Comments by "William Cox" (@WildBillCox13) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Liked and shared, with this comment as preamble"
As always interesting and well researched. With that said . . .
I am given pause by the idea subsumed into your narrative that, in your estimation, Hitler was swept into power on a wave of popular (unfunded) support, not by the political and economic manipulations of the wealthy industrialists whose NAZI card numbers were in the single digits. If the Big Capitalists, the neoschlachtbarone, wanted what he was selling, it wasn't socialism at all. It was Capitalism without consequences.
So, at the very least, Hitler was a tool of Big Money until he wasn't. Did that happen by decree? Does it ever? No. Decrees legitimize existing pogroms. Did NAZI sympathizers and officials act against opposition, both political and economic? Yes. They most certainly did and terror was one of their methods. Did they threaten Krupp or Thyssen? No. They'd have been shot.
Who was it that asked about slave labor first? The big industrialists. Who wanted wage freezes and black books so no one could leave his job without ownership approval? The poor? No. The ownership. Hitler never enacted legislation to limit profits, but he did freeze wages. The big money types lived on estates, with servants, and total control over their workers.
And if that's socialism, then your definition seems to lack depth. Allow me to adjust the common perception about political labeling of styles of rule.
Governing Systems (by Wild Bill Cox)
Capitalism:
The Rich control the means of production (and control the narrative and write the histories)
Socialism:
The Rich control the means of production (and control the narrative and write the histories)
Communism:
The Rich control the means of production (and control the narrative and write the histories)
As a bon mot, I might purport that Jesus was the first true socialist and even his ministry ascribed to my definition, because it would not have been possible without the support of wealthy patrons.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Avgas and airfield space (and maintenance capacity) had to be split between the transports and their fighter escort. Fighters are ravenous beasts in terms of fuel and maintenance. Auntie Yu? Not anywhere near as difficult to maintain. Moreover, aircraft wear out at phenomenal rates when compared to animals, men, and ground bound machinery. Add to this that tanks and SPWs are maintenance intensive, too, though not so bad as aircraft. All military equipment wears out and must be replaced or repaired regularly. Logistical Support is a big part of supply.
When reading about the enormous lag in industry supplying enough fresh materiel to refit existing divisions, the verifiable numbers of foreign weapons impressed into Heeres service according these claims considerable weight, it seems possible that we have left out the problems in maintaining existing issues of weapons and materiel, while eliminating fresh supplies to replace un-repairable ordnance. No one was flying tanks or SPWs into the pocket. Nor field howitzers, field cannon, AA Guns, replacement KbW, weapons carriers, wheeled troop transporters, or horses.
Hitler and his policy advisers must've recognized that a breakout was possible only if all the heavy equipment was left behind. They-knowing about the production lag, were not willing to leave all that stuff behind. Unfortunately, the very lack in the German ground forces WAS replacement infantry. An escaped, but denuded, 6th Army might've gone a long way toward filling out the existing gaps in all the rest of Germany's field divisions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
As for writing the history. I have it in hardback, all six volumes. Have read them serially and episodally for later analysis. It was the definitive history of the war for years. Not Liddel Hart's, not Eisenhower's. I have not the pleasure of the official Soviet history, through have read extensive excerpts in translation, but I bet they know Churchill better than some of their own* men.
It occurs to me that the "great man" had his eye on advertising his influence, rather than strategic planning. He was a military fanboi, as were Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito, with a keen eye to moving "lower ranks" to passion and élan. Politics was, in a word, his specialty. Not taking responsibility, but deflecting it. Not claiming perfection, but known for "courage" and "verve" and other superlative descriptions without substance. Not planning, but promoting and then meddling at length due to perhaps a combination of late night drinking and the cocaine or amphetamines empowering it.
*I have read Chuikov
1
-
Liked and shared. Love the content. Don't always agree with your conclusions, but your videos are always watch-worthy.
A few small exceptions, if you don't mind.
Hitler and the conservatives: look at the initial list of NAZI card issues. Fritz Thyssen and Alfried Krupp are close to the single digits. Where did Hitler get his campaign funds from? The giants in German industry. He was a tool of conservatives, but not all conservatives are on the same page. Just like today.
Conservative ran the rails that brought freikorps their arms, food, and ammunition. Conservatives pressed for Black List laws to prevent workers from leaving conzerns until the owner wanted them gone. Conservatives ran company schools, churches, and marched workers to the polls to vote in owner approved lots. Never inhibiting these extraordinary privileges, NAZIs proved they were owner friendly. Like the conservatives, however, not all NaSDAP rank and file members (or their leaders) were on the same page. The one "in the pocket of the owners-our friend Adolfus the Mad, won because he had the funding.
Like all monetary political activism, there was buyers' remorse after, leading to revisionist accounts now broadly accepted.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1