Comments by "Dennis Weidner" (@dennisweidner288) on "TIKhistory" channel.

  1. In addition to the Hunger Plan, Gerneralplam Ost should also be considered.
    1
  2. @ TheBreadBaron TIK is absolutely correct. Just how were they different except fir Hitler's Jewish mania??
    1
  3.  @TheImperatorKnight  Absolutely correct.
    1
  4.  trainbomb  Well the SA thugs were rather like the Bolsheviks. But the NAZIs even after the SA was suppressed pursued socialist economic policies. Are you unaware of Goering's Five Year Plan? https://www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/tol/ger/eco/nazi-eco.html
    1
  5. Recessions are a normal pat of market fluctuation in a capitalist economy. They are normally quick and not major economic events. Recessions are self correcting. It is Government that turns then into depressions. It was the U.S. Federal Reserve, for exampe, that turned a perfectly normal, run of a mill ecession into the Great Depression by severely tightening the money supply.
    1
  6. Not true. Before World War I, Russia was growing at a very rapid rate.
    1
  7. @ kingpin outlow The reason you can make idiotic statements like this is because of those wars.,
    1
  8. As always a thoughtful discussion. I would take issue with your Italian discussion, saying that the Italian problem was the expansion f the army and the lack of experienced officers. I suggest you look at the U.S. Army, the expansion of the Army was far greater, and proportionally there was a much greater lack of experienced officers. Obviously, something else was going on in Italy. I suspect it was a problem at the root of Italian society. Basically, Italians, especially the peasantry, did not trust the government, in this case, their officers. And the way the soldiers were supplied and treated confirmed their suspicions.
    1
  9.  @nahyeahwhatsahandle  We don't, but what we do know about YT's censorship is bad enough. What Musk has uncovered in Twitter shows very clearly what the Bug tech companies are doing. Any American who is not outraged over the assault on Free Speech should be ashamed.
    1
  10.  @grizzlygrizzle  Wiow!. You must be a philosophy professor. If I follow you correctly, I agree, but what did I say that leads you to think I am ceding too much territory to subjectivism?
    1
  11. There was no plebiscite. And you are correct that many of the republics were still dictatorships, but some of the republics had ahad democratic elections. And they chose to scrap the Soviet Union.
    1
  12. KernowPolski Yes very important. The German myth of military brilliance still persists. Even more important is the superior Soviet economic performance. After losing major industrial cities (only part of the industry in these cities was evaluated east) and having a fraction of German heavy industry to begin with, the Soviets outproduced the Germans in key areas--especially tanks and artillery. Too often these discussions are only about the military. Without the industry needed to wage war, the military can not win battles. The best example here was Poland.
    1
  13. Very well done. Thank you for an informed, honest report on the Dresden bombing. It was of course horrendous, but it is interesting how much misinformation circulates to paint the bombing as a war crime. If it was there would be no need to lie about it. You accurately dismiss the biggest lie--that Munich did not have arms industries. This is of course absurd to anyone who has the slightest knowledge of the War. There was no city in Germany that was not contributing to the war effort and continuing to kill the few surviving Jews. You lay out the details of what happened very well. There is one matter you did not mention--the idea that the War was already won and thus the Allies needed to reduce their effort. The fact is that both the Western Allies and especially the Soviets were still taking very serious casualties from German resistance.. To me, the overriding point here is that we all wish that the bombing had not taken place. But the Germans started and supported the War. Britain and America did everything they could to stay out of the War. But forced into the war and facing a remorseless enemy committing the greatest crimes in human history, the Allies were forced to fight it and mobilize their vast industrial strength. It is unrealistic to think that the engine of war they need to build up could be turned off on a dime. The Germans started the War, The Germans began bombing civilians, and 90, percent of the European civilians killed in the War were killed by the Germans. Harris said it best, ""The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind." Another interesting point is that the critics of the bombing today do not come primarily from the Germans. It comes from the political left which is doing its best to delegitimize the Allied victory in the war, desperate to prove that Britain and America did not save Western civilization.
    1
  14. A good discussion here, but some notes. 1. Britain got very limited food from Australia and New Zealand during the War, for obvious reasons. I would have taken enormous amounts of shipping to get food to Britain from down under. 2. Shipping was not just central to feeding Britain, it was central to the entire Allied war effort. 3. I know you can't mention everything, but 20 seconds on the Ameican Liberty Ship program which solved the shipping program seems in order. 4. The primary contribution of the War in the West was not in tying down German manpower, it did NOT do this. For most of the War, France was an R&R posting, not a battlefield. What the War in the West did it did was force the Reich to divert its industrial power primarily to the West rather than to the all-important Osrkrieg. . This is why the Ostheer went east on foot with horse-drawn carts. (80 percent of the Osheeer was unmotorized industry, despite the impression given by Goebbel's films.) As you point out, God knows what they would have done had they been motorized.
    1
  15. You are comparing Britain to the modern world. How does the 19th century comparison come out if you compare Britain to India, South America, China, or other European countries during the sane time period?
    1
  16.  @benholroyd5221  I have no idea what you are talking about with Xs and Ys.. The simple fact is that even with the slums and Dicksonian poverty, Britain was better off than any other country except America. The poverty is unacceptable to us in the 21st century, but if you compare Britain to other countries around the world in the 19th century, it comes out very well. Most people have been poor since the dawn of time. It is only in America and Britain in the 19th century that wide spread prosperity began--thanks to the wealth generating engines of capitalism and the industrial revolution.
    1
  17. Driveway Nats Yes the Germans used all kinds of vehicles seized in Western Europe for Barbarossa. But the German infantry was mostly on foot. Cam you imagine invading the Soviet Union on foot? And the the huge variety of equipment and vehicles created a logistical nightmare. And the Wehrmacht despite its many strengths was not not noted for its logistical acumen. https://www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/cou/ger/mil/w2g-msw.html
    1
  18. Erik Hare He had plenty of time to understand before Uranus that advancing east with unprotected flanks deep into the Soviet Union was military insanity. Not to mention giving up the German trump card of mobility to fight a protracted urban struggle.
    1
  19. @ John Walkley True, but Baldwin and Chamberlain were in power fir several years and did precious little to prepare.
    1
  20. That is what happens when you call the country's best farmers enemies of the people and murder them. https://www.histclo.com/essay/war/com/sov/stalin/scs-agr.html
    1
  21. The Germans evacuated mist of the children to the countryside.
    1
  22.  @johnwolf2829  Yes, what the Germans did with all that equipment is interesting and poorly covered. There were also vast quantities of French and British equipment in 1940. Of course, much of this was not up to the standards of the Ostkrieg.
    1
  23.  @johnwolf2829  John, I did mo mean to suggest that is not an important topic. I think that it definitely is. There is a great deal I would like to hear more about. I have all sorts of questions. 1. How much of the BEF equipment left at Dunkirk was left in useable condition and what use was made of it. 2,. How was all the french equipment used? An issue here was spare parts and the very complicated German logistics system. Also, equipment that was viable in 1940 was much less useful in 1942., 3. The Germans used Czech tanks in their WesternCampaign (1940), but with less success in Barbarissa (1941). By 1942 they were hopelessly out of date. 4. It is not clear to me that the Germans were all that interested in modernizing their Allied armies (except the Finns). Remember they were holding back radar and other technologies from the Japanese until late in the War. Also, remember that 80 percent of the Ostheer was unmotorized infantry. Is it likely that the Germans were going to share what fuel they had with their Axis allies? 5. The German logistical system was seriously stressed. I suspect shipping heavy weaponry including captured equipment) east along with the needed ammunition and spare parts was not a high priority. 6. A good example of priorities was the Spanish Blue Division. Rather than transport them by rail to the front line. They were required to move on foot most of he was to their position around Leningrad. 7. It is also unclear to me how much of the Soviet Barbrossa equipment was useable. Much of the tanks were junk. And using the trucks was complicated by lack of spare parts adding a whole other range of complications to Ostheer motor pools attempting to service a dizzying number of models from various countries--few of which were up to the rigors of Soviet roads. 8. My general impression is that the Axis allies were used primarily to occupy areas taken by German combat troops or to cover unthreatened flanks as they did at Stalingrad. They also were used to deal with pockets cut off by the Germans who pressed east. I would be interested in hearing about major offensive operations that you know of.
    1
  24. @ Basic Stick Figure Hardly never, but you point is valid.
    1
  25. The comparison of traitors with America/Britain and the Soviers is a little unfair. Neither America nor Britain was occupied. And of course, Lord Haw/Haw was not the only British traitor. There was Mosley and his Fascists, not to mention the Duke of Windsor. But among the occupied countries there were many more traitors. Look at France and Vichy. Of course, not all Vichy supporters were traitors, at least at first, but by 1943 they had crossed the line. Now I agree that RLA represents a very large number, but how many volunteered out of starvation as opposed to hating Stalin is an open question.
    1
  26. Or the origin of the Wuhan virus.
    1
  27. @peterg76yt Future behavior is best assessed by past behavior. And Chanmberlain's appeasement as well as the pacifist proclivities of the British public gave every indication that Britain would not fight.
    1
  28.  @noway8563  I am always up to learning more about history. And I am especially interested in the Molotiov-Ribbentrip Agreement. I have never seen any reference to an agreement for simultaneous invasions. Just what is your source on this? Surely you must know that "I think it is pretty well established" is hardly a credible source. I am not saying I know it was not planned gthat way, just that I would like to see actual evidence. Not only have I not seen any such evidence., but I have never noted the Germans complaining about Soviet duplicity on this.
    1
  29. @ Ashley Do you really not know? Britain did mot have the military capability of defeating Germany. Just how could it defeat Germany and the Soviets?
    1
  30. There are some errors here, but your major point about the cost of synfuels is correct and too often ignored. The cost was a huge drag on the German War Economy. You are, however, wrong about coal. It is true that Germany was self-sufficient in coal production. But the countries they conquered were not. Many were importing coal from Britain. This of course ended when Hitler and Stalin launched the War. Now if the NAZIs were going to exploit the economies of the occupied countries, they had to keep the lights on. Thus Germany had to ship some of their coal to the occupied countries and Switzerland. You are also wrong about Britain. They did not have Middle Eastern oil. When Italy entered the War. It could no longer be shipped through the Mediterranean. And Britain did not have the tankers needed to ship Middle Eastern oil around the Cape. So they did increase oil imports from Venezuela and Trinidad, but more importantly, they hugely expanded imports of American oil.
    1
  31. I don't think the Americans delivered much oil to the Soviets. They did deliver aviation fuel.
    1
  32. Do you remember electing socialists in 1945?
    1
  33. What socialist country has created a prosperous economy?
    1
  34. Bertie Wooster Do you really think Goebbels was going to blame Hitler?
    1
  35.  @miracleyang3048  He was captured, but in captivity made anti-NAZI propaganda broadcasts,
    1
  36. The first achievement of the air campaihn was destroying the Luftwaffe. Only after that and support for the Army in Normandy was no longer needed could the bombing proceed in earnest (September 1944) and in two nmnths the German war economy began to collapse,
    1
  37. If they are in the ground, why has no one found them?. Please provide a source detailing who has found the 3 million bodies and where. Again a response from you with pure unsupported speculation/opinion and no facts or sources. I fear the masters at your top grammar school would not be very impressed with your scholarship.
    1
  38. Comparing Allied imperfections to horrors of the NAZIs is absolute nonsense.
    1
  39. @ 19Koty96 It became impossible to hide in 1970s and then Gorbachev actually allowed people to freely talk about it.
    1
  40. Tik. you are exactly correct about how poorly equipped and supplied the Hungarians were. And as you mention, the Romanians and Italians were not a whole lot better. What you do not get into is why. In fact, the entire Deutsche Ostheer itself was poorly equipped and supplied. Some 80 percent were unmotorized moving east on foot with horse-drawn carts, The question is -- why. The major reason was that OVER half of German industrial output went to support the War in the West. This gets down to the central reason Germany lost World War II. Hitler sent most of German manpower East, but the supplies and equipment needed to win the Ostkrieg went West.
    1
  41. Dirigibles AND bombers.
    1
  42. @ jjeherrera The debt was never paid back. It was settled with pennies on the dollar and that war debt had nothing to so with Britain's problems. Lend Lease aid was far greater and more important. The problems were caused by the socialists Britain elected in 1945.
    1
  43. @ jjeherrera Actually the debt had little to do with it. The Socialists elected in 1945 were responsible. The debt was never repaid, but was settled with pennies on the dollar. The payments were more than covered by the Marshall Plan. The U.S. did prove to be the winner, but we did nor elect socialists in 1945.
    1
  44.  @vuktodic1356  You make a good point. America borrowed huge amounts to fight the War and aid its allies. But there wee gains. Technological gains led to important new industries. European immigrants especially Jew jump started many areas of American life. The whole foundation of Southern segregation was exposed.
    1
  45.  @rickmoreno6858  FDR was not a socialist. There is a difference between socialism and the welfare state. Although there were valuable programs, I agree that the New Deal did prolong the Depression. Also not well understood is that it was Government not business that caused the Depression in the first place. The Depression did not end in 1945, it ended once the Arsenal of Democracy geared up for War about 1940. And this was the result of relying on capitalism to wage the War. https://www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/cou/us/aod/arms/aod-wk.html
    1
  46.  @UmbraHand  I agree, but not because the New Deal ended the Depression--he did not. You might want to read about the Roosevelt Recession (1937-38). World War II ended the Depression which is why 1939 is usually used as the the end of the Depression. Roosevel's greatness is understanding that Hitler and NAZI Germany had to be stopped.
    1
  47.  @nottoday3817  Britain did pay off the World War II debt, but pennies on the dollar.
    1
  48.  @brianlong2334  America was superpower before World War II, it was only during the War that it developed military power.
    1
  49.  @Krispychikken  Not all. And TEMPORARY use of British bases did not make America a superpower--its capitalist economy did. https://www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/cou/us/aod/arms/aod-wk.html
    1
  50.  @mtsenskmtsensk5113  The decline of British mines began under Labour (a socialist party) and it as because they were not competitive. British decline also began under Labour. Before the War, Britain was the most affluent country in Europe. Under Labour (1945 General election) in declined and fell behind the Continental countries.
    1