a strongly-worded letter.

@EndOfSmallSanctuary97 3 жыл бұрын

Not true at all. Does your knowledge of British foreign policy history extend only between 1938-39?

@9256steven 9 күн бұрын

All our troubles can be traced back to liberating Europe again in WW2. Just think about it.

@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 8 күн бұрын

They go back a LOT further than that.

@victorazevedo9287 3 жыл бұрын

Another great video. Cheers Mr. Tilk!

@jedighostbear4401 3 жыл бұрын

Also, as The Chieftain pointed out about in his video French Armor Doctrine before WWII, France was only geared towards fighting major wars. A limited intervention against Germany wasn't even considered a possibility until Hitler started his creep and at that point they were stuck.

@hattyfarbuckle 3 жыл бұрын

Tik I wasn't expected an upload on today's Public Holiday in UK. Thanks but we need you to pace yourself to survive Stalingrad.

@bakeneko5343 Жыл бұрын

Excellent work. Thank you

@StealthyPig 3 жыл бұрын

Worth keeping in mind that "uniting Europe" in this context refers to violently conquering and subjugating other European nations into a single empire or enforced sphere of influence and this was never a case of evil Britain evilly plotting to keep Europe from uniting peacefully just for its own evil agenda. Opposing a single European power aggressively conquering the continent through invasions or threats of invasions was the right call strategically and pragmatically, and absolutely the right call morally, and is vindicated by just how much needless suffering each attempted conqueror of Europe caused before he was stopped

@slkjvlkfsvnlsdfhgdght5447 2 жыл бұрын

you are mostly right: even if europe were to unite militarily and peacefully it would still be a threat to britain, and britain would try to do something against it. it wouldn't be evil, it would just be business, like all of politics is (are?). though it *would* be less morally justified than if they were trying to prevent europe from being united by force

@nomad8166 3 жыл бұрын

So basically Britain did what any other imperialist country would do.

@perttilindroos9087 3 жыл бұрын

I suspect you need more than a break, you sir need a vacation ! No need to push to hard TIK. Love your content.

@Ph33NIXx 3 жыл бұрын

Love the low key brexit ref.

@Masada1911 3 жыл бұрын

Hope you are looking after yourself Tik.

@TheImperatorKnight 3 жыл бұрын

I had a couple of 'half work days' last week, and managed to catch up with Stalingrad research and scripts. Also plan to catch up more this week, but doing this short video was absolutely necessary

@TheImperatorKnight 3 жыл бұрын

Also, thanks! Hope things are good with you too :)

@laacademie5605 3 жыл бұрын

@@TheImperatorKnight celebrating international workers day, i thought you were antisocialist

@NJP9036 3 жыл бұрын

Churchill’s Balkan strategy. The ‘Soft Underbelly’👍

@fatherelijahcal9620 3 жыл бұрын

It didn't turn out to be so soft when Mussolini tried to invade it. lol

@adamtal7569 3 жыл бұрын

@@fatherelijahcal9620 The correct point was to stop stalin taking eastern europe.Post war stategy when already know won

@bolerobolero5668 3 жыл бұрын

Basically "fight the Germans 'till the last Serb"

@EndOfSmallSanctuary97 3 жыл бұрын

Churchill was wrong about almost every strategic decision.

@gumdeo 2 жыл бұрын

@@EndOfSmallSanctuary97 he was not great in WW1 either.

@drivewaynats3696 3 жыл бұрын

Very informative video. It fills a few gaps in my knowledge.

@brunolahaie1752 3 жыл бұрын

great video keep up the good work

@tobydawes6007 3 жыл бұрын

would you ever do anything on the bell and de Reiser - the german Nuclear program? tino struckman has done some very interesting work on it and it would be very interesting if you would collab.

@yggdrasil9039 Ай бұрын

6:00 I thought Hitler's long term aims as expressed in MK was to allow Britain to retain her empire and sea-faring dominance, while Germany would control Russia out to the Volga? Isn't he supposed to have said he didn't even want Alsace Lorraine back in the event of Germany's victory, as his aims were in the East. Also he wanted a Polish state, just a reduced one to something like pre-WW1 borders. Also facilitating Bolshevik Russian dominance over Eastern Europe seems a very odd war aim for Britain. I don't buy that this was unexpected or they didn't realise that Stalin would seek territory and compensation. All in all, Britain's response to Germany's very modest demands of the Polish military dictatorship seem very trivial to go to war about.

@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 Ай бұрын

You mean nazi Germany that had.... 1. Remilitarised the demilitarised Rhineland. 2. Assasinated the Austrian President and absorbed Austria into the "Greater German reich. 3. Negotiated the absorbtion of the Czech Sudetenland, then went on to completely & illegally occupy the rest of Czechoslovakia after having previously declared that Germany had "No further territorial demands in Europe". 4. Invaded Poland without any legal declaration of war. was a trustworthy neighbour to have at the centre of Europe? What was western Europe meant to do? Passively allow Hitler to create a Germanic empire stretching from the French border to the Urals, and trust that was the end of his plans? No thanks.

@PerPress Ай бұрын

@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 A Wehrmacht soldier was normally not a dangerous person compared to Red Army soldiers and the Soviet secret police NKVD. 1.5 million Poles were for instance deported to Siberia etc. by the NKVD, and Polish military officers were executed and dumped into mass graves (Katyn). Eastern Europe wasn't liberated - that is; Soviet war/terror criminals replaced the German ones. Polish resistance members were for instance jailed or transferred to former German concentration camp MAJDANEK etc.

@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 Ай бұрын

@@PerPress Rest assured Poland was liberated and rescued from nazi tyranny , to be replaced with a lesser evil. Communism.

@PerPress Ай бұрын

@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 COMMUNISM??? Leck Walesa: Our souls contain exactly the contrary of what they wanted. They wanted us NOT to believe in God, and our churches are full.

@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 Ай бұрын

@@PerPress That is unless you can provide us with the details of the soviet death camps sited on Polish soil.

@eflint1 3 жыл бұрын

The author of this video is in complete denial about Britain's jealousy over German achievement.

@fallingfallingfallingfalli500 3 жыл бұрын

That was WW1 www.amazon.es/Hidden-History-Secret-Origins-First/dp/1780576307

@fallingfallingfallingfalli500 3 жыл бұрын

Germany was even about to fulfil agreements with the Turks which included a railway from Berlin to Istanbul that would let to develop the Ottoman Empire and the mutual exploit of her resources... As usual one has to look at the first world war to understand the second.

@seancidy6008 10 күн бұрын

Britain and France were making plans to attack Russia in the Russo Finnish war even though Britain and France were officially at war with Germany. It was the Nazi Soviet pact that caused Britain to declare war on Germany judging by the fact that the guarantee of Poland's independence was before the Pact was made public, but when they found out about the Pact Britain guaranteed Poland's _ territory_ and that was what made war inevitable. Chamberlain had no problem with Germany going East and maybe even succeeding and conquering some Soviet land, or it was at least acceptable. Germany and Soviet Russia being allies was unacceptable, because that meant Hitler was about to go West (first).

@specialandroid1603 3 ай бұрын

Britain had the largest fleet in the world at the start of WW2

@speedy_comet 11 ай бұрын

Man this is so simple, Hitler wanted the UK as allies. Britain could have offered to help in Operation Barbarossa & split USSR into 2 occupation zones. That way Britain isn't threatened & they get rid of communism.

@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 11 ай бұрын

Delusional. Do you REALLY believe nazi Germany saw Britain as "an equal"? The Germans wanted a supplicant Britain that would do as it was told by its newly install nazi puppet govt. Undoubtedly ending up with death camps in the English Pennines and the Scottish Highlands.

@maxpower3990 8 ай бұрын

Why would Britain have wanted an occupation zone of the Soviet Union? It would have nothing they wanted and would have required their entire army to police. All it would do would be to bankrupt the country. Communism was viewed as a threat to the capitalist constitutional monarchy that was Britain but they had learned to live with it and the Soviet Union wasn’t as rabid at exporting the revolution as it was in the 1920’s. The threat has become known and understood.

@toddsimpson2351 3 жыл бұрын

@Tik, very interesting video. Two things that came to mind. First is light hearted. Have you seen the clip from "Yes Minister" where Sir Humphrey explains Britains "place" in Europe? Essentially what you said, to keep Europe divided :-) Second point and I dont think I have seen this approached anywhere else. It would be VERY interesting to have full access to all the archives from the time. The reason for this is I am left wondering how much the Normandy invasion was planned and looked at to hold back the USSR versus defeating Germany? I cannot believe that this was not discussed or considered and that some sort of paper trail exists for this. I can see why even today the Western governments would want to keep this little detail as "hidden" as possible. Thing is it makes too much "sense" to overlook. Please keep up the GREAT work! Even if you might not always be 100% right, it is still refreshing to look at the different subjects from a different angle.

@christopherneufelt8971 3 жыл бұрын

There...remains a single question about the whole subject: do you know any other language except of your mother tongue? Have you ever had the time to search state archives of other countries except of yours, or you depend solely on US/EN resources? And the last question: what about the support in technology that the British were giving during the Great Purges in Soviet: I thought they lost some forces back in the 1920's to the newly formed Red Army: how is possible that they will give such a help to...the Soviets before WW2?

@Nitroaereus 3 жыл бұрын

Great video and a fantastic topic for a short format like this. Ideologues of all stripes end up looking foolish when commenting on 20th century history outside of the larger historical context. Britain's policy towards Germany in the 20th Century is a direct analogue of that towards France during the so-called Second Hundred Years War (stretching more or less from the later reign of Louis XIV to Waterloo). French hegemony over the continent was fought against just as bitterly then as Germany's was later on.