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

  1.  @reginaldmcnab3265  A basic principle of historians is that you do not judge historical figure by modern standards. Many other countries attempted to build empires. The British were just better at it. Do you have any idde why? And yes there was brutality, killing, and exploitation. There were also many positive impacts. Much of what is right about America comes from our British heritage. And just look at India. It is the largest democracy in the world. Democracy did not come from the Moguls,
    2
  2.  @reginaldmcnab3265  Have you never opened a history book. The problem in World War II was American isolationists and the reluctance of many Americans to fight another war. https://www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/cou/us/usiso-is.html
    2
  3.  @reginaldmcnab3265  Most of the books in my library are by American, British, Italian, and German scholars and participants. They are respected historians who unlike left-wing professors take and even hand to history, criticizing the Allies when appropriate, but recognizing that World War II is a close as you will ever come to a Faustian conflict between good and evil. Of course the Allies made mistakes, the most glaring being the Bengal Famine, but the Axis war goals and methods were truly monstrous which in your left-wing nihilistic view you fail to recognize. But the facts are there for any educated person who has ever opened a history book to recognize. https://www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/tol/ger/crime/nazi-crime.html
    2
  4.  @reginaldmcnab3265  Absolutely. I do not manufacture history. That quote has been widely reported by Western historians--that is why you know about it. . Now you are talking about an actual fact. Truman was not talking about civilians, but German and Soviet soldiers--both of whom were invading other countries and committing terrible atrocities. Truman was a junior senator and not a a U.S, Government official. Not one drop of blood was lost because of that statement. Oceans of blood--most civilians was lost because of the barbaritiesiof the Axis and Soviet Union. And countless Soviet lives were saved by Lend Lease and the operations of Western military foorces. And what does that have to do with the absurd notion that the Allies killed 7 million Germans.
    2
  5.  @robertortiz-wilson1588  What did I say that he did not do? 1) He should have been court marshaled for his inept handling of the defense of the Philippines. 2) His treatment of Australians in the New Guinea campaign was offensive. 3) It was a strategic mistake to commit substantial forces to the southern Philippines after liberating Luzon. 4) His concern with public relations is also an issue. That said there were also things he did right. Island hopping is a case in point. And his conduct of the occupation was masterful.
    2
  6.  @night6724  Much of what you say is true, but you ignore some basic facts. 1) The United States did have air assets in the Philippines, and despite having warnings because of the attack on Pearl, most of those assets were destroyed on the ground. 2) The Americans and Filipinos on Bataan were not defeated militarily, they were starved out. MacArthur had plenty of time to move ammunition and supplies into Bataan before the Japanese arrived in strength. He failed to do so.
    2
  7. @ Webster 1 Among other matters he signed infanous murders orders issued by OKW. https://www.histclo.com/essay/war/swc/force/wehr/wehr-order.html
    2
  8. Tik, There is much in what you say. but I think you ignore some important basic matters. 1. First of all you are correct, it was not all about Red Army numbers. Those numbers, however, were a factor. 2. The Ostheer was poorly equipped. Some 80 percent of the Ostheer was unmotorized infantry. Meaning that the great bulk of the Ostheer moved east on foot with horse-drawn carts. 3. The NAZI allies were even more poorly equipped than the German troops. Remember it was the collapse of these units on the flanks of Stalingrad that led to the encirclement operation at Stalingrad, 4. NAZI barbarity aroused the fighting spirit of the Red Army soldier and Soviet civilians.] 5. American Lend Lease provided important support to the Red Army. 6. While German MANPOWER was deployed in the East, German INDUSTRIAL POWER primarily went to fight the War in the West. This left the Osttheer poorly equipped and inadequately supplied. Also in all fairness, you should mention, that the Russian people have an even more myopic view of the War. Most are convinced that the Soviet Union won the War single-handedly and the War in the West was a sideshow. And the fact that the Soviets were a NAZI ally for nearly 2 years is expunged from the history books. And unlike in the West, there are no voices like yourself, Glantz, Cicano, etc. to provide a more balanced view.
    2
  9. Compare that to what happened in Western Europe. Or comare Russia today with Western Europe.
    2
  10. The Cold War began in 1917 when the Bolsheviks seized power. The West only began to fight back with President Truman. The change in attitude among the Western Allies began with the brutal suppression of the people of Eastern Europe after World War II.
    2
  11.  @josephdestaubin7426  Basically correct. World War II was as you say launched by Hitler AND Stalin. And it was not only Hitler that brutally suppressed other countries, so did the Soviets. And we did not just leave our Allies. Lend Lease was replaced with the Marsgall Plan and then NATO. Stalin could have participated in the Marshall Plan, but instead decided to use the NKVD to brutally supress the people of Eastern Europe.
    2
  12.  @burdjija  You can talk about circkes in France, but there was one overriding concern of Britain and France, how to avoid another war. I think it is a fair point that Chamberlain wild have like to deflect Hitler eastward, but notice he made a deal with Poland which was between Germany and the Soviet Union. The historical fact is that it was the Soviet Union that formed an alliance launching World War II and both committed terrible atrocities.
    2
  13.  @nottoday3817  The Soviet Union and the West, you are correct were not allies. They were co-belgerents. The only sway that the Allies could have prevented German rearmament would have been to invade Germany and the British and French people were absolutely against such an action. In fact appeasement was very popular. https://www.histclo.com/bio/c/ind/ch/chamb/app/appi-ind.html
    2
  14. The Combat Wombat It is Paulus who commanded the Sixth Army and drove East with poorly defended flanks. He was in charge. Any competent commander would have recognized the danger. He chose instead to do what Hitler wanted. He was in command and thus has to bear responsibility for what ensued. Remember he was a NAZI supporter, part of the reason he got the job in the first place.
    2
  15.  @thecombatwombat7652  Absolutely there were all kinds of factors that led to the disaster ar Stalingrad, many outside of Palus' control. But he was in command. He accepted that command. He was not forced to take command. He was an ardent NAZK. And a mjor planner of Brbarossa. As a result, he bears responsibility for setting the Ostrieg in motion. If Germany did not have the ability to win, he should have spoken up. A commander has a responsibility to his country and superiors, but also to his men. If he didn't think he could succeed, he should have spoken up. That is what Hadler did.
    2
  16.  @nickhambly8610  I learned in high school that saying that something is common knowledge is not the same as proving it. Saying that 3 million is an accepted figure is npt the same as listing the historians who accept that figure. You seem to have missed the way that historians pursue history. They use facts, documents, and historical work. You provide none of that, only your assonance that it is an accepted figure, Not only it is nor accepted, it is is not a figure used by any creditable historian. I kee asking you, please provide your source.
    2
  17.  @benwilson6145  Quite right. Harries spent time in Rhodesia, but was English. It was 11 Group commander Keith Park that was the New Zelander.
    2
  18.  @robertleache3450  All good questions. But the culprit was not the German generals (they were responsible for many other things, but not economic policy, it was NAZI economic and industrial policy, And those responsible for it were primarily Hitler and Goering. You focus on France and for good reason, the substantial French arms industry went unused by the Germans, although they made some minimal efforts to use it. But it was not just France. The Germans basically controlled all of Europe. Ad what occurred throughout all of NAZ- occupied Europe was a massive decline in production. Part of this was due to NAZI brutality and mismanagement. but another part was energy shortages--both coal and oil. Often not mentioned was the War in the West, too often dismissed as a sideshow. Before the War, Britain exported coal to several countries occupied by the NAZIs. And they all imported oil, mostly from America or Amrucan-influenced countries (Mexico and Venezuela). Without these imports, cut off by the War in the West, production in NAZI-occupied countries faltered.
    2
  19. NcuriousmediatoR Free speech is the crown jewel of American democracy and why we have developed a tolerant society.
    2
  20. @ alex hayden Some of their industry, a great deal was left behind.
    2
  21. Ying, if you study 'real' history which you say is unimportant, you will find that it is much more complicated that you suggest. The birth of democracy is attributed to the Greeks especially Athens which was an imperial power. Britain had a large empire, but not the largest. Surely you must know about the Mongol Empire. And it simply is not true that democracy was mostly prohibited in the British Empire, I suggest you read about colonial America, the British Raj (where elections were held), and the Dominions--that is a good chunk of the Empire. But it is true that that democracy was not promoted in many other colonies. Which is why that during the War, colonialism was the major policy difference between the Americans and British. We certainly agree about the Soviet Union, but the Soviets with all their faults were not set on the extermination of ethnic groups on the same scale as the NAZIS, Please read about Generalplan Ost. Stalin as evil as he was never approached that level of genocide. There you go again. What official propaganda are you talking about?. The Unites States for decades during the Cold War resisted the Soviet Union and publicized the same horrors of Communist totalitarianism that you are concerned with. It is to America that Solzhenitsyn came to work on and publish 'The Gulag Archipelago' which exposed the many crimes you mention..
    2
  22. It is a recognized principle that countries like people have the tight of self defense. It was the Japanese and Germans that began invading other countries and bombing civilians. In fact the murder of millions of civilians was a a German war goal. It would have been a war crime not to oppose such monstrous regimes with every means available..
    2
  23. What makes you think I listen to the History Channel? Why don't you discuss issues with fact rather than just insult people?
    2
  24.  @yingyang1008  You know my kind? What you kow is to attack people personally who disagree with you. No discussion or intellectual debate, but to attack people who dare to disagree with you through and to try to silence them through personal attack. It is disgusting.
    2
  25.  @yingyang1008  Look at your insults. I like to engage with people with other opinions. I would engage with you, but not as long as you are going to start out my insulting me. My experience of 77 years tells me that people who hurl insults are not people that are worth trying to exchange ideas with.
    2
  26. @Joshua Roesner Absolutely correct. Excellent post, although I will point out that the Soviets began the War as a NAZI ally. Anyone who say Hitler wanted peace is either ignorant or has an agenda to pursue. There is no doubt that the strategic bombing was horrific, but not as horrific as the genocide the Axis was pursuing. Each of the Axis countries that were heavily bombed began the war by bombing other countries and committing terrible war crimes and atrocities which only stopped after the Axis war making capabilities were destroyed, their armies defeated, and countries occupied. This was only achieved by the application of superior military force. Remember it is the Axis that belived that milutary force was a the kegitinate way of achieving national goals and actually the highest form of human behavior.
    2
  27.  @melvillesperryn9268  Absolutely. The simple fact is that the Japanese killed some 20 million people BEFORE the bombs were dropped. And 0 people AFTER the bombs were dropped. Rather easy calculation.
    2
  28. Shaun Young What you say is true. But manpower is also important. The Soviets and Western Allies could replace losses. The Germans were already by 1942 drawing on their last reserves of military-age men. After Stalingrad, they could not begin to match the manpower reserves of the enemies they made and their allies (Romanians, Italians, and Hungarians) were effectively knocked out of the War. It is 1943that they begin to face vastly larger and better-armed Soviet and western forces.
    2
  29.  @88porpoise  I do not disagree with you. Even if the 6th army had been saved the germans faced oivee=helming odds by 1943. but losing the most powerful formation in the German Army was a huge loss. I am not arguing that they should have tied to breakout only that manpower had become a major issue for the Germans. And the loss of equipment for the inefficient German war economy was also an issue,
    2
  30. Part of the problem is that the Soviet oil deliversies stopped.
    2
  31. It was not something the British planned, but there response was truly shocking. Congress also shares responsibility/ Their Quit India campaign was designed to destabilize British rule. It is disingenuous to disrupt public administration and than complain hen it dies nor work well.
    2
  32. Notice I supplied SOURCES. You supply only your faulty OPINION. If you ever opened a book on Stalingrad you will find how poorly equipped the Axis forces protecting the German flanks were. TIK goes into this as well in his detailed Stalingrad series. .
    2
  33. @ matelic8 Primarily most teachers and professors are 'progressives'.
    2
  34. Mot true. The Germans has a very effective Civil Defense system. The cities were pulverized. The vast majority if German civilians survived the War. It is the civilians of countries the Gemans occupied that died in large numbers.
    2
  35.  @atheistmecca971  Very little military value? The nukes ended the are and saved countless Japanese lives. The Japanese killed some 20 million people in China and other countries before the bombing -- 0 people after the bombing.
    2
  36. @ eisai gay Nonsense. We know precisely where the American carriers were and if you ever open a history book you woud also.
    2
  37. @ Matt Fischer Just what is the difference between NAZIs and Communists except Hitler's Jewish mania. Katyn for example looks just like what we usually see as NAZI atrocities.
    2
  38.  @TheImperatorKnight  Absolutely correct.
    2
  39.  @tentypek5295  Absolutely correct.
    2
  40. True. Do you not realize they elected socialists in 1945.
    2
  41.  @jayfrank1913  Nonsense. The war debt was settled with pennies on the dollar. And the Marshall Plan provide substantial aid. And Britain and the other colonial powers are better off today than they ever were with colonies. You are just trying to cover up the failure of the socialists elected in 1945.
    2
  42.  @jayfrank1913  Please read my post before answering. I did not say' the Socialists Party', I said 'the socialists'. And the Labour Party proudly identified itself as a socialist party.
    2
  43. ​ @jayfrank1913  Jonathan I think the general historical consensus was that the Brits voted for change in 1945. There was still a huge level of appreciation and admiration for Churchill. But he was not seen as an agent of social change. And Labour's whole pitch was for social change and a better future. You have to understand that in 1945, the record of socialism was not clear. Stalin and the NKVD had kept the failure of socialism fairly well bottled up within the Soviet Union-even the Ukranian famine.genocide. And Labour made it all sound so good. Actually socialism is easily a better sell than capitalism, it sounds so good. The problem is as TIK spells out - it just doesn't work. Bur Churchill for all his achievements was just not seen as an agent of change that wold deliver what the people wanted. So the Brits voted for the future and the wonderful prosperity that Labour promised. What they got of course was 8 more years of war time rationing. When rationing finally came off, Germany which had been leveled during the War was achieving a higher level of income than the Brits. Before the War, Britain had the highest income levels in Europe.
    2
  44. Finland did npt have SS units. The Germans did recruit a Nordic SS units.
    2
  45.  @WallaWalla234  Yes. Especially after the fall of France (June 1940), America began preparing. Only with Pearl Harbor, however, could America begin full-scale mobilization.
    2
  46.  @ilsagutrune2372  I was NOT criticizing you. Bringing up what Guderian said was very interesting. My point which I did not clearly state was that Guederian's data was a powerful statement as to why the NAZIs should not have launched a war because they were unlikely to win it. My apologies if I somehow sounded like I was criticizing you. Emails and posts can be very cryptic. And you are correct that I should bring my arguments to Guederian. He and other Gerrman generals were given a pass after the war. Many more of them should have been tried as war criminals.
    2
  47. Good discussion. One matter you leave out is that the Austrian Empire/Austro-Hungarian Empire was in existence for several centuries. As a result, there was a substantial mixing of populations. Drawing borders was not as easy as you suggest. There is no way to make everyone happy
    2
  48. @ AFGuidesHD Britain did not got to war to invade other countries and plunder there economies.
    2
  49. The claims of the Allies starving millions of POWs are nonsense. Ravaging India is also nonsense. The Bengal Famine is different. It has nothing to do with POWs. It was, however, all to real. But it was not something the British did. It occurred because the Joaonese seized Burma in 1942 and Burma was the major source if food for Bengal. Now there is very real British responsibility for dealing so poorly with the famine. It is a terrible black spot on Britain and Churchill's record. That responsibility has to be shared by the Congress Party. They launched the Quit India campaign to destabilize the Raj. It is rather disingenuous to work to destabilize the Government and then complain when it does not work well. .
    2
  50. Invading a peaceful neighbor was also designated a war crime. Just how would you have stopped the North Koreans?.
    2