Comments by "James the Other One" (@jamestheotherone742) on "TIKhistory" channel.

  1.  @beefy1212  I know but sometime you just want to whack an idiot troll over the head. At least he seems contained to under this one thread. Its the sad truth of any war, "good" or "bad", people get hurt and die.
    2
  2. @8:20 "Socialism doesn't work." Roll credits!
    2
  3.  @-ZETA-  There were not hundreds of millions of deaths after 1945. You can't count China (which was the aftermath of WWII and the Civil War, and the famines). Nor did the assorted Cold War hot wars around the world add up to hundreds of millions and that very likely would have occurred for other social, religous, etc. reasons. However trying to take down Stalin and Mao would have absolutely required nuking Soviet cities and committing US forces to a land campaign that had swallowed entire Japanese armies. And this would not have stamped out the idea of socialism, which has to wither in the face of reality. If it had been killed in Asia, it would have sprung up anew elsewhere there was socioeconomic tension. You know, like how it is growing in the US because people have forgotten how bad it was.
    2
  4. @24:00 and 30:00 on. Yeah, Turkey was actually the linchpin that the Axis need but could never get to commit to its side. This was because at the time no side was doing so well that it would be a "safe bet" or would promise what it would have wanted (restoration of the Ottoman territories). The British wouldn't because they had just wrestled said territory away from them and never really needed/wanted Turkish help. They also had a non-aggression pact with the Turks so they figured their flank was secure. The Turks and Russians are traditional enemies and regional rivals so that wasn't ever going to happen. That left the Axis, well, the Germans. But the Turks were still wary from their WWI experience as an ally of Germany, and Inonu (Turkish Pres.) did not trust Hitler (for good reason!). But they though about it during the whole war but the Germans were never in the position where "Yup, they won! Lets jump on the coat tails!" like they DID joint the Allies in 1945. It is very likely that IF the Germans hadn't gotten bogged down along the Eastern Front AND the Afrika Corp had pushed the British out of Egypt and into Asia Minor AND had promised to give them the old Ottoman Empire back, it probably would have induced the Turks to join the Axis. Tactically it would have been like another Romania had signed on, but strategically it would have had major implications. The Turks would have replaced Italians as supporting characters in the "Arabian Corps", and the Germans would have been able to attack the caucuses (and their oil fields!) directly as a pincer movement. "LIberating" Iran probably would have been easy too. Of course this ultimately would have been for naught as this probably wouldn't overcome Soviet and American manpower and material overmatch, might have even involved Turkey getting nuked in 1948 or '50 for their trouble. So wound up that discretion was the better part of valor for the Turks..
    2
  5. I give the rant at the end half of the video a solid 6.3. The Rag-tag circus" of the 83rd Infantry Div. is the perfect embodiment of the logistics failures of that Allied logistics staff. Besides stealing from their own side, they stole from the Germans too. War is never efficient. Simply the friction of war, the hurry up, spot shortages, not to mention the actions of the enemy, means you really can't think of "military economics" in the same way as civilian demand economics. Its also not practical. It would be an administrative nightmare to have an incentive or bonus type program. And it would get incredibly corrupted almost instantly. Also, on the frontlines, you are NOT going be able to set up competing mess facilities and let the Joes decide which one they want to go to for.... a million reasons. Stick to tanks. ;+P
    2
  6.  @sorzin2289  Completely wrong. First. Socialism by default compels the individual to subordinate themselves to the will of The State. How do you think that happens? It isn't by asking nicely. Capitalism is more or less voluntarily. Sometimes you are forced to volunteer because the options are shaped where you only have one choice and that means you are no long actually free market capitalism but into monopolistic or oligopolstic territory. Your guy with the bottling plant isn't/shouldn't be the only producer of bottle otherwise, guess what? You don't have capitalism. What Medicare 4 All is, is the worst of both worlds, where you are forced to participate which means the competitive efficiencies of free markets is short circuited and it guarantees that it is going to be infested with inefficiencies and corruption.
    2
  7.  @sorzin2289  You need to be more specific otherwise you are just jabbering. Your example only illustrate the failure of governmental regulation of capitalism not the economic system itself. But that's okay, its a common mistake. I hate to break it to you but water isn't a "human right" it is a resource and once entrained from the natural world, becomes a commodity. You have the right to access water, but you don't have the right to receive just because you are a human. If you don't believe that, then I'm gonna come over with my tanker truck and fill it from your taps leaving you with the water bill, because its my "human right".
    2
  8. Whut?
    2
  9. Demagogue "Anarchists are almost all socialists of some form, or otherwise allied with socialists. " That is even more far fetched than lumping nazis with socialists. Anarchism is the complete antithesis of socialism. Complete decentralization and diffusion of power vs. the subordination of the individual to the will of the collective and its corresponding control structures. The only reason anarchists are grouped with socialists is because they tend to be radicals and revolutionaries of the same stripe. Actually, they are more radical and have even more liberal views because anarchism is even less practical and realistic. And I say that as a libertarian (pragmatic anarchist). Fascism however falls right into goose-step with socialism quite easily.
    2
  10. However I use the term in the contemporary American sense. Which in turn is based upon the original "revolutionary" ideas of limited government and the rights of the individual at the founding of the United States. Actually idiots who only have a vague idea of what they are doing fills the ranks of Antifa. Socialism always becomes authoritarian for the same reason it always fails. Human nature. Anarchism is anti-capitalist for the same reason it is anti-socialist, the opposition to the concentration of wealth and power. Anarchism would be compatible (synonymous?) with communism, but sadly, neither are practical beyond the small scale at our current level of social and technological evolution. Most of the people who want to give either a go, just want to break the current system with only vague naive notions about what comes after (lots of death and misery is usually what happens). Go look up the definition of "liberal" and "conservative". Not the parties, not the political connotations. Just the English definition of the words..
    2
  11. You do understand the difference between communism and socialism right? Many (most) don't, thus why a self styled "anarchist" can think they are "socialist" at the same time. My "libertarianism" would have been mainstream American political thought until the 1960s. Well, probably a bit earlier, Wilson and FDR tilted the the US pretty far left. Johnson finished the deed of installing socialism in the US with the "Great Society". I'm not sure what the third paragraph is supposed to be but it comes across as vaguely racist.
    2
  12. Cut back on the mayo its rotting your brain. Socialism's "social ownership" means it is ownership by the government which is controlled by its bureaucracy's management and (usually not elected) leaders, not the population ("the workers"). It is closer to oligarchy than to communism. It puts resources just as far beyond the actual grasp of the proletariat as the worst imperialist capitalist system. Socialism was intended as a stepping stone to transition from a stratified, class based society to communism, but neither Stalin or Mao, or any other notional revolutionary was ever going to let go of that position and power once they had wrestled it away from the old system because... human nature. You can't get there from here. And if you could get there, you would find that it would rapidly break down and fall apart (ie: back to totalitarian socialism or worse) because... human nature again. While American laissez-faire capitalism was allowing wealthy whyte men to get wealthier, it was also leaving everyone else alone to try (or fail) to become wealthy too. All the other social inequality issues were from the tangled mess of its history and/or contemporary to the times. Don't drink so much of the red koolaide. Try some of the blue stuff every once and a while.
    2
  13. Nope. Its how it is/was in reality. Maybe this will help (try to keep your mayo down during this exercise); Imagine if all of America (or whatever nation-state you happen to be in) were owned by one giant corporation called "The State" and you were one of its "employees" and treated as such for everything your entire life. You get to vote on policies and rules etc. but you've only got one vote amongst the many multitudes and if you don't like it , too bad. You have to conform or disciplinary action will be taken against you. Oh and you can't quit either. That is the reality of socialism.
    2
  14. Communes exist on the small scale, for small communities of people who voluntarily share resources. It doesn't work when it scales up. That is the reason why the Israelis abandoned kibbutzim.
    2
  15. Ah.... no. No matter how much you wish for it, that is not true. Not true historically and not true philosophically. Last post on this thread to preserve "Egg Boi"s sanity. But please review this again and think about it.
    2
  16. So... I guess you neither read nor thought about it. Pity.
    2
  17. Except N. Korea IS democratic. The voters are just given only one candidate to choose from.
    2
  18. If Wietersheim had died in place like a good Nazi, Paulus and crew (maybe even Hitler) might have realized that they in over their heads and called the drive on Stalingrad off. This would have left them out of the trap and in the freeer ground west of the Don. As it was they blamed him for the set back and kept bulling forward.
    1
  19.  @TheImperatorKnight  Human being never seem to run out of reasons why they want to.
    1
  20. Churchill needed to preserve the empire, as its resources and the Suez were keeping them alive. D-Day, hell even Italy wasn't going to happen until the US was even in the war.
    1
  21. WTF?
    1
  22. Exactly.
    1
  23. Ha Ha My post got deleted. Maybe auto-deleted, or maybe Google's minders have book marked your channel TIK and manually pick off posts they disagree with gleefully. Lets try again...
    1
  24. Yep. Payback is a bitch.
    1
  25.  @DeadlycheesePeople  Collectivism requires altruism and self-sacrifice for the benefit of others. Which is why it fails, because human beings are inherently selfish. What you are thinking of is empathy. And, yes, you are otherwise correct.
    1
  26.  @4Bobay  Don't bother, later-day socialists and Sovietphiles are completely blind to the sins and failings their heroes committed.
    1
  27.  @llllib  That's not very socialist of you.
    1
  28. I saw that too. lol
    1
  29. @9:30 I bet they could have used all that ammo and fuel that went to the bottom of the Med...
    1
  30. @14:20 I imagine Toporani's context was in shipping oil to the Med to get it to Italy or N. Africa? The Caucuses are adjacent to the Black Sea, not the Med. There would be no need to ship it to the Med at all. If they had taken the oil fields and the naval superiority that they did get, they could have barged the oil along the coast to Ukraine or even better Romania, which would have been a much shorter trip/turn around than by overland rail. So as always, the critical failure of the Germans was in getting SQUIRRELED! into trying to take Stalin's namesake city, instead of concentrating on their strategic objective. In fact I have played this tactic a few times, The Rostov-on-Don to Stalingrad salient provides an excellent bait to draw the Soviets into attempting to cut off the offensive going South towards Azerbaijan. In this scenario the 6th Army becomes a supporting unit holding the Volga flank open, with a strong reserve to plug gaps in that hella long line, and waiting for the inevitable Uranus offensive where you cut off any spearhead that blunders along the Don. Basically Kursk in reverse.
    1
  31.  @jakubstanicek6726  Then you should watch the video again. The Caucasus were the strategic objective here. Stalingrad was a tactical blunder.
    1
  32.  @stefanb6539  I'm afraid you probably don't even rise to the level of a Pol-Pot. Stay is school kid.
    1
  33.  @stefanb6539  I donno, you could be a trust-fund kid at private school for all I know. So probably you just made another inane assumption.
    1
  34. The Freudian shoe drops...
    1
  35. Keep in mind that Goering was a F%ing moron.
    1
  36. Oh look, someone skimmed thru an online pop-sociology 101 class.
    1
  37.  @anyoneyousee7772  You should probably ask for a refund.
    1
  38. Its the attempted hair-spitting by modern-day socialists ("Stateists") to differentiate between National-Socialists and Marxist-Socialists to protect the contemporary Globalist world-view that socio-economic control concentrated in the hands of government (or just an oligopoly) is a good thing, even though it has been shown by history to be a very bad thing.
    1
  39.  @leooriano4542  Power corrupts etc... any government with the power to protect your rights and property has the power to take them away. And they do, all the time. And no, the "socialist" in NAZI wasn't just an exercise in branding. It was quite literally what Hitler had in mind to print over the established German/Prussian economic system. And socially, he was even more up in everyone's business as the Bolsheviks.
    1
  40.  @damyr  Naw, people would still find an excuse to kill each other.
    1
  41.  Jay Leno  haz the misogyny.
    1
  42. Yeah, many societies have at times totally oriented themselves on war fighting. Survival tends to be highly motivational. The only difference is that industrialization and technology allowed it to reach a scale never seen in human history before.
    1
  43. The air over the battle(s) was contested by the Luftwaffe, so its not as if the Red AF had completely free reign. Even on the Western Front where Allied air dominance was greater, the Germans were still able to maintain and deploy armored formations.
    1
  44.  @georgegordon6630  Wasn't really that small an area. You couldn't just shell randomly and air attacks were sporadic, they didn't loiter over the battlefield looking for targets because German AAA was intense and there was always the chance of getting bounced by LW fighters. Yes the Germans suffered attrition in logistics and transit, it was part of what was wearing them down and why they were constantly on the backfoot, not just the Soviet numbers.
    1
  45.  @georgegordon6630  Un no. I think you are misunderstanding the histories. Only armored columns could move tactically, at the point of contact. But the German army would have dried up and blown away in short order if they couldn't supply logistically with horse carts much less trucks. Much of that was done at night, but still. Most of the German war machine wasn't armored. Foot Infantry, artillery, and the whole logistics tail, etc. It wasn't "raining bombs".
    1
  46.  @georgegordon6630  They have every major problem. But believe whatever you want.
    1
  47. Patton was.... eccentric. But he was a good commander, otherwise his career wouldn't have survived the Louisiana Maneuvers, much less "The Slappening". The North Africa and Sicily campaigns built far more experienced field-grades than it broke.
    1
  48.  @stef1896  I didn't say Patton advanced. If there wasn't an Overlord.... there wouldn't have been a need for a great number of people.
    1
  49. Tigers were fine. Its the truck that was stuck.
    1
  50.  @llllib  The situation in Germany was very similar to the Austrian experience. The strategy of the Entente and the aims of the Versailles et.al. treaties.
    1