Debunking Bogus History
https://codohforum.com/
I don't think his opinions are too unreasonable here given his premises, premises which assume his version of events are all true. He has videos elsewhere mainly using the Hossbach Memorandum to argue they were the aggressors. We would have to litigate that whole issue first before judging this video. There's not much to argue with here since he doesn't argue for his position in much depth in this particular video.
The issue of the topic is their alleged right and morality to go to war against Germany. Tik uses arguments such as the mutual assistance agreement with Poland, forgetting the contradiction of only being valid in relation to Germany, this kind of answers the title of the video, and the moral question of hypothetically defending a friend from a bully, not addressing whether the provocative acts of such a friend justify your intervention or even if you are not a bully in the first place.fireofice wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 2:07 amI don't think his opinions are too unreasonable here given his premises, premises which assume his version of events are all true. He has videos elsewhere mainly using the Hossbach Memorandum to argue they were the aggressors. We would have to litigate that whole issue first before judging this video. There's not much to argue with here since he doesn't argue for his position in much depth in this particular video.
It's a technical argument. Britain gave Poland a Guarantee to assist, if Poland had to face 'German aggression'. Hence declaring war on Germany in such a case was the 'legal' thing to do. The morality of it was however a bit odd. There were several disputes between Germany and Poland going on already. And there were German initiatives to resolve those issues amicably already. This was disrupted after the Poles got this guarantee, which was solely directed against Germany. This of course incited them to be more confrontational in their policies with regards to the Germans... So it actually fueled the conflict the Brits promised the Poles support in. Funny enough the Poles got virtually no support that was of any use to them. The declaration of War on Germany by Britain fueled German determination to conquer Poland. But the Polish armed forces were on their own. The Slovaks who were invaded by Poland previously, gave the Germans more support than the Brits gave the Poles. The Brits got the pretext they needed for selling a war against Germany. So it with a win for British chicken hawks at the expense of the Poles. The Poles found out that the Brits weren't interested in supporting them, when the USSR invaded them without much of a negative reaction from the British side. And formally the Brits weren't oblige to do anything neither. The guarantee was exclusively designed to get a war against Germany going.TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 2:21 am ....
The issue of the topic is their alleged right and morality to go to war against Germany. Tik uses arguments such as the mutual assistance agreement with Poland, forgetting the contradiction of only being valid in relation to Germany, this kind of answers the title of the video, and the moral question of hypothetically defending a friend from a bully, not addressing whether the provocative acts of such a friend justify your intervention or even if you are not a bully in the first place.
Tik argues that Germany declared war on the British because Hitler knew the consequences, but Hitler was never ready to defeat them. Furthermore, he treats the Polish state as an unblemished country, whose existence would be worth defending at the cost of his own empire, and it does not seem like it had just participated in the partition of Czechoslovakia or that it was a military regime with irredentist tendencies.Hektor wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 7:27 pmIt's a technical argument. Britain gave Poland a Guarantee to assist, if Poland had to face 'German aggression'. Hence declaring war on Germany in such a case was the 'legal' thing to do. The morality of it was however a bit odd. There were several disputes between Germany and Poland going on already. And there were German initiatives to resolve those issues amicably already. This was disrupted after the Poles got this guarantee, which was solely directed against Germany. This of course incited them to be more confrontational in their policies with regards to the Germans... So it actually fueled the conflict the Brits promised the Poles support in. Funny enough the Poles got virtually no support that was of any use to them. The declaration of War on Germany by Britain fueled German determination to conquer Poland. But the Polish armed forces were on their own. The Slovaks who were invaded by Poland previously, gave the Germans more support than the Brits gave the Poles. The Brits got the pretext they needed for selling a war against Germany. So it with a win for British chicken hawks at the expense of the Poles. The Poles found out that the Brits weren't interested in supporting them, when the USSR invaded them without much of a negative reaction from the British side. And formally the Brits weren't oblige to do anything neither. The guarantee was exclusively designed to get a war against Germany going.TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 2:21 am ....
The issue of the topic is their alleged right and morality to go to war against Germany. Tik uses arguments such as the mutual assistance agreement with Poland, forgetting the contradiction of only being valid in relation to Germany, this kind of answers the title of the video, and the moral question of hypothetically defending a friend from a bully, not addressing whether the provocative acts of such a friend justify your intervention or even if you are not a bully in the first place.
Poland was in the wrong regardless whether one subscribes to Axis or Allied narratives. I personally don't believe there were any large scale massacres of Germans, that's just a typical excuse to invade other countries.
Tik argues that Germany declared war on the British because Hitler knew the consequences, but Hitler was never ready to defeat them. Furthermore, he treats the Polish state as an unblemished country, whose existence would be worth defending at the cost of his own empire, and it does not seem like it had just participated in the partition of Czechoslovakia or that it was a military regime with irredentist tendencies.
As one commenter in the video, it seemed more important for them to see Germany subjugated than to keep their territories.
Germany did not declare war on the British. Britain declared ar on Germany.TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 8:14 pm .....
Tik argues that Germany declared war on the British because Hitler knew the consequences, but Hitler was never ready to defeat them. Furthermore, he treats the Polish state as an unblemished country, whose existence would be worth defending at the cost of his own empire, and it does not seem like it had just participated in the partition of Czechoslovakia or that it was a military regime with irredentist tendencies.
As one commenter in the video, it seemed more important for them to see Germany subjugated than to keep their territories.
It is important to make it clear that the first to mobilize was Poland, and in military jargon this is war. It is argued that Poland would lose its sovereignty by accepting the German proposal. Based on nothing, Hitler made generous economic and territorial concessions to them.Hektor wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2024 1:58 amGermany did not declare war on the British. Britain declared ar on Germany.TlsMS93 wrote: ↑Tue Nov 19, 2024 8:14 pm .....
Tik argues that Germany declared war on the British because Hitler knew the consequences, but Hitler was never ready to defeat them. Furthermore, he treats the Polish state as an unblemished country, whose existence would be worth defending at the cost of his own empire, and it does not seem like it had just participated in the partition of Czechoslovakia or that it was a military regime with irredentist tendencies.
As one commenter in the video, it seemed more important for them to see Germany subjugated than to keep their territories.
Poland was extremely aggressive against any of his neighbors. Essentially what one calls nowadays a rogue state.
And yes, they also jumped into the Czech crisis.
People only know "Germany invaded Poland"... And are completely ignorant of all the other details.
Germany was seen as a competitor on world markets and there was a fear of German hegemony, which was visible in the arts and sciences already.
That is arguably a bit different. Blanket Invasion of Germany by Poles would be a difficult sell. Rather provoke as long as you can get a reaction and the 'respond' to this. It should be noted that they didn't even bother to make reservations for a case were the poles provoked a war.... And that was telling.
Germany gave guarantees to Romania and Molotov demanded military bases there and to know whether the agreement would be valid in relation to them. So was Barbarossa legally legal? No, the victors will say.Hektor wrote: ↑Wed Nov 20, 2024 7:44 pmThat is arguably a bit different. Blanket Invasion of Germany by Poles would be a difficult sell. Rather provoke as long as you can get a reaction and the 'respond' to this. It should be noted that they didn't even bother to make reservations for a case were the poles provoked a war.... And that was telling.
From diccourse I however do already know that most folks are to simple-minded to understand what those official text are actually saying and what they mean.