Comments by "" (@craigkdillon) on "The Armchair Historian" channel.

  1. Reminds me of my childhood, when me and the other kids played "King of the Hill" on some mound of dirt. Whoever got on top was immediately attacked and taken down by the other kids, who immediately turned on whoever got to be on top, and then again, and again, and again. For eight year olds, it was all quite violent, and a lot of fun. I don't recall anyone actually winning. Kind of like this African war. I am glad we didn't play the game with guns, LOL
    434
  2. The war could have been called the "War of The Spanish Succession", if there had not already been a war of that name. Seems France was always concerned about who governed Spain.
    426
  3. The Swiss story is amazing. I wish you would go deeper into it, and tell more stories. I bet the espionage stories would be great.
    15
  4. Schools can only introduce us to history, and teach us a few basic things. It is up to us to educate ourselves. I have been reading history most of my life, and I still only scratched the surface. Don't bitch about schools not teaching you. Teach yourself --- READ.
    11
  5. @Sarwat Ihsan Seems to me,, wars are caused by male testosterone, and usually unnecessary. For instance, take the Israel/Palestine conflict. Billions have been spent, and still being spent. Well, if we took all those Billions, and spent it on people instead of weapons, we could make every Israeli & Palestinian millionaires. But, nope, they would rather kill each other. I remember the Oslo accords, where the PLA refused peace. War lovers on both sides killed the deal. Why?
    3
  6. The main reason the US has such successful and long lasting alliances and partnerships is that the US does NOT act as boss. The other nations are not our vassals, and we don't treat them as such. China and Russia don't understand that. Putin treats Lukashenko as flunky, and Belorussia as a colony. That cannot last.
    3
  7. Why do you not talk about Pickett's Charge?
    2
  8. NO US official, even the President, can speak for NATO. NATO is not an arm of the US, unlike the Warsaw Pact, which was controlled by the Soviet Union. US acts in concert with other NATO members, it does not and cannot dictate to them. Authoritarian governments make that mistake all the time. They assume the US acts dictator, and that others must do what we say. That is not how the US operates.
    2
  9. I was under the impression that Prussian military observers did come away impressed with the use and impact of railroads in moving and mobilizing troops, and that this information did influence the German general staff in WW1. Is this wrong?? BTW..the Prussians being impressed with their own superiority is very believable.
    2
  10.  @ellidominusser1138  I do. But, we don't allow children to play with guns. That impression is an exaggeration.
    2
  11. Best general of the Civil War?? I think Sherman was the best. His approach to Atlanta against Johnston was sheer brilliance. Every time the Confederates got into position for a pitched battle, Sherman maneuvered and forced their retreat. This happened over and over, until Johnston was in Atlanta. At which time, the frustrated Jefferson Davis replaced him. Sherman was the best.
    2
  12. I am disappointed in you. You did a very good video on the Crimean War. Didn't war weariness have anything to do with their calculus to not enter our war?? Both France and Britain had lost credibility in their military. Isn't that right?? So, it would be hard to justify entering another major war. I am sure the battle casualty figures had to give their leaders pause.
    1
  13. I see two major mistakes by Japan -- 1) Not choosing the "Northern Strategy" of attacking and taking Siberia from Russia. Russia was losing war to Germany at the time, and likely would not have been able to resist. Secondly, it would not have drawn US into the war. 2) The Pearl Harbor attack should have been accompanied with invasion, just like in the Philippines, Malaya, etc. If Japan had occupied Hawaii, then the US fleet would have been pushed back to the continent, all the ships trapped in Pearl Harbor could have been seized or salvaged, expanding Japan's Navy, and diminishing the American Navy. Plus, American submarines would not have been able to attack and restrict the vital shipping of raw materials to Japan. Japan would have been able to stockpile supplies, and expand their ship building program. This would have delayed the US Victory for several years, IMO. The attack on Pearl did nothing from a strategic POV, except to draw America into the war. Strategically, it was stupid.
    1
  14. Seems Germany's committing atrocities. predates World Wars 1 & 2. Bombarding a city and its civilian population with artillery, after the war was won, is inexcusable. There was no need.
    1
  15.  @Ohmygodstfu2045  when did that happen?
    1
  16. You could have explained more about the resources available to both sides - population, economy, industrialization, etc. Also, you could have mentioned that Germany learned a lot from observers of the American Civil War, especially about the usage of railroads. For some strange reason, no European powers took note of the success of the almost semi-automatic Henry rifles. In fact, even in WW2, the US had the only regular issue semi-auto rifle for its troops. Semi-auto action was common in hand guns from Mauser to Colt, yet no nations used it in their standard issue rifles, except for US in WW2. I wonder if the logistics & supply guys worried that they would not be able to supply their troops with increased ammo they would be firing???
    1
  17. Decent for a brief presentation. One thing missed was the absence of JEB Stuart before the battle. Lee did not have the reconnaissance he normally had. Also I wonder what would have happened if Lee did not offer battle, but continued moving. Lee, I think, was pretty good at a war of movement, offering battle only when there is an advantage. Gettysburg is the one battle where Lee showed poor judgement, and poor leadership. It proves he was not a great general. Just a good one. The Union was cursed with rotten mediocre generals in Virginia.
    1
  18. Meade was a competent general. Not a coward, like McLellan. He best served, IMO, under Grant.
    1
  19. Very good summary. I must refer you to David Hackett Fischer's book, "Paul Revere's Ride". It covers the disastrous defeat of the British at Concord & Lexington. First, it was no minor skirmish. Several thousand crack British troops were soundly defeated. Second, the hit & run sniping attacks were successful, purposeful, and planned. Third, the people of the area were descendants of the Roundheads, and anti-monarchy. Excellent book. I really like Fischer's histories.
    1
  20. Too late. US vs China is Cold War #2. So, a new Russia vs EU must be Cold War #3. C'mon guy. A lot's been happening. You gotta keep up. 🤪🤪🤪
    1
  21. Taxes and tax protests is the normal narrative for the Revolutionary War. There is another --- involving slavery. In 1763, a slave named Somerset went to England with his master, and ran away. The master sued in English court to get him back. He lost. Now, the colonies were under English Common Law, like England. So, the precedent of the freeing of Somerset could mean the freeing of all slaves in the Empire. The book Slave Nation describes this. Now, some of the American colonies wanted slavery to continue. The plantation colonies wanted slavery because it was the foundation of their economy. Boston wanted it because they were the Yankee traders in the triangle slave trade. So, one reason for the war, may have been to retain slavery. Isn't that a twist???? Ever notice how little New York appears in the narrative of the Revolutionary War??? Even as a kid, I thought that odd. Read the book, it is interesting.
    1
  22. Boy, do I disagree with you on this. True, the MILITARY casualties were high. BUT, civilian casualties were low. If you look at civil wars through history, they are generally very bloody conflicts with HUGE civilian casualties. Whole cites and towns being killed - areas being totally depopulated. What was remarkable about the American Civil War was the extreme civility shown by both sides towards civilian populations. The actions by few commanders, like Quantrill, that did target civilians stand in stark contrast to the conduct of both sides during the war. If you read about other civil wars in history, I think you will have to conclude that we can be very proud of the conduct of both sides in the conflict.
    1
  23. Do you understand that the Warsaw Pact was the answer to NATO --- and it, too, was a military alliance??? Comintern was the trade pact meant to counter the Common Market.
    1
  24. Despite all the wars brought on by succession disputes when a monarch dies, there is no video discussing this severe problem with autocratic rule. The Ottomans killed their siblings when one of the sons took control. European history is littered with wars of succession, often disguised as civil wars. Roman Imperial history is one dynastic struggle & assassination after another. This needs to be discussed, and then current autocratic and semi-autocratic regimes should be analyzed. What will happen in Russia when Putin dies? How will Xi be succeeded?? Will Saudi succession be smooth? etc. The major gift of democracies is the end of dynastic succession wars. Look at how smoothly administration changed when FDR and JFK died. I don't think most people understand this. It is an important issue, that needs study and explanation.
    1
  25. You give a good overview. However, you gloss over too much, IMO, to fit it into two episodes. More detailed explanation of significant battles should be incorporated. More detailed explanation of the political & diplomatic machinations should be presented. Finally, resources and logistics should be explained. To do all these, I suspect the length would be quadrupled. But, it would be worth it.
    1
  26. You did not mention the Crimean War, which was expensive, and deadly. Was the recent Crimean War a factor in both Britain and France not intervening in our Civil War? I think that the war weariness and expense of the Crimean War would have been a significant factor for both nations deciding not to bother.
    1
  27. Or, to put it differently -- Britain and France seemed to easily start the Crimean War. Neither had been in a war for awhile, so went to war easily. If there had been no Crimean War, mightn't both nations been more easily persuaded to enter our Civil War??? I think, maybe so. If they had, they would have regretted it mightily. The industrialization of the US, started in the 1840's, accelerated in the 1850's, went into overdrive during the Civil War. Britain and France could not have projected adequate power onto North America to change events, IMO.
    1
  28. WOW...That is a huge mistake -- presenting NATO as a trade organization, and not a defensive military alliance. That is a fundamental misunderstanding, not just a slip. Understanding NATO is essential to having ANY idea of what has been happening in post-WW2 Europe. NOT knowing NATO is a defensive alliance meant to secure Western Europe, and to give confidence to business so there would be investment in Europe means you cannot have any clear idea of what is going on. I am stunned by your mistake.
    1