Comments by "Nicholas Conder" (@nicholasconder4703) on "TIKhistory" channel.

  1. 124
  2. 91
  3. 67
  4. 41
  5. 41
  6. 39
  7. 38
  8. 36
  9. 31
  10. 30
  11. 29
  12. 27
  13. 24
  14. 23
  15. 23
  16. 22
  17. 20
  18. 17
  19. 17
  20. I hate to disagree with you TIK, but your example with the dominoes was completely erroneous. Minimum Wage is NOT, I repeat NOT, responsible for University students being unable to find jobs. The real reason is that there is a glut of university educated people in the market. So, according to the rules of supply and demand, if there is an over-supply of a commodity in your warehouse, you don't buy that commodity because you have nowhere to put it. Since we are looking at the NUMBER of job openings in the market, the graduates don't get employed. Simple as that. Wages have NOTHING to do with it. Rather like filling a crate with bricks to capacity. Doesn't matter what you do, you cannot put more in the crate until a gap appears, or a new crate is built. This whole business started back in the 1940s, and I agree that government is in part to blame, but so are the Universities. The issue is that at the start of the Cold War, the collective West realized that research and technology were going to be what would win the next war. So they started supporting the Universities in a major way to get more scientists and technicians for the military-industrial complex. The Universities made sure that they could teach all the new students, but then the Deans realized they were onto something, so they expanded the Universities. One need only look at the explosion of Universities and Colleges after WW2 to see this. However, the Deans also realized that they needed to make Universities even more attractive so they could gain more revenue, so they started creating degree programs like "Creative Writing" and "Business Administration" and "Librarian training" (yes, stupid as it seems, you need a Librarian degree to work in a Library or some bookstores nowadays). Simultaneously, there was a push in high schools to promote University as a place where you needed to go to get high-end employment. This was helped by businesses who started hiring people based on them having a University education (usually MBAs) rather than having the actual knowledge and expertise to do the job. By the 1960s the bitter fruits from this approach began to ripen and infect the modern economy. I have seen the results of this in action firsthand, by the way. So, Universities kept multiplying in number, expanding and graduating students irrespective of demand, to the point that by the late 1970s many jobs that really required University degrees were taken. What has happened is that we now have University factories churning out graduates, and at some point, like a jogger on a motorized treadmill. The Universities expand, so they need to attract more students to pay for the new facilities, and they create new degree programs. They then expand again, wash, rinse, repeat. I suspect this education bubble will burst when the population of students who can enter University declines below a certain threshold. At that point the Universities will find themselves having to cut back, use the buildings on campus for other activities, or fold. Again because of the law of supply and demand, but this time because there will be a lack of new students. I would also add that during this process Trade Schools and apprentice programs for the trades (carpentry, electrician, plumbing, etc.) were either underfunded or muscled aside. This has lead to the issue of many western economies having too many University graduates, who cannot find jobs, and a lack of tradesmen to work in construction. Employers are currently screaming for tradesmen.
    17
  21. 17
  22. 16
  23. 16
  24. 16
  25. 16
  26. 15
  27. 14
  28. 14
  29. 14
  30. 13
  31. 13
  32. 13
  33. 13
  34. 12
  35. 12
  36. I think the halt order probably needs Occam's Razor taken to it. I think it most likely that the halt order was given, like the halt order for Army Group Centre at Smolensk, because the panzers had outrun the infantry. Apart from Guderian and the other panzer enthusiasts, the bulk of the German commanders were concerned about Allied counterattacks (such as at Arras). They also needed to rest the troops and perform maintenance on the tanks after something like 8 days of intense fighting and charging over 200 km across the countryside. The German commanders were already looking at finishing off France, so they needed to get their units back into shape (rested, rearmed and resupplied) for the offensive towards Paris and all points south. Also, if the (possibly unsubstantiated) stories that some German soldiers had been given a mild form of methamphetamine, they would be coming off their "high" right around this point (since this would have been the first time the Wehrmacht tried it, they would only now be finding out the down side of combat drugs). Lastly, the German generals figured, much as the British High Command and Admiralty, that only around 30,000 troops could be evacuated out of Dunkirk, not the 338,000 that were eventually taken off the beaches. It is likely they considered this just a "mopping up operation", only to discover a couple of days later that they still had a major fight on their hands. In other words, they forgot the old adage that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Even so, the overall thesis that Hitler wanted to continue fighting Britain is not bad, but he could have done this even after annihilating the British Army at Dunkirk. As long as the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force existed, forcing a crossing of the Channel would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible. The Wehrmacht would not have put so much effort into waterproofing tanks and collecting barges for the invasion had they not been seriously planning to attack England (even though some of the planning was carried out in a sort of malaise). Even if it was a smokescreen, leaving the British with sizeable forces at their disposal would be asking for trouble. Would you really want someone snapping around your heels while you are planning an invasion the size and scope of Barbarossa? Lastly, I think the thesis makes it seem like Hitler was trying to play chess 3-4 moves ahead of his opponents. Given the number of major blunders he made during the war, I find this quite unlikely. If he was that smart, why didn't he ensure his army has enough spares for all their equipment? Why did it take until 1943 for the Germans to start increasing production of tanks, aircraft and artillery? Why was there a chronic shortage of replacements at the front? Surely if you were gearing up for an attack on the Soviet Union you would have included this in your planning. So, in summary, although it is an interesting thesis, I think the idea comes up a bit short. I do agree that there are dots here that should and do need to be connected, but I will have to disagree with how you have connected them.
    11
  37. 11
  38. 11
  39. 11
  40. 11
  41. 11
  42. 9
  43. 9
  44. 9
  45. 9
  46. 9
  47. 9
  48. 9
  49. 9
  50. 8
  51. 8
  52. 8
  53. 8
  54.  @whysoserious5925  I would disagree with calling Churchill a monster. Out of touch at times, yes. A man who was living in the previous century, yes. A man who made huge mistakes, yes. However, he could also be compassionate, and was able to recognize when his errors in judgement resulted in unnecessary hardships. It was Churchill who recognized the futility of trying to hold onto Ireland, and opposed allowing German officers being shot "just because". One needs to look at how cold-blooded the individual was, and the motive behind their actions. We may not agree with their actions, but there is a difference between being incapable of lending a hand, being misguided or oblivious to a crisis, and being a sociopath who is downright vindictive, vicious and cruel (Hitler and Stalin both fell into this category). Being the leader of a country often means making decisions that are further towards the black end of the spectrum than most people would like. However, motive is important. Why were these decisions made? No leader during WW2 was an angel, they couldn't be. Anyone who tried was stomped into the dirt (see the Philippines, Norway and Iceland). I would disagree with you that WW2 was not a "good" war (well, let's say necessary), insofar as the alternative would have been rolling over and playing dead to a bunch of murderous nationalistic bullies who would have enslaved or brainwashed everyone they overran. If you watch things like TimeGhost's War on Humanity series, you will get a real feel for the horror that would have awaited everyone had the Allies not fought back. The Allies were not saints by any stretch of the imagination, but the world the Allied leaders wanted was a much better alternative to the enslavement of humanity under either Naziism or Communism. Which world would you prefer, what we have today (which although full of issues at least gives us the ability to change things), or a world dominated by kangaroo courts, people living in fear the Gestapo/NKVD/Kempeitai/black shirts, neighbours informing on the people next door to garner "brownie points" with the authorities, and mass deportations to concentration camps/gulags?
    8
  55. 8
  56. 8
  57. 8
  58. 8
  59. 8
  60. 8
  61. 8
  62. 8
  63. 7
  64. 7
  65. One thing I would add to your comment about Soviet logistics compared to German logistics. Inefficiencies in the system and the stupidity of communist ideology aside, one point you make, perhaps without realizing it, is that for all their failings, the Soviet leadership put more effort into logistics than the Germans. There was (eventually) a rational system for logistics. And from Overy's book "Why the Allies Won" we see that immediately after the start of the war that the Soviets did take logistics seriously (even if, as suggested by your sources, in 1941 and 1942 they placed a lower priority on it). If they didn't take logistics seriously, why did Stalin ask for trucks, rather than tanks? I would suggest that the collective experience of Stalin and his generals during the Russian Revolution and subsequent Civil War showed them the importance of logistics. I would like to suggest that you brought forth one reason for the poor state of Soviet logistics in 1941-1943, the lack of rail lines. By the winter of 1941-42, the Russians were reduced to few rail lines (in some cases single tracks) that could transport men and material to the frontline areas. This made their supply system inefficient. One source you quoted indicated that Soviet logistics improved during 1943 as the north-south rail system was recovered from the Germans, and rail traffic no longer had to go through Moscow. This not only shows why Moscow was so important to the Soviet war effort (it was perhaps the most important rail hub in the USSR), but also how badly they Germans had disrupted the Russian rail network. A single rail hub can handle only so much traffic, and back-and-forth traffic on a single track is very inefficient (one reason the Canadian Pacific Railway spent so much money on laying parallel tracks wherever possible). The capture and holding of Rzhev by the Wehrmacht in 1941 reduced the ability of the Soviet Union to move supplies around in bulk by rail, and is the reason the Germans fought so hard to keep it. Once this vital hub was retaken, Soviet frontline logistics probably became more efficient (going from a linear back and forth movement to a more efficient circulatory movement of rail traffic), and aided the Red Army's advance. Obviously the USSR had way more oil and gas than Germany did, but it is still interesting that the Germans didn't try developing ways to get around the fuel issue, or focus more on rationalizing their logistical system (which you demonstrated in the last video as being a convoluted Gordian's Knot of conflicting fiefdoms). Instead, as you have indicated, they preferred to coerce client states for these resources or steal them instead. The fact that they started Barbarossa expecting to steal enough Soviet locomotives and rolling stock to solve their mass transportation issues is a prime example of the Wehrmachts poor logistical planning. This is not to say that Soviet logistics was vastly superior than German logistics, rather the Soviet Union had a better appreciation of the problem and dedicated more time and effort to resolving the problems. And, unlike their German counterparts, they at least did a better job of it.
    7
  66. 7
  67. 7
  68. 7
  69. 7
  70. 7
  71. 7
  72. 7
  73.  @blank557  Actually, the Allies did encircle large German Forces on three separate occasions and netted a fairly large to huge haul of Axis prisoners. It's just that Western Historians always seem to harp on about the failures, not the successes. The three major encirclements that are seldom, if ever, mentioned or touted are: Tunisia 1943 - 275,000 to 300,000 Axis POWs (100,000 Germans); Southern France 1944 - estimated at least German 100,000 POWs trapped between Patton's 3rd Army and Patch's 7th Army approaching from Marseilles (Operation Dragoon); and the Ruhr Pocket March 1945 - 317,000 German POWs. Even though people complain about Falaise, the Allies netted another 50,000 German POWs in that one as well. The pursuit after El Alamein has a few missed opportunities, partially because of weather (an abnormal rainfall forced vehicles to stay mostly on the single paved road) and partly because of poor operational handling of divisions by Corps commanders. They did try to catch Rommel on three separate occasions, but for various reasons couldn't close the jaws shut in time. Guess that's one reason they called him "The Desert Fox". On the flip side, there are numerous times the Germans didn't succeed in trapping large enemy forces either, such as Case Blau, Greece, Crete, Dunkirk. In the end, historians sometimes get a form of tunnel vision. Case in point, Napoleon. Everyone talks about his victories, but seldom mention the victories of other generals of the same era (Wellesley, Archduke Charles of Austria, von Blucher, etc.), all of whom scored major victories against Napoleon and his generals.
    7
  74. 7
  75. 7
  76. 7
  77. 7
  78. 6
  79. 6
  80. 6
  81. 6
  82. 6
  83. 6
  84. 6
  85. 6
  86. 6
  87. 6
  88. 6
  89. 6
  90. 6
  91. 6
  92. 6
  93. 6
  94. 6
  95. 6
  96. 6
  97. 6
  98. 6
  99. 6
  100. 6
  101. 5
  102. I agree with you that TIK dislikes anything that smacks of Socialism. I think TIK does tend to ignore that some "socialist policies" are actually Christian in nature, "Love they neighbour as yourself" and "Do unto others as you would have done to you" (e.g., universal health care, old age pensions, support for the unemployed or impoverished). However, he is right in saying that nationalizing (or socializing) industry is a BAD idea (as many countries have discovered to their chagrin). Industry needs to be regulated so the general public and environment do not get harmed by unscrupulous or indifferent owners, but not run by government. Same with agriculture. You sometimes need controls to prevent farmers over-producing their product and lowering the market value to the point they go can't make ends meet and go bankrupt. You then either end up with lower production of a commodity or, in the worst case, large corporations buying up the farms and putting small land holders out of work. This happened to an oyster fishery - there were two good years where there was a surfeit of natural oysters, so the bulk of the farmers went collecting the natural oysters. Guess what happened. The natural oyster population crashed after 2 years, leaving the oyster farmers not only without natural oysters, but without their oyster beds or oyster farming equipment (because they had neglected them). So the industry almost completely collapsed. Or you can get over-exploitation of the resource, and destroy your own industry (the Atlantic cod fishery is a good example of this). Regarding regular farming, I remember seeing an item on the US news where Wisconsin dairy farmers thought the Canadian Dairy Marketing Board was a good idea because it helped stabilize milk prices and prevented over-production and lost revenue that resulted in increasing the dairy farmers' debt. So, it really depends on the degree with which these policies are implemented, the individuals who are trying to implement the policies, and the motives behind them. Like anything else, these things need to be researched, realistic goals or targets set, tried, analyzed, mistakes recognized, and the system modified until the kinks are ironed out. Some control is good, but like anything else, in excess, it can be downright toxic. Both the Nazis and Communists (even Britain under the Labor Government) showed us how badly the wheels fall off your economy and society when you try socializing everything.
    5
  103. 5
  104. 5
  105. 5
  106. 5
  107. 5
  108. 5
  109. 5
  110. 5
  111. 5
  112. 5
  113. 5
  114. 5
  115. 5
  116. 5
  117. 5
  118. 5
  119. 5
  120. 5
  121. 5
  122. 5
  123. 4
  124. 4
  125. 4
  126. 4
  127. 4
  128. 4
  129. 4
  130. 4
  131. 4
  132. 4
  133. 4
  134. 4
  135. 4
  136. 4
  137. 4
  138. 4
  139. 4
  140. 4
  141. 4
  142. 4
  143. 4
  144. 4
  145. 4
  146. 4
  147. 4
  148. 4
  149. 4
  150. 4
  151. 4
  152. 4
  153. 4
  154. 3
  155. 3
  156. 3
  157. 3
  158. 3
  159. 3
  160. 3
  161. 3
  162. 3
  163. 3
  164. 3
  165. 3
  166. 3
  167. 3
  168. 3
  169. 3
  170. 3
  171. 3
  172. 3
  173. 3
  174. 3
  175. 3
  176. 3
  177. 3
  178. 3
  179. 3
  180. 3
  181. 3
  182. 3
  183. 3
  184.  @dpollak59  In this I would disagree. One of Montgomery's problems was that many of the officers under his command had difficulties fighting their units. At El Alamein, for instance, the initial plan was for an armoured thrust through the German lines. However, Montgomery soon realized that his armored divisions were not up to the task, and changed his plan to having the infantry lead. Operation Supercharge was a master stroke of improvising a reserve to get a stalled attack moving. He out-generalled Rommel at Homs, baiting Rommel into taking an inferior defensive position east of Tripoli that could, and was, "bounced", enabling the 8th Army to enter Tripoli without a long battle of attrition in hilly terrain. And, you need to remember, he was in charge of the ENTIRE Normandy campaign from June 6 until September 1, 1944. One further reason for him being downplayed as a good general is Montgomery's own habit of re-writing history. Had he been willing to admit to his improvisations (Operation Supercharge) and failures (such as Goodwood), history might have been kinder to him. Sadly, his ego never allowed this. In trying to make himself seem flawless and that everything went the way he had planned it, he instead opened himself up to ridicule. If TIK is correct that the real aim of Market-Garden (which may actually have been to seal the German 15th Army in Holland and destroy it, as well as capture both the Scheldt Estuary and Rotterdam), then this is a prime example of Montgomery making himself look like a sub-par general with no conception of logistics or operational warfare. I am not trying to make Montgomery out to be the most incredible general who fought in WW2, but a general who has been given the short end of the stick by many.
    3
  185. 3
  186. 3
  187. 3
  188. 3
  189. 3
  190. 3
  191. One correction to your narrative that I think you should address. William L. Shirer was NOT a historian, he was a journalist. As such, although he was writing his books based on his experiences of the time, they were written without critical review. As such, any historian citing the sources should have checked the veracity of the statements, rather than accept them at face value. In this matter the fault lies more with the historians than Shirer, who probably didn't even look at, or fully understand, the nuances of Nazi economics. I would also point out that things like bank records would likely not have been available to Shirer, and so he would not have been able to confirm whether the transactions had taken place or not. In addition, the biggest issue with defining Nazism as being either capitalist or socialist comes down to the fact that many historians looked at the veneer, and thought "If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it must be a duck". Many post-war historians saw a militaristic dictatorship that had a veneer of capitalism (wealthy bankers and what appeared to be privately owned companies) and ASSUMED that they were looking at a capitalistic system. It is only now, when people are looking for something else to write about regarding the 3rd Reich that historians are actually digging beneath the surface and uncovering the socialist aspects of Nazi Germany. So calling this all a "Socialist plot" is, in my opinion, going a bit too far. I would say this misconception is more the result of lack of access to critical archives and data, and laziness on the part of many post-war historians, who seemed to be willing to quote quotes of quoted material rather than put in the laborious work of going back to original sources and actually doing research!
    3
  192. 3
  193. 3
  194. 3
  195. 3
  196. 3
  197. 3
  198.  The Truth  By this time of the war it was probably too late. One reason that Case Blau was planned and implemented (ignoring the Caucuses oil as the other primary reason) was that the defenses around the Leningrad and Moscow regions had been beefed up to the point that OKH didn't think they could easily break through the lines. This is supported, in part, by the 2-3 massive offensives the Red Army launched during 1942 in the Rzhev region. There is a very good video on this in the series "Soviet Storm" called "The Rzhev Meatgrinder" [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnhOTwSL5pI ]. This is a series of battles that have been completely ignored by both Soviet and German historians. During all three attacks the Wehrmacht barely clung to the region, the loss of which would have made their situation on the front near Moscow extremely perilous. You make a very good point, though. Indeed, this was what Paulus had suggested in the spring of 1941 during the planning for Barbarossa. Again, the German High Command forgot about logistics. Had they followed Paulus' plan, their first objective would have been to attack and capture Leningrad. This would have given the Germans complete control of the Baltic, and all the ports into which they could ship supplies. It would have the added benefit of considerably shortening their supply lines. It would also have freed up both German and Finnish troops to put more pressure on the fronts north and east of Leningrad, plus capture the second largest city in Russia and denying both its population and industry to Russia (especially the Kirov Tank factory). Moscow could then be targeted using a pincer movement from south and west. The capture of Moscow would deny the USSR of the use of its factories, prevent the region being used as a communications hub, and prevent the area from being used to recruit soldiers. This could then have been used as a springboard to attack south along the Volga and completely cut off Soviet forces in the Ukraine. Granted, this would have left the Axis forces in the Ukraine understrength, but as long as they could keep the Red Army occupied they would have been doing their job.
    3
  199. 3
  200. 3
  201. 3
  202. 3
  203. 3
  204. 3
  205. TIK, I think I know why those reinforcements were never sent to Stalingrad. I have been watching a made-for-TV series produced in Russian in 2011 called "Soviet Storm". In episode 6, "The Rzhev Meat Grinder", it talks about the Red Armies repeated attempts to retake Rzhev, which was a major rail hub for north-south and east-west rail traffic. It was a cornerstone of Army Group Centre's supply lines, and had to be held at all costs. Knowing this, the Red Army launched a major offensives in July and August 1942 that came close to capturing the Vyazma-Rzhev rail line. Model had to commit all the troops he had assembled for his own small offensive, and only barely prevented the collapse of the central front near Moscow. According to the TV series, neither side ever talked about this after the war, the Soviets because they lost huge numbers of men, the Germans because they lost ground and fought a pedestrian defensive battle that they almost lost (hence was not good for PR). During these summer offensives, the Germans suffered around 60,000 casualties, while the Red Army lost around 314,000 men. During Operation Mars, Army Group Centre lost a further 53,000 men, while the Red Army lost at least 216,000. If you can dig up some more information about the battles around Rzhev, it might make for a great video. Also, I know you don't like Halder, but in a sense this does rehabilitate him somewhat for the failure at Stalingrad (though not completely). It also demonstrates how thinly stretched the Wehrmacht was in 1942 (robbing Peter to pay Paul), backing up Citino's claims that this is the year that Germany lost.
    3
  206. 3
  207. 3
  208. 2
  209. 2
  210. 2
  211. 2
  212. I agree with your assessment that there wasn't, yet was, an evacuation. Based on what we know about him, I also think that the sociopath Stalin probably did forbid a mass evacuation of the city. Given the priorities of transporting war materials, foodstuffs and soldiers across the Volga (and via the railroads for as long as they operated), it made sense not to transport large numbers of civilians. Moving large numbers of civilians would reduce the amount of war-related materials you could ship (including food), and lead to issues of finding housing for the displaced population. It also made sense to evacuate key personnel or highly trained professionals. Evacuating small numbers of individuals would not have strained the transportation system or panicked the population (egads, now I'm thinking like Stalin!). However, one other factor comes into play here, that being the inability of people to sense danger or ignore perilous situations. Up until August 20th, it appeared that the Wehrmacht had been stalled at the Don, and would be unable to proceed much further. This sentiment was probably reinforced by Soviet propaganda and erroneous reporting of the facts. Army commanders and political commissars had a lot on their plate at this time, so in all likelihood they either did not have time to think about organizing an evacuation, or felt they might have the situation somewhat in hand. For the civilians, the quotes from residents talking about going for a picnic on Mamayev Kurgan or shopping at the market strikes an almost surreal note, especially if one considers the Germans were only 50 km from downtown Stalingrad. So, in summary, although the population was ordered to stay put, I think they also did not fully grasp the peril they were in.
    2
  213. 2
  214. 2
  215. 2
  216. 2
  217. 2
  218. 2
  219. 2
  220. I have always wondered why Holocaust deniers cannot seem to believe the evidence. The only conclusions I can come to is that they blind themselves to the evidence, either because it is unpalatable or it contradicts their world view. I have encountered both versions of this denial, either from an anti-Semitic point of view, or incredulity that anything so horrific could be perpetrated by people. Sadly, the evidence is really overwhelming that this did occur. Indeed, my mother saw the results of the Holocaust first-hand when she visited Bergen-Belsen in June 1945. She even wrote a letter to our local newspaper in response to an article in that paper. She ended her letter to the editor with, "Yes, I shall not forget Belsen's indescribable stench of death, and the look of terror still remaining in the eyes of the sick survivors. I despair when I read of the people who attempt to deny the existence of the extermination camps. Will they continue to reject similar unpleasant truths because they are too unpalatable?" I would also suggest Time Ghost's War Against Humanity series, as they have researched and supply the actual numbers of individuals "liquidated" during the Einsatzgruppen operations in 1941 and 1942 from the SS records. It gives an idea of the scope of the Holocaust (and other similar acts by the Japanese and Russians). So far in the fall of 1942 they indicate that around two million people have already been killed, and this is before the death camps have really started operating. If you have not been watching this series, I highly recommend it.
    2
  221. 2
  222. 2
  223. 2
  224. 2
  225. 2
  226. 2
  227. 2
  228. 2
  229. 2
  230. 2
  231. 2
  232. 2
  233. 2
  234. 2
  235. 2
  236. 2
  237.  @Grimenoughtomaketherobotcry  I am not assuming as much unity between the US and the UK as you may suppose. They wanted to present a united front, but there were undercurrents present that most people were unaware of at the time. For one thing, Roosevelt's pronouncement at Casablanca caught Churchill off guard. I suspect it was discussed at the table, since Churchill grudgingly went along with it, but I suspect that the two leaders had something else in mind. Furthermore, I think one US agenda throughout the war was to end colonialism, whether through a naive belief this would make the world a better place (after all, they do say they want nations to have self determination), or a cynical means to break up closed markets, or both. There is a wonderful Nazi cartoon about Lend-Lease, showing a cheerful Roosevelt shearing the British Lion. Churchill, being of the Victoria and Edwardian mindset, obviously wanted to maintain the British Empire. The permanent stationing of US troops in Europe was not an American war aim. Initially, some military force would have to remain in Germany to help rebuild infrastructure and re-establish rule of law. This is what happened in Japan as well. However, the permanent stationing of troops in Europe came about as a result of it becoming very clear in mid- to late 1945 that Stalin was not going to move his troops out of eastern Europe, and was set on establishing a bunch of puppet states put into place with sham elections and the backing of the Red Army. Although the British and American leaders probably suspected this would happen, having it unfold before their eyes was probably rather depressing. One need only look at the wars and crises that Stalin started before his death, the blockade of Berlin and the Korean War, to see his desire to expand communist rule everywhere. Look at Kruschev's "We will bury you" speech. All the treaties the Soviet Union signed, then broke. The crushing of the Hungarian Uprising and the Prague Spring. The invasion of Afghanistan. The placement of weapons on their space station in contravention of UN treaties. And the list goes on ... [by the way, this is not to say the Americans haven't a similarity long litany of extremely dubious activity in the Americas, Asia and elsewhere either]. The permanent basing of US troops in Europe came about because of need, not desire. It was done as a deterrent and to assist the western European countries in case of Soviet invasion, not as an occupation force. And given ex-KGB agent Putin's threats and apparent desire to re-establish the Soviet Union (or create the unwanted Pan-Slavic Union), sadly they are still needed there.
    2
  238. 2
  239. Well, two things I would like to say. First, Germany always had plans to re-arm. von Seeckt and the German General Staff were secretly rearming and training the Wehrmacht during the 1920's and early 1930s in contravention of the Treaty of Versailles. They wanted another war to prove how great Germany was (also one of the reasons Germany went to war in 1914). Second, the Hossbach Memo is more of a rough outline for aggressive expansion rather than a discussion of what to do if Germany is attacked. Indeed, Hitler was upset about the results of Munich - he wanted war in 1938. And let's face it, the Czechs weren't planning an aggressive war against Germany, nor was Poland, or Yugoslavia, or Greece, or Belgium, or Holland, and the list goes on. I do agree that Britain, France, Belgium and Holland (and even the US) had overseas empires. However, some people inside those countries were starting to seriously talk about the cost of empire, and seeking to divest themselves of their empires. Britain had already given independence to Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa by this time. So these countries were finally, and extremely slowly, starting to realize that imperial conquest was wrong. Japan, Italy and Germany did not have those developing scruples, which is one reason they were condemned for their actions. However, it should never be forgotten that the primary reason they are vilified is their excessive barbarism towards everyone nation and people they fought or occupied. Finally, these three nations attempted to create empires at a time when people's views on self-determination were changing. I do agree (and have often thought) that in any era prior to the mid-1900s their actions would have been taken in stride. However, their brutality and avarice during an age of mass communication turned the entire world against them.
    2
  240. 2
  241. 2
  242. 2
  243. 2
  244. 2
  245. 2
  246. 2
  247. 2
  248. 2
  249. 2
  250. 2
  251. 2
  252. Megalomania is a form of madness, so in this respect Hitler was insane. That does not mean that he was completely irrational, as he had a reasonable grasp of economics and the deficiencies that Germany suffered from. However, his overall thinking and philosophy was flawed, as was that of Stalin, Napoleon, Louis XIV, and many others who suffered from megalomania. The fact that so many "rational" people like Halder and von Papen followed Hitler or allowed him to have power shows that he was not raving mad (like the Joker), at least until late 1944. And many of these same people later tried to disavow their actions and use Hitler as a scapegoat. Which begs the question, if, as they say, they knowingly followed someone they thought (ex post facto) was insane, what does that say about their level of sanity? By the fall of 1944 Hitler was believing his own propaganda, and starting to ignore reality to live in his own world. It was around this time that he probably could be called "mad". Then again, this is something that has happened to many dictators or wannabe dictators who are in the process of losing. It is likely we all have minor versions of this wired into us. How many times when a picnic is planned and it turns into a rainy day do we keep looking for the weather to clear, getting elated at every lighter patch of sky appears? Or how many gamblers keep betting on the next hand hoping for a big win? It doesn't make you insane, per se. It is only when carried to the extreme, when you cannot accept reality at all, that it could be called a form of insanity. But, it must be remembered, this took place long after the events for which Hitler's sanity is initially called into question. With regards to the drug us, I don't think Hitler really began using the cocktail of medications until later in the war, after the war was already lost. So again, people like Halder can't really use this as a defense to say why they lost the war.
    2
  253. 2
  254. 2
  255. 2
  256. 2
  257. 2
  258. 2
  259. 2
  260. 2
  261. 2
  262. 2
  263. 2
  264. 2
  265. 2
  266. 2
  267. 2
  268. 2
  269. 2
  270. 2
  271. 2
  272. 2
  273.  @bigwoody4704  Actually, the Japanese were completely shocked that MacArthur actually landed on the beaches on the first day. They couldn't believe it. It was MacArthur who insisted on landing in the Philippines. Nimitz wanted to land on Taiwan. After the war, when he looked at what his troops would have to face, he agreed that MacArthur was right. MacArthur also realized that the Philippine landings would be good political PR for the US (we live up to our agreements, "I shall return"), and would be supported by Filipino guerillas, so a win-win situation. I agree that MacArthur had two great subordinates, Krueger and Eichelberger, but as I have said before, "the buck stops here". MacArthur was in overall command and approved plans that his staff came up with (or developed from his ideas). An army is a team, and must function properly from top to bottom to win. If MacArthur was a bumbling boob, his army would not have performed as well as it did. With regards to him skeedaddling, you need to re-read the battle in the Philippines from December 1941 to May 1942. Roosevelt ORDERED MacArthur to leave, overruling his protests that he would stay and go down fighting with his troops. MacArthur initially refused to obey Roosevelt's order, but was forced to obey. A guy who stands out in the open at the entrance of the Malinta Tunnel and watches the Japanese planes bombing Corregidor (where the Malinta Tunnel is located - I've been there) is not the kind of person who will run when the going gets tough. In this he was like Patton, personally brave to the point of recklessness. But, I also agree with the ego bit. I think I mentioned Eisenhower's quote about MacArthur in a previous post, and it pretty describes MacArthur's posturing.
    2
  274.  @bigwoody4704  There were many who would agree with you that MacArthur should have gotten the axe. Given what appears in most histories, I would also agree that he should have given the boot, with caveats. The biggest problem is that many records from this crucial period are missing, and few of the participants really talked about what happened on the morning of December 8, 1941, in Manila. It would be interesting to look into the archives to see if there were extenuating circumstances. It is important to remember that the Philippines were a protectorate on their way to full independence from the US at the time, and MacArthur's job had been primarily as a military advisor to the President of the Philippines. It is possible there were some communications or agreements made between Quezon and MacArthur that he would not use what could be technically neutral soil as a launching pad for an attack. He may have been under direct orders from Roosevelt and/or Quezon to not provoke the Japanese. Then again, it may just be he completely dropped the ball and Roosevelt figured he couldn't give the Japanese the propaganda value of capturing a high level US General. We may never know. By the way, this does not absolve him for the lack of preparation of the US and Filipino ground forces in December 1941, or shoddy planning during the retreat which left over 3 months of food in warehouses that could have kept the troops in Bataan and Corregidor healthier and more able to counter Japanese attacks. So, as I mention above, I agree he made some truly horrendous mistakes right up until the end of the Buna Campaign in February 1943. After that, he and his staff got their collective acts together, showing great imagination and drive in pushing the Japanese completely out of the region and starting the final drives to liberate the Philippines in early 1945.
    2
  275. 2
  276. 2
  277. 2
  278. 2
  279. 2
  280. 2
  281. 2
  282. 2
  283. 2
  284. 2
  285. 2
  286. 2
  287. 2
  288. 2
  289. 2
  290. 2
  291. 2
  292. 2
  293. One issue I had with TIK discussing moving the units around to maximize the forces entering the city is that he did not provide a map showing where these units were all located. One may say, "why didn't they just move X to Y", but it may not necessarily be that easy (i.e., he could have just moved the units, but is this really the case?). Grabbing three divisions and moving them into position is not an easy task. It is one reason why Montgomery gets praise for shifting 3rd Division 30 miles at night to plug the gap left by the Belgium capitulation during the retreat to Dunkirk. It is also why Patton gets praise for shifting a corps to hit the German southern flank during the Battle of the Bulge. It is no easy task to shift troops out of the lines and replace them with other units on the fly. Time is also important, as it takes time to do this, but the longer one delays, the more time the enemy has to entrench and fortify their position. Sometimes you have to make do with what you have on hand. In addition, over the two days Paulus had to act on this, he was concerned with: 1) watching the developing situation with the Italian Army towards his rear, 2) fending off Soviet counterattacks, 3) trying to figure out how to rescue the troops in the pocket near Stalingrad, 4) keeping up the pressure so the Soviets could not organize a successful counterattack, 5) planning how to link up with Hoth's 4th Panzer Army to encircle and destroy Soviet forces outside the city, 6) organizing an assault force to take the city. This is a lot on your plate. Add in trying to move whole divisions around and it is a recipe for disaster (eg., General Rosecrans at Chickamauga). Best analogy I can think of for Paulus' problems at this time is juggling a set of balls in the air with one foot on a pier, the other in a rowboat, and someone forgot to tie the boat to the pier!
    2
  294. 2
  295. 2
  296. 2
  297. 2
  298. 2
  299. 2
  300. 2
  301. 2
  302. 2
  303. 2
  304. 2
  305. 2
  306. 2
  307. 2
  308. 2
  309. 2
  310. 2
  311. 2
  312. 2
  313. 2
  314. 2
  315. 2
  316. 2
  317. 2
  318. 2
  319. I would say a couple of things here. First, I think your analogy is a bit off. It would be more like a football league that decides to change the rules and allow the use of underarm forward passes in the game. No coach or team raises a complaint when this motion is passed. During the playoffs, both teams use this technique due to adverse field conditions making some regular throws difficult. No complaints are lodged by either team. During the finals both teams use the underarm forward pass, but the winning team uses it more often. There are no formal complaints lodged with the league before, during or immediately after the final game. It is not until one or more weeks later that the losing team lodges a complaint that the new method of passing the football is against the rules of the game, mainly because they feel they would have won the championship without the other team using the forward underarm pass. Second, would the people who submitted this document to the Pennsylvania State Court have lodged a similar complaint had the Republicans won the election by a narrow margin? What would the reactions have been if the Democrats had lodged the same complaint with similar timing about Section 77 following a defeat at the polls? Would Republicans have backed the Democrats in their bid to disallow these mail-in votes because Section 77 should not be considered constitutional? It would, of course, mean invalidating all the mail-in Republican ballots as well, which might threaten the Republican win. If the claim was legitimate, I would like to say yes. However, if this theoretical scenario played out, my suspicion is that most Republicans would defend Section 77 to the hilt as legal and just, and complain that the Democrats were trying to steal the election.
    2
  320. 2
  321. 2
  322. 1
  323. 1
  324. 1
  325. 1
  326. 1
  327. 1
  328. 1
  329. 1
  330. 1
  331. 1
  332. 1
  333. 1
  334. 1
  335. 1
  336. Myself, I think the first turning point of the Stalingrad campaign was the conference between Hitler, Paulus, von Weichs and Halder. At this point the Germans have yet to commit themselves fully to fighting in Stalingrad (few if any troops have entered the city at this time), yet Paulus is already calling for more divisions to complete the conquest of the city. Halder, when asked about divisions, basically gives the same answer that General Gamelin did in France in 1940, there are none to spare. My reasoning why this is a turning point is that Hitler and the three generals at the conference don't stop, look at the situation, reconsider their options and realize they are overextended (like they were in December 1941 in front of Moscow). Instead, they commit themselves to fighting the attritional warfare both outside and inside of Stalingrad. They had a choice at this point, to realize that they didn't have the forces on either front to complete both tasks and work out a solution to facilitate a return to mobile warfare (perhaps even pulling back to the Don). Instead, they decided to both rob Peter to pay Paulus (transferring 3 divisions from 4th Panzer Army to 6th Army) and reinforce failure. Fall Blau may have failed at the point you indicated (the meeting where Hitler lost his temper), but I think this is now that the wheels really start falling off the German war machine. Everyone at the conference is beginning to realize things are not going well, but none of them are unwilling to voice their concerns and make the tough choices required to salvage the situation. Thus they committed themselves to attritional warfare. They end up acting like the monkey that is caught with its hand in the pot, refusing to let go of the fruit even though it means he can't get his arm free, and so is trapped.
    1
  337. 1
  338. 1
  339. 1
  340. 1
  341. 1
  342. 1
  343. 1
  344. 1
  345. 1
  346. 1
  347. 1
  348. 1
  349. 1
  350. 1
  351. 1
  352. 1
  353. 1
  354. 1
  355. 1
  356. 1
  357. 1
  358. 1
  359.  @TheImperatorKnight  However, without oversight, capitalists tend to become avaricious and you end up with the same situation that lead to the collapse of most Chinese dynasties, brought about the French Revolution, etc. The theory of economics also tends to ignore two factors. First, every system, no matter what it is, has a carrying capacity. With the marketplace, there is a limit to what you can sell (as Gateway computers discovered the hard way). Second, theory tends to overlook reality, most importantly, base human nature. Most people who end up in the top echelons become detached from their workers, and so begin to exploit them by cutting wages, etc., in order to benefit themselves. There is a good reason why the Greeks said four of the deadly sins released by Pandora were Greed, Envy, Gluttony and Lust. That being said, socialism in all its forms is a fools dream, because socialism blithely ignores base human nature completely. At least capitalism embraces reality. Capitalism works, and it does, and quite effectively. Indeed, if you read the Bible you find Christ uses a lot of marketplace analogies in the parables. However, unless there is oversight capitalism degenerates into one form or other of slavery. Many CEOs and company presidents would like nothing more than to run their companies like plantations or the Potosi slave mines. After all, you get rich, there is little overhead, and you have product to sell. Who cares about the people working for you? After all, they don't buy your product. Also, government is responsible for the vast majority of infrastructure that empowers industry. The road network is one example, water and sewage another. I know of only two dams in the world that were built using private funds alone, Boulder (Hoover) dam and the dam at Whitehorse, Yukion. The vast majority are government projects, either directly or indirectly. Same with many power stations. Stating that the market is independent of government also ignores the whole issue of tariffs, trade agreements and the like. And without government intervention, companies and nations would go bankrupt as cheap offshore products flood the markets. Industrialized nations would rapidly lose their farms which is the basis for any economy or nation, as the Japanese well know (which is why they don't allow foreign importation of rice). So, I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
    1
  360. 1
  361. 1
  362. 1
  363. 1
  364.  @Kilroywas  As the Mythbusters would say, I think it is plausible but not proven. I have read accounts of Japanese pilots during the battle of Midway being given "Aviation Pill A". The nature of this pill was never mentioned, but is rather suspicious in light of the TimeGhost video. Having troops somewhat high on drugs would also explain how the Wehrmacht forces could push so hard for so long during 1940 and 1941, then end up having to stop for 2-3 days. Granted, I could be reading too much into this and the halt at the channel can be explained by logistical issues. However, it could also be in part due to soldiers coming down from a "high" and being unable to fight. Given how willing (high strung?) German soldiers were to commit atrocities against civilians and prisoners (including machine-gunning refugees along the highways), it does make for a reasonable circumstantial case. Without proper documentation, such as medical records indicating these pills were given to specific units on particular days, it would never stand up in a court of law or as a university thesis. However, before you get upset, please remember my argument is based on circumstantial evidence and what was presented in Indy's video. Even if drugs were administered, they would have been to select groups of soldiers at specific times, not to the entire army all at once for an extended period of time. If they were used, it would be to "enhance combat efficiency" during critical phases of a battle (i.e., give the troops an extra boost to overpower their opponents). Also, the concentration of meth would have been relatively low compared to what people consume to get a "fix" because you would want to "invigorate" the troops, not make it so they could not perform properly. The idea would be similar to giving someone a can of Red Bull to keep them awake when pulling an all-nighter (at least that is how they would justify it). Still, I will freely admit that apart from the TimeGhost video and the Midway reference I have not any other references to combat enhancing agents being employed by any of the combatants during the war, so your point is well taken.
    1
  365. 1
  366. 1
  367. 1
  368. 1
  369. 1
  370. 1
  371. 1
  372. 1
  373. 1
  374. 1
  375.  Pantelis Tzimas  However, there is a difference between egalitarianism and having Christian charity. You are correct that there are differences between people with regard to their mental or physical abilities. It must be remembered, though, that all people should be equal before the law, and should be seen as human beings. This means it is up to us to help those who have difficulties, not mock them or look down our noses at them. I have talked to many street people who are extremely articulate and want to work, but have disabilities or other non-addiction related issues that prevent them from doing so. It also depends on who you call "competent people", because many individuals who appear competent are really shysters and con-men in suits, preying on the weak. This includes many of the wealthy businessmen are in the top 5%. The system that appears to work best in the world is not full-on capitalism, nor is it a socialist approach. What most countries in the world have is a mixed economy, with free market (capitalist) system that has controls placed on it to prevent the formation of monopolies, protect the populace from apathetic individuals who worry more about profit than people, and work to avoid a boom-bust cycle that unfettered capitalism would likely degenerate into. The issue here boils down to the degree of control that is administered. Too much and the economy (and creativity) stagnates. Too little and one winds up with massive numbers of bankruptcies and failed businesses. Finding that balance between is the tricky part. Lastly, I would like to ask what criteria one should use to determine if someone is worth helping? In this one needs to take into account the fact that health care is important. A population that has universal health care is a lot happier and probably more productive than one that does not. The presence of a social safety net means fewer problems for people who suddenly find themselves unemployed through no fault of their own. Where do you draw the line?
    1
  376. 1
  377. I don't have an issue with capitalism per se, but the issue we have nowadays is the hoarding of wealth by many of the rich, rather than wise investment in creating new industry and job opportunities. This is the real issue. People like Elon Musk and Rockefeller produced industries and jobs, growing the economy. I don't begrudge them their wealth because they are (or did) work hard to create something with the profits they made. However, many of the wealthy nowadays take advantage of the perks of being in a managerial or high corporate executive position to live the high life, wasting money that could be spent elsewhere, or salting it away in offshore accounts where it just sits. Any healthy system requires some degree of imbalance to function. Hydroelectric power generation works this way, so do the cells in our bodies. . An economy is about the flow of money within the market system. And this is why I have problems with those capitalists who hoard wealth - they remove capital from the system and eventually destabilize the economy (by creating an inverted pyramid of capital). For a somewhat different reason I think that people who adhere to purely socialist ideals have no understanding of economics either. Creating a completely level playing field, like hard core socialists and Marxists claim will create a "worker's paradise", is a dead end as well, since distributing the wealth evenly leads to stagnation (with no large pool of capital, how will you build new factories and businesses) and eventually the death of the economy. Besides, has anyone seen how incompetent a lot of senior civil servants are? I wouldn't trust most of them to run a coffee shop. One other thing I notice you did not really mention was the issue of the cost of living. If we have a situation where people have to hold down 2 or 3 jobs just to make ends meet, there is an issue. People shouldn't be living on the verge of starvation when working as hard as they can. One could say to them that they should get another job, but this is not always possible. In one case where I live, a new business opened up and were hiring 10 employees. There were over 200 applicants! Plus, one has to always remember that you are not talking about numbers or statistics. These are real people who have spouses and children. You also cannot forget that when the industrial revolution started in Britain, there was a lot of poverty and even starvation, and no jobs. This lead to a massive increase in crime, which in turn lead people being arrested, convicted, then forced to live on prison hulks, or eventually shipped off to places like Australia. Capitalism is a reasonable system, but we also have to remember that we have to ensure there is a humanitarian bent to is as well. Otherwise, people will get exploited (check out the "Revolutions" history podcast where he talks about the causes of some of the revolutions he covers) and quite possibly rebel.
    1
  378. 1
  379. 1
  380. 1
  381. 1
  382. 1
  383. I think I said this once before, but history is about reconstructing what actually happened based on imperfect observation of the events and often fragmentary evidence. We can more or less figure out what occurred, but it takes careful reading of human observations and using those to interpret the physical evidence that exists. Unfortunately, human beings each have a limited view of events that is skewed by prejudice/bias/ego and often misremembered/reinterpreted over time. With the exception of individuals with eidetic memories, we usually forget details of the event(s) or conversations, and mentally try to fill in those gaps, further distorting the record (I saw a very good TV show that covered this phenomenon). As you point out, you need multiple sources and many different types of evidence to help clarify the course of events. Then comes the hardest part for any historian - leaving preconceived notions and biases at the door to try and reconstruct, to the best of their ability, what actually happened based on flawed human recollection. One need only look at recent history with the sinking of the RMS Titanic. Several survivors claimed the ship broke up as it sank, yet the inquiry never included this information in their report. That is because the break-up of the ship would have called into question the quality of British ship building at the time. Nor did they include a very important fact that Captain Smith actually started up the ship's engines and steamed away from the site of the collision at around 10-12 knots for about 15 minutes (which explains why none of the passengers recall ever saw the iceberg from the lifeboats)! This last bit of important information was only recently discovered in the notes made by one of the members of the review board at the inquiry. This was pretty much buried by the review board because this would impugned Captain Smith reputation even further. And yet both these facts are important in the narrative of how and why RMS Titanic sank.
    1
  384. 1
  385. 1
  386. 1
  387. 1
  388. 1
  389. 1
  390. 1
  391. 1
  392.  @TheImperatorKnight  If the statistics that Richard Overy presents in "Why the Allies Won" are correct, this is only part of the story. Yes, Lend-Lease gave the Russians the boots, trucks and food they needed to go onto the offensive. However, the Russians produced more equipment with fewer raw materials than the Germans did, and got more of it to the front than the Germans did even in 1941. They were able to move a large proportion of their factories beyond the reach of the Germans in 1941, a feat that I doubt the Germans could have replicated. I think the issue with German logistics was something you touched on but may not have fully explored, that being the huge number of "satrapies" created within the Wehrmacht and German industry. Everyone in the Third Reich was "empire building", so rather than having a unified manufacturing and supply system, you had a bunch of little fiefdoms all scrambling for the same resources. This lead to a rat's nest of conflicting priorities and massive inefficiencies. There was no real centralized planning, which is what happened in the Soviet Union and, ironically enough, in the United States. It is something that Speer tried, with some success, to fix in 1943 and 1944. This is perfectly illustrated with your description of the chain of command at 4:26 in the video. I mean, seriously, why wasn't there a 3rd person at railhead in charge of distributing the supplies to the units as required, rather than QM General Wagner (whom I suspect was back in Germany)? Why should the general in charge of supplying the army be saddled with the minutia of which unit gets what? Why should the Luftwaffe have a completely different system separate from the Army one vying for the same transportation links? This chain of command makes absolutely no sense at all! However, it does fit with the Nazi ideology, as exemplified by Hitler's inner circle, of creating competing entities that fight one another for some resource (including access to Hitler), preventing any one entity becoming too powerful. And, in my opinion, it also fits with the explanation that the Germans didn't plan for extended campaigns or wars, and thus overlooked the importance of a rational logistical system to supply their army over the long haul.
    1
  393. 1
  394. 1
  395. 1
  396. 1
  397. Having watched the entire series on Market Garden, I will have to disagree somewhat with your summary of what went wrong. Overall, although nice in concept, the main issue with the attack was that it was made with the presumption that the Germans were still on the run and incapable of mounting a serious defence. This is somewhat understandable, as the British Army (as well as the Americans) had made spectacular gains following the defeat of the German army in Normandy. I seem to recall that the British Army raced the 300+ kilometres from the Seine to the Antwerp in a little over 2 weeks. It is possible that Montgomery may have been trying to repeat, or was thinking back on, his successful advance on Tripoli. Here, Montgomery "suckered" Rommel into defending a line at Beurat, then punched through Rommel's defences and "bounced" the Axis forces out of the more defensible terrain (Homs-Tarhuna position) just east of Tripoli before they could dig in and defend the approaches to the port. It may be my imagination, but Market Garden seems to have the same feel to it (race up and take the bridges before the enemy can react). Sadly, for the airborne troops and 30 Corps, the British intelligence was lacking and did not trust the Dutch underground's reports, with fatal results. I also agree that the plan relied too heavily on the enemy reacting the way you hoped they would, and was a bit overambitious. Was it a mistake? No, I don't think so, merely a plan that did not work out. Market-Garden is probably the epitome of the old saying, "Success has many fathers, failure is an orphan". Or, to quote Maxwell Smart, "Missed it by that much!"
    1
  398. 1
  399. 1
  400. 1
  401. 1
  402. 1
  403. 1
  404. 1
  405. 1
  406. 1
  407.  @neilkenny4585  You obviously have not been watching Time Ghost's week by week recounting of WW2. Britain was actively trying to help the Finns against the Soviets during the Winter War of 1939-1940, and even managed to send some aircraft to Finland to fight the Soviets. Unfortunately, access to Finland was extremely limited. Britain also had plans to launch air raids against Baku and the Caucuses oil fields in 1940. The only reason they didn't was because they didn't feel that they would be able to stop a Russian offensive into Iran and on into Iraq, where the bombers would be stationed (not to mention Britain's Middle East oil fields). It was better to sit and bide ones time, and not fight too many foes at once. With regards to a Navy in WW1, why did Germany even need one? The US, Japan, France and Britain were all invested in international maritime trade, unlike Germany. And again, why was their navy built specifically to take out the Royal Navy? That was its expressed purpose, not protection of trade, but destroying the Royal Navy. That is why their ships were mostly designed with the minimum of crew comforts, and why the sailors lived in barracks on shore most of the time. You can say what you want, but Germany had no reason or business invading Belgium. IT WAS WRONG! You can make all the excuses you like, but the point of fact is that Germany wanted a war in 1914 to defeat the Russians before they industrialized, and wanted to impose their will on the then order of Europe. They were itching for a fight. I agree that in 1939 the British government made promises to Poland it could not keep. I think they thought that by doing so they might cause the Germans to pause and rethink what they were doing. Like many miscalculations before and after, they were wrong. Hitler wanted a war, and he got it. Britain ended up paying the price, although I think the war merely hastened what was already happening, that is, the breakup of the empire. But if you think WW2 was not a justified war, you should watch the Time Ghost series "War on Humanity" or the Nazi's plans for the occupation of Britain and, believe it or not, the United States. Hitler and his cohorts were monsters who had to be stopped, and were. By the way, two things. One, I do research stuff. I actually have a fairly extensive home library, and my parents served in WW2. Two, I have never once called you or anyone else corresponding on this site a Nazi.
    1
  408.  @neilkenny4585  I took a quick look at the synopses, and am pretty sure I would probably get about half way through them before tossing them out. They seem to be written by people who long for the British Empire as it was, ignoring the fact that the world was changing at the time. Are both authors ignoring the growing independence movements worldwide? The developing unsustainability of the Empire? Britains slow decline due to aging industrial complexes and changing technology? I agree that WWI and WWII bankrupted Britain, of that there is no doubt. But in the long term, Britain's participation in WWI prevented the formation of a Europe dominated by a rapacious Germany bent on European hegemony. If Germany had defeated France and Russia, they wouldn't have been content to stop there. The German High Seas Fleet wanted to defeat the Royal Navy and replace it. It would probably have not taken long for the Germans to start wanting to invade England as well. Same in WWII, but worse, as Germany was driven by a bunch of ideologues who viewed themselves as the master race who's prime duty was to enslave anyone who was "inferior". In both cases, a Germany triumphant wouldn't want any rivals on the world stage. Do you really think they would have left Britain alone? Seriously, this is revisionist history at its worst, trying to rewrite history to create a utopian version where everyone gets along together, kumbaya. Both books seem to be written from an Anglo-centric view, and ignore the larger picture of what would have happened in the world had Britain not sacrificed its treasure and Empire to save humanity. To ignore this is to belittle the sacrifices of 2 generations of Britain's youth, and the enormous amount of gratitude and respect Britain has obtained through their actions.
    1
  409. 1
  410. 1
  411. 1
  412. 1
  413. 1
  414. 1
  415. 1
  416. 1
  417. 1
  418. 1
  419. 1
  420. 1
  421. 1
  422. I do agree that economics alone cannot explain the collapse. I also concur there were a multiplicity of factors that combined to make this collapse occur: 1) Economics - the lack to food is definitely a major issue here. Centralization and rationing are targeted as the main culprits. But is this really the case? How much food did Austro-Hungary consume versus its production? If, like Germany in 1917-1918, there was a net deficit (i.e., they had to import food from elsewhere), then centralization of food distribution does make sense. Germany also suffered from food riots in 1918 as well, but didn't disintegrate. Britain in both WWI and WW2 had food rationing, as did the US in WW2, yet there were no revolutions in these countries. Therefore, I would suggest that the economics of food distribution was only part of the story. 2) Military defeats - the loss of morale within both the military and civilian populations, as well as the high death toll, would have contributed to the collapse of the multi-ethnic state. Following the defeat in the battle of Vittorio Veneto in 1918, as well as the collapse of the Balkan Front, what little hope the Austro-Hungarians had of ultimate victory would have vanished. People would have started searching around for both scapegoats and the means to get out of the war before they were invaded. In desperation they would have turned to solutions other than those presented by the central government, in this case nationalistically-based states. 3) Ethnicity - this had already posed problems for the Hapsburgs as they declined in power from 1848-1867, which is why the Hungarians were given more say in government and the Austrian Empire was renamed the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The Habsburgs "dodged a bullet" during this time, but many nationalist groups sprang up during this time. Those that were well organized and were making their presence felt on the international scene (especially during WW1) obtained recognition both inside Austro-Hungary and internationally. Thus, when the crises of 1917-1918 (economic and military) hit, these groups (Czechs, Hungarians, Slovaks, Croatians, Slovenes) attracted a lot adherents. This lead to a dispersal of political power and created clear factions within Austro-Hungary. It also didn't help that these very groups were being persecuted, further solidifying the legitimacy of these political groups. 4) External pressures - the situation in 1918 was definitely different than in 1848. In 1848, several countries in Europe were suffering from political upheavals, and many nation states were struggling to maintain the post-Napoleonic stability in Europe. Since these were all internal revolts that, had they spread, could have destabilized Europe. efforts were made to help nations in the throws of revolution. In 1918, the British and French (as well as the Americans), wanted to destabilize the Central Powers, so it behooved them to legitimize and support these independence movements. It also allowed the Allies to punish Austro-Hungary for starting the war, and weaken them (it was hoped) to the point where they would be unable to start another "War to end all wars". These four factors (there may be some I didn't think of), working in concert caused the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. For instance, when Hungarian soldiers on the front lines were told to head home by the Hungarian politicians, they did so. Literally, they dropped their weapons and walked away. I know this from talking with a couple of Hungarians whose fathers fought in WW1. In other words, the soldiers of various ethnic backgrounds listened to politicians from their own ethnic backgrounds, not the Austrian officer corps. The civilian population, tired of the war, the casualties caused by inept leadership, food shortages and the like, followed suit. Therefore, I would say that rather than socialist policies, the real cause for the lack of food and materials were the British blockade, inept management of those resources on hand, and disruption of international trade within Europe itself. Indeed, if you think about it, if you cannot sustain your own population with your own agricultural base, it is really STUPID to start a war with the breadbasket of Europe - Russia, and the country that still pretty much controlled international trade - Britain.
    1
  423. 1
  424. 1
  425. 1
  426. 1
  427.  @empowl1607  I think you also have to look at motive. Yes, Britain had a large navy, etc. However, the navy was used primarily as a defensive tool, to protect British and international trade. Part of Britain's empire came about as reparations for aggressive French expansion during the time of Louis XIV and XV (Canada and parts of India, for example). Britain was interested in trade, not fighting another war. In fact, if you look at the build-up of military hardware, Britain lagged behind Germany from the time Hitler took power until around mid-1940 or 1941. It is very easy to sit on a moral pedestal with 20/20 hindsight and say how awful the British were for creating their empire. I am not making excuses for the people who made the policies and created the empire by force, graft, theft, etc. But you also cannot judge those people by our modern standards. The world was different back then, and nations had different ethical viewpoints (mostly those of robber barons or mafia dons). We can, however, use modern standards to judge Nazi Germany because it came into existence in modern times. We know they waged aggressive war against every nation surrounding them, even those who were neutral (Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Greece), and eventually even their own allies. So no, it is not valid to equate Britain with Nazi Germany. As Yellow 13 said, it is the same as equating carrots to pineapples. As far as the US goes, they kinda fall in the middle. I have always viewed the US as the guy with the angel on one shoulder and a demon on the other. Sometimes the US does the right thing for the right reasons, other times the wrong thing for the wrong reasons. The only reason I would not label the US as an aggressor nation is that they are not actively seeking to expand territory per se. Trying to expand influence, yes. Increase access to resources, yes. Actively taking over and governing countries, no.
    1
  428. 1
  429. 1
  430. 1
  431. 1
  432. 1
  433. 1
  434. 1
  435. 1
  436. 1
  437. 1
  438. 1
  439. 1
  440. 1
  441. 1
  442. 1
  443. 1
  444. 1
  445. 1
  446. 1
  447. 1
  448. 1
  449. 1
  450. 1
  451. I look at the existence of God through the lens of physics. If one looks at explanations of the universe through concepts like string theory, then our reality is basically a four-dimensional space (length, width, depth and time, perhaps) existing within a much larger reality of multiple dimensions. God is a multi-dimensional being who exists outside of our reality, and perhaps on a higher plane than all the dimensions that make up the multiverse. In other words, God exists outside of time, and indeed time has no meaning to God. God exists outside of physical reality, and is omnipotent because He can make changes to any and all dimensions. This also means God is omnipresent, because He can be present in any dimension at any time and place of His choosing, and influence it as He desires. Also, being omnipotent and existing outside of time does present an issue for God, in that He can see ALL outcomes of decisions that are made by us humans. Every time we come to a point where we make a decision, there is a fork in the road. Every choice leads to other choices, creating a life path that is like a growing tree, or perhaps better described as a root system. We can only see what is in front of us, but God sees the entire root system. On top of that, He can see how our individual root system of potential choices interacts with all the others that we make contact with throughout our lives. This is why God does not usually interfere with our lives or with history, because He knows how one small change can ripple throughout the system. It also takes away one of the greatest gifts God has given us, freedom of choice. If we are to receive the gift of eternal life, we need to show we are deserving of it through how we interact with others. After all, if one is a paranoid murdering psychopath, would one ever find happiness in a kingdom where kindness and mercy are the order of the day? And wouldn't those stains on the soul become the sources of the fire that destroys the soul in the light of God Himself?
    1
  452. I think it is possible that all the statements could be correct, and we are seeing the issue in small chunks, like puzzle pieces. The statements are not as contradictory as they might first appear, especially given the fog of war and rushed nature of the planning and execution of Market-Garden. Having read Gavin's book, he strikes me as being an extremely honest biographer. What might have happened is the following. Gavin and Browning discussed the issue and agree the heights are important, and so Browning directed Gavin to make the heights a priority target. Following these orders, Gavin sends a large portion of his forces to the heights. However, prior to leaving England he orally orders Lindquist to send one battalion to secure the bridge immediately after landing. However, this order is given at the last minute, in the midst of their rush to load the troops and equipment, possibly on the runway with aircraft warming up. Gavin tells Lindquist to send a battalion to seize the bridge, but Lindquist does not hear Gavin's order over the din or the confusion of preparing for the drop (or, being human and overloaded with tasks or suffering from target fixation, forgets). As a result, all parties are right in their statements, and in effect all are to blame. And the vital task was not accomplished. That said, it is possible that the SS troops could have overrun a single US battalion holding a bridgehead on the north end of Nijmegen bridge, or destroyed the bridge with artillery fire if that failed. Either way, I don't think there were sufficient airborne troops at Nijmegen to have pushed the Germans out of artillery range of the bridge and kept it intact for later use. Basically, the Germans reacted faster and with greater skill than the Allies could muster.
    1
  453. 1
  454. 1
  455. 1
  456. 1
  457. 1
  458. 1
  459. 1
  460.  John Cornell  I still think that in September 1944 the Allies' logistics were strained to the point where this might not have been feasible. As I have mentioned in other posts, we weren't there, and can only rely on the word of others as to whether it could have been pulled off or not. Had Montgomery been less abrasive and more diplomatic, it might have gone ahead. I think his row with Eisenhower in September-October 1944 over command of field forces probably sealed the fate of this operation. As far as rating the American generals, both Patton and Simpson were very good. Not sure about Patch, but Hodges, I think, left something to be desired at the operational and strategic levels of thinking. It is a shame that Montgomery does not receive the battlefield credit he deserves because of the three albatrosses around his neck: his poor treatment of subordinates he thought were incompetent (later extended to almost everyone else as well); his personal demons that caused him to recast things so he always seemed to be right (when some of his best actions were his improvisations when the initial plan failed); and that fact that many of the authors who have written about him were his worst critics and people who were always trying to back-stab him. Rather like General Meade during the US Civil War - one of the best Union commanders in the east. He actually ran rings around General Lee, but is completely ignored by history because the people he offended wrote him out of the history, giving all credit when possible to General Grant.
    1
  461.  @bigwoody4704  Actually, it was the press that deliberately besmirched Meade's name. I think it was during the Battle of the Wilderness that Meade got ticked off with a reporter trying to get dirt on Grant. Meade tossed the guy out of his tent (as I recall, literally tossed), and this reporter took offence. He then gathered his media buddies and together they decided to give all credit in future battles to Grant. The British call this "sending someone to Coventry" (why Coventry I have no idea). With regards to Dan Sickles, historians still have mixed feelings about his movement into the Peach Orchard, Devils's Den and the Wheat Field. On one had he exposed his Corps to an attack that virtually gutted it, but on the hand he may have accidentally (it was definitely not on purpose) delayed and weakened the blow against Sykes Corps, buying precious time for the Union forces to fortify Little Round Top. This does not excuse Sickle's actions, which were against orders. Nor are military historians sure it had this effect, as had he remained in position it is possible he might have been able to launch a flank attack on Hood and McLaw's left flank. And yes, he did use this for political gain, even having his leg embalmed and placed in a glass case to show his guests years after the war. On the topic of Monty, yes, he did lie to the press when he didn't have to, he was an egotist (so were most, if not all, of the German generals), but in spite of all that I will say he was definitely a much better general than Sickles. I doubt Sickles could have taken his unit out of the line, performed a night march of 25 miles with an entire division (3rd) on unfamiliar roads, and plug the gap left in the lines when the Belgium Army capitulated. The only other Allied general I know who came close to this sort of manoeuver was Patton in the Ardennes. As far as lying to the media goes, I think the earliest example of this is Ramses II claiming victory over the Hittites in the Battle of Kadesh, 1274 BC. One has to ask, if he was victorious, why was the border between the Hittite kingdom (in modern day Turkey) and Egypt drawn SOUTH of Kadesh?
    1
  462. 1
  463. 1
  464. 1
  465. 1
  466. 1
  467. 1
  468. 1
  469.  @TheImperatorKnight  Yes, but far right extremists are just as bad. Ask anyone who lives or has lived under a military dictatorship. I suspect you would find the people taking part in this rally come from all sections of the political spectrum. The problem is that right wing extremists are using the convoys as a means to spread dissension and promote their own agenda, which has NOTHING to do with vaccination at all (as seen by the weapons seizures at the US border, the US and Confederate flags being waved in the Canadian capitol, the banners saying "Spirit of 1776). If you question what I am talking about with regards to right wing extremists organizing things, please read this CTV news article about the convoy organizers to see what their political views are: https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/who-is-who-a-guide-to-the-major-players-in-the-trucker-convoy-protest-1.5776441 As far as the bulk of the participants, the whole thing with the convoys is not about fighting totalitarianism, but a small vociferous minority of all political stripes (perhaps 10% of the population) saying, "Don't do as I do, do as I say!" and "You can't tell me to do something even if it is in everyone's interest." It is very much the attitude of a petulant bully, not someone who is concerned about the health and welfare of society as a whole. Their whole argument is based on a selfish premise that doesn't take into account the public good. Nor is it based on scientific evidence, but rather fallacy, lies and misinformation. It has absolutely nothing to do with fighting totalitarianism. It is a form of enabled narcissistic self interest that expresses no concern about the health and well being of others, nothing more. I would also add that this has nothing to do with racist, Marxist-Fascist governments overstepping bounds, but rather people getting what we in Canada call "cabin fever". Everyone has been under stress because of concerns over COVID and chaffing under restrictions (in part because the bulk of them have no knowledge of epidemiology) while lacking the means to "blow off steam", and some people are reaching the breaking point. It is a psychological issue, not sociological or political one. The fact that at least 75% of the population in our country has been vaccinated, and we have under 1/3 the infection rate that our "free" neighbours to the south have, suggests that we are on the right course to keep COVID-caused mortality down to a minimum. And having worked with, and co-authored several peer reviewed scientific papers on, using insect viruses to control pest populations (not to mention read a fair bit on past human epidemics), I fully endorse what the government has been doing to contain and control this pandemic.
    1
  470. 1
  471. 1
  472. 1
  473. 1
  474. 1
  475. 1
  476. 1
  477. 1
  478. 1
  479. 1
  480. 1
  481. 1
  482. 1
  483. 1
  484. TIK, I appreciate the work you have done so far on the Stalingrad Series, and am constantly amazed and appreciative of all the work you have done. Your presentations are thoroughly researched, well documented and your discussions made logically. Your project has shed a lot of new light and dispelled a number of myths about this campaign. Although I might periodically disagree with your conclusions (especially with regards to economics), I cannot fault your research. As such, I have eagerly awaited and watched every episode you have released on the day you have posted it. Having worked on scientific projects I know what it is like to get burned out on something. I once worked on a project that almost gave me a nervous breakdown, so I know where you are coming from. It is sometimes better to put something to one side and leave it for a while so you can approach it fresh after a break. Take as much time as you need. I thought I would give you a quote from the Bibliographical Note from the final volume of Shelby Foote's "The Civil War, A Narrative: Red River to Appomattox", which I think describes what you are feeling right now. Hope it cheers you up a bit (it is also a great quote to throw at any critics). "By way of possible extenuation, in response to complaints it took me five times longer to write the war than the participants took to fight it, I would point out that there were a good many more of them than there was of me." Wishing you, your family, friends and acquaintances a Happy and Prosperous New Year in 2023.
    1
  485. 1
  486. 1
  487. 1
  488. 1
  489. 1
  490. 1
  491. 1
  492. 1
  493. 1
  494. 1
  495. 1
  496. 1
  497. 1
  498. 1
  499. 1
  500. 1
  501. 1
  502. 1
  503. 1
  504. 1
  505.  The Truth  The thing that really messed up the German war plans was not the lack of a "decisive battle", rather the depth of reserves the Soviet Union had. I was floored when I read that the USSR had a standing army of around 5 million men in June 1941, with 15 million reserves! I don't think it would have mattered if the Germans had followed their traditional method of warmaking, as they needed to annihilate the Red Army the equivalent of 4 times to win. Germany just didn't have the reserves of manpower available at that time. Nor were they ever really able to address it. Quite simply, the Russians bled the Wehrmacht to death, although it was a very Pyrrhic victory. They also didn't take into account the attrition their forces would be subjected to during Barbarossa or later. The fact they didn't increase tank and aircraft production beyond their 1940 levels until January 1943 speaks volumes about their arrogance. The Wehrmacht also lacked mass-produced trucks and sufficient spares to keep the front lines supplied with fully functional equipment or replacements. There was a very good quote about the German Army in Citino's "The German Way of War" to the effect that the Wehrmacht wasn't that modern after all, i.e., they hadn't learned from their mistakes in WW1 on the operational and strategic level. Sorry I can't give you the exact quote right now, my copy of this book is in storage. One quote that was given in the Time Ghost "The Great War" was quite apt as well. Paraphrasing what was said, "The German Army was outstanding tactically, [... ] operationally, and strategically bankrupt. In other words, at a tactical level the Landwehr (and later Wehrmacht) were extremely good at the tactical level, somewhat less so operationally (although I disagree with the author being quoted on this point), but never really had properly set objectives or goals for their offensives. Their blundering around in the spring of 1918 was called "the offensives to nowhere". The same could be seen for much of 1941 and 1942 - every general was vying to conquer this city or that, but no set stop points or objectives were really being specifically chosen. The German offensives more or less "went with the flow", and stopped when they either ran out of supplies or they encountered resistance they couldn't overcome. It was terrifying when you initially saw it, but once you figured out the trick, you could easily divert the spearheads into cul-de-sacs (rather like the Americans did in the Ardennes, or the Russians at Kursk).
    1
  506. 1
  507. 1
  508. 1
  509. 1
  510. 1
  511. 1
  512. 1
  513. 1
  514. 1
  515. 1
  516. 1
  517. 1
  518. 1
  519. 1
  520. 1
  521. 1
  522. 1
  523. 1
  524.  @beefy1212  However, since they were looking for fraud, both from internal and external sources, they should have found it if it existed. Most of the things you mentioned have been examined and dismissed, in many cases by state Republicans in charge of overseeing the elections. In each case where the fraud was deemed possible the recounts verified the original results (often multiple times), sometimes giving Biden more votes. The courts, including the Supreme Court, have tossed out 59 of 60 cases filed by the Trump's team, and many of these judges were Republican (who would be doubly sure to check for fraud). In several of the states where results are questioned, Republican auditors have approved the results. Having worked with statistics, I know that you can have outliers or oddball results that don't match what you expect. It is also interesting that most, if not all, of the counties where recounts were requested have a high proportion of African-Americans in them. I myself wondered what was going on with the election results that evening as well, until I realized that counties in the US don't have similar populations. When you saw results from rural counties (that tended to vote Republican) with 2,000 votes compared to ones from urban areas (that tended to vote Democrat) containing 20,000 votes, it started to make sense. Also, it took longer to count the urban votes, hence the flip at the end of the evening. But I will have to disagree with you on Trump and many of the Republicans. "By their acts shall ye know them". They are trying to toss out the election results because they are unfavorable to them. They want to retain power and promote their agenda, regardless of the cost to democracy in the US. Even retired Republican politicians and statesmen don't support them. In fact it is interesting that several retiring Republican Senators and Representatives have spoken out against what is going on, but didn't say a word while they held office. I once commented to my colleagues at the lunch table back when the Tea Party first formed that they were the type of people who would trample all over the US Constitution and Bill of Rights to "save them". I said this because I could see these people were self-righteous and self interested. My colleagues didn't believe me then (in fact they thought I was being alarmist), I know they think otherwise now. By the way, I am not an American.
    1
  525. 1
  526.  @beefy1212  And it is exactly this sort of response that lead to Japan going from being a democracy to a militaristic police state in just 15 years. If you don't know the history, it all started with patriotic societies forming in the 1920s. Patriotic junior army officers belonging to these organizations took a dislike to some government policies, and assassinated (or tried to assassinate) several high ranking politicians, including the prime minister. The reaction? "Oh, they are patriots who are fighting corruption. How can we possibly imprison or execute them?" Instead of taking strong action against these insurrectionists, the courts basically let them off. The government allowed more military men into the cabinet to appease the radicals. This happened a second time, wash, rinse, repeat. By then you had hardliners in government who gradually pushed out the moderates, and presto, Manchuria, Shanghai, Marco Polo Bridge and Pearl Harbor. Christ was right, that one needs to remove the plank from one's eye before removing the splinter from another's. The protests yesterday, and during the tallying of votes during election, were an attempt by people calling themselves "patriots" to subvert the democratic protest because the results don't agree with what they want. This cannot be allowed. If the people, legislators and legal institutions of the US turn a blind eye to this attempted coup and do not hold those responsible accountable, then the US will be heading down a similar, parallel road to the one walked by Japan in the 1920s and 1930s. And that road leads to right-wing dictatorship.
    1
  527. 1
  528. 1
  529.  @beefy1212  And here is the result of this filing (Source: https://ballotpedia.org/Patricia_McCullough) Kelly v. Pennsylvania (2020) On November 21, 2020, a group of state Republican officials, candidates, and voters filed suit in the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, alleging that the state law allowing all voters to cast their ballots by mail violated the state constitution. The plaintiffs asked the court either to order election officials "to certify the results of the election based solely on the legal votes" or to direct "that the Pennsylvania General Assembly choose Pennsylvania's [presidential] electors."[3] On November 25, 2020, Judge Patricia McCullough ordered election officials to temporarily halt "any further action to perfect the certification of the results of the 2020 general election ... for the offices of President and Vice President," pending an evidentiary hearing scheduled for November 27, 2020.[4] State officials appealed McCullough's order to the state supreme court. On November 28, 2020, the state supreme court ruled unanimously to vacate McCullough's order and dismiss the case with prejudice. In its unsigned opinion, the court wrote the following:[5] “ The want of due diligence demonstrated in this matter is unmistakable. Petitioners filed this facial challenge to the mail-in voting statutory provisions more than one year after the enactment of Act 77. At the time this action was filed on November 21, 2020, millions of Pennsylvania voters had already expressed their will in both the June 2020 primary election and the November 2020 general election and the final ballots in the 2020 general election were being tallied, with the results becoming seemingly apparent. Nevertheless, petitioners waited to commence this litigation until days before the county boards of election were required to certify the election results to the Secretary of the Commonwealth. Thus, it is beyond cavil that petitioners failed to act with due diligence in presenting the instant claim. Equally clear is the substantial prejudice arising from petitioners’ failure to institute promptly a facial challenge to the mail-in voting statutory scheme, as such inaction would result in the disenfranchisement of millions of Pennsylvania voters.[6] ” Sean Parnell, a Republican congressional candidate who was a party to the lawsuit, said he and the other plaintiffs would appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. On December 1, 2020, the plaintiffs petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to temporarily block the state supreme court's order pending appeal. However, the plaintiffs subsequently withdrew this application, and on December 2, 2020, they petitioned the state supreme court to stay its decision pending a determination by the U.S. Supreme Court on whether it would take up the case. The state supreme court declined to stay its decision on December 3, 2020.[7][8][9][10][11] In light of the state supreme court's December 3, 2020, order, the plaintiffs again petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the state supreme court's ruling. Associate Justice Samuel Alito, the justice assigned to consider emergency applications from the Third Circuit (which contains Pennsylvania), directed the defendants to respond to the plaintiffs' filing by 9 a.m. on December 8, 2020. Alito referred the matter to the full court, which, on December 8, 2020, declined to take up the case. The court made its decision without noted dissent.[12] **************************************************************************************************************************************************************** My comment: I read both the filing and the judges comments. In short, the plaintiffs had a full year and two prior elections to file this document after Section 77 was passed. Instead, they waited until the 2020 Presidential election and AFTER preliminary counts indicated Trump had lost. So they were attempting to use this as an attempt to overthrow an election they now considered they had lost due to mail-in votes. In short, it is a spurious court filing made under dubious circumstances, which the presiding judge, the state supreme court and the US supreme court threw out. Had this been filed in 2019, it would have been a different matter. In addition, close reading of the original voting law (or one of its amendments) indicated that people could vote in absentia due to illness. Although this would be stretching the original intent of Pennsylvania's voting law, a highly contagious pandemic could be construed as an illness, as the law as I read it, rather quickly I will add, didn't specify to whom the illness affected. The wording left it somewhat up to interpretation. Although, if I was a judge considering such a wide definition and usage of the original phrasing, I might have concerns about setting a precedent that could be misused at a later date.
    1
  530. 1
  531. 1
  532. 1
  533. 1
  534. 1
  535. 1
  536. 1
  537. 1
  538. 1
  539. 1
  540. 1
  541. 1
  542. 1
  543. Lend-Lease is a complicated issue, to be sure. I definitely agree with TIK in most of his summary on the topic. I do remember an account in "Enemy at the Gates" of a Russian soldier commenting on the boost in his moral when, after crossing the Volga from Stalingrad, he received a can of American spam, and realized that other nations were helping the Soviet Union fight the war. In general, Lend-Lease would have had no impact in 1941 and early 1942 (as the supply system was only being established, and the Allies were still gearing up themselves). During 1942 it might have contributed somewhat by providing that small edge in equipment that the Soviet Union needed to win engagements and hold positions they might have otherwise lost. Given that Soviet Victory during the Stalingrad campaign sometimes rested on a knife's edge, even a little assistance to the Red Army may have helped tip the scales (even if it was by causing greater attrition of German forces). Later, in 1943-1945, the addition of a large number of American trucks more than likely increased the Red Army's mobility, giving them the ability to conduct deep penetrations of German lines. American radios would have provided greater command and control, making the fighting units much more effective. In addition, it would be interesting to see if a large proportion of the petroleum products sent to the Soviet Union was in the form of high octane fuel, which would have improved the performance of the Red Air Forces' aircraft (much like shipments of high octane to Britain in 1940 gave the RAF a slight edge in the Battle of Britain). Also, providing an additional 10%s worth of equipment to an army or air force is still a boost to ones ability to fight. Overall, although it did not have a substantial impact initially, from the time of Kursk onward, Lend-Lease gave the Red Army the ability to strike deeper and faster into German held territory than they would have been able to do otherwise without motorized infantry and towed artillery. As TIK concluded, this likely ended the war 1-3 years sooner, and made it somewhat less costly for the Soviet Union than it might otherwise have been.
    1
  544. 1
  545. 1
  546. 1
  547. 1
  548. 1
  549. 1
  550. 1
  551. 1
  552. 1