Comments by "" (@craigkdillon) on "TIKhistory" channel.

  1. Interesting argument justifying Hitler's orders to "stand fast", "no retreat". With no oil, a maneuver war cannot be fought, so retreating, consolidating, and attacking again had become infeasible. So, retreating was useless. However, sacrificing your men is also useless. It is really a "rock and a hard place" type of situation for Hitler and Germany. Neither action is good. But, with this context, Hitler's decision seems, at least, not mad, and even arguably the better decision.
    25
  2. You need to read more history. Especially histories where you look at why people do what they do. You have to put yourself into the cultural and philosophic trends of the time, and especially those of the prime actors. You have not even tried to understand Hitler's frame of mind. Or, you would not say some of the things you said.
    6
  3. 1. Germany had another opportunity to get oil, and a better one, IMO. DON"T attack Russia ------ Continue to attack UK, through Egypt, into Iraq & Arabia. There was lots of oil there. PLUS, Germany would have split Britain from India. 2. Ultimately, having oil was not Germany's problem -- it was moving it around. When the Germans abandoned their equipment in France for lack of oil, it was not because Germany had no oil -- it was because oil transport and processing had been destroyed or greatly reduced. SO, even if Germany had lots of oil. Even if the Ploesti fields in Romania had been able to produce all of Germany's needs, that oil would not have been able to be used -- at least on the Western Front. The US & UK bomber offensive were finally successful in targeting oil transport. This is my alternative view. WW2 is very complex, and I think any claim that one thing or another was the cause of victory or defeat is treading on very dangerous and debatable ground.
    4
  4. I don't think it is a contest. Radar, Sonar, and nuclear weapons shows the huge technological superiority of US & UK.
    3
  5. True. But, after the defeat of France, the German soldiers became large. They were over 10ft tall. Amazing!!
    3
  6. At the start of the Cold War, Soviet Union had a larger population. Now, Russia has a population 44% the size of America. With a worse economy, and a shrinking population, how can Putin hope to challenge the US?? Why challenge the US?? What does Russia get from challenging the US??? What did Russia get from occupying Crimea and having a war in Ukraine?? What is Russia getting from Syria? (Or, US get from our ME wars, for that matter??) Seems to me, Putin is incompetent and foolish -- if judging benefits to Russia from his rule. (Judging by his immense wealth - Putin has been very successful. The scale you use is important. )
    2
  7. what amazing incompetence. Not by one, or two generals, but by the whole damn corp. How could such a Keystone army conquer anything?? What total idiots. When Rommel did NOTHING, it required the British generals to actually think. They failed miserably.
    2
  8. I think the defeat of Germany was guaranteed when Germany declared war on the US. Germany could not cope with the huge resource advantage of the US. No chance after that.
    2
  9. The main problem with these analyses, IMO, is that they assume a totally rational mind. To me, that is absurd. Humans are emotional creatures. When we make decisions, they usually come from our emotions. We buy what we want, not what we rationally need. We make decisions from love, hate, desire, fear, etc. -- all emotions. Hitler made his decision to go to war against Poland, because he wanted to. He detested Poles. He wanted their land. AND, he wanted to kill them. To him, that meant war. To try and put rational thought into this, assuming he was after geopolitical goals, is silly, IMO.
    1
  10. DISAGREE WITH YOU STRONGLY. Hitler did not operate rationally from ANY point of view. Now, that does not make him a mad man. He was evil, that's for sure, but not mad, IMO. The thing is, everyone makes decisions based on their emotions. When we desire something strongly, ALL of us tend to make wrong decisions. Afterwards, if someone looked closely, we could be accused of being "mad". How many people fall in love, and the relationship is a total disaster. A disaster that friends and relatives knew was going to happen all along. Do we call those people "mad"?? Perhaps we should, but we don't. I think Hitler's decision to go to war was an emotional decision. I think he convinced himself that Britain would not go to war, and was genuinely surprised when it did. His thinking makes no sense. But, that does not make him "mad", just making decisions based on his passions.
    1
  11. The problem with your analysis is that you are putting your frame of mind, your world view, onto Hitler. That is a mistake. Hitler did want room for German farmers. WTF do you think Lebensraum was all about??? He wanted to take slavic land, and give it to German farmers. That is WHAT HE SAID!!
    1
  12. Nice explanation. Too bad it is wrong. It does not agree with history and what actually happened to start the war. Here is how I see it --- Hitler did NOT start WW2 --- that is he did not INTENTIONALLY start it. Recall -- Hitler took over Rhineland -- no problem Hitler took over Austria --- no problem. Hitler took over Sudetenland -- no problem Hitler took over Czechoslovakia -- UK protested, but no problem. Now we get to Poland...... Hitler was not expecting anyone to go to war over Poland, which didn't even exist 25 years before. So, Hitler invades Poland, to conquer it -- not to start WW2. Hitler believed that England and France would not like it, but not go to war. So, WW2 began on a miscalculation. No great thinking. No great plan. No grand philosophy of industry & agriculture. Remember, after England and France declared war, Hitler tried to bargain his way out of the war. He never wanted war with the west. Sorry to destroy your grand analysis. It was great. Wrong. But, still great.
    1
  13. People can convince themselves of many things that are obviously untrue. We we desperately want something to be true, we make ourselves believe it Most of us have known friends or relatives who were in love, and truly believed that they were loved in return. They believed that, when to every observer, it was obvious they were being cheated on and disrespected. Despite what seemed like obvious evidence, they still continued to believe. Denial is so common, that it is to be expected. IMO, Hitler had convinced himself that Britain would never declare war, and that the Munich Pact was as empty as Britain's commitment to Czechoslovakia. After all, what was the difference between Poland and Czechoslovakia?? Why would Britain let one die, and go to war for the other. That made no sense, I am sure.
    1
  14. Huh?? Hitler was NOT trying to start a war when he did. He was, at that point in time, just constructing Greater Germany. He got Austria and Czechoslovakia (which used to be part of Austria-Hungary. He wanted to unite East Prussia with the main part of Germany. He wanted the Danzig Corridor. That was denied. So, he took it. AND, he was not expecting France & Uk to go to war over that. I mean, little old Poland and its Danzig Corridor?? They didn't go to war over Rhineland, or Austria, or Czechoslovakia... So, why would they go to war over Poland?? They would be crazy to do that, so Hitler thought, I believe. Remember, Hitler liked the british. He didn't like the French, but he respected them. He did want Lebensraum, which did mean farming, too.
    1
  15. Seems to me that the 20th Century has been a demographic disaster for Russia. In 1900, the population was around 140 million, and the population of the world was 1.6 Billion. In 1900, 8.75% of the worlds population was Russian, China's was 400M for 23.5%, and US was 76M for 4.5%. Today, out of 7.8 Billion, Russia has 146 M for 1.87%, China has 1,439M for 18.7%, and US has 331M for 4.24%. Interestingly, only America and India (17%) have maintained their percentages of world population. This fall of Russia from having lots of people to having much fewer is a major issue for Russia. I would like to see more discussion and analysis of this.
    1
  16. The causes of Germany's defeat on the Eastern Front are many. One of the causes was the greater resources and manpower available to Russia. Also, Germany had to fight on two fronts, Russia did not. If it was strictly Germany against Russia, it might have been very different. However, there were other profound reasons --- -- Germany's lack of oil. Romania could not supply enough oil. Its chronic shortage effected both logistics and strategy. -- German tank design and construction caused breakdown and repair problems. Russia vastly outproduced Germany in armor. Plus, Russian tank design was superior overall. -- Germany fought the war basically alone, while Russia received huge supplies from the US. -- Russian intelligence was superior to Germany's. For instance, Russia knew the German battle plan before the Battle of Kursk. Zhukov knew exactly where to put his defenses. Operationally, I do believe the Germans were superior. I don't think Russia fully recovered from the pre-war purges. As usual, the truth is more complex, thus it lies somewhere in-between the two extremes.
    1
  17. You confuse technological ability with industrial capacity.
    1
  18. BTW, I disagree with his dismissal of "revisionist historians". True, every bonafide historian will revise history through added research, and more considered interpretations based on serious reviews of material. They may revise history, but they are NOT "revisionist historians". TO ME, the term "revisionist historian" is one that actually denies or discounts proven source material to promote a patently false and politically motivated view. For instance, the holocaust is absolutely proved with thousands of video, audio, and written personal accounts, Nazi camp records and confessions. Yet, there are "revisionist historians' who deny the holocaust. They are trying to rewrite history by writing the holocaust out of it. "Revisionist historians" are a particularly evil people, that deserve the worst.
    1
  19. To say that everyone who thinks Hitler a mad man is not looking at the whole picture, and only looking at the military issues, is pompous and egotistical. One could read all the histories, including the political, social, economic, etc. covering Hitler and Nazi Germany form all angles, and still come to the conclusion that Hitler was a mad man. Disagreeing with you does not make someone an idiot. Boy, you really think a lot of yourself, don't you??
    1
  20. I agree with you that many of the assertions made about WW2 are not backed up. You need to read more scholarly histories that DO explain WHY people did what they did. Explanations and backgrounds to the assertions -- so that they are justified and understood. From my knowledge of WW2, your assertions are not correct. Your dismissal of Lebensraum, I think is particularly very wrong. Your assertion that Hitler "started" WW2, as if he did it willfully and intentionally, is also wrong. He miscalculated. He did NOT expect war from taking 1/2 of Poland. (Now that is a good topic - Stalin took 1/2 of Poland, so why did everyone go to war with Hitler, and not Stalin??)
    1
  21. At the beginning of WW2, the Japanese Zero was the best fighter -- period. NOTHING stood up to it. The vaunted Spitfires were destroyed en-masse by the Zeroes.
    1
  22. It sure does look like Halder or someone was intentionally trying to sabotage Hitler's strategy.
    1
  23. Good points. I think you are right.
    1
  24. I had no idea all this went on. For a long time, I felt that if Hitler had NOT done Barbarossa, but instead, put more forces in Africa, that Rommel could have gotten the oil in Iraq. This video shows that it was there for the taking for Hitler. IF Hitler had NOT done Barbarossa, but instead put all his efforts on getting Iraq's oil, and kicking Britain out of the Middle East, he would have achieved a possible war winning advantage. 1. UK would have been separated from India, 2. UK would not have easy access to oil 3. UK and allies would have been kicked out of the Mediterranean. Operation Torch would have become difficult, if not impossible. 4. Germany would have Russia out-flanked. Germany could have attacked through the Caucasus and taken Baku, much more easily. 5. Without the oil from Baku, Russia would likely have lost. I still think the overwhelming production of the US would have still led to Allied victory, it would have taken longer, and cost more lives.
    1
  25.  @Arizona-ex5yt  True. But, if the forces for Barbarossa were diverted to Africa, Rommel would have had more than enough to take Egypt. Taking Egypt, the Brits would have lost their main base in the Eastern Mediterranean. No bases = no navy. Look at the damage Rommel did, with a very small army by Eastern Front standards. If Rommel had triple the men, armor, and planes, Egypt would have be conquered.
    1
  26. Oil was a big issue. But, I was prepared to disagree. However, you make a very good case.
    1
  27. Another opportunity missed was due to Hitler's and Germany's prejudice against Slavs. Stalin's abuse of Ukraine made it ripe for separation. German armies entering Ukraine were welcomed as liberators and heroes. Hitler could have separated the Ukraine from Russia, and have a major new ally. They could have added huge manpower dedicated to defeating Stalin. Without having to spend resources occupying it, Hitler likely would have been able to get to Baku.
    1
  28. I just mentioned how Russia's intelligence helped it win the Battle of Kursk. That is an interesting topic or question -- Why was British and Russian espionage efforts more successful than Germany's?? or, why was German intelligence a profound failure (which I think it was). If anyone knows a book or paper that talks about this, please reply, I would love to read it.
    1