Comments by "Not Today" (@nottoday3817) on "RANDOM WW2 Questions for TIK - Patreon Q&A 20" video.

  1. I highly doubt about 'storming through Germany'. First of all, I believe it was either TIK himself or Military history visualised that made a video called something along the lines of : 'Why Italy First'. Basically they barely had any ideea of where to finally land, not to mention HOW TO LAND and continue. Italy proved a big lesson on how to handle operations for the Western Allies.
    5
  2. Hey TIK Amazing video. For a few points throughout QA. I am actually going to split this into 2 comments because too much of a difference between themes. So. Switzerland: why in the world would Soviets attack it? The soviet plan was an offensive defence (like the british intended to do with operation Crusader). Basically, Warsaw pact was supposed to spear as far ahead to Germany and stop around the Rhine area (because natural fortification potential) and capture as many airports and missile launching platforms/positions as possible. They would use these airports to target various ports in Western Europe which were supposed to be receiving supplies from the US or even supply chain themselves.. If this objective would have been achieved, Warsaw Pact would have won the war in a non-nuclear scenario. Had the war lasted longer, soviet missiles would have hammered important objectives for the Western Allies (quick mention, France had a bit of a rough romance with NATO, so willing to fight without necessity, big MEAH) meanwhile main production centers, especially USSR, would have been safe. Again, from the Rhine, they could deceide what to do further, either attempt a push Westwards, to further weaken Western ability to supply Europe or to open second fronts, perhaps take out Turkey and smash the middle east or most likely go for GIUK gap, and northern Norway and north and south sweden to allow their submarines to break loose into the atlantic without too much worries. However, the main point was GET TO THE RHINE( or as far westward into Germany as Possible). To do this, they would not have any resources to spare to launch an invasion of Switzerland. The only reason why they would go to switzerland would be if allied reinforcements would go through Switzerland (like from Italy), but that would be a limited war, focused more on securing the flank. Anyway, that's my humble opinion. Then we come to the chemical weapons thing. Well, now it depends on what you classify as 'chemical weapons'. If reffering strictly to gas, they did not use it too much because it already became inefficient. Yeah, in WW1 with huge 'entrenched' concentrations of troops, with no hope to gain much land or advantage in one push, yeah, gas was efficient. Gas the whole enemy trench, kill as many as possible and hope for two things: 1. There will be no reinforcements by the time gas clears out. 2. Hope the wind does not blow it in your face. However, in WW2, I think there are 3 main reason why it wasn't used on such a big scale and especially in surface/front level. Reason A: No longer efficient. WW2 was more a war of manouver, you gotta move that a$$ boy. So gas, which takes some time to be deployed and such. is not so effective. Then, units were a bit more dispersed, so again, gas efficiency was lowered. Last but not least, it is presumed that the number of countermeasures (gas masks, body suits etc.) Reason B: detrimental to the user. First of all, there is always the big risk of it blowing back straight in your face. Furthermore, if used on the offensive (like the Brits and US through Norway), because you have a war of manouver, you either had to give up the opportunity (if it was ever created) to let the gas settle, or you had to send your troops through clouds of poisonous gas. Reason C: You already stated it: fear of retaliation. This also includes the 'inhumane thing'. Germany signed the Geneva convention which would restrict them from unleashing upon the Westerners and hoped the same thing would apply to them. If we include other things in the form of chemical weapons, like incendiary, phosphorus bombs, then yes. They were deffinetly used. In Europe I believe against Dresden or Berlin and in the Pacific, well, some historians claim that the devastation left by the incineration of Tokyo by phosphorus bombs from US was even worse than Hiroshima. Edit: forgot about alcohol stuff (and generally alternative sources of fuel) First, alternative sources: there was a program to use actually steam to power tanks. Or actually boilers fueled by wood (germany had a lot of coal and wood) Several tigers were actually equiped with those things. Perhaps some cars as well. Using such methods for non-combat reasons shows how Germany was able to bypass it's fuel deficiency and still wage it's Panzer warfare even in late war(altough to a much more limited extent). As for gas for tanks and stuff like that: errm, you do not really want that. as you explained, gas is extremely flamable and volatile. Alcohol, if not handled correctly, turns into alcohol vapors, which is basically extremely explosive gas. Furthermore, alcohol is a less eficient way to store and release energy than fossil fuels. So you would have to produce quite a bunch of alcohol to cover a little of your necessities. So that's why they might not have bothered. last, but not least: ENGINES. As far as I remember, most engines at that time ran on eithe lead gasoline or diesel, because those engines could not handle the explosive force of such fuels properly, causing them to disintegrate after some time. This would have plagued alcohol engines even more. Yeah, it's a simple engineering problem, in the ideea that the basics of why it happens are simple. Getting rid of such a problem, oh boy. Trust me, I'm an engineer, fixing problems, even simple ones, is hell. And this is my first comment. The second one is going to focus on Lend-Lease thing. But going to write it in the evening
    4
  3. I believe for them it's impossible to talk about WW2 with you as well
    1
  4. I would like to read of that Zhukov account. I think one important note to make is this: US did not face a 'long campaign', like the soviets did. For the soviets, long campaigns meant months of intense back and forth fighting because the fighting was done mostly on their soil. Americans and Brits, well, make a bit of research about Caen
    1