Comments by "" (@watching99134) on "Military History Visualized" channel.

  1. At the same time the point of the guns was not simply that they were bigger, but that they were able to stop Soviet heavy armor.
    11
  2.  @Jefferson111DEXIT  Yes but often it's not even history, it's a mix of propaganda and edutainment if you will.
    10
  3. It's pretty widely known, the French (and British) assumed the main attack would come through the north because they assumed that the Ardennes Forest was impenetrable to armored columns and get caught in a trap; also French tanks were scattered among their infantry divisions rather than being concentrated in forward-pressing columns.
    9
  4.  @Amerikanskis  Poland, the Soviet Union and China all suffered unimaginably. There's no need to be condescending (the Chinese story is little known outside Asia, so maybe you're the one that needs to read a history book, try Rana Mitter for starters).
    8
  5.  @AlexanderSeven  You just lost all credibility by saying the perpetrators of Katyn are unclear, and there were only a few thousand victims.
    6
  6. There was support (the "Bund") but I wouldn't say it was widespread (popular in the mid-West for multiple reasons but a minority voice elsewhere iirc. [Just because people were isolationist doesn't mean they supported the Axis]).
    5
  7. I think Hitler hoped/believed that the British would negotiate a settlement, and when they didn't, realized he had to knock the Soviets out of the war before the U.S. had a chance to militarize its economy and use Britain as a base from which to project its strength into continental Europe (Hitler wrote I believe as early as 1926 Mein Kampf that the U.S. would always come to the British side eventually just like in World War One).
    5
  8. Sorry but your comment makes a central assumption too, that decisions are either rational/intelligent or simply based on gut feel and impulse. I would say that all big decisions are a combination of the two; it is a false either-or in other words.
    5
  9.  @elrjames7799  The context is the war to begin with, ergo by definition it's primarily referring to operations.
    4
  10. What is your point? One anecdote does not override larger factors (speaking of that part of the world, did the U.S. go to war with Israel in 1967 over the USS Liberty?)
    4
  11.  @carlosmedina1281  Also because the American public had generally realized by the 1930s that they had been tricked into World War One and didn't want to let it happen again.
    3
  12. Although in Asia it started in 1937.
    3
  13. Why can't a tank's cannon be fired if it was not bore-sighted? Wouldn't it just be very inaccurate? (So you can fire from close distance, still much better than ramming). P.S. Pronounce Echelon in English as if it were written Eschelon ("esh") and Lend-Lease not Land-Lease otherwise great docu.
    3
  14.  @jshepard152  Most Western aid to the Soviets arrived after Stalingrad.
    3
  15.  @obiwaankenobi1945  Well if they were truly volunteers and believers in the NSDAP mission it's not like they were tricked into anything...
    3
  16.  @Jefferson111DEXIT  Did you watch the whole video? (And understand it?)
    3
  17.  @tatfly5779  Without being specific your comment has no meaning.
    3
  18.  @cheezycrackers8677  What is a pseudo-communist?
    2
  19.  @truckerfromreno  The U.S. public didn't want to go to war (again); a lot of the delay was because FDR knew it was politically unacceptable until something like Pearl Harbor happened.
    2
  20.  @lovelessissimo  That's why Hitler launched Barbarossa ahead of time, to knock the Soviets out so that Britain would feel isolated and then the U.S. wouldn't have a base from which to project its strength into continental Europe. (I wouldn't use the phrase "sue for peace" with Britain, however).
    2
  21.  @abbcc5996  The point the OP was making was that he was only familiar with the Western aspect of the European theater, no need to go looking for annoying points to make.
    2
  22. I'm not sure raising that argument would have been a great career move at that point.
    2
  23.  @darthkek1953  That's not funny (yes i'm joking too)
    2
  24. You should go see (stand next to the [Royal?] Tiger at the Imperial War Museum in London!
    2
  25. The U.S. (English-speaking countries in general in my opinion) have a cultural predilection for always trying to let the other guy fire the first shot in order to look like they were merely forced into fighting (references to Lusitania/Zimmermann Telegramm, resupplying Fort Sumter, fake news at Tonkin Gulf, fake news when Maine blew up in Cuba, WMDs in Iraq, Brits using excuse of Belgian and then Polish neutrality, etc. [Hitler emulated at Gleiwitz of course].)
    2
  26. I believe he's Austrian.
    2
  27.  @marekwojciech4871  Are you saying that Soviets didn't march westward in 1920 because Poland and Ukraine attacked them in 1919?
    2
  28. And once again we have the circular explanation that explains precisely nothing (what a coincidence, in a conversation about Hitler).
    2
  29. I believe the author is actually Austrian fwiw.
    2
  30. Not so sure about that, Japan didn't have the capability of opening two major fronts and if they attacked the U.S. it meant they wouldn't be able to attack the Soviets (with whom they had a peace treaty).
    2
  31. @Vechs Good to keep in mind in cases like that of Guenter Grass.
    2
  32.  Tungsten_Walls  lol why the second part
    2
  33. Yes although I think defeating the Soviets was to be more or less simultaneous with winning the Battle of the Atlantic (which would deprive the U.S. of a base from which to project its strength into Europe if it chose to fight Germany more or less alone).
    2
  34. With German air superiority though? (The Japanese sank two British battleships in one day from the air in 1941 iirc.) Plus the Germans would have filled the channel with hundreds of E-boats and U-boats, both of them could easily deliver a torpedo into a battleship. (Not to mention sending in ships like the Bismarck which could stand on their own one-on-one).
    2
  35. Technically the Gestapo was part of the SS so you probably mean Waffen-SS?
    2
  36. In Asia it began in 1937.
    2
  37. Yes this makes a huge difference in terms of needed preparation. Also the Western Allies were under more pressure to minimize their casualties, so had to do more preparation. (It's also possible they delayed a year in order to allow the fascists and communists to continue killing each other on the Eastern Front in large numbers, making the postwar world easier to capitalists to dominate).
    2
  38. That was a big part of it, after what had happened in 1918.
    2
  39. Of course this presumes that FDR was not trying to end peace rather than preserve it as a way of keeping the American economy from sliding back into recession (war is great for businesses).
    2
  40.  @jigglebilly7725  Saying people didn't engage in a venture because they wound up losing money on it doesn't mean that can't have been their motive at the start.
    1
  41.  @binaway  You're right countries have to make tough decisions but the U.S. wanted to limit Japan's growth because it wanted to dominated Asia itself, not because it cared so much about China.
    1
  42.  @ajbrown7865  And Trump?
    1
  43.  @jimdaburger1590  Yes it is but it doesn't really have much bite.
    1
  44.  @hariman7727  Reputable source for this position?
    1
  45.  @treyhelms5282  Good point, the U.S. around then had limited fighting with Europeans to the Spanish in Cuba and the Phillipines, other wars like the Mexican-American one had nothing to do with Europe.
    1
  46.  @tjejojyj  The correct translation is "War is the continuation of policy by other means". (Subtle difference, but the word die Politik can mean either in German and in this case it's the one no one ever cites).
    1
  47.  @jigglebilly7725  Neville Chamberlain
    1
  48. The Germans only needed to achieve local naval supremacy, that is, they arguably could have protected either side of their invasion fleet in the Channel by positioning hundreds of E- and U-boats on either side (no battleship in the world is tough enough to take half a dozen torpedoes and keep going).
    1
  49. Yes I think he misunderstood a technical argument for a strategic one with that one.
    1
  50. Can you imagine what gets taught at a high school level, and how few people even take it at university level to begin with?
    1