Comments by "Harry Mills" (@harrymills2770) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
235
-
16
-
10
-
8
-
@joemoment-o1275 : Keepin' the troops in dry socks, alone, is a major undertaking! LOL! There is a "Patton" theory wherein the idea is to be so deep into the enemy that you can seize your supplies as needed, from an off-balance enemy, if you push forward, and will lose the initiative if you worry about supply lines. But the British were very Roman in how they devoted themselves to logistics and engineering. From fortifying Portugal, to paying gold for everything they took from a Spaniard in the peninsula, they beat Napoleon's "move fast and forage off the land" approach.
Montgomery's greatest successes were when he secured his supply and refused to proceed until he had overwhelming force. His biggest blunder was Nijmagen (sp?), where he tried to get super-aggressive. But some will still argue that it is better to take 80% casualties taking an objective with 1,000 men than it is to take 20% casualties with 500,000 men. And you look at the Japanese in Singapore, who followed that strategy and humiliated Percival.
I think "smash-and-grab" in the abstract is fine, but at some point, you have to move troops and materiel from point A to point B, and it becomes impossible, when every hand is against you in the countryside, as the Spaniards most definitely were against Napoleon. You can think of it as "supply lines," but if you turn to pillage to sustain your army, you're going to set the natives against you.
7
-
7
-
6
-
@1158supersiri : Moscow was THE main railway hub for East-West and North-South transport. If the Germans won their way to and around Moscow, they'd have gained a pretty big advantage. The Soviets would have a LOT harder time re-supplying North and South, and the Germans would've been able to attack North and South, separately, in greater force. But wherEVER the Soviets had to let off their tanks, wherEVER the German-Soviet frontier was, there were T34s coming from the East in endless waves. And I believe the Soviets succeeded in moving their industrial production East of the Urals.
To me, it's not clear if it would've made any difference. Eventually, the German assault would run out of steam, and more and better armaments would come streaming in from the East, to drive them back.
5
-
@etiennepilorget8777 The difference between a Christian and an atheist, in most cases, is that a Christian knows what he's taking on faith. An atheist makes innumerable assumptions of which they are unaware.
To me, at root, Abrahamic religion is basically two things: "I Am." This is the fundamental assertion of self-awareness, and the Name of God is "I Am."
"Life Is Good."
So, basically, "Life is good and I know it." And all of Judaism and Christianity boils down to that basic act of faith. After that, it's a matter of man-made doctrine and dogma, to me. IMO, Jesus was trying to teach us how to treat each other. The free ticket to Paradise is more of a hook that organized religion uses to recruit and keep people in line.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Sytall In ancap, those big companies get crushed by society, itself. In YOUR vision of utopia, they are shielded by the government, itself. They WRITE regulations that only they are big enough to comply with, which weeds out all competition. Before the FAA there were hundreds of airline companies competing. Now there are just a few, and they're all considered "too big to fail."
You see it in every arena the government regulates heavily. Agriculture, health care, auto making, you name it.
When government and big business speak with one voice, we're in big trouble. We live in a fascist dystopia that is cheered on by the very same people who claim to despise the big corporate interests and billionaire class, yet do their bidding, while congratulating themselves on their discernment and education.
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Mrkontrol007 : In many ways, the Soviet Army was more of a meritocracy than their enemy. True merit (and good luck!) made for rapid promotion. If you sucked, you didn't last very long. People look back on the Great Patriotic War as "the good old bad days," when people were truly heroic, and everybody was pulling in the same direction in war-time.
But I keep coming back to the fact that Stalin had fresh armored divisions, just sitting there in Manchuria on June 22nd, 1941. It took them 'til December to arrive in and around Moscow, but at the end of a bitter road, the Germans, tired, decimated and demoralized had 2 fresh armored divisions from the Far East added to the equation.
I'm sure that lend-lease didn't hurt any. I haven't made a study of how decisive it was. But considering the fight the Soviets were in, and that they were the last man standing against Hitler in any meaningful way, Lend-Lease was the least we could do. Yes, the Battle of Britain was important. But the real war was won and lost on the Soviets' Western Front. A far bigger war than the one the Allies fought on the Germans' Western Front. Yes, the U.S. put a period on the hostilities with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Without the A-Bomb, the Soviets were planning the invasion of Hokkaido, and the U.S., sick of spending lives, was more than half-way OK with the idea, I suspect.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2