The Hossbach Memorandum PROVES Hitler Wanted to Wage a War of Aggression
VloĹžit
- Äas pĹidĂĄn 11. 10. 2020
- In 1937, Hitler and his top generals had a meeting where they discussed their future war plans, with the invasions of Austria and Czechoslovakia assured, and a conflicts with Poland, Britain, France, and the Soviet Union predicted. This meeting was called the 'Hossbach Memorandum', after Colonel Friedrich Hossbach, who was the guy who recorded what was said at the meeting. However, this meeting, and the source, has been disputed most notably by Nazis and Holocaust Deniers, but also some old historians in the 1960s, who have tried to dismiss the whole thing. In this video, we'll take a look at the source, and discuss whether the meeting actually happened or not, and whether what was said in the meeting was said or not.
đ Subscribe for more History content: / @theimperatorknight
â˛ď¸ Videos EVERY Monday at 5pm GMT (depending on season, check for British Summer Time).
The thumbnail for this video was created by Graphic Designer Terri Young. Check out her website here www.terriyoungdesigns.co.uk/
- - - - -
đ BIBLIOGRAPHY / SOURCES đ
List of sources for this video (with links to PDF documents)
docs.google.com/spreadsheets/...
Text of the Hossbach Memorandum avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/hossb...
Wright & Stafford www.degruyter.com/view/journa...
Full list of all my WW2 & History Sources docs.google.com/spreadsheets/...
- - - - -
â SUPPORT TIK â
This video isn't sponsored. My income comes purely from my Patreons and SubscribeStars, and from CZcams 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!
- - - - -
đ˝ď¸ RELATED VIDEO LINKS đ˝ď¸
Hitler's Socialism | Destroying the Denialist Counter Arguments ⢠Hitler's Socialism | D...
The REAL Reason why Hitler HAD to go to War in WW2 ⢠The REAL Reason why Hi...
Goebbels on the German Food Crisis 1942-1943 ⢠Goebbels on the German...
The MAIN Reason Why Germany Lost WW2 - OIL ⢠The MAIN Reason Why Ge...
BATTLESTORM STALINGRAD S1/E1 - The 6th Army Strikes! ⢠BATTLESTORM STALINGRAD...
My âWhy I'm Passionate about HISTORY and What Got Me Into itâ video
⢠Why I'm Passionate abo...
History Theory 101 ⢠[Out of Date, see desc...
- - - - -
ABOUT TIK đ
History isnât 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 - âBut is this really the case?â. I have a 2:1 Degree in History and a passion for early 20th Century conflicts (mainly WW2). Iâm 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.
What do you mean Hitler waged a war of aggression? The Poles started the war by attacking a radio station, luckily the entire German army was there to defend it
7,5 / 10
Let's see. The Poles had a huge military power on their western border & a huge military power on their eastern border. Both military powers had recently signed some agreement in Moscow (that at least was public knowledge). Plus anti-Polish hate campaigns in the public speeches of both neighbouring dictators & their media mouthpieces.
So what should the Poles do? Orchestrate a strategically insignificant attack on a small radio station of their numerically stronger neighbour? Yesssss.... that checks out... About as much as the Soviet-reported shelling of Mainila by the "aggressive" Finns.
Rdiculous it is known that it was staged by the SS as an excuse to attack Poland
@@caryblack5985 you clearly never heard of such thing like Sarcasm.
@@dickesbrot5724 Ah, could be. I must check the batteries on my sarcasm detector.
- Builds an army with clear and massive offensive capabilities.
- Builds a navy as an interdiction force rather than a costal defense one.
- Builds an air force that favored ground attack training pipelines rather than fighters.
No no no the nazis clearly had no business in being the aggressive force.
The best defence is an attack though
With that logic you're saying anyone that has a big army is instantly an aggressor
@Alien Alien
>invades poland
>gets himself to a 2-front war
>loses the war
>country gets deindustrialized and destroyed
>name becomes a swear word
@Alien Alien degeneracy was forbidden? What do you call raping and killing people whose only crime was having the wrong ethnicity or lived in the wrong place. Irving in particular has been shown to be a liar. You can't excuse Nazi war crimes by saying someone else did bad things. Btw, there were a lot of degenerates in the Nazi party.
@@user-im3qu5ur7m Indeed. Germany was surrounded by potential (and real) enemies. The Reichswehr was not a credible defense force. If Germany was attacked, they could only survive by having a highly attack-capable force that could knock out separate enemies one at the time. The doctrine of the Luftwaffe was to win the air war by knocking out the opposition early on, and not be engaged in a defensive war of attrition.
I once debated with a guy who actually used the term : "The defensive Invasion of France..", I needed to get very drunk after that.
According to Mr Hoggan in "The Forced War" -
âYet, in 1938, Hitler liberated ten million Germans who had been denied self-determination by the peacemakers of 1919.â (page 53)
Because apparently Austrian Germans were living under the oppressive Austrian-German regime of Austria... HOW DREADFUL!?!?!
... It's literally impossible to make this stuff up!
Then you didn't think about what he actually said. France had declared war against germany, therefore literally by definition any invasion of france at that point by germany is defensive by its very concept. They might not have liked the german attack on poland but declaring war against germany gives the germans every right to defend themselves
@@keithsledger6282 except that France declared war after the German invasion of Poland, complete with a false flag incident that was ludicrously obvious. And France basically sat on their hands until Germany invaded.
well it was france who declared war in the first place.
@@keithsledger6282 yes.
29:40
Therapist: âPirate TIK doesnât exist, he canât refute your workâ
Pirate TIK:
Yar scurvy dogsđ¤ş
Did I really just watch a 50 minute long Video that explains why Hitler was aggressively trying to expand even though I did agree to this 100% before even watching the whole thing. Thats a good statement to TIK making stuff interesting!
nice
Meta: It is a copy of a copy of the unauthorized and unauthenticated Memorandum, which was supposedly drafted from memory five days after the meeting itself took place. Hossbach was a bitter enemy of Hitler and the claimed memorandum may have been originally intended to discredit the NS government had the 1944 assassination attempt and coup succeeded.
TIK: let's see if it matches the events as they took place, because it totally could not have been written after the fact to match those events and throw all the blame for the invasion on Hitler to let the generals and corporations involved in the east campaign (including Royal Shell) off the hook.
@@larryhats4320 alright, so one document being wrong would suddenly make Hitler a victim of circumstance and not an expansionist megalomaniac?
@@larryhats4320 if you still think poor little H is innocent, proof at 1:15
The fact that this argument even needs to be made is sad, but I'm glad you did the work of making it so convincingly. Well done as always TIK
It is sad how many people just blindly follow the leader on this channel.
Btw: WW2 began when France & Uk declared war on Germany. Thus turning a continental conflict into an international war.
@@mattkierkegaard9403 who is blindly following the leader? TIK posts a 50 minute video explaining in great detail with sources and explanations why the "Hitler was a victim" position is faulty at best. People watch it and agree with his conclusions because TIK is both logical, skeptical, and focuses on details. Your argument seems to boil down to who declared war. If that is the entire basis of your conclusion I'd encourage you to think a bit more.
It's not sad. The history we're fed should be questioned and original sources should be continually examined so we can get closer to the truth no matter where it may lead us.
@@themaskedmenace314 thats a valid point. I suppose my language missed the mark. What I meant to imply was that its unfortunate that despite all the evidence to the contrary people still argue that the Nazis were not the aggressors.
It's sad that people like you are out there, trying to brainwash people to hate NS Germany with constant lies and deceit
I have no problem believing the legitimacy of the Hossbach Memorandum for two reasons not stated in the video. First, the Germans had a mania for writing everything down, which is why there was so much evidence that could be presented during the Nuremburg trials. The fact that even the Wannsee Protocol (notes on the infamous meeting about the Final Solution) was recorded and kept illustrates this. Second, the small number of individuals present during the meeting that Hossbach attended supports the validity of the memorandum. Hitler is discussing invading other countries, so he would want the fewest possible number of people to know about his future plans. More attendees would mean more possibilities of a leak of the meeting's purpose. After all, forewarned is forearmed.
@The Colonel I would have to dispute this interpretation of the memorandum, based on what Hitler did in the 1920s (e.g. Beerhall putsch), Mein Kampf and his other book, as well as ramping up training of the Wehrmacht, concentration camps, etc. The Hossbach Memorandum is but one piece in a larger puzzle that, as a whole, shows that Hitler was planning aggressive war from the very start. From my perspective, it doesn't matter that Hitler was trying to do an end run around Schacht, what matters is the motive. Why was arms production so important? Why did he spend so much time talking about invading Austria and Czechoslovakia? As with many things like this, I look at patterns of behavior, not just individual pieces.
@The Colonel
Agreed.
I don't think anyone doubts that the text we have gives a generally accurate account of what Hitler said but the participants were never given an opportunity to authenticate or query its accuracy (with the exception of Hitler himself, who declined to do so).
@Paul Revere they never saw Eisenhower and the holocaust movie
First off, "trials" material was fake. Second off, if you believe the mainstream media narrative we are told that the Nutzies both burned all documents as the Soviets neared and yet preserved all documents, so which one is it? Third, the major corporations in IG FARBEN were the ones who wanted the industries in the east, regardless whether those wishes came to fruition or not. So the idea was not secret - IG FARBEN was included in certain Nutzi positions. And then 70 million people had read about "the east" in H-tlers book. Oh but gotta keep that secret. There was more secrecy when corporations wanted in on the Iraq pie (Halliburton, etc.), yet most of the population believes that there was no plan to do any of that until it just magically happened one day (oh no -two towers collapsed). For all we know, H-tler's rants could have been simply to get the wealth support of Russian expatriates (which he did), including the likely Czar-to-be. These figures were key early financiers of the Nutzi party. The idea of a Red-White Civil War 2.0 sponsored by the Nutzies was quite palatable. Of course, to what degree that actually became policy, we are going to listen to the side that talked about the Germans bayonetting babies, that misquoted everything for propaganda, that lied about lampshades, lied about their slaughter of Germans at Dachau and lied about the prisoners in Buchenwald who they overfed and effectively destroyed in time for Eisenhower to walk in for a photo shoot with very freshly deceased (gee I wonder why). Then, after the war, they allowed people from the Middle East to sneak in and poison German soldiers. Of course, nobody ever talks about this. Now let's jump to the grand finale, which just shows how clearly up is down and black is white. This is basically what you wrote: "I agree with the Hossbach memorandum, not because of data, but principally because of my hunches, my intuition about the stereotypical behavior an entire people"
Let me guess: just another anti-racist who doesn't believe in stereotypes, who fights any OTHER presentation of the war that might reinforce stereotypes - except for when it fits the missing pieces of the prevailing narrative.
@@larryhats4320 First, since people like Halder corroborated the orders that people like Hitler and Goering signed, not to mention Goering himself, they could hardly be fake. Second, the Nazis tried to burn incriminating evidence, but there was so much of it they couldn't. Besides, if you watch Time Ghost War Against Humanity series you would see that there is TONS of other documentation. And before you say it was all faked, MY MOTHER visited Bergen Belsen right after the war ended and SAW IT ALL WITH HER OWN EYES. You cannot fake thousands of people recovering from starvation or mass graves that are STILL being filled with bodies of the HUNDREDS WHO WERE STILL DYING. So stop trying to rewrite history just to suit pro-Nazi racist platforms.
Everybody knows that ww1 and ww2 were started by Belgium because they didn't let Germans to go trought their teritory...
I want a 4x game like civilization to add Belgium to their game and just have them basically never allow open borders with anyone, but they also get uniquely high border growth rates.
Do you even know about history?
@@matthamilton5317 do you even know about irony?
@@radektruhlar3247 so sad you kids today need to learn history instead of playing video games
â @@matthamilton5317do you even know what a joke is?
And James Hoggan has a good book;
"Iâm Right and Youâre an Idiot: The Toxic State of Public Discourse and How to Clean it Up
"
This is the gems of this channel: checking original documents and put them into context.
I'm glad you like it. Sadly, some don't like this type of content (analysing sources and discussing historical debates or theories). There's been a bit of opposition to this sort of content in the comments. And I'm not referring to the Nazi comments, I mean people not liking the analysis style videos
@@TheImperatorKnight . What analysis Tik? You do not analyse Soviet pro-actions, such as Soviet aggressions against Poland, aggressions against the Balticâs, aggressions against the Ukraine or the soviet aggressions against Finland. All of which bought Soviet threats closer to Germany.
FFS you donât even highlight the fact France and Uk declared war on Germany. Thus, it was France and Uk who turned what was a continental conflict into an international war.
Also you fail to analyse, and, fail to articulate where in Nazi doctrine Hitler ever stated that he wanted to export Nazism beyond Europe. Certainly in the Goebbels diaries, it is stated that Nazism was not suitable for international export. Consequently, the Nazi doctrine was not seeking international conflict.
But hey, you spent your Stalingrad monologue talking BS, so what else should we expect from you now?
@The Colonel yes, Germany, which had been dismembered, impoverished, stripped of arms, occupied and exploited, and hemmed in on all sides by alliance systems aimed specifically at preventing it from becoming a power again, was clearly the aggressor. After all, they were solely responsible for the first war, the treaty we made them sign says so! How dare they put their country right in the middle of our military alliance?
When Eisenhower toured a newly liberated concentration camp, he is reputed to have said âTake plenty of pictures, the time will come when people will say this didnât happen.â And here we are.
my sweet summer child. clearly you haven't seen eisenhower and the holocaust movie
@@larryhats4320 Monsieur Lawrence des nombreux chapeaux, you are likely correct.
Don't just stick to tanks
Oh but I don't know anything else about anything other than "tanks", apparently... even though I hardly ever talk about tanks
@@TheImperatorKnight some would actually claim that you don't know about tanks either. Keep up the great work
@@TheImperatorKnight stick to your combined arms approach, its working.
Yes, a discussion on the merits of 30 gallon versus 50 gallon tanks can get rather boring.
@@dixztube ...and Lindybeige's, and David Fletcher's, and...
It appears that the Nazis are waging a war of aggression on this video's comments section.
It's very strange- I would expect Nazis to support the idea that Hitler was aggressively expanding, since it's the natural conclusion of his philosophy, and in their view, he should have had "good reasons" to do so. It is true that Eastern Europe has been underpopulated (relative to arable land) for centuries, and it is also true that Germany has a high population density and low access to natural resources relative to Eastern Europe or France. The reactionary view just makes him out to be a wimp and a poor politician.
I don't see any Neo-Nazis, did their comments get deleted? I wish CZcams would allow them to get proven wrong.
@Jesus Christ I'm no Socialist but are you trolling? The internet was created by public universities and department of defense. The infrastructure was paid for by tax payer subsidies. It's perhaps the only good thing to come from socialism.
@@empowl1607 but you still have to pay a company to access it.
@Jesus Christ Amen to that Jesus
Fascinating video. Honestly I wasnât actually interested in the question of if Germany was on an aggressive path or not because it was so evident they were that any honest understanding of history makes this question unnecessary. What I found fascinating in this video is how logical the memorandum was.
If you put aside nazism for a moment and look at the larger German worldview from the 1800âs onward to the 1930âs it is evident that Germans saw themselves as one of the âgreat peoplesâ of their time like the British, the Americans and to a lesser degree the French and Russians. Therefore they saw that they had the misfortune of poor location. Unlike the Russians and the Americans who could conquer open continents to their rear or the British or the French who could conquer by sea other undefended territories German had the misfortune of being surrounded by strong neighbors on all sides.
This frustration was made real by the Great War, while Germany was clearly the strongest single participant in the war it was blocked in on all sides by its enemies who all had both access to greater resources and the ability to blockade Germany into submission. While Hitler and his cronies had seen this hard reality through a racial lens (with catastrophic result) Iâm sure the bulk of more rational German thinkers did share this concern about the poor strategic German situation.
The memorandum shines light on German (not just nazi) thinking about their poor position. Yes it was an aggressive view of solving their problem through war but at its core was a fear of eventual defeat if they didnât address their weak situation. So the memorandum made sense in that context; first step was to address immediate threats to their defensive weakness by ârationalizingâ their border with absorbing Czech and Austrian territory to shorten the border for defense while increasing their national strength with more population and industrial capacity.
While this was aggressive defense it was also the necessary prelude for Germany to position itself for actual aggressive expansion to the East. But again while to outsiders these actions appear (and are aggressive) to the German mind they were necessary for long term survival and therefore justified and inherently defensive. Bear in mind that they had just suffered a war in which they had been crushed by enemies on all sides. Also they realized that they had been beaten by nations who because of their own massive aggressive colonial conquests (Britain and France) had the resources to win a war of attrition.
So in many German minds even the latter invasions of Poland and the Soviet Union were justified as ultimately self defense because without these large resource rich territories they would eventually be starved out by those competing empires.
None of my arguments are to justify German aggression in WW2 or especially the horrific crimes of the nazis but simply to understand perhaps why even otherwise civilized men who didnât believe in the hateful philosophies of the nazis still chose to align themselves with them for what they saw was fundamental and legitimate national aims for Germany. Furthermore I think that the horrific battle conditions of the Great War produced a generation of young men who could more easily act in an inhumane way in the next war. Also, the memory of the first war in the general population with its huge sacrifices, starvation and deprivations and then the defeat bringing an ultimate sense of humiliation and powerlessness made them ripe for exploitation and false redemption.
Capitalism had a hand in it. Look at the US backers of the Nazis. Competitive colonial aggression from all parties, just as today.
Germans historically always worked to destroy every bit of civilization in the world
Don't feel bad. I was recently attacked online by a Pakistani Muslim - living in Germany - who was hating on the West and claimed that the People's Republic of China had never waged a war, never killed anyone, and never created refugees like the evil U.S.A. When I posted scholarly links that showed all the wars the PRC had started since 1949 (they were the aggressor in every single conflict), the approximately 45 million dead that the regime had murdered, the numerous massacres, and the 10s of millions of refugees fleeing death or oppression, his only response was to call it "biased propaganda". Which was the intellectual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "La, La, La, La, La".
So we have Korean War deniers too. Deniers seem to multiplying by the day unfortunately.
@@aidankerrigan7117 The Korean War was not on the list of wars that the PRC started, because they didn't start it. The North Korean regime initiated the war. You did know that, right?
I grew up with AJP Taylors' lectures, when I was first beginning to read and research history for myself
I shall forever be grateful for his accessible approach to the subjects, bringing me both context and critical thinking
He's a most engaging writer.
I believe he modelled his aphoristic style on Albert Sorel, the historian of the French Revolutionary Wars.
@@alanpennie8013 I didn't know that, I'll have to look him out
@@davethompson3326
It's sad that Sorel is so little known in England.
There's an interesting discussion of him in,
Napoleon, For and Against,
by the honorary Englishman Pieter Geyl.
Tik youâd be the guy whoâd lose jeopardy...not because of your lack of knowledge, but because the show would be looking for the wrong answers đđ
But is this really the case Alex?
@Ralph's Place Danzig voted majority Nazi in 1933 and 1935, despite their founding Poland denied self determination to their German and Ukrainian minorities. It is argued that was Poland's fatal mistake.
@michael boultinghouse Churchill handed Poland over to Stalin after the war, is that a joke?
@@empowl1607 Pretty sure that was sarcasm, yes.
@@empowl1607 There is difference between handing over something you have power over, and being unable to expel someone from what they possess, especially after all the death and suffering for mostly common cause.
If Hitler didn't want to wage a war of aggression he could not get the Lebensraum that he needed to achieve his goals, it doesn't make any sense! Good video TIK
Ahhh but the Nazi historians say that Hitler's views in 1923 had changed by 1938-9 and that there's no evidence that Hitler wanted to be aggressive in the 1930s... except that Hitler rearmed the military from 1933, marched into the Rhineland, made it clear in the the Hossbach Memorandum of 1937 that he wanted to invade other countries, he Anschluss'd Austria, and took over Czechoslovakia... but there's no evidence of course!
@@TheImperatorKnight Hey TIK I have many quotes from Hitler, Goebbels, GĂśring and Mussolini that can be useful to you.. with regards to their economic ideology, How can I send them to you?
@@TheImperatorKnight A military is required to maintain a sovereign state, and quite necessary to through out the foreign occupation. "marched into the rhineland" if a state doesn't even sovereignty over its own territory its clearly in a state of war already.
@@Edax_Royeaux Even the current germany is a puppet state under foreign occupation. It's policies are to it dictated on the basis military force. Funny how the occupation of iraq and afghanistan are only 'wars' because there is still resistance. In europe if you even speak out against it you'll be arrested by police.
@@Botzorz There are a few countries that have no military and are quite happy. Your argument does not really hold water.
TIK, the pirate voice you putting on. Slow clap of applause and very amused smile on my face, well done, great context, great work.
Pirate TIK, best TIK.
It's not just that Wikipedia needs resources and is controversial, but that Hossbach's memorandum itself has its own issues. At first Hossbach did not get permission from superiors to write the memorandum nor did he record it on the same day as the meeting (as was usually the case with all military meetings, eg Obersalzberg on 22 August 1939). In addition, no military was aware of the existence of this file.But this is not the most amazing thing. Hossbach was transferred to another location a few months later and his file was archived and forgotten. In 1943, General Count Kirchbach found the file by chance while searching for and producing a copy and gave it to his brother-in-law, Victor Von Martin, to keep. After the end of the war, the latter handed it over to the allied occupying authorities, who used it to produce their own version of the archive, so that it could be used against the Germans as "proof" that they were guilty in Nuremberg.
Coincidentally, the original Hossbach archive and Kirchbach's copy have disappeared ...
Gering in Nuremberg testified that Hitler did not call on them to talk about foreign policy but to "put pressure on General Fritsch, as Hitler was not satisfied with the rearmament of the army at that time."
Admiral Raeder present confirms Gering's statement
As for Hossbach himself, as an aristocrat, he was an opponent of Hitler and the National Socialist Party.
In fact, he was a close friend of Ludwig Beck who was executed in 1944, as he had tried to assassinate Hitler, participating in the attempt of July 20, 1944.
He was also friends with Wilhelm Canaris, the leader of Abwehr, who is known to have sabotaged conversations with leaders (eg Franco), operations (Sea Lion), exported fake files to allies to spread propaganda against Germany, etc. . but he was eventually executed for treason in 1944.
Hossbach himself testified in Nuremberg that the archive is not in its original form and in fact in his memoirs he admits that at the meeting Hitler did not suggest any war plan!
Von Martin, who handed over the copy of the archive, said in 1968 that: "The document presented in Nuremberg was constructed in such a way as to change the meaning of the original and can only be described as obscene."
The British historian A.J.P. Taylor, in his book The Origins of the Second World War, in the chapter Second Thoughts, writes that he was initially captivated by this "legend of the archive"Taylor writes that the file: "contains no directives for action beyond a wish for increased armaments."
And he observes that: "those who believe in political trials may go on quoting the Hossbach memorandum."
The latter is rather an attack on people like TIK
Haha
H.W. Koch, who was a professor at York University, also demolished the file's authenticity in a 1968 article.(soryy for bad english but it was translated from google translate)
sources: And to put sources, do not say things in the air.
Origins of the Second World War p. 7
It may be objected that these figures are irrelevant. Whatever the deficiencies of German
armament on paper, Hitler won a war against two European Great Powers when the test
came. This is to go against Maitlandâs advice and to judge by what happened, not by what
was expected to happen. Though Hitler won, he won by mistake - a mistake which he
shared. Of course the Germans were confident that they could defeat Poland if they
were left undisturbed in the west. Here Hitlerâs political judgment that the French
would do nothing proved more accurate than the apprehensions of the German
generals. But he had no idea that he would knock France out of the war when he
invaded Belgium and Holland on 10 May 1940. This was a defensive move: to secure
the Ruhr from Allied invasion. The conquest of France was an unforeseen bonus.
Even after this Hitler did not prepare for a great war. He imagined that he could defeat
Soviet Russia without serious effort as he had defeated France. German production of
armaments was not reduced merely during the winter of 1940-41; it was reduced still
more in the autumn of 1941 when the war against Russia had already begun. No
serious change took place after the initial setback in Russia nor even after the
catastrophe at Stalingrad. Germany remained with "a peace like war economy". Only
the British bombing attacks on German cities stimulated Hitler and the Germans to
take war seriously. German war production reached its height just when Allied
bombing did: in July 1944.
Even in March 1945 Germany was producing substantially more military material than
when she attacked Russia in 1941. From first to last, ingenuity, not military strength,
was Hitlerâs secret of success. He was done for when military strength became
decisive, as he had always known he would be.
Thus I feel justified in regarding political calculations as more important than mere strength in
the period before the war. There was some change of emphasis in the summer of 1936.
Then all the Powers, not merely Hitler, began to take war and preparations for war
seriously into account. I erred in not stressing this change of 1936 more clearly, and
perhaps in finding too much change in the autumn of 1937. This shows how difficult it is to
shake off legends even when trying to do so.
I was taken in by the Hossbach Memorandum. Though I doubted whether it was as
important as most writers made out, I still thought that it must have some importance for
every writer to make so much of it. I was wrong; and the critics were right who pointed back
to 1936, though they did not apparently realize that, by doing this, they were
discrediting the Hossbach memorandum. I had better discredit this "official record", as one
historian has called it, a little further. The points are technical and may seem trivial to the
general reader. Nevertheless scholars usually and rightly attach importance to such
technicalities.
In fact, according to Nuremberg, it was said that this file was his will! Hitler's last wishes in case he died.
In modern practice, an official record demands three things. First, a secretary must
attend to take notes which he writes up afterwards in orderly form. Then his draft must
be submitted to the participants for correction and approval. Finally, the record must
be placed in the official files. None of this took place in regard to the meeting on 5
November 1937, except that Hossbach attended. He took no notes. Five days later he
wrote an account of the meeting from memory in longhand. He twice offered to show the
manuscript to Hitler, who replied that he was too busy to read it. This was curiously casual
treatment for what is supposed to be his âlast will and testamentâ
Hossbachâs original and Kirchbachâs copy have both disappeared. All that survives is a
copy, perhaps shortened, perhaps âeditedâ, of a copy of an unauthenticated draft. It
contains themes which Hitler also used in his public speeches: the need for
Lebensraum, and his conviction that other countries would oppose the restoration of
Germany as an independent Great Power. It contains no directives for action beyond a
wish for increased armaments. Even at Nuremberg the Hossbach memorandum was
not produced in order to prove Hitlerâs war guilt. That was taken for granted. What it
"Proved", in its final concocted form, was that those accused at Nuremberg - Goering,
Raeder, and Neurath - had sat by and approved of Hitlerâs aggressive plans. It had to
be assumed that the plans were aggressive in order to prove the guilt of the accused.
Those who believe the evidence in political trials may go on quoting the Hossbach
memorandum. They should also warn their readers (as the editors of the Documents on
German Foreign Policy for example do not) that the memorandum, far from being an âofficial
very interesting thank you.
"the myth of the great war" john mosier"
"the myth of german villainy" by brenton l bradberry
What I find a bit startling is that Austria was being regarded as an enemy. Well, from a political point of view Austria had a Christian conservative dictatorship which opposed hitler, but just half a year later, in March 1938, Austria joined Germany with overwhelming support of the population. Being Austrian myself, I think that it was highly unlikely that the Austrian army would go into action against the wehrmacht. They were loyal during the 1934 coup, but that is hardly a comparable situation. By this time, Austrians regarded themselves as Germans.
And so they should. It was Bismarkâs huge mistake not to include Austria (the Habsburgs) into the original German unification.
@@mattkierkegaard9403 was it Bismarckâs fault or the Austrian hapsburg empires refusal? I know Bismarck and the Kaiser 1 were both proud Prussians and this didnât help anything vs the Klein Deutschland or gross Deutschland efforts
Accepting Austria would've meant its non-germanic territories, which Bismarck knew were culturally incompatable & irreconcilable with the concept of a unified pan-german state.
He also predicted that a major war would be started by "some damned foolish thing in the balkans", as well as the Kaiser's fall from power.
I thought the anshluss was rigged ?
@@harshbansal7982 that is what the Austrians told everyone after the war to absolve themselves of any blame, but the truth is that the vast majority of the Austrian population was in favor of the unification with Germany. The economic situation of Austria in the interwar period was quite Dire, and the Christian conservative regime was quite unpopular because it failed to solve them. Austria also had much more NSDAP party members than Germany relative to the absolute population
30:10 not since my high school years had a Nazi joke made me facepalm so hard and still hurt more.
Glad I could be of service!
Who were the "aggressors" Hitler was supposed to be reacting to in 1939? Britain, France, and the USSR were all eager to buy time to build up their military strength.
Also, I've always been a fan of A.J.P. Taylor (as memory serves, I don't seem to own any of his books at the moment) because in his book about The First World War he included maps that showed the rail lines. You can't understand any war from the American Civil War on without knowing where the rail lines are and so many books don't include them. Or at least this was the case back in the '70s when I was at university.
TIK your method of history to review things that seem off to you has inspired me to look further into a topic I think people currently have wrong. That topic being "The US lost the Vietnam war". If you or anyone want to see why I think that is wrong I'll explain below. Feel free to reply and question my thinking on this. I have argued that "The US lost the Vietnam war" as being incorrect a few times now and I think I have gotten the argument against this thought down pretty good now.
So the first thing we need to talk about is the American goal in Vietnam to determine if the US completed those goals in the war or not. The American goal in Vietnam was to keep South Vietnam as a independent country and stop the spread of communism in South East Asia. At the point the war ended the US completed those goals. It wasn't until 2 years later when a new war started up that what was fought for in the Vietnam war was lost. Now you may question that thinking that those are separate wars. But according to even historians, military officers and the public in Vietnam they consider the war America fought in and the war that took place 2 years later to be separate wars. In Vietnam they actually are taught their country fought in 4 wars between WW2 and unification. Those 4 wars in order being first against the Japanese, second against the French, third against the Americans and then the 4th war is called the unification war (they then had a short war with China after unification as well). Lumping all these wars together is like lumping all of the Napoleonic wars together and then saying that France lost ever war in the Napoleonic wars because they lost the last 2 wars of the period.
In addition to the above point in can be argued that the US forced the North Vietnamese into the peace deal that was signed in Paris. I'll explain this below. To first get the North to attend the Paris Peace accords the Nixon administration had to start a massive bombing campaign in the North that significantly destroyed the North's army divisions and air defenses build up and provided by the USSR. The USSR upset with the amount of money they were spending on the war in Vietnam pushed for the North to go to the accords (people often forget the USSR spent a larger percent of their yearly GDP on the Vietnam war then the US did). The US said it would stop the bombings of the North if the North attended the Paris Peace accords which the US did stop when the North attended. The North though left the accords before a deal could be agreed to. This caused the Nixon administration to start the bombings of the North up again and said they would continue until the North came back to the negotiation table. The USSR again told the North to go back to the peace table or they would cut the North off from getting new military supplies (since everything was getting destroyed). The North under this threat agreed to go back to Paris and work out a peace deal which they did. The North did this because they knew they needed the USSR's equipment to have a chance to unify the country later on since the North was already at that point on bad terms with China. The US in turn was able to get further concessions out of the North when the North returned to Paris such as the North agreeing to recognize South Vietnam as a independent country.
So when people say the US lost the Vietnam war I say that is incorrect. The US lost the peace after the Vietnam war. That happened largely because of the Watergate scandal and Nixon being forced to resign his office. The peace deal signed in Paris said that the US would replace the North's military equipment in a one for one basis for everything lost or used. But when the North started launching border raids they found the US was not replacing the equipment they destroyed. This was because the Democrats had taken control of Congress in the US because of the Watergate scandal and most of them were anti-Vietnam war. So when the new President Ford went to Congress and asked them to keep the word of the US and support their ally in Vietnam with replacement military equipment they refused and even walked out of Congress on him while he gave a speech begging them to give Vietnam the military equipment it needed to stay independent. They thought doing so would lead the US back down the same road back into sending troops into Vietnam and that the defense equipment wouldn't matter either way. Which I don't think is correct. People forget the last 2 years the US was still in the Vietnam war US troops saw little combat because by that point the South's military had been built up to a strong enough level that it could defend itself given the proper equipment. Back to the North though, when the North saw the US was not supporting the South anymore like it agreed to in the Paris Peace accords the North decided to plan a full invasion of the South in breech of the Paris Peace accords. The North had to wait to rebuild it's military but once it was ready they did launch that full invasion and the US still didn't give the South the equipment it needed to defend itself causing it to be overrun and for the President of Vietnam at the time to say the US had betrayed them. Which was a pretty accurate thing to say.
Thank you anyone for reading and please feel free to reply agreeing or disagreeing with me and why.
I honestly don't know a lot about the Vietnam War as I haven't looked into it. I've seen a couple of documentaries, but that hardly qualifies me to comment. But I'm certain other viewers know more on this than me, so hopefully they can chime in one way or another.
@@TheImperatorKnight Thanks TIK I hope so. Something else I didn't mention is newspaper articles in America and internationally between the period of the Paris peace accords and the start of the new war between the North and South believed the US had won* the war.
*won in that the US did complete it's goals in joining the war in the peace deal, not that the war was actually worth what it cost though long term. In that sense it was a loss for the US since the US didn't get anything out of it long term.
The US lost about 50k troops and the total Vietnamese casualties range in estimate from 1 to 3 million. I think America developed a lot of military equipment and strategies in the war which it has used and improved upon since. I have a hard time understanding how the US can be considered the 'defeated' of the war, since they seem to have gained a lot more than they lost.
Cope harder
@@Zen-rw2fz send a actual counter argument
For once, i am happy with my notifications. Your my favorite history youtuber TIK!
Hi TiK - you may or may not be a great historian but you are world class at sarcasm - keep it up :-)
Yep ... scrapping the bottom of the barrel for viewership numbers. Hurrah!
@@mattkierkegaard9403 That's a hell of a thing for a Nazi or Nazi-sympathizer to say. Don't throw stones from glass houses.
Sadly I once met a guy that thought that Britain started the war and that Germany was just an inocent victim minding its own business. He was also defending Quisling and painting him as a hero while criticizing King Haakon of Norway and calling the Norwegian government traitors for refusing to cooperate with the Germans. He also said that since Czechoslovakia didn't put up a fight when the germans anexed it meant that they didn't mind it happening and actually wanted it to happen. He also said that if Britain had not started the war, we don't know if Germany would ever have gone to the Soviet Union (even after I told him many times that the German main goal was in the East). One of the most frustrating conversations I have ever had.
The more interesting scenario would be: What if Germany had been completely passive and instead, Stalin had taken over all of Europe by 1950 or so?
Stalin studied Hitlerâs writings obsessively. He convinced himself that Hitler would not invade. Even when Churchill and his own military told him the Germans were massing on the border, he thought they were lying. When Germany did invade, he was shocked and despondent.
All of which sort of highlights you canât really make the best decisions from books and maps.
Tikâs insights are brilliant.
Stalin did not think the nazis were ready and he was essentially right. The only reason the nazis had the upper hand in the beginning was that the soviet army was even less ready than them.
Well, yes. They were essentially of the same roots. Ideologically speaking.
It should be said that not all Nazi writers reject The Hossbach Memorandum.
David Irving accepts it and gives an interesting brief account of it in pages 62 - 65 of,
The War Path (1978) noting that French Intelligence was well informed about the meeting.
The reason Hitler got away with so much amazing villainy was that no one wanted another great war. So when Hitler repeatedly violated the Treaty of Versailles, the Allies restrained themselves. The bottom line is "no one wanted a war, but Hitler." The German people did not want a war. The German generals knew they could not win a war of attrition. Goering, the second in command of the Third Reich after Hitler, thought war was a terrible idea. The French and English wanted to avoid war so much they dishonored themselves by flushing Czechoslovakia down the toilet in an effort to mollify Hitler and avoid war. Even after the Allies declared war on Germany, they sat idol in the Phoney War, hoping to negotiate a deal. Hitler was so miraculously successful because of the Allies resistance to go to war that the Germans started to think, "He could do anything." Hitler wanted war, so there was war. World War II would not have happened if not for the machinations of ONE psychopath.
"no one wanted a war, but Hitler."
apart from the majority of the British military leadership and British politicians such as the Eden Group
@gamez Britain bombed Germany first, but held off for a very long time after Hitler's repeated aggression. Hitler violated the treaty of Paris, invaded the Rhineland, invaded Austria, and then after Hitler signed a treaty with England to only occupy the most German populated areas of Czechoslovakia, Hitler took it all. The Allies restrained taking action for an unduly long time. After that Britain and France made it very clear that if Hitler invaded Poland they would declare war on Germany. Then Hitler invaded Poland. Who started WWII? Hitler started WWII.
ok
@Leads If you delete England and France from the equation, there would still be a war because Hitler would still invade Poland and then Russia and, of course, he would invent justifications for that. He created justifications for all of his wars. That doesn't mean you have to accept his rationalizations. Eliminate Hitler from the equation and there is no war. By June 1941 Hitler had invaded seventeen countries: Poland, Norway, Holland, Austria, Belgium, France, Yugoslavia, Greece, Libya, Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Russia. In Mine Kampf, Hitler stated his love for war and his ambition to CONQUER "Living Space (Libensraum). War was always Hitler's intent. Is it your position that nothing should have been done to stop Hitler's aggression? Hitler didn't have to invade the Rhineland, Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. The Allies didn't declare war on him then because they hoped to avoid a conflict, but it was clear, there was no stopping Hitler short of war. Hitler did not want peace. He was furious when Chamberlin manipulated him into signing the Munich Agreement that stalled his invasion of Czechoslovakia. Hitler is by no means a "Good Guy" nor is he a victim.
Thank You for another well thought out video. Keep up the excellent work. It is greatly appreciated. On another note, it seems that the news concerning COVID and England is very grim. Stay safe !
Wouldn't the fact that it was Germany who went Blitzing across borders kind of be a clue as to the kind of war they wanted to wage.
"Blitzkrieg" was a term coined by the UK yellow press.
@@conveyor2 true, but the point still stands.
The problem with using the HM as a source is that it is a copy of a copy of an unauthenticated draft - this is how it arrived at Nuremberg after the war.
Please narrate the next Stalingrad episode in Pirate Voice :D
Yo-ho and arghhh to that, Cap'n.
hi tik. I am happy about this video from you. Somehow, I found strange that (until now) you hadn't ever mentioned the Hossbach memorandum. I consider it THE milestone about the start of the WW II
Fabio, Ive never understood why TIK (or anyone else) never mentions the Ribbentrop - Churchill meeting
Have you ever considered covering the war in China and the early days of the Pacific Theater? There's a number of interesting stories surrounding that, and I'd love to hear your take on things such as the Fall of Singapore, the Panay Incident, the Burma Campaign, and more.
He's said that he wants to focus on the eastern front for the foreseeable future because it would take so much time to get up to speed on the Pacific theater. He also recommended a channel that does Pacific stuff, but I can't remember their name.
@@OldHickory1828 Didn't know about that, but thanks for informing me.
Montemayor has done some good videos on battles, but if you really want a great WW2 channel, check out the World War Two channel with Indy Neidell - he does a week-by-week review of everything that happened 79 years ago that week in every theater of the war, and most of his focus for the last few months has been on Asia and the Pacific.
Haha. 'Why does England not realize that everything i do is directed against Russia?'
Russia: "We are the international we are all nations"
Germany: "Alright then I guess we go to war with the entire world then"
Hmm.
I don't think the British failed to realise.
They didn't want Hitler to conquer The USSR, or anywhere else in Europe.
Well, TECHNICALLY the Allies declared war on Germany after their invasion of Poland, However, they (the allies) did warn him that they would if he attacked Poland.....
keep in mind Poland had a mutual defensive alliance with e and f....FOR ALL DANCE LOVERS FIGHT FOR EUROPEAN/ POLISH SOCIAL BALLROOM DANCES: POLONAISE AND MAZURKA ESSAYS, VIDEOS AND INSTRUCTIONS: GO TO THE INTERNET AND SEARCH FOR: ACADEMIA.EDUâŚâŚâŚ..RAYMOND CWIEKA TO VIEW THE VIDEOS PASTE THE VIDEO - WORD - ESSAY TO A WORD DOCUMENT AND THEN CLICK & PRESS THE CTRL KEY ON THE VIDEO.
@Justin 12O16E26 So do you think the Germans or the Russians are the "good guys" :D
@Justin 12O16E26 Fair point, I don´t agree but still a valid and fair point
Thanks for your interesting videos. They make oneself think and to more carefully examine my beliefs. Please keep up the good work you are doing. I don't agree with everything you say, but you do make myself examine everything i thought i knew in a new light. I just wished more persons would produce work of such an excellent quality. Please do not let vicious attacks on your honor discourage you from continuing.
I like how deep you dig. Thanks.
BTW One would assume that Mein Kampf was explicit enough about Lebensraum.
Another thing: In private Hitler spoke with a very normal voice. The shouting was always the climax of a speech which also started normal and then build up and build up. It was a very effective technique for speeches.
Certainly the best pirate voice of any CZcams World War II military historian (29:40)!
The amount of peopel defending german war crimes and glorifying the Nazis is actually disturbing at this point.
Yeah these people tend to think everything they've been told is wrong, so if the mainstream is telling them bad things about Nazi Germany, it's all a big brain wash. And instead of doing their own research, analyzing the events and making some logical conclusions, they stick to the idea that everything they've been told is a lie by the "small hats".
Well, the reason they glorify Germany and ignore the crimes is because they believe that all narratives that go against the Aryans are made up or written/funded by a "racial" minority, despite the scientific fact that race doesn't exist www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-science-africa/
And they dismiss evidence that says that Germany committed horrible crimes because they also think it's made up by the same group. This is despite the fact that basic history theory says you cannot dismiss inconvenient evidence just because it goes against your argument (you must either argue successfully why it doesn't work, or change your narrative) czcams.com/video/PvpJEc-NxVc/video.html
The German military faced a lot of issue when the war broke out. It wasnt fully equipped with the necessary weapons, it still relied mostly on horses for transport, the inter-service rivalry plagued the rearmament process, resources were wasted , Germany lacked oil and other raw materials.
Actually Germany was better prepared in 1914.
Everyone faced a lot of issues - it was only Germany that wasn't forced to choose.
@Mark12Strang "It wasnt fully equipped with the necessary weapons, it still relied mostly on horses for transport"...
Your asshole... following your mindset no one was to blame for WW1 as well, since the armies are mostly horse-drawn and were not 100% mechanized with trucks and armor and fully equipped with all the cutting edge weapons, and no wars could have ever happened in the history of mankind because no army in the world was ever fully perfect and equipped with the cutting edge necessary weapons they needed
No army inWW2 was fully equipped with the necessary weapons and relied mostly on horses for transport... The very blitzkrieg strategy consisted exactly of achieving breakthroughs and encircling the enemy with the mobile forces while the less-mobile forces (the infantry which relied in horses for transport, which was most of the army) attacks the encircled bulges of the enemy
@Mark12Strang " resources were wasted , Germany lacked oil and other raw materials."
Okay, so wars never happened in the world and mankind always lived peacefully because no country in the world was ever self-suficient in all the resources they needed (that's why importations and commerce were invented) and countries can never wage wars when they are not absolutely self-sufficient in all resources existent on earth, right?
If Germany didn't want a war of agression since they weren't fully equipped with the necessary weapons and lacked resources so why the allies waged war on Germany since they also lacked the necessary weapons and lacked resources and were much more unprepared for war?
I was ignorant that there where some people that genuinely believed that he was not an expansionist. Thanks for the enlightening!
Sad, isn't it
its the same thing as chemtrails and lizard people. A certain percentage of people is just retarded and will believe whatever they need to keep their worldview, thats the unfortunate truth.
Peace-loving British, American and Israelis have never been the aggressor. Never. Ever.
Great historical analysis, as always
Cherry picked documents and strawman arguments. No wonder Tik is popular with the masses đ
@@mattkierkegaard9403 then which documents do you consider legit?
@@mattkierkegaard9403 #EuropaTheLastBattleDocumentary
the only thing i find a bit weird about the hossbach memorandum is all them high ranking guys at this meeting and then just a colonel who was just a liaison officer actually having the clearance for such a meeting is questionable
From what I understand he was just a note keeper. So to use a colonel for that just shows how high you can move up the ranks being a purely desk job officer.
these are great videos Tik, I thought I knew a lot about history and now I know I didn't. Anyone that has a pop at you is daft (polite term). I'm a left of centre person, but recognise the evil of the various ideologies and can see how thorough and even handed you are. Fascinated learning from you, thank you.
I would say although an interesting event I never heard of, I feel proving Hitler fought a war of agression is kicking in an open door.
Is not new, some historians say than Roman Empire was "Pushed" to war and conquest..........a "Defensive" force.
Crazy that July is named in honor of Gaius Julius Caesar. In Finnish, it is literally hay-moon, because it is not an Indo-European language.
yeah romans loved to claim their wars where "defensive" all their wars where pre-emptive. But even then we have sources saying it was just for conquest offensively. But we all know Rome by the time after taking over Italy had long gone past being only defensive. what they did in the third Punic war for example was to just finish off a old enemy who was no longer a real threat to them at all.
Gaul was just for glory and gold, Britain for Tin and to give Claudius a military victory for his PR. i could go on.
TIK a very interesting presentation I have some comments 15:00 Case 2 France was in Political chaos in the early 1930s. 17:00 the Siegfried line was along way form being finished in 1939. 22:00 Czech defenses were fairly good. 28:00 It could be Hossbach took shorthand notes like Halder for the Memorandum
Thank you for another great video.
German guy here. The Hossbach Memorandum was part of my history curriculum in High School. The widespread ignorance about this subject around the world is baffling.
A war of aggression is the most disgusting term used in history.
Wars are by definition aggressive.
In the modern era, Vietnam was a war of aggression, the Afghanistan war was a war of aggression, any time two or more nations are involved in a war, it's a war of aggression.
The ridiculous distinction between both nations wanting war at the same time or not, is irrelevant.
No one talks about Genghis khan's war of aggression, or Alexander's war of aggression.
The term war of aggression is just a feeble modern justification of righteous cause, that the victorious use over the defeated to justify any actions they committed to win said war.
Using this term insults all of human history as a whole.
Allies were occupying countries all over the world...Poland was
occupying German territory...and Communists had already attempted a
takeover of Germany.
Did the colonists wage a war of aggression against the native americans?
yeah but we don't talk about how evil america is do we.
@@AFGuidesHD hey, fancy seeing you here
Excellent production as always. I believe your logical factual argument.
Hey Tik, this question is unrelated to the video but are you planning on doing any future battle storm series?
Of course! I mentioned this in last week's video, so go back and watch that
Given Hitler was insane and a monster, would he have known the difference between aggression and defence? Would he have cared? Isn't it a fact that his crimes and those crimes committed by those striving to please/serve him are vast and hellish too the point that no claims of defense can justify them?
The point may be important but it is still overshadowed by the vastness of Nazi warcrimes.
He was a monster, but he wasnât insane. Itâs better to judge him by his beliefs than a disability, as TIK says in his video about the idea.
A very realistic description of Germany's strategic situation, again showing that Hitler was more far-sighted than the German establishment, especially the military.
God bless you , another excellent video!
Hitler had breached 13 assurances, 8 treaties, 6 conventions, 3 solemn assurances, 2 agreements and one declaration against 12 different countries by 11 December, 1941. (The list is not comprehensive even then, as it doesn't, for example, include the Reichskonkordat with the Vatican, or other breaches after that date, often against fellow Axis countries.)
We appreciate the facts but arguing with Nazi apologists, historical "revisionists," is wasted breath. A person who thinks Nazi Germany had war thrust upon it or that Hitler didn't want war is impossible to convince because it's an ideologically-driven delusion.
In a similar vein, Germany in WW1 did not blunder into war or have it thrust upon them either. They made a calculated decision to exploit a local issue in the Balkans and they pushed Austria Hungary to make outrageous demands to Serbia, thereby guaranteeing a European-wide conflagration. Primary sources prove this.
True, but this also goes with an upcoming Patreon Q&A video asking whether Poland's aggressive foreign policy caused her own destruction, so I thought it best to show how Hitler wanted to wage war first before we got to that. The source I take on in this video (Mr Hoggan's "The Forced War") is still being used by the Nazis to argue that Poland (and Britain) started WW2
@@Edax_Royeaux the problem is geopolitics, it would have been idiocy of the highest magnitude for Germany to just hope france doesn't invade Germany whilst Germany fights a war against France's ally in Russia.
@@TheImperatorKnight It's pretty pathetic to call anyone who disagrees with a specific idea a "Nazi", it's a transparent discrediting tactic. Also if you're trying to imply that Hitler's wanting to go on the offensive means that therefore the Germans must have started World War 2 you're engaging in an obvious logical fallacy. Hitler could logically have wanted a war but also not have been the one that started it.
@@TheImperatorKnight If you think poland having an aggressive foreign policy wasn't a big part of why it got attacked you really, really don't understand the political climate of the time. You do realize that the very existence of the polish state was despised by both the germans and the russians from its inception right? Both had territorial claims on what became poland after the first world war for different reasons. Polands actions and foreign policy weren't doing it any favors in the post ww1 years at all. Sooner or later somebody was going to go at them, whether hitler had come to power or not
@@Edax_Royeaux except Italy still might have not come to germany's aid like it didn't in 1939, despite having an alliance with Germany. Alliances and pacts are merely scraps of paper, as has been stated by world leaders many times throughout history
England colonized 40,000,000 sq km for living space and resources and the French built a similar Empire. We should also focus on what motivated the Nazis and what they aspired to build, an American-style manifest destiny in Eurasia.
The European people have a sordid history of aggressive war, WWII thankfully was the turning point that brought it down.
the Germans had an empire too but they lost that after losing ww1, another war of aggression
@@planet_69 Yeah but entente agression.
Thanks TIK for the video. I was not aware of the book "The Origins of the Second World War" nor the author, A.J.P. Taylor.
I appreciate specially the points, which with I agree, by the way:
"Despite the criticism, The Origins of the Second World War is regarded as a watershed in the historiography of the origins of the Second World War. In general, historians have praised Taylor for the following:
- In focussing on the improvised character of German and Italian foreign policy, he helped to create a debate over the degree to which fascist states were fulfilling a programme versus taking advantage of events.
- In highlighting certain continuities in German foreign policy between 1871 and 1939, he helped to place Nazi foreign policy in a wider perspective, although the degree of continuity is still subject to considerable debate.
- As the first English-language historian to bring attention to the work of the French economist and historian Ătienne Mantoux, especially his 1946 book The Carthaginian Peace: or The Economic Consequences of Mr Keynes, he was able to show that Germany was capable of paying reparations to France after the First World War; the only problem was that the Germans were unwilling. In this way, he started an important debate over who was really responsible for the hyperinflation that destroyed the German economy in 1923.
- In showing that appeasement was a popular policy and that there was continuity in British foreign policy after 1933, he shattered the common view of the appeasers as a small, degenerate clique that had mysteriously hijacked the British government sometime in the 1930s and who had carried out their policies in the face of massive public resistance.
- In showing that the Anschluss was enormously popular in Austria, he helped to discredit the notion of Austria as a victim of Nazi aggression brought unwillingly into the Reich.
- In portraying the leaders of the 1930s as real people attempting to deal with real problems, he made the first strides towards attempting an explanation of the actions of the appeasers rather than merely condemning them.
- He was one of the first historians to present Hitler as an ordinary human being rather than as a "madman", albeit one who held morally repellent beliefs, thus offering possibilities to explain his actions.
- In showing that Hitler just as often reacted as acted, he offered a balance to previous accounts in which Hitler was portrayed as the sole agent and the leaders of Britain and France as entirely reactive. "
Incredibly sad that there is even a debate if the Nazi's were waging a war of aggression
because demanding the self determination of people, at least for America when it goes to war, is not "aggressive" yet Germany was aggressive for demanding the self determination of Danziger's ?
Heck, pretty sure every time the British Empire colonised a country it was for "liberty and freedom"
@@AFGuidesHD let me blow your mind dude. Both were bad but Hitler was worse
@@AFGuidesHD Plenty of countries will experience the Reich definition of "self determination".
Seem that results depends of your germanic race scale ...
@@alexandredelneste270 yeah and Poland would experience the British guarantee lol
(I'm sure you know that the British gave Poland away to the Soviets) after using them as a trojan horse against Germany.
@@AFGuidesHD It would be a Trojan horse if Germany didn't know that invading Poland would lead to war with France amd Uk.
20 years after Versailles, Germany would be bigger than pre WW1.
They pushed Poles to negotiate after German ultimatum of late August, and offered one last chance of withdrawal to Hitler after invasion.
You claim it was about self determination of Dantziger. Splitting of Poland with new "friend" Stalin tells another story ...
As for Brits offering Poland to Soviets. Did Brits were in any position of opposing Stalin wishes after ww2 over Eastern-Europe ?
Any reason to continue after biggest conflict in European History. With a huge Red Army against US nukes.
In the end we will have the "cold" war, exporting US imperialism against communism all around the world. Resulting in open conflict once again.
I also heard a former ss soldat from DK that said the war against USSR/kommunisme that Nazis regime where an early version of UN and NATO...
WTF.......
Ummm yeah...they were. Finland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Italy, Spain, Romania and Germany were all aligned against the Soviet Union with a common goal of disbanding it before the SU blasted into Eastern/Central Europe. That was a âEuropean Unionâ consolidating forces and resources to protect its continent. Hell Hitler wanted England to join and displayed that goal up to late 1940...even allowing the British Expeditionary force to leave the continent when the tanks could have rolled through Dunkirk or the luftwaffe could have carpet bombed the beaches to rubble. The anti-Comintern pact was the front line or bulwark against an S.U invasion...and guess what...when that âE.Uâ was disbanded/defeated...the Soviet Union rolled through Europe and took the eastern half of the continent...until the âleague of nationsâ or NATO put them in check by ensuing a Cold War of nuclear deterrence. The pre-war League of Nations was a pact of various worldwide countries with special interests...they were not a pro-Europe faction.
No no no. Hitler definitely just wanted to wage a defensive war. Why else would he build thousands of tĚśaĚśnĚśkĚśsĚś tractors for farm work?
(Joke question fyi)
because they didn't have any tractors for farm work ?
@@AFGuidesHD wow you're really going ham defending nazis eh? Interesting
@@EdgarStyles1234 You only have to look at the 1931 Weimar attempt at a customs union with Austria to sympathise with the idea of having a military.
Germany and Austria wanted to form a customs union, France said no and that was the end of it. Without an army, Germany could not pursue even a peaceful foreign policy.
@@AFGuidesHD Such a shame.
The warning of incoming comments is unnecessary and annoying, so I won't bother. I have to admit that I had forgotten the Hossbach Memorandum spelled out so much. The Wannsee Conference notes and The Order of the Death's Head by Heinz HĂśhne ( very underrated book looking inside the SS and rise of the Nazi party ), have so much information that is similar and concurrent as Tik shows here, have been my go to sources for years.
Thanks for the video Tik. (:
You are not the world. Some of us appreciate the warning.
"Remember remember the 5th of November...
I can think of no reason the gunpowder treason should ever be forgot."
I find it highly ironic that a bunch of late 20th and 21st century anarcho-libertarians have adopted as their symbol a man who plotted to assassinate an entire democratically elected legislature and replace them with a foreign-imposed theocracy.
YOOOO 50 SECONDS AFTER POST PERSONAL RECORD
Third! :D
Weird you should post this now TIK. I just this last week ran across the name "Institute for Historical Review" for the first time. A guy commenting on a CZcams video suggested I watch a half hour video produced by this organization. It didnt take me a half hour to figure out what it was up to. When it validated itself by quoting hilter I just had to laugh. Like he was a reliable character! Wow. -- BTW, I dont understand why anyone would destroy an original of a document but make a copy of it first. Any idea why somebody would do that?
resistance -a public servant may get an order to destroy stuff and copies some to keep a record , like a whistleblower; the copier was a count, the nobility was quite in opposition to the Nazis, like on the 20th July 1944
@@aasphaltmueller5178 Ok. yeah that makes sense. Thanx.
Interesting that Hitler regarded Czechoslovakia and Poland as such prominent enemies and focused his attention to them rather than the Soviet Union. Sounds to me that he wanted to conquer the immediate neighbors but then things went out of hand, or?
@B A Yes, and that's what TIK has argued before. But isn't this memorandum is stark contrast to that? Or is it that this is just an excerpt of the memorandum, and they also talked about invading the Soviet Union?
Good video once more, Lewis! Can I point out, though it is not relevant to this video in particular, that the word 'quay' is pronounced 'key'. This is a minor error compared to the massive amount of research and reasoned arguments that you provide across the gamut of the sum total of your videos. I appreciate the hours and hours that it takes you to provide this content. All the best!
Liebensraum was Germany's version of Manifest Destiny.
yeah and one of them was pure unthinkable evil whilst the other was "The epic story of America" on History channel.
@@AFGuidesHD a million subs and you're a nazi lol
@@EdgarStyles1234 No, do tell me why America isn't "the greatest evil of all time" despite murdering millions of native americans in order to gain their own living space ?
@@AFGuidesHD Because as bad as the native genocides were, they weren't nearly as organized and as intentional as things like the holocaust were
Does anyone know who first approached who regarding the German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact?
The Soviets negotiated with the British and French. Thus they had enough pressure against Germany to get a better deal.
No. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact has been disputed. Germany reached out to Russia but claims Russia had reached out to them in secret prior. As far as i know, no actual evidence exists of this, only that Germany reached out to Russia, whether first or not, unknown.
@@seanadler918
The Nazis couldn't have an alliance with both Japan and The Soviet Union.
It was when they gave up on The Japanese (late July) that they began serious approaches to The Soviets.
thank you for another great video
Thank you. You did an amazing work
Ever thought of talking about Mechelen Incident TIK?
Allies were occupying countries all over the world...Poland was
occupying German territory...and Communists had already attempted a
takeover of Germany.
â
@ Cyber Hermit Yes, you are right, but that is not a justification for Hitler's racist agenda.
@@dragosstanciu9866 Hitler was no more racist than any other people around the world in the 1930's...certain Arab countries still have racist marriage laws.
@Sin Collector That's where you are wrong and don't understand occupation and forced treaties...The nationalists who fought in WW1 didn't sign any treaty.
â@Sin Collector There are many historical examples of people ignoring or rebelling against corrupt, unfair and immoral laws and treaties. The people absolutely decide. Danzig was 98% ethnic German and occupied.
"You should start a discord" said by the thousandth person for the millionth time
Which sea did Hitler sail across? I laughed so hard. Yes, I Do need to get out more.
Hope I don't get called a Nazi but I think the truth (as usual) is in-between. Without "Mein Kampf" the "innocent reaction" could be believable. With it, it's a bit hard to swallow. But. When it comes to the Soviet Union, yes, it was a war of aggression. No question about it. But when it comes to France? I doubt the Germans would have attacked France (or the UK) if they did not declare war on Germany. So, in my opinion, the Western Front was a reaction. The Eastern Front was a war of aggression.
You doubt that Germany would have attacked France and the UK if it wasn't for their declaration of war, but the French and British leaders at the time could not trust Hitler, thus they could not let the Nazis dominate central and eastern Europe. No one knew how far Hitler's ambitions would go.
French and Brits war declaration can be labelled as reactive too.
How would they deal with Germany if Hitler ever defeat SU and dominates Europe
âGERMANY NEEDED SPACE TO SURVIVEâ
Germany shrunk after WWII and is now doing better than ever
But only as part of an integrated European economy, and that was utter anathema to Hitler and the Nazis. The same goes for Japan - it's doing much better than it did under militarist rule, but only because it gave up trying to conquer all its neighbors and agreed to trade peacefully with them instead.
@@brucetucker4847 right, that demonstrates that the Nazis were wrong about what Germany needed to survive and therefore their decision to start WWII was not justified, as it was based on incorrect assumptions
@@JohnnyHikesSW Extremist regimes (Nazis, communists) exist solely because they're founded on massively wrong assumptions.
Not since 2015
European countries are more cooperative this time around.
Hey tik! Great video! One question, after watching your video about Himmler insane theories i checked at your sources but i couldnt figure out something. Wich ones are the ones that talk about all those crazy theories of aryan souls and all that esoteric stuff you mention? Thanks in advance!
Given the internal strife in France in 1937 i.e. French internal politics, Popular Front, Spanish civil war effects on internal French politics, it could have been the driving force for calling this meeting.
To be honest, anyone who says Hitler didn't Start WWII is nuts. Most of the arguments I've come across are generally loony. For example: "Well if Poland just gave Germany Danzig none of this would of happened." My reply would be, "Well that still means Hitler waged a war of aggression against Poland, at the VERY LEAST for the Danzig Corridor." Though I honestly believe giving Poland the Danzig Corridor was a huge political mistake by the Western Powers after WWI, as it did give someone like Hitler a major political excuse for war which helped greatly at convincing the masses to fight said war, but even the Danzig Corridor wasn't enough, but it did give him fuel to burn. However that does not mask the fact that Hitler shot first, and I don't care what some of the pro Nazi Wehraboos say when they say "No the Poles shot first." All the examples they often bring up are idiotic, even if the Polish Nationalist wanted a war with Germany, they were still not the ones to start that war. But in my Opinion, even if the Polish Government caved to German demands for Danzig, Hitler would of likely just found another excuse later on for a conflict, it was not beneath the Nazis to conduct False flag operations, we know they did prior to September 1st and they would of likely done so anyways.
"as E. H. Carr has argued, 'the use or threatened use of force to maintain the status quo may be morally more culpable than the use or threatened use of force to alter it"
The conditions for ww2 were setup before hitIer was even in power, it doesn't even matter where the fighting started. The bankers wanted germans eIiminated, either through quick means or slow means as we are seeing used today. To make their slow repIacement work though they could not starve out germany, which awoke the people to who their enemles were. In fact germany is still under wartime occupation, and have no nation.
@Half life 3 that quote does refute his entire fundamental argument
Great demonstration as usual, irrefutable arguments against revisionist BS. Hats down!
Thanks Anton! I need to reply to your emails, and I'll make it a priority tomorrow!
France & Uk declared war on Germany. Thus, France & Uk turned a continental conflict into an international war. But sure, this video doesnât need to focus on that primary fact when there are so many other secondary facts he can cherry pick to fit his argument. Hmm C grade at best
@@mattkierkegaard9403
Germany attacked Poland. France and the UK guaranteed its independence so they declared war upon Germany.
So Germany is the aggresor.
He did not start World War II but he fought a war of aggression, technically speaking France and Britain started World War by declaring war on Germany when they invaded Poland. Might be a moot point and Hitler may have invaded France anyway but he did not declare war on France and Britain. I've always thought that he really just wanted to fight Russia
A bit like Austria attacking Serbia in 1914 was a regional war, until Russian intervention caused it to become a World War...
Tik, a 50 minute video dissecting the Hossbach Memo isn't necessary to prove Hitler wanted to wage a war of aggression. If Mein Kampf didn't prove that alone, simply pointing to his massive scale of rearmament should do it. He didn't build battleships like the Bismarck just to create jobs. Germany went from a military that would have serious trouble taking on Belgium, to one that crushed France in barely over half a decade. Everyone knew what he was planning they just chose to close their eyes to it. All they had to do was send a few troops over when he reoccupied the Rhineland and he would have been stopped in his tracks allowing France, Britain, Poland and even the Soviet Union to catch up. His troops did have secret sealed orders to high tail it back to Germany proper if France made any sort of move to oppose his retaking the Rhineland. He was bluffing and no where near ready for war and could have been stopped very early. Too bad they were still suffering from shellshock from the Great War. Any sort of move today would have been immediately rebuffed. Great video though. I have never gotten around to studying Hossbach and I am glad you did it for me and explained it nicely. Well done!!
I am sorry, I still do not see how there can be NO doubt about the authenticity. But it is also immaterial. All the empires were deliberating over supply chains, expansion and war.
Yea it was ironic that Great Britain and France criticized Mussolini for conquering territory in Africa when they had conquered and presently owned huge tracts of Africa !! For me but not for thee !! Same as itâs always been.
But not extermination of nations.
â@@llllib I am not sure the Hossbach memo is out of the ordinary, though WannSee 1942 was an outlier, I would venture. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history
@@nkristianschmidt I don't see Great Britain or France preparing program of systematic extermination of nations there. If you do, please point me to the specific one.
@@llllib The Hossbach 1937 memo does not concern what Wannsee 1942 did.
Any of those things you mentioned would have convinced a thinking person.
"a thinking person"... Now there's the problem.
Cool. Well think about this: a continental conflict (Poland - German) was turned into an international war when France & Uk declared war on Germany.
So much for German aggression ...
â@@mattkierkegaard9403 Germany declared war on Poland.
Britain and France promised Poland to help in case Germany (Germany only, not anyone else) invades them.
Given these facts I conclude that Poland, and by extension Britain and France, are the aggressors.
@@caelestigladii Wtf, Germany attacked. Stop saying stupid things.
@@jorgecas5678 /r whoosh
I wasn't even aware that there was a debate on whether or not he did. If he didn't, then what does one call a "war of aggression?"
" what does one call a "war of aggression?""
any war involving america
Great video!
âNuclear Poison.â
Putin, is that you?
or a nato member... As far as i know, there is only accusation, spinn and no proof it was russian or an order from putin
No, he mean clearly that ex kgb guy Viktor Suworow.
Well I think the first hint might have been when he STARTED A WAR OF AGGRESSION...
Yeah, it's funny how they miss that clue.
@@hermitoldguy6312 The English colonized 40,000,000 sq km for living space, don't think you're off the hook either Hermit.
@@empowl1607 40,000,000 sq km? Sounds like your mom.
Perfect I needed something to listen to.
Hitlerâs war plans had, in my opinion using âmainstreamâ historical sources, been the goal of closing the Danzig corridor. He then decided on the basis of French inaction over the Polish invasion that he had a golden opportunity to obtain access to ports on the bay of Biscay. So, imports from overseas, U Boats and warships had a chance to evade the British blockade. Forgotten was the fact that RAF Bomber and Costal Command and the Fleet air arm had the ability to expand the British blockade.
The pacification of the Soviet Union served its purpose of lulling the Soviets with a false sense of safety.
@Tik, I love your âYou Nazi/Stalin sympathizers are STOOOPIDâ videos. Keep them coming.
Did Hitler think about an "aggressive" war against the USSR or Czechia? yes.
Did Hitler want a war against anyone else? No.
TIK, this is one of the greatest vids I've seen, and I've seen basically all history content of yours. This should be sent to the IL Principal who just got rehired plus 150k in back pay, while being an out spoken Holcost Denier.
Do you have a link to the story about the Principal?? I'd like to read about that
Also, glad you liked the video!
@@TheImperatorKnight I'll look. Shouldn't be difficult let you know asap
Did you see the link? I know I'm not a patron but will be soon. I find the entire German Lutheran church not wanting a separation of church and state. But intertwined and are guilty in not only payback holocaust for JEWS MURDERING JESUS....but the entire Balkan powder keg.....honestly, there is almost too much history to try and understand.
While Germany was planning aggression what were Britain, France, USA, and Soviet Russia doing. Did they not have contingency (different word meaning the same thing) of their own.