Comments by "Dennis Weidner" (@dennisweidner288) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@jackmack1061 Again rather than discussing the issue rationally. You just fling insults. And you attempt to invent what I said. I never said that the NAZIs were Communists. I said that the NAZIs and other Fascists were socialists. I base this on fact. Notice I do not fling insults, Anyone can do that. It does not take intellect or knowledgeable. What are the facts? 1) The German state seized control of the economy (setting prices, wages, access to raw materials, ect. 2) Control mean that market forces did not operate in NAZI Germany, 3) The NAZIs seized control of the trade unions. 3) The NAZIs seized private business and not just Jewish businesses. 4) The NAZIs copied the Soviet Five Year Plan with their Four Year Plan run by Goering, 5) The largest industrial enterprise in the country became Goering's sate-owned Reichswerke, 6) Like the Soviets, the NAZIs used slave labor, 7) The NAZIs let some private owners manage businesses, but controlled what they did. Others who refused Government orders lost their businesses.
3
-
These discussions of the Ostkrieg often note how the German allies (Hungarian, Italian, and Romanian) forces were largely ineffectual. The assumption was that they did not have the same fighting spirit as the Deutsche Ostheer. This may or may not be true, but it is vital to recognize how poorly equipped they were. They did not have much in the way of anti-tank guns or modern artillery. The Deutsche Ostheer itself was poorly equipped. Some 80 percent of the Ostheer was unmotorized infantry moving east on foot with horse-drawn carts. So you can imagine to what extent the Germans helped equip the allied armies. This should be born in mind when assessing the NAZI allied armies.
here are other important considerations: Why were the Germans not better able to supply their own as well as allied armies? They had a far larger heavy (steel) industry component than the Soviets. They should have out produced the Soviets hands down . Especially so much of Soviet industry was located in the Western Soviet Union and overrun. The Soviets moved whole factories east, but many were overrun. And the NAZIs occupied or controlled virtually all of Western and Eastern Europe, except the unoccupied Soviet Union. They should have hugely out produced the Soviet Union, but they did not. So you have to ask why.
There were three basic reasons:
1. NAZI industrial policy was a disaster. Not only in the Reich, but in the occupied territories. Unlike the Soviets, German companies continued to focus on quality and resisted mass production methods. And Except for Czechoslovakia, the occupied territories were not effectively integrated into the NAZI war economy. France is a case in point. France had a large modern, arms industry which made almost contribution to the German war effort. The NAZIs seemed as interested in killing slave laborers as increasing production.
2. The Soviets in contrast rose to the occasion. They introduced American mass production techniques during the 1930s. They also realized that the life span of tanks and other equipment night be only a few days in battle. Thus it did not make sense to create high quality weapons made to last a life time. They also understood that unnecessary tinkering with designs slowed down production. There was also American Lend-Lease which was very important. . Here the Americans give too much weight to it and the Russians attempt to say it was meaningless.
3. The most important factor was the War in the West. German MANPOWER was primarily committed to the Ostkrieg, German INDUSTRY, however, was primarily committed to the War in the West. It takes a lot of industry to build aircraft and ships, very little to build horse carts. It is important to understand that half of Germany's war industry was used to build air craft and missiles. And the air war was primarily fought in the West as was the naval war. This diversion of industrial output meant that the Ostkrieg, the decisive campaign of the War, was fought by the Ostheer which was poorly equipped and supported.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I think you make some good points and I do not totally disagree with you, but I also think you miss some very crucial points. Here are some issues off the top of my head.
1. Churchill's importance in history is a) keeping Britain in the fight with the unfolding disaster in France and b) recognizing the importance of America and laying the foundation for the Anglo-American alliance. All the matters you mention or minor compared to these two monumental matters. There is no way that Britain could have won the War without America. And I don't know how America could have fought the War without Britain. So 'a' and 'b' above were the two essential factors in the Allied victory.
2. The failure in Norway was not the shortage of troops as you suggest, but the ability of the Germans to gain air superiority. By the way, the intervention was not to get ahold of Swedish iron ore but to deny it to the Germans.
3. Churchill was absolutely correct about Gallipoli. The strategic concept was sound. It was the military execution that was faulty. And I don't think you can blame Churchill for the military execution.
4. It is absolutely correct that he had many hair-brained ideas and drove Brooke to distraction, but to his credit, he never went against the War Cabinet.
5. While he had many bad ideas, you ignore his many good ideas: tanks in World War I, the character of Hitler, tolerating DeGaulle, prioritizing the air war, maintaining the British base in Malta, giving the Americans access to Britain's secret weapons research, dissuading the Americans from a cross-Channel invasion in 1943, and Mulberry.
6. The extent to which he mobilized the English language and sent it into battle.
7. His concern for the Jews. He spoke out against the NAZI killing campaign much more strongly than President Roosevelt.
8. Standing up to Stalin over the execution of 50,000 German officers.
As for making peace with Hitler after Dunkirk, I suggest you look at how long Chamberlain's 'peace in our time' lasted after Munich. And have you considered how the lack of war in the West would have affected the Ostkrieg?
Why do you say he was pro-Fascist? He saw much more clearly than Chamberlain and the British public that you could not appease Hitler. He never questioned British democracy, civil liberties, or capitalism.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@montrelouisebohon-harris7023 Wow!. That is quite a post. Two matters I would take issue with. One minor and another major.
1. The British did not invent radar on their own. The Germans had very advanced radar as well. And it was not unknown to the Americans, although military spending in America was very limited before Pearl Harbor. Actually, there was a radar station operational on Ohahu at the time of the Japanese attack and as far as I know, it was American technology--although I am not entirely sure about that. And they did pick up the Japanese attack. What the British did invent on their own was the cavity magnetron--easily the most important secret weapon of the War. American companies improved on the initial British invention and mass-produced it.
2. Hitler was not stupid to invade the Soviet Union. In fact, he has no other choice. British and American naval power meant that Germany could no longer import the resources it needed nor did it have the hard currency to buy them. The 1940-41 offenses in the West required resources that Stalin was delivering from the East. But Stalin was not a long-term ally. In fact, the Soviets were the only country with a military that posed a threat to Germany. He thus had to 1) neutralize that threat and 2) acquire the resources he needed. The only way to do this was to invade the Soviet Union before the Americans mobilized and generated a threat in the West. The most important resource needed was oil. But it was not the only resource. For example, European (and American) industry at the time ran primarily on coal. Germany had most of the coal it needed for its own industry, but not for the countries it occupied, And to exploit these economies, Germany needed to keep them functioning. (Before the War many European countries were importing coal from Britain.) Thus not only did Germany have to attack the Soviet Union, but if you read 'Mein Kampf'' that was the primary reason for the War to begin with. Another factor was the cost of maintaining an enormous military. Germany did not have the financial power to do that permanently.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2