Comments by "Nicholas Conder" (@nicholasconder4703) on "Dear Nigel Askey - Your Article about me is WRONG" video.
-
1
-
1
-
@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
-
Obviously Nigel Askey never read how the British Army lost to the Zulus at Isandlwana (2,100 vs 19,000), yet an even more heavily outnumbered unit defeated the Zulus at Rorke's Drift (ca. 150 vs 5,000). Or other battles like Auerstadt, Bir Hakeim, etc. Then again, my boss used to say that models (like the Lanchester Square Law) were often used by people who couldn't do real research! Nigel Askey seems to use the van Daniken school of baffling people with b******t to support their point of view. There are numerous cases where units/armies that are outnumbered sometimes achieve things that are incredible, while in other cases huge armies can succumb to considerably smaller forces.
The Red Army (and French Army) defeats in 1940 - 1942 can be explained by poor leadership and poor training. Use Occam's Razor. Or, even better, use Hanlon's Razor, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". Many of the modern authors go back to original sources (i.e. unit records), rather than rely on the memories of generals who have their own axes to grind.
By the way, good work TIK. You give very good review using references and explaining why you used them. You will always have issues with people like Nigel Askey, after all, as Lincoln said, "... you can never please all the people all the time."
1