@@iuliuslovin37 if I recall she perpetuates myths, and hides major statistics, glossing over events like the massive loss of life of Natives during colonialsm, or glossing over black oppression. At least those were what I saw in the youtube short comments. Despite all of that I'm not educated enough to know if she's lying, misinformed, or if the comments were wrong. After all the shorts aren't in context so she could have spoken at length on the topics but just not in the clip.
She had a good point about Britain being a maritime power rather than a Continental power. In many of Continental wars including the Napoleonic Wars her role in the land battles was secondary to her maritime roles ,even in the Peninsular wars she had the somewhat ineffectual Spanish allies both regular army and Guerrilla forces tying down many French troops and winning some battles. In the seven years wars her main contribution was monetary to the hard pressed Prussia but she reaped huge rewards in India and America by virtue of her naval strength. The First world War changed all that.
Don't forget that Napoleon invaded Spain with a JUGGERNAUT military. The most powerful army in the world, by far, that Napoleon used and abused. So it was not so much that the Spanish were ineffectual, especially since they won the Peninsular War together with Britain, they were facing vast military resources which Napoleon was willing to us up all of it. So give the Spanish a little more credit in victory.
@@stxfdt1240 Talk about being "ineffective", who was the one who ran a once juggernaut French military into the ground in total defeat? Who left a generation's worth of French boys in mass graves as enemy troops marched down the streets of Paris, leaving France under military occupation? If you want to talk about "ineffective", no one beats the incompetent wasteful Napoleon and how he wasted away the juggernaut military that he seized from a lost and confused France. But of course that is not the way 19th Century European history framed it. So to the speaker's point, the British were so delusional in thinking that they had fought so great on the Continent during the Napoleonic Wars and won it for Europe, when it was Napoleon's massive blunders and lack of foresight in military incompetence that led to Napoleon's defeat, way before Waterloo. That is why the British thought they were such a great continental army, but got punished in both WW1 and WW2 continental campaigns, delusional and dishonest storytelling to themselves about how they won the Napoleonic Wars.
@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators britain is nothing but just another fraud power whose days disappeared just like that....Roman Empire is the real deal and perhaps the ottomans a 2nd....
This chick is just wrong. If Germany had stopped after Czechoslovakia, like this guy's question implies, it absolutely would have been better than the war exploding like it did IRL. In fact, we have a bunch of examples of more moderate ring-wing dictators during the actual historical war that turned out great. Franco led Spain to the "Spanish economic Miracle" and had a peaceful transition to democracy after his death. This chick is clueless and shouldn't be teaching this subject.
The German's tried to negotiate with Great Britain the placement of the Jews in British Palestine. Then in Madagascar and even allowed the Jews to leave Germany and go to America on a steam ship. All were rebuffed by the "Allies". Resulting in Hitler's promise of riding the Jews from Germany and Europe. No matter what the cost to the Jew. Churchill didn't want them. Roosevelt didn't want them.
@@samuelspiel8855 As a historian, I concur with what you say in part, I'm not sure where this woman is getting her answers from.... but I disagree with her full assessment.
These interviews would be perfect if Patel's rambling, stream-of-consciousness inquiries were ruthlessly edited down into single questions that didn't require more than 5-7 seconds each. Better yet, just have him read from a prepared script...off camera, if necessary. We know he means well, and his interest in the subject is admirable, but...just put him on a verbal diet. Please. Prof. Paine's replies, on the other hand, shouldn't be touched. Every sentence, every thought, every suggestion...they can all stand on their own.
Patel is absolutely terrible; he struggles to fully pronounce words and often swallows them as he rushes to speak, cramming too much into just a few seconds. As a result, his questions are frequently unintelligible.
@@fikretpajalic1224Patel's questions are better than her replies. Sarah Paine might be ignorant of the actual details of World War 2 history : How does Sarah Paine explain the fact that the commander of Hitler's SS bodyguard unit, Erich Kempka is a Slavic ethnic Polish person with 4 Slavic grandparents from Poland? What does Sarah Paine say about Bandera and the Banderites or Konstantin Voskoboinik or Vlasov or Pyotr Krasnov or Bronislav Kaminski? There are more than a hundred thousand Polish and Czechoslovakian soldiers in the German Wehrmacht in World War 2 and there are more than a million Soviet Union citizens (including Russians and Ukrainians) who collaborated with Germany in WW2 (as Hiwis or soldiers) and yet Sarah Paine believes that Hitler wanted to murder all Slavic people, when in reality Hitler was an anti-Jewish anti-Semite and not an anti-Czech or anti-Poleite or anti-Ukrainian
He does those long ramblings, because these "debates" are scripted to spread a false narrative that supports the US endless wars. The thing is that the level of idiocy is beyond imagination.
@@AP-ui7oi history is written by the victors, apparently the Germans kept impeccable records of everything other than that one thing. Show me the quote or shut up.
Very true that WW1 is the pivot point and not WW2. Further more WW2 showcased how to actually fire with firearms effectively. WW1 only showed how little we actually understood about the tactical use of firearms in modern warfare.
If WW1 never started the world would be radically different from the one we know today. However given the situation Europe found itself in by the 1910s a major global conflict was inevitable.
Literally every educated European, at least outside the UK, knows this. What's really interesting is that it was African colonialism that largely caused WW1. The European rush to divide the continent led to military treaties to assure peace between the competing nations. These treaties were then instrumental in drawing every country into war once some of them started fighting in Europe. So in a way everything from African colonisation to the end of the cold war is just one continuous link of events in European history. WW1 was the first time the white man's hubris really bit him in the ass, leading to the systematic death of his own kind; but the seeds were laid 30 years earlier, and the devastation only ended 75 years later.
but WW1 was a accumulation of napoleon wars, war of 1870, even the american revolution had a part of it. So many different things led up to and built up to WW1 and 2. You cant put it all on one event as history ignorant people tend to do.
@@planderlinde1969 if WW1 never started a majority of the world would have been stuck in dictatorships for a very long time. WW1 and 2 got rid of european dictatorships once and for all.
Patton was wrong in that in WWII in Europe we were fighting an ideology not a people. Patton was even more wrong about the ideology he wanted to fight next since he saw Communism as a future threat but he didn't see the bigger picture of what an attack on a now prepared and united USSR that had grown from the German invasion. As she says in another clip, prior to the German invasion Russia and the USSR itself were not really a united or coherent "nation". After the invasion and occupation they were much more united and ready for a war. Nobody really wanted to start that "next" war and hence we got the Cold War.
While WW1 undoubtedly held a catalyst for WW2, the prime directive for Britain's policy toward the Continent has always been living in fear of a continental superpower, no matter the nation, nor the ideology. Britain has played the role of agitator on the continent for centuries in order to keep the various nations in check. They simply cannot afford to live in the shadow of unified continent, no matter how tenuous.
Britain didn't want to get involved in a war with Germany, chamberlain repeated fought against that. It was only because Churchill and various other politicians were bribed by the usual suspects to push for a war with Germany at all costs
I took a class in college in ww1 history and this reason alone was enough to ruin the central powers. With the except of u boat raids and a couple small successes in Indian Ocean piracy, Germany never could level with the uk in ww1 when they had a navy and even less so in ww2. Also (more so in ww2), Germany had less resources and poor mismanagement of the stuff they had (which was almost nothing). Even if Germany won ww2, Germany would’ve run fry on supplies because their policies were isolating comparatively to the countries they were fighting.
I agree entirely with her viewpoint. WW1 was the absolute catalyst for the consequences of what followed. In essence, a part one, then a pause, then a part two to really finalise things….awful.
The time difference was about 21 years ? ! The worldly Universe changed countless times between those two non connected events ? World War One should never have happened .
They did survive ww2. Many escaped to Brazil and Argentina and other places. There is a town of twins in Brazil that are more than anywhere in the world. A certain doctor rumored to live there for a while
There were Russian and Ukrainian Hiwi soldiers who worked as Trawniki concentration camp guards living in the USA after World War 2 was over : en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiwi_(volunteer)
This is also the fundamental reason why the British insistence on actively blaming the Germans for WW1 is erroneous. The problem with WW1 was not that it happened, but HOW it happened; and all sides have equal fault in that. WW2 had a far greater death toll, but it didn't murder an entire generation of young men as senselessly as WW1. The fact that eminent historians like Max Hasings have gone back to aggressively calling for re-blaming the Germans is quite shocking.
Nah your just incorrect, germany had multiple opportunities to stop the intensifying of ww1. 1) they gave the Austrians full support when the triple alliance pact didn’t force them to do so. 2) they invaded a neutral country in belgium which calls for others to enter the war. 3) it kept going and invaded france. A small scale conflict could of carried out between serbia and austria but german aggression prevented that.
@@johnpederson5873what about french aggression? The french, after getting humiliated in a war they started in 1871, went on a 40 year smear campaign on Germany ensuring that they’ll be diplomatically isolated except for Austria, how is Germany standing up for his only ally any different from today’s US and Israel? What about russian aggression? They were the first to escalate the conflict by mobilizing their army and threatening war with Austria, if anything they turn the regional conflict between Austria and Serbia into a major european conflict. And also Belgium was only neutral on paper, they operated in tandem with Britain and France since the beginning violating the spirit of their permanent neutrality (unlike the Netherlands or Spain who were genuinely neutral), and Britain also had the opportunity to mediate the conflict but Lloyd George (a known germaphobe) wanted an excuse to get into the war. Now although in my opinion Austria is the real culprit of this horrific conflict, Germany had plenty to do with it’s escalation, however trying to blame the germans for the whole thing is both ludicrous and bias towards the entente
If all those soldiers of WWI & WWII could have gotten a glimpse of this "Twilight Zone" insane betrayal we have today...they would have pointed their guns at their leaders..to protect a common Europa brotherhood.
@@sevatar5762 because everyone would be dead or because everyone would look like an inbred family from “The Hills Have Eyes”- but with more blonde hair?
Well would be interesting to see different outcome scenarios... Because in our time line human civilization has completely doomed itself and ti's too late now to escape collapse
Wrong, he's one of the people ze Germans wanted rid of. Best do some digging, they pop up quite often in over reaching government control. Not quite the victims you've been told!
Germany's economic philosophy of autarky was not sustainable. Autarky demanded that the Germans conquest the Slavic lands to the east to maintain self-sufficiency. Stopping with the annexation of adjacent German-speaking lands would have led to the collapse of the German economy.
You’re outta your mind. You obviously took the main stream narrative without looking into it yourself. The economy was back by the German worker (aka cars, technology, etc….). It was the strongest economy in the world and did so during the Great Depression. And if you take that “war manufacturing” narrative is what got them out of it, then you’ve been caught in their trap twice. Hell the American economy is built on the 3rd Reich model. What we produce determines our dollars value. Exports…….
They would have changed to a different policy if the economy stagnates. Every country does this. No one is foolish enough to just follow the same path until the end.
It could be replaced with national capitalism as one they either lose war and receive mounting losses or run out of countries to conquer, and have to rely on a market economy to sustain itself. Similar to Maoist and Post-Maoist China throughout the early 60s to mid 80s.
I could theoretically envision a scenario where Hitler sticks it to Stalin and the Allies develop the bomb and then win with that. In that scenario both would lose, but conventionally? Yeah, 2/3 of Wehrmacht faces the Red Army so Normandy would be pretty tough if Germans not busy on Eastern Front.
@@weirdshibainu no, not really. Without Germany facing the Russians they might frankly lose even quicker than they did historically because they were utterly reliant on conquering Soviet territory to fuel their war effort.
@@DominionSorcerer That's my point. Stalin detested the West..to the point he trusted Hitler and was legitimately shocked (reports of him locking himself in his room for days after the invasion) and would have supplied Hitler with everything he needed, in fact, Germany and Russia had robust trade under the Trade and Credit agreement in August of 1939
What I find ironic is both the parties she mentioned run rampant undetected currently.... And essentially, id say, this is the actual reality of what happened without it having to happen.
In Rwanda? We know they could have tried. In Paraguay, Chile, Argentina? Well if you speak of the fuehrer, he could have survived there (argentina) protected by the german house of Lippenburg (berhard zu lippe, german king of holland).
based on the title and "uploaded 7 months ago" I was CERTAIN that this had been in the context of discussions about a ceasefire to allow Hamas to survive... but then I saw that it came out before October 7th
it was originally thought that the Soviet Union grew at 4-5% in the 30s. This has now been downgraded to 3.5% a year. However it appears that the real issues for the Soviet Union started to occur in the early sixties. If we look at Germany in the 30s it's growth rate was similar to the Soviets but it's rearmament program distorted the economy causing a foreign exchange crisis. This is one of the main reasons they started the war.
The usual assumption for decades was a trajectory much like that of the USSR. I still tend to that, though I can entertain arguments for why it would decline slower, or much, much faster, than that. The strategic picture of the ensuing Cold War would of course have been much, much worse for the US and UK, with no continental allies to speak of.
Brilliant woman. A family anecdote that supports her point about the cultural differences between Germans and Russians: A branch of my extended family are Jews whose ancestors were in Poland until World War Two. In 1939, Poland, of course, was JOINTLY invaded by Germans from the west and Soviets from the east. The family members who were in western Poland were mostly wiped out by the Nazis, with only a few surviving. The family members who were in eastern Poland were deported to Soviet forced-labor camps in Russia. Plenty of hardships, but most of them survived. At least for them, Stalin was the lesser of two evils.
Don't forget that other Jews who were in the Soviet-occupied part of Poland joined the Soviet Red Army, as well. I have a friend whose father -- a Polish Jew -- made it to the Soviet lines and eventually became a tank commander in the Red Army. He immigrated to the US after the war. Many Polish and Russian Jews served with distinction in the Red Army, many highly decorated, many even reaching high rank. In Netanya, Israel, just north of Tel Aviv, a war memorial was erected honoring the Red Army for its role in defeating Nazi Germany during WWII. It is the only war memorial to the Red Army to be erected in any country not either a present or former Soviet bloc/Russian aligned country. Putin even traveled to Israel to attend the unveiling in 2012. A number of surviving Jewish Israeli Red Army veterans were there to attend, as well, some wearing their old uniforms and medals.
@@TheTimdoyle I have read it, great book, should be on everyone shelf. However, if you think about it, it really showed in Spade just how truly inefficient Russians were. Yeah not caring, and millions died, but at the same time, zero care about function.
@@MarekDohojda Whilst the war effort at the start of the conflict was extremely inefficient and ineffective (probably the same for most countries) the Soviets did rally and out produced the Germans. It was known that they captured German tanks and copied elements of them. However whilst the Germans were manufacturing their armaments to precise measurements in underground factories the Soviets understood (as they always fought) that this is another war of attrition and their armaments were crude but effective. The war in Ukraine is another war of attrition. The Russians are not suffering. They have prepared for this war for over a decade. The west is now ill prepared and suffering because of it. Now with a new front in Israel the majority of munitions are leaving the US for Ukraine and Israel. The US are leaving themselves at serious disadvantage.
@@TheTimdoyle Not quite sure your response in terms of OP. That said, it's all good. Russians are exceptionally inefficient and horrible at producing things. Back in the old country Russian made products were always a joke, and today is no different. Russia did outproduce Germany but it is important to note that they had Land Lease which was incredibly useful, especially because it allowed them to focus on weapons; and Germans were bombed, and attacked on all sides; while having inefficient economy themselves. Bottom line is that Ukraine showed just how bad Russia is, and how bad it's manufacture process is; the corruption, the failure , the great deal of waste, is all visible and in spotlight. That said, Ukraine was a corrupt nation before hand, was hardly a nation before hand, primarily due to what Soviet's have done to it. It is also far smaller nation in terms of people, with very weak manufacturing base. Therefore it is possible that Russia may pull this off, as Russians never cared about their own losses. Their people die? OK, So? They sure don't care. SO while it's possible that Russia may win the war of attrition they will loose the war, and will not get back their Empire, that much is certain.
If they didn’t invade Russia, and called it quits, they could have negotiated trade with Soviet Union and built defences in east Poland and Romania instead of taking on the largest country on earth.
it was kill or be killed. Soviets plan to invade at some point! plus part of the German objective was to reunify all German speaking people of which Soviet union had 4 mil!
The Great War was so influential to today's geopolitics and economic powerhouses. The gunshot that killed Franz Ferdinand began a chain reaction that we still see today.
Patel is absolutely terrible; he struggles to fully pronounce words and often swallows them as he rushes to speak, cramming too much into just a few seconds. As a result, his questions are frequently unintelligible.
No we didn’t. Patton was anti-Semitic douche bag! Any cheated on his wife all the time which means he lacks character. I lost a lot of respect for him when I found that out. I also read his personal diaries. He was blaming the Jews for the concentration camps like it was their fault for letting it happen so yeah yeah that’s the type of “great” man that Patton was
@@shkodranalbi well, ...whats the context?.....1.help the Germans and continue the "right" path .......2. "Patton said this, he was wrong in thinking this"....these types of comments are just titillating to those who have fascist , dictatorial tendencies or dreams....your "dumb" comment at least is honest ans direct. ...
You can understand that she even rooted for the tsar and his incredibly corrupt regime with unimaginably cruel treatment but she doesn’t talk about Ottoman Empire. The irony is, the Ottoman Empire was the only peaceful country among all of them.
Beside the usual exaggerations about the German concentration camps, I think that the nazis would have been reformed if peace would have endured. The Swedish Social Democratic Party was basically a copy of NSDAP at the time, eugenics included and it reformed itself for good and bad during the decades. Eugenics was the trend in many European countries at that time.
the world would be rid of degeneracy and we would live healthy together. no chemicals in our food and water. the list goes on and on of how better things would be.
AH blamed his generals because they acted against him. Especially franz halder acting against him during operation barbarossa, prioritising moscow over the caucuses and its oil fields
Did he? Those claiming so probably were in one way or another. They made up the clean whermacht myth to cope with this. And also cause they kinda solidified this myth at Nuremberg when they deemed the waffen SS a “criminal organization” Even though the Whermacht did more crimes and around the same or more percent adjusted for size. So they leaned into it despite being die hard NS themselves. It should be interesting to see how this is all viewed once the political propaganda is gone.
They were on borrowed time and borrowed money. The amount of financial shenanigans the Nazi’s accountants worked up to hide the massive unserviceable debt in order to deflate the interest forced the Germans to look beyond their borders.
@@johnhoney657 and it’s a bit easier when they confiscate all businesses, money, and houses from their own citizens just bc they happen to be a Jew, a Gypsy, gay, from an opposition political party, or writing truth to power.
The interviewer was missing the inherent full on genocidal nature of Nazism vs Soviet Communism. Yes stalinism mirrored many aspects of the Nazi regime but it didn't have the grand visions and well thought out doctrine of racialized scientific antisemitism, racialized socities, and genocidal imperialism like with Nazism. Keep in mind the USSR wasn't just Stalin. The post-Stalin Soviet leaders, while corrupt and dictatorial, were not totalitarian like Stalin as communism, unlike Nazism, is not inherently totalitarian and genocidal. Communism can be genocidal ie Pol Pot (although many of Pol Pot's racial ideas went well beyond Communism) but it doesn't have the same automatic disposition towards racial conquest and genocide like Nazism. This is why I'm always a little cautious when I see Communism and Nazism brought up in the same breath and especially so when discussing WWII. I find Eastern Europeans given their harsh experiences with Communism understandably have a difficult time grasping this and often lend themselves to clumsy historical equivocations between Nazism and Communism. It's also absurd to imagine defeating Hitler and Stalin at the same time when Hitler had been primary enemy of the allies for years by that point and had now made himself an enemy of a mighty country like the USSR. What attack the enemy of your enemy as opposed to teaming up with them? That's ridiculous. They didn't even have the means for that. Besides Nazism's longterm plans were so horrific they went well beyond any evil dictator like Stalin.
@allananderson949 I can't criticize multiculturalism, immigration, pride, feminism without fearing for my job, gf. We don't have leaders in the west, we have puppets. You would have been able to critize german policy after the war.
Funny how the EU and the one currency was what Hitler wanted.. Seen the communist threat for what is was, we backed USSR for Ww2 and then spent the next 80 years in a Cold War… like Patton said, we fought the wrong side
Its more complicated than that, you consider how the world has transcended into the chaos we live in today, The Reich committed atrocities as many governments did but the German people under the Reich especially pre WW2 lived lives of high morality and plentifulness, Versailles was the problem as Germany was eviscerated and humiliated
They didn't really live lives of high morality and that plentifulness was reliant on first the possessions of Jewish people and later on foreign conquests. Versailles, for the record, wasn't even that harsh. The idea that it was is Nazi propaganda.
Fascism did survive till 1970 in Spain but it was more like Italian fascism without the overtly racial component. Yes, i do believe nazism would have crumbled. Likely by first weakening and watering it down first.
The Third Reich did continue a little on after the May 8 surrendered. They continued until they were dissolved on May 23 de facto and then on June 5 de jure.
I wonder how many nazis with faked passports & documents later infiltrated corporations, banks and companies..everywhere.. Remember the movie, 'The Odessa File'. Fiction with some truth?
Field marshal Haig,or"butcher Haig" as my grandparents called him took much of the blame for the slaughter of the British and imperial forces.Fair call.Haig kept his opinions to himself after the war,as a soldier should.The politicians could have replaced him but hadn't the guts.Lloyd George the pm who could have done that trashed haigs reputation after haigs de ath to salve his own legacy. That's politicians for you
Academics rarely do. It means losing funding if they make too harsh a stance on communism by the bureaucracy (disproportionately influenced by a tribe more sympathetic to communism and vehemently against nationalism)
@@litlpunchthey Are not wrong. Look at western univesitys today. The amount of hammers and sickels all over. And thats fine thats freedom of speech, but if a right wing poletician shows up, they will censor him...
wait what is her point here? The Brits shouldn’t have sent soldier to fight on the continent? The key to British grand strategy is to never let one power dominate the continent. How does she square that?
She's saying they didn't commit to a large army until Much later and struggled to do it as a result of their policies. Their policy was to be a small force that tipped the scales, when they flat didn't have the numbers in WWI
I think she is pointing to Fishers "Baltic Strategy" to cut off the Germans from Swedish Iron Ore. Very little of this was ever implemented, but the few submarines that were sent in the Baltic were very successful. Despite Churchill's criticism of it in retrospect post WW1, his whole Norway campaign in 1940 looks like a poorly executed similar approach.
