Appeasement: The 10 Steps to World War Two
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 06. 2024
- 'The 10 Key Causes of the Second World War'
After the Great War of 1914-18, European powers were desperate to avoid another conflict of that scale. But just 20 years later, they found themselves plunged into catastrophe on an even greater scale.
The outbreak of World War Two has been blamed on the policy of 'appeasement' - with the Great Powers of Europe failing to stand up to German leader Adolf Hitler's aggressive foreign policy until it was too late.
Tim Bouverie, author of 'Appeasing Hitler: Chamberlain, Churchill and the Road to War', comments on the gathering storm of the 1930s, unleashed in September 1939.
Discover the past on History Hit with ad-free exclusive podcasts and documentaries released weekly presented by world renowned historians Dan Snow, Suzannah Lipscomb, Lucy Worsley, Mary Beard and more. Watch, listen and read history wherever you are, whenever you want it. Available on all devices: Apple TV, Amazon Firestick, Android TV, Samsung Smart TV, Roku, Xbox, Chromecast, Xfinity, and iOs & Android.
Sign up to History Hit now and get 14 days free: access.historyhit.com/checkout
We're offering a special discount to History Hit for our subscribers, get 50% off your first 3 months with code CZcams: www.access.historyhit.com/
#historyhit #worldwartwo #appeasement
00:00 Introduction
02:54 10. The Great Depression (1929-39)
04:00 9. Adolf Hitler Seizes Control (1933-34)
06:49 8. Hitler Takes the Saarland (1935)
07:41 7. Rearmament (1936)
09:49 6. Re-occupation of the Rhineland (1936)
11:22 5. Anschluss With Austria (1938)
12:58 4. Sudetenland Crisis (1938)
18:19 3. Occupation of Czechoslovakia (1939)
20:21 2. The Nazi Soviet Pact (1939)
21:26 1. The Invasion of Poland (1939)
Crazy how the Treaty of Versailles wasn’t #10 - WWII could not have happened without how WWI ended
Yeah this video and this channel is just repeating the old outdated propagandistic version of history we've been hearing for decades now.. "Hitler invading the Rhineland" somehow was a cause of WW2, but not Chamberlain's Peace Front Policy or Versailles dictate ? It's rather silly.
The Treaty of Versailles should of been number one and mostly it was the reparations. People don't understand that reparations kept people in Germany in a state of need and diminished opportunity for over a decade.
7:30
9:03
Wow. What did they touch on there?
@@AFGuidesHD this is probably one of those channels someone makes purely for money. They hire people to make the video and do voiceovers
This channel and others like it (such as the self proclaimed historian channels) are pure garbage. They repeat history given to them by the victors and make damn sure not to let you hear from the German perspective nor Hitler’s perspective. Instead, telling you what to think and believe. Telling you what and who they want you to believe actually started the war, what the perspective of Germans or Hitler through their version of events. They would have to explain their lies if they actually allowed the perspective of Hitler and/or Germans to be included.
In his 1954 book, "The Gathering Storm" Churchill was much more kind to Chamberlain than many are today. His assertion was that Chamberlain was forced into appeasement because he was unable to effect adequate rearmament in Britain and knew that the RAF was unable to match the Luftwaffe's numbers at that time. The British public was vehemently against rearmament in the mid thirties because of its belief that the Versailles Treaty protections, convinced that the presence of weapons would create conflict and its disgust at the wastage of WWI. The wealthy Conservatives and the Labor/Liberals formed a coalition opposed to rearmament based on the Conservatives' opposition to government spending of any kind that would increase taxes, while Labor wanted any defense funds reserved for social programs. Chamberlain was finally able to coax more defense appropriations from Parliament but by that time Britain was trying to catch up and Chamberlain was forced to buy time. At the same time, France was unwilling to act without Britain because of its unwillingness to bear a war fought on French soil as had been WWI.
last time i checked, it's the libtards that are very rich, in real life
So well put. I love history and especially the Second World War. Neville Chamberlain I hate when I see a documentary and it puts it out there like he was aloof, and in truth all's he wanted really was peace and he didn't want his fellow countryman killed by war. He knew from the First World War the brutality of war. He was willing to put his career on the line and went to Munich to try desperately for peace. Hitler really convinced him beyond all doubt he was truthful. He knew he was not and prayed he was. Churchill coming on after Chamberlain was probably the perfect combination. I don't think anyone could of led the way Churchill did. They both are heros to me.
@@chadczternastek I have to admire Churchill's honesty in acknowledging the circumstances present which limited Chamberlain''s ability to act. He could have drawn a contrast between the two men's personalities and asserted that this gave him superior leadership ability over Chamberlain. To his credit, he did not do so.
I recommend the book that I cited. Although Churchill's writing style can be drawn out and tedious, his first- hand insights are valuable.
@@chadczternastek yes a great succession, they made a success of it all.
@@jimcronin2043 Hoare publisned his memoir in 1954, Churchill published in 1948, and Halifax in 1957, both Hoare and Halifax wrote pointing out unquestionably deceitful references by Churchill to Baldwin, and Halifax the injustice to Chamberlain that specifically implicated Halifax, and Churchill wrote deceitfully of the succession, contradicting what he told John Colville, a comprehensive but very defective book written as his case to be allowed a peace-time Premiership. His kindness to Chamberlain really ended relative to the funeral event, speech and letters.
History is repeating itself but now the stakes are even higher.
No winner of the next one that's for sure
@@ni9901 nah, the next one will happen in europe and US. the rest of the world doesnt care.
History never repeats itself, it just mirrors the myriad of circumstances before in a slightly different way. Look up the metaphor of Indra's web. We can learn patterns from the past to assist with decisions in the future, but the variables of the equation are different. And yes the stakes always become higher in the present, but they are also less than those in the past because those in the past have had a longer time to take effect on our planet.
Yes. They’ve been banned and banned again their long noses are up to no good again!
The choice of the background music is phenomenal
I can’t believe being a man in 1939 listening to chamberlain announcing war with germany.. knowing too well how ww1 was. Listening to the speech myself brought me to tears..
What do u mean?
Frankly quite surprised that the Treaty of Versailles wasn't mentioned as a key cause, given how much of a direct reason it was for WW2.
Really? Why than didn't Hitler stop after he had rebuilt its army and had taken Czechoslovakia and Austria?
@@slavzahariev3901 the treaty's terms and the frustrations it created pushed Germans toward far right fascism/nationalism and paved the way for the likes of Hitler to rise. By the time the West acknowledged the harshness of the terms, it was too late - fascism had risen to power and the people were left to the whims of dictators who took control. Obviously, they were given a good push by the Great Depression as well.
Its terms were used as propaganda, and a reasn wny pure, innocent and victimized by the allies, Germany had been. After WW1 no country wanted another war, right? A country rushing back into such madness would have to be collectively mad!! 😮
Remember that Hitler and all right nationalists blamed the civilian government for stabbing its undefeated military in the back for agreeing to peace terms with the Allies. This was nonsense as Germany was out of supplies and could thus not persue any more fighting.
@@gregorybezanson Either that or when you elect a nationalist warmonger who will shoot you if you say, Nay, you have no say in the matter other than comply. Multiple opposition coalitions were executed in Germany. It's not like Germans as a whole wanted war from the onset, Hitler made not wanting conquest for Germany a crime punishable by death
I always thought the major cause of WWII was WWI.
Love your work 👍
Well, the seeds of WW2 were planted at the end of WW1. Even Field Marshal Foch said the Treaty of Versailles wasn't peace. But an Armistice for twenty years.
Well WW1 resulted into the Treaty of Versailles and that treaty is by far the biggest cause of WW2. And it's really a shame they didn't go deeper into that treaty.
@@lordbigsnake - THAT'S what makes me believe they're aware that they are serving up propaganda. It's a shame; every one of History Hit's videos contains a treasure-trove of video, film footage well worth watching, as long as you REMEMBER that THEY HAVE AN AGENDA.
It was
do you think the current russia-ukraine war was caused by ww2 as well?
Imho WW1 never really ended, it had a break and resumed in 1939.
Ferdinand Foch said that the Treaty of Versailles wasn't a treaty, but a 20 year ceasefire. He said that long before WW2 broke out. This isn't even your opinion, nor is it new. However, the academic debate over whether or not to view them as the same event is raging with most historians disagreeing because of how much the dynamics changed. We can argue that a lot of events and their successors are the same thing if we want to blur the lines of the artificial boxes humans set up to define what is and is not.
Absolutely
The treaty of Versailles was the MAIN REASON
So regardless if someone other than Hitler was leader if Germany the war would have happend, let alone on the same scale?
Unbelievable that there is no mention the Balfour Declaration.
With all due respect to the makers of this film but the war was already in full swing in Asia. This film documents the lead up to the war in Europe. The subject is much more complex than shown here.
Actually no. I would argue that it didn’t become a world war until England and France joined bevacuse their colonial empires made its ‘world war’ the fighting between Japan and chine was a regional conflict at best.
@@alanb9443 I what you mean, which is the same rationale for The Seven Years War being a global conflict. My point is that the video says about the European war eventually spreading to the Pacific and the Far East. It didn’t. Japan had different war aims to Nazi Germany and Italy and there was only limited interaction between the nominal allies. When Japan attacked the Americans in December 1941 they also attacked the British and Dutch Empires at roughly the same time and then in an act of solidarity with the Japanese, Hitler and Mussolini then declared war on the US. This is really when it became a truly global conflict. This video takes a purely European stance. Until December 1941 the Second World War were a collection of regional conflicts.
@@markunger1098 %100 correct.
@@alanb9443 If you don't agree that the world war was already under way in Manchuria for roughly a decade before Germany invaded Poland, I recommend Dan Carlin's Hardcore History series Supernova in the east about the Pacific theater. I recognize that France and GB are major world powers; but so is China and Japan. Japan had recently defeated Russia in a War, and China has been a world power since Julius and Mark A. We're reorganizing the Roman State.
True. The Japanese invasion of China had already been in full swing for a couple of years. Both “wars” would eventually “join up”, but they started out as 2 separate independent wars.
📻🙂
I would like to say
thanks to everyone at history hit , you have created some great content for all of us to enjoy!
Brilliant propaganda that adds nothing new to to the intellectual conversation about World War II. There are so many holes and key facts missing its ridiculous. They encapsulated a range of info in here, but only from one perspective.
It's very well done. I still think Europa the last battle is the best WW2 documentary.
@@dudebro3250 this adds nothing of value, please provide a rationalised critique or say nothing. your response is anti-intellectual.
@@calvindevries have a day off
Well presented
Well done
(1) Nazi Germany in March 1939 did not occupy all of (Rest-) Czechoslovakia, only the Czech part; Slovakia declared independence.
(2) The narrative focusses on Germany's actions, which are well-known and covered in the standard textbooks.
But French and British actions are less well analyzed in the same standard textbooks.
In 1936 Popular Fronts (including the Communists) were elected into government in France and Spain, and the option of a French-Spanish-Soviet alliance was discussed.
This made the British government nervous; such an alliance would threaten the balance of powers on the European continent. For centuries it had been British policy to
maintain the balance of powers on the continent by supporting the perceived weaker side.
In 1936 who would be that weaker side ? Italy and Germany. The concessions made in early appeasement to Italy and Germany were a message to the French government.
By 1938, the French Popular Front government had collapsed, the feared alliance had not materialized, and so Britain could refocus on "the other threat", posed by
Germany.
(3) The war theatre in the Far East was not covered.
The video states, the war started in Europe and then spread to Africa and the Far East. The inhabitants of Shanghai and Nanjing might disagree.
Whatever you read, unless it's old material classified as illegal or faked, you learned the jewish version of the tale, like everyone else.
Even with your corrections, you will still have the wrong picture of what really happened and why.
@@palkys.how do you know that, despite all evidence and logic?. did you read it? and trust it!?
China did not declare war on Japan until America did on Dec 8, 1941 (after the attack on Pearl Harbor). Both China and Japan were not officially in the state of war until that date.
Interesting how giving a military guarantee to a disputed territory whilst both parties were in talks to solve the dispute peacefully wasn't a key cause of WW2.
Interesting how you classify this "disputed territory" as something Germany was willing to "peacefully" resolve. Given how Germany went on to invade the whole country regardless, proving that their intentions were simply conquest.
Finally someone said it
When people really don't want war, they will allow evil to grow. All it takes for evil to grow is for good people to do nothing. Thus the paradox, if you want peace, you must prepare for war. The fact us, our ideals and philosophy are not shared by every tribe on Earth.
@@Molandria "if you want peace, you must prepare for war"
Unless you're called Germany right ?
@@AFGuidesHD Did they want peace? irregardless if your ideals of peace are to withstand people like hitlers ideal of peace, you must prepare for war for his ideals will impose upon you eventually
One more thing to note is that Germany was taking Japan's example when they left the League of Nations., which they did in response to the League's condemnation of the invasion of Manchuria in 1931.
The main reason for the second world war was the treaty of Versailles 1919
It is not a one reason only thing. WW1 and the Versaillelpeace was step one then came the backslide of deomocracy and economical depression...
You mean Germany losing and so wanted another crack.. General Pershing opposed 1918 Armistice because it let Germans think they hadn't been militarily defeated... and so would try again.. and he was right..
That's the excuse they give us.
@@andrew8168beat me to it
If your an advocate of mainstream history and believe the bs they try convince you of. You need to enlighten yourself about theosophy, gnostics, and the order of the black sun, the thule society and their ideological beliefs.
Wasn't the main point the British prosecutor made in the Nuremburg triels was that there was absolutely no way any German could not have known what was happening since it was made, almost to the point, clear in Mein Kampf?
have you read Mein Kampf? Obviously, not if you´re claiming this
@@federicobustonunez9991 popular history means a lot of ppl think they know its contents, when they in fact do not. i haven't been able to finish it myself, i only took enough excerpts to finish my papers before moving on to the next one dissertations for my undergrad.
I haven't read Mein Kampf but I have read a couple of articles discussing what was said about Jews, so take my comment with a grain of salt. Apparently Hitler had no problem with Nationalist Jews i.e. Jews that saw themselves as German first, nor religious Jews, but had issues with marxist Jews, who he claimed wanted to engineer a marxist revolution in Germany.
Another factor that may have influenced German opinion or understanding was in 1933 the American Council Jews, the precursor to the World Council of Jews declared war on Germany and requested the rest of the world boycott all trade and German made products. The vote to declare war was close as many had concerns for repercussions against European Jews
@@damo5701 I can understand this. One of my professors is an expert on Hitler and on 19th and 20th century history and he will not cease to claim that the rise of nationalism in Europe starting around 1870/81ish was one of the largest influences in WW1 and more importantly 2. The only issue is that my prof is also a VERY devout Marxist. Obviously there were many reasons for the anti-Semitism but the general fear that the Jews held loyalty to an organization higher than the nation, which happened to be mostly Christian, can definitely be seen as a primary factor in why the cultural divide expanded so radically and violently. Centuries of alleged ritual murder, alleged secret societies, and the tendency of Jewish families to somehow always get rich(generally due to Biblical laws on lending money and cultural practices), lead to a lot of mistrust between the Jewish and Christian/ethnic Europeans. Heck in the Netherlands, society was so segregated along socio-political lines that they had a term, at the beginning of the 20th century for it: "verzuiling", meaning pillarization. There were four standard "pillars" of society that essentially operated without interacting with the other groups, the Protestants, Catholics, Socialists, and Liberals. But some papers I've read argue that Jews were the "fifth pillar". And this pillarization didn't just happen in the Netherlands, its just the clearest example.
one of the main pillars of understanding those times it's going back to the Bolshevik revolution, WWI, etc Best thing is to look for publications, newspapers during those times and pre WWII. Not easy to find but you will find a complete different story of what's being told today. Heck, even in the 50s, 60s reports are way different from today's. Current story is closer to a Hollywood movie than actual facts
so many missing pieces
No mention of the Treaty of Versailles as being a cause of the war. When France under Napoleon was defeated, they were treated very lightly and lost almost no territory. The posh English guy has a very narrow view.
But a great deal of knowledge!
Never having read or studied it and just repeating narratives found elsewhere, right ?
Just maybe the treaty was acceptable ? How would you ever consider that ?
Why is his "posh" accent of any relevance ?
Versailles was a lot milder than the Kaisers terms if Germany won... The terms of the treaty might seem harsh to ppl today but to the French and Belgians especially it was still too mild.. they'd suffered horrendously.. Germany barely repaid reparations and by 1930 had virtually been let off . Weimar republic had borrowed heavily from USA.. to pay for the good times Germany enjoyed from mid 1920's before the wall street crash..
@@coling3957 What were Germany's terms? Versailles gutted their armed forces, took all of their colonies and significant amounts of their land along with forcing them to pay reparations. French troops marched in with the Belgians and killed a bunch of German civilians in the Ruhr when they failed.
What is the song playing during the Nazi-Soviet Pact? It gave me chills
Tres sondas - Robert Cray
1. The you know who's
2. The you know who's
3. The you know who's
4. The you know who's
5. The you know who's
6. The you know who's
7. The you know who's
8. The you know who's
9. The you know who's
10. It's the **** stupid.
Same as WW1.
Interesting
# 11 He was 82 years ahead of his time.
I really like videos like documentarys
This is so interesting. The channel is like a cool History teacher.
Watch Europa The Last Battle(documentary) instead of this meaningless video just repeating the disgusting propoganda made up by the winners
but it misses major points, is very biased and sucks at providing a range of resources for further research
Liked the guest narrator (Tim Bouverie), so did a bit of research to see if he'd published any other books on WWII. Somewhat surprised that he'd only done the one and his follow up book was about "100 Pieces of Classical Music" of all things.
Chamberlain's speech announcing the notice of war was so downbeat you could almost feel the disappointment and shame in his voice
You take more commercials then the actual history channel
Great video but surprised the Treaty of Versallies and the manner in which WW1 ended was not a standalone point as a key cause.
Given the economic impact, miliraty surprisseion and deep rooted grudges and resentment it caused, these all contributed to conditions that eventually allowed the Nazis to come into power and also enabled Germans to be more supportive of alot of the actions Hitler took in the rest of your list which did indeed lead to WW2.
I think The treaty of Versallies from a timeline should be number "0" on the list just before the first point.
I dont think the evidence of the Treaties effect on the German economy really stacks up. Reparation payments were not paid, disputed, and out stripped by foreign loans/investments.
However, as you said, it was used for political propaganda (by both Germany and the allies) which in itself can be considered a cause.
@@ltmund thanks for sharing your thoughts. Particularly on the reperation payments points. I've tried to share some easy to read and direct sources further below which aligns with what I mean.
In summary, the German Economy owed reperations and had thier colonies siezed (which was an economic output source they lost), this ontop of their war debt for funding their war made it even harder to keep up with reperation payments.
When Germany told france and Belgium it could no longer affoard payments, they retaliated by occupying parts of Germany that had mining industries as a means to still get their compensation. In retaliation the German Gov told the workers in that region to strike and promised to pay them their wages for being "patriotic". To keep up with the patriot payments, the German Gov started printing money which was the straw that broke the camels back and wrecked an already weak Deutshemark. In combination with a steel/coal industry that was producing little due to strike action.
When the workers refused to work despite being threated some were shot. Overall, 132 were killed and approximately 150,000 expelled from the area.
In all this created the long term economic effects that made Hitler's election possible and added to an anti-French pro nationalistic sentiment that Germans had post ww1 which fueled the pro Nazi Gov attitudes.Not to mention the public humiliation of being partially occupied and not being able to do anything about it all due to the outcome of WW1.
Hopefully that better explains my meaning of the Treaty of Versallie having an impact on causing WW2 amongst a lot of other conditions the treaty caused.
But happy to learn and to be corrected as I am open to being wrong.
www.dw.com/en/1923-how-weimar-combatted-hyperinflation/a-64184767
www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z9y64j6/revision/5
@@Maxrodon Nice Post, thanks.
Imho, a lot of history around the second world war has been influenced, quite understandably, by propaganda. Obviously, noone wants the blame for the rise of National Socialism and its inevitable thirst for war to be placed on them.
There has been a change in how societies define inflation. Inflation was, and imo still should be, defined as an increase in the supply of currency (not the rise in prices that are a symtom)
If you look at the increases in German money supply its clear to see that it started during the Great War and continued. It could be argued that the price rises seen during the weimar Republic were already 'baked in' and inevitable even without the treaty of versaille. Versaille just gave the impression to the germans they were being solely blamed for the Great War, and the allies that Germany was being punished. It was used as a propaganda tool by almost everyone.
It could be that the "stab in the back" myth surrounding the German surrender was probably more influential to Germans looking away from established political parties that played a greater part (although this still includes versaille)
Technically it’s number 8. The rearmament.
@@Maxrodon very great comment :) really open minded - greetings from Germany
What music was used in this clip ?
god damn History Hit, youve all got no idea how great this channel is. this has to be one of the best videos ever
Very funny.
Pity it’s all wrong
funny that they heart the unintellectual comments that gas them up, but don't care for the well reasoned critiques
It’s kind of interesting, if Germany would have avoided the world wars, their country would be much larger today. Germany lost a decent amount of land in the treaties.
Pre-war events:
•Italian invasion of Ethiopia (1935)
•Spanish Civil War (1936-1939)
•Japanese invasion of Chian (1937)
•Soviet-Japanese border conflicts
For the most, it is a fine summary of what leads up to WW II. Of course it is simplified, but with one exception it should serve as a fine introduction into the history of this terrible war.
The one exception is how the Nazi Soviet pact is depicted here. As a matter of fact, the Soviet Union had attempted to forge an alliance with the UK and France for quite some time previously, and Britain all but rejected these efforts as late as August 1938, sending just a minor rank emissary to Moscow who had no clear mandate to negotiate in the first place. Stalin, fearing that the Western Allies would use Nazi Germany against him, then turned around dramatically, signing the infamous and fatal pact with Nazi Germany. This was of course a gigantic error of judgement on his part, and his cynicism is morally reprehensible. But in the lead up to the pact, neither France nor Britain are without blame. They, too, grossly misjudged the situation.
There would have been room for at least a sentence or two about a proposed alliance between the USSR and Britain and France failing.
That being said: While the video is overall fine, I think the title is a bit of a misnomer. What is being described here - and accurately for the most - is what lead up to the war, and not the causes. They are somewhat more complex.
Treaty of Versailles should be #1 and Great Depression #2. (Claiming this before watching the video)
These are 10 helpful reasons for WWII.
Great video, throws up so many what ifs in regard to some of these events and the possible knock on effects, eg what if German remilitarising of Rhineland was opposed
Nice 👍
One could argue that WWII began with Japan's invasion of Manchuria. Or even Korea. This war didn't just last from 01 Sep 39 to 08 May 45. There was cessation of hostile action after these. Same after the invasion of Poland (albeit shorter).
Good show but far far far too many advert breaks
Is it just me or this is eerily similar to what is taking place at precent. We can only hope that there will be no video like this in 70 years with the topic "The 10 Key Causes of the third world war"
Great video. It's easy to judge in hindsight, I suppose, but the western powers should have figured it out. I was born in Prague, and today the Czechs still resent the Munich agreement.
Watch Europa The Last Battle(documentary) instead of this meaningless video just repeating the disgusting propoganda made up by the winners
An artificial country created after ww2 where the sudetenland Germans wanted out.. and the Slovaks.. how could anyone have done anything to help the Czechs from England and France, same with Poland.. The USSR could perhaps have something but we saw how they allied with Germany for mutual benefit in 1939.
Even when England and France sent its first units to hinder Germany's advance in France, the forces proved totally inadequate for the German military forces that had been built up. By this time, the reality was very daunting to the European nations which desired a continued peace. The Germans had been allowed a small army to defend its borders, as The USSR was an existential threat. But the Nazis had more sinister plans for an expansion of its armed forces.
Imperial Japan: Am I a joke to you?
Do I detect Mr. Grant's voice as narrator?
1913: before all these wars and chaos, the US created the Federal Reserve. Coincidence?
Yes
@@MrStacker26no
Worth remembering that the National Socialist German Workers Party was NOT SOCIALIST. They were just capitalising on a desire by misappropriating the term.
"Worth remembering that the National Socialist German Workers Party was NOT SOCIALIST. They were just capitalising on a desire by misappropriating the term."
You have no idea how foolish you appear.
It would be more accurate to state that the video was about the 10 key causes of the European theater of WWII. In fact, war in the Asian theater had been underway for several years - the war of conquest by Japan in China.
I agree. I thought they would at least mention this.
@ 4:40 "My son has an interesting take on the happenings in Germany in the mid 30's" . lol
you could add 11th cause: Chambarlain existed
Fascinating all the parallels of what's going on today...
The Treaty of Versailles wasn't tough enough on Germany in reality. Baldwin led the sell out with the Anglo German naval Treaty and allowing the re militarised Rhineland. Chamberlain wasn't a complete idiot, he pushed ahead on re-arming, civil defence, chain home air defence and the beginning of tube alloys and Bletchley Park
Tube Alloys was initiated in March 1940, with Chamberlain still PM, Churchill wasn't appointed until May 1940 and was only successful due to leading Labour Liberal coalition, with the Labour Party ministers largely running the home front, and deputy PM Atlee running the country for 9 months during June 1940 to June 1945
HH is a great channel and I enjoy 87.9% of the content. It’s impressive and reliable information.
…BUT they need to dial down the melodramatic background music. It’s distracting and, to be blunt, childish.
Don't shoot Ferdinand!
Only #9 and #10 arent directly tied to Worrd War II, really it should begin with the treaty of versailles.
22:31
I genuinely thought that they were invited?
Poland even served punch.. 🤷♂️
These are not causes, just stages!
Watch 'Europa the last battle'
What do you think of this video?
@@magicd5780
It is trash.
I'm watching it currently, I don't agree with everything they say but it's really interesting that so many things weren't taught to us in history class. For example the Polish massacre of German ethnic people living in Poland. Events like these are also leading reasons why WW2 happened.
@@yougeay it's a long document I grinded through all of it. I sourced slot of info on their as well and found it to be true.
@@magicd5780 it's a really interesting document which changes the way I look to history! However it's also really confusing that the things are really different than what was taught to us. That's the main reason why I don't have a clear view of history right now
The ONLY cause: the unjust Treaty of Versailles.
The fundamental reason for any given event is just one.
The Treaty of Versailles
Freakin' awesome content
Winners write the history
The commentary and descriptions. But not the cold hard facts.
Mostly angry bitter lunatics write history. The scribbles that others write down about them does not affect anything that happened. Alexander still destroyed Persia. Napoleon still took over most of Europe. And subsequently altered history. No matter how short lived their empires were. Same with Hitler. Losing the war did not mean his impact was less.
This is so relevant to today. I consider the 2014 ukraine holding back to the full scale Ukraine war we have today to be the equivalent of Chamberlain holding back. They know something is coming. They dont know when yet. But they prepare anyways. It wasn't the best preparation, but some is better than none.
11:07
But instead of getting stuck into Putin blindly like we did with Hitler, we played it smartly this time by simply aiding the Ukrainians. No more getting directly involved in other people's troubles like we did with Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. No more making us a target for the sake of others.
FUN FACT: WWII did NOT start on September 1, 1939 when Germany decided to invade Poland. The Second World War WAS initiated on September 3, 1939 when Britain and France declared war on Germany.
That's lile saying 'if Russia invade Poland they didn't start a world war because other nato countries declared war' .... Russia would still start it
@@callumatkinson4402 No son, I didn't say Germany didn't start a war. I said Germany did NOT start WWII.
Germany started a war with Poland. That war was just between Poland and Germany. France and especially Britain chose to involve themselves in a war that did not in any way pertain to them and by doing so, they broadened the conflict into a larger war.
Lol at France.
@@callumatkinson4402 Wrong. Its a choice to back up a security agreement, its not automatically enacted like a fire alarm reacting to smoke. Also, Chamberlain had already done NOTHING when Hitler entered Prague in March 1939 so don't pretend that taking aggressive action was the only choice.
This documentary conveniently removed Spain from the picture...
"Judea Declares War on Germany" read the headline in a prominent British newspaper March 28, 1933.
total caualties were "optimistacally" set as over 100 million in all countries involved, military and civilian!
In the world wars u could rally everybody included. Now days...not even close. Thats a humble individual thinking thing. Lets make it relevant and lasting.
What is the name of that opening song?
Well made production
Very clear. Should be part of a high school curriculum.
The treaty was considered too harsh by both France and Britain. France and the US warned Britain that it was too harsh, when it happened. Are we talking British buyer's remorse?
I think the treaty of versailles is just as important here. It set arguably unrealistic expectations of germany and pinned ALL the blame on the country. No doubt Germany was in the blame, but it left Germany in a dark place and it’s why someone like Hitler rose to power in the first place
Germany was not to blame for the outbreak of WW1, that's a matter between Austria-Hungary and Serbia. Other countries joined to honour their alliances and it snowballed into a large war.
@@qr8440They still invaded NEUTRAL Belgium, so Germany was definitely guilty and an agressor
@@Josep_Hernandez_Lujan As did Britain and France invade/coup neutral Greece.
WW1 was a group fuckup by all major european power, thinking after industrialisation of warfare, conflicts would still be like in the 100s of years before that. Whci in hindsight were skimishes compared to the death an destruction of WW1. Pinning it on Germany was one of the mistakes that made WW2 inevitable.
Who really was is not important for this comment.
I'm sick of this version of events
It doesnt look like list of key causes of WW2 but rather list of steps that lead towards WW2 and key points when WW2 could've been relatively easily prevented if only 2 major European powers of that time, UK and France, instead of looking the other way, decided to act and take the necessary steps to uphold Versailles and bunch other treaties and guarantees they themselves signed and agreed to.
It literally says in the opening credits it's going to track 10 key "steps" that led to the start of the conflict, I.e. the immediate conflict itself and not causes of the vast array of factors that contributed to rising tensions and alliances
It’s too late so I can’t be bothered to argue but I’ll just say that’s a very naive view. Hindsight is always 20/20
On 03.09.1939, after the ultimatum of Great Britain and France that Germany withdraw its troops from Poland, they declared war on Germany and the conflict grew into a global one. The conflict that started the German-Polish war was the city of Danzig (today's city of Gdansk). The city has been German for centuries and was never Polish, but became so after the end of the First World War. The reason is obvious so that Germany and her allies can be as much as possible punished and cut off territorially by the victors. The German chancellor's proposal to Poland in 1939 was to hold a referendum under the supervision of the Great Powers, that this was the only and last territorial claim it had to Poland, giving up the province of Poznan (which had also been a German province for centuries handed over to Poland after the end of World War I), offered a guarantee of Poland's territorial integrity, a non-aggression pact and a port in Danzig that the Poles would be able to use for trade. According to the Western press at the time, the proposal was very moderate and acceptable. But because of the guarantees already given to Poland by Great Britain (which are the first such given in its history to an Eastern European country), the Poles categorically refuse to the very end any compromise. Thus the Second World War broke out and after the capitulation of Poland, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and France, the German Chancellor again offered peace to the Great Britain, not intending in any way to violate the territorial and colonial integrity of the British Empire (which at that time owns 1/4 of the world) Churchill flatly refused, and after Roosevelt's later ultimatum for unconditional surrender, the war continued and destroyed the lives of more than 80 million people. And finally, the balance sheet from this war is as follows: the British Empire imagined to exist, 80 million victims, Europe in ruins, the transformation of the USSR into a world power, the enslavement of a number of peoples in Baltic , Eastern and Central Europe. It was not possible to reach a compromise on the part of Great Britain to hand over a city with 350 thousand German population, which for centuries was part of Germany in order to avoid war and the devastation of Europe, but a compromise was made by the Western countries to hand over 100 million Christians from Eastern and Central Europe to the mass murderer Stalin, who imposes his bloody puppet regimes that kill in a more brutal way the elite and the intelligentsia of the given nations. As a result, 16 of the 20 fastest-decreasing countries in the world are now former communist countries. In the first place in the world is Bulgaria, a country with less than 7 million people, but this did not prevent the communists from killing 220 thousand people (at the time when a puppet Soviet government was appointed) - the civil, political and military elite of the country were slaughtered cruelly . And this so-called "Europe Day" representing the most disgusting peace treaty in the history of mankind with the most severe consequences for the enslaved 100 million Christians and they makes us celebrate it?
German for centuries? Never polish? Gosh, even without any basic knowledge you could have just checked out any random "Europe every year" video on CZcams before babbling nonsense.
Just as the memory of WW1 didn't stop WW2, the memory of WW2 will not stop WW3.
Left out the part where Stalin let them use Soviet territory to train nazi soldiers while Germany was re-militarising.
Who cares, Soviets were more horrible than nazis. Soviets and japanese, barbarians.
Left out the part where the USSR was isolated and denied Alliance with Britain, France, and other anticommunist countries after they portioned off parts of Czechoslovakia to Germany. Stalin sought to avoid war due to not having an alliance and that his country wasn’t ready for war. So appease Germany as long as possible
The music is SO annoying
You seem to have skipped the part on the Nazi-Soviet pact where the Soviets were trying to negotiate with Britain and France but were effectively rebuffed multiple times and when finally engaged, Britain and France sent 'negotiators' who had no power to negotiate.
Europa the last battle and TGSNT.
I guess this is just the causes of WWII as far as Europe is concerned, and even that seems incomplete. I mean what about the causes of Italy originally siding with Germany. What about the Soviet Union's geopolitical aims? Good presentation but the title is misleading.
Indeed, the popular "historiography" purported by legacy characters like the Snow family, and this video, do give an exceptionally misleading distortion of the reality.
I feel that maybe in a hundred years or so from now, people will be watching a video titled, "The 10 Key Causes of the Third World War."
10. War profiteers
9. War profiteers
8. War profiteers
7.
You might have quoted Foch.
Marshal Foch’s oft-cited quote about the treaty being only “a 20 year armistice” is flagrantly misleading when presented out of context, as it often is. Foch was not criticizing the treaty as being too hard on Germany but was actually making the opposite point - that it was not punitive enough. He was lamenting that the treaty did not ensure that Germany’s armed forces and strategic position were permanently weakened, principally through perpetual French occupation of the Rhineland.
There is no arguing with victory, but the record needs closer scrutiny. Of the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, he said, “This is not peace. It is an armistice for 20 years,” and advocated harsher treatment of Germany. Foch considered the Treaty of Versailles to be "a capitulation, a treason" because he believed that only permanent occupation of the Rhineland would grant France sufficient security against a revival of German aggression. As the treaty was being signed Foch said: "This is not peace. It is an armistice for 20 years".
@@janiceduke1205 Yes it's true that the point Foch was making doesn't fit the narrative of this video. Maybe that's the point though; maybe the problem wasn't that Versailles was too harsh, but that it was too lenient.
@@Notreallyoverit Perhaps the Allies’ gravest failure in the Versailles treaty was allowing Germany to voluntarily comply with the provisions, since Germany had no incentive to fulfill the obligations to which it had agreed. A closely related failure is that of Allied will to enforce the treaty. With isolationist America essentially “opting out” of the task, and the demoralized, increasingly pacifist British population suddenly getting a collective guilty conscience when it fell for German propaganda, it was left to France to try to enforce the treaty. Except for some half-hearted attempts - notably the 1923 occupation of the Ruhr industrial region in a vain attempt to get Germany to stop defaulting on reparations - France proved incapable of going it alone. In Germany’s clash of wills with its former World War I opponents, Germany won.
In effect, except for a few billion “in kind” payments, Germany paid no war reparations out of its own pocket. What “everyone knows” about Germany being crippled by war reparations therefore is a myth. French economist Etienne Mantoux surely was right when he wrote, “Germany was not unable to pay reparations, it was unwilling to pay them.”
Saarland situation sounds very familiar with what putin did in the donbas
you made fun over his charlie Chaplin mustache BEFORE the war. He didn't have that until the war, because it was so bushy, he couldn't wear a gas mask safely.
Why they didn't sell off Poland following their policy?
Have to say on the point of people in UK and France finding treaty of versailles too harsh isn't correct the french felt it wasn't harsh enough and warned it wouldn't mean peace just an armistice for 20 years!
Exactly. Here is the whole episode about it :
Marshall Ferdinand Foch of France considered the Treaty of Versailles to be "a capitulation, a treason" because he believed that only permanent occupation of the Rhineland would grant France sufficient security against a revival of German aggression. In a remarkable moment of foresight, as the treaty was being signed Foch said: "This is not peace. It is an armistice for 20 years”.
He added later in an interview with the New York Times :
“Next time the Germans won't make any mistake. They will invade France from the north and will seize all the ports on the Channel. From there, they will launch attacks on England. We will lose everything if we are not on the Rhine."
Marshal Foch died in 1929. He must have turned in his grave when AH invaded France.
@phlm9038 thanks, wow how right he was yes very sad indeed
Great video. All of this highlights just how much appeasement doesn't work (a lesson as valuable today as it was back then).
Marshal Foch’s oft-cited quote about the treaty being only “a 20 year armistice” is flagrantly misleading when presented out of context, as it often is. Foch was not criticizing the treaty as being too hard on Germany but was actually making the opposite point - that it was not punitive enough. He was lamenting that the treaty did not ensure that Germany’s armed forces and strategic position were permanently weakened, principally through perpetual French occupation of the Rhineland.
Perhaps the Allies’ gravest failure in the Versailles treaty was allowing Germany to voluntarily comply with the provisions, since Germany had no incentive to fulfill the obligations to which it had agreed. A closely related failure is that of Allied will to enforce the treaty. With isolationist America essentially “opting out” of the task, and the demoralized, increasingly pacifist British population suddenly getting a collective guilty conscience when it fell for German propaganda, it was left to France to try to enforce the treaty. Except for some half-hearted attempts - notably the 1923 occupation of the Ruhr industrial region in a vain attempt to get Germany to stop defaulting on reparations - France proved incapable of going it alone. In Germany’s clash of wills with its former World War I opponents, Germany won.
In effect, except for a few billion “in kind” payments, Germany paid no war reparations out of its own pocket. What “everyone knows” about Germany being crippled by war reparations therefore is a myth. French economist Etienne Mantoux surely was right when he wrote, “Germany was not unable to pay reparations, it was unwilling to pay them.”
WWI was one of the reasons for WWII
The thing that gets me is, Hitler was not a German, and Stalin was not Russian,
Is that Piers Morgan narrating ???? 🤣🤣
This is a rather British perspecitive and a bit unfair to Chamberlain.
Yes many leading figures in the UK, did not see Hitler as the main threat soon enough. Japan got away with Manuchuria, Italy with Abbesinia. Japans attack on "the rest of China" was not confronted. Clear foreign military involvment in the Spanish civil war (on both sides) did not make France/UK/US act. Poland did particapate in the annexation of Czechoslovakia after Münich.
At least to me it was clear the last year before war broke out both France and the UK was playing for time most of all. Not really thinking a conflict was avoidable.
What this video is about? 10 key causes or 10 steps? Why all the misleading?
As others said.. Interesting that the biggest cause - WWI treaty - is completely missed...
Have to ask because it's unclear; after Germany invaded Poland, Britian and France threatened to declare war on Germany if Germany did not withdraw from Poland. It is then stated that Hitler, "Called their bluff." Being that Britian and France *did* declare war on Germany when the demand for withdrawal was not met, how is this "calling their bluff," being that it was obviously not a bluff?