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

  1. ​   Of course thetare. Actually Britain mobilized its civilian population more than the NAZIs. But your point is valid. In an industrial nation, civilians produce weapons, annunciation and othet war supplies they are an important part of a country's war machine. And if that country is an aggressor nation the issue becomes complicated.
    2
  2. @tophernolastname2378 I see it as more groupthink, but as the Left becomes more entrenched in power, it is becoming a grand conspiracy. Just how President Trump is being treated is a prime example of this. And if a duly elected president can be treated like this, there is little hope for ordinary citizens. Perhaps the most distressful development in my long life is the extent to which American academics are attacking free speech--the crown jewel of American democracy. Using the charge of 'hate speech' to attack the free speech of anyone who disagrees with them. The approach verges in Stalinism.
    2
  3.  @grizzlygrizzle  I think the history of slavery is a little different than you suggest. True, it has been around since the dawn of civilization, but it was not a major institution. Early civilizations like Sumeria, Egypt, and China were not slave societies. There were slaves, but the society was not based on slavery. Ironically, it was Greece and Rome that had really large numbers of slaves. I would say that racism was a factor from an early point first in the Muslim world because of the Arab slave trade (8th century) and then the European Atlantic slave trade (16th century). There was not a coherent racist doctrine, but it is hard to see what occurred as anything but racist. My problem I guess is more practical than philosophical. All this condemnation of America is what bothers me and is not well-founded. Because the issue that affected most people was not slavery, but other forms of forced labor which the United States has done more to undo through the promotion of capitalism and modern market economics. Or in your terms, increasing efficiencies with the Industrial Revolution mean that forced labor was no longer a necessary evil.
    2
  4.  @Iv4Bez  Yes Marx was an economist/historian. He did not create the totalitarian states like the Soviet Union and Communist China. However, the stares created based on Marxist ideology ultimately led to totalitarianism.
    2
  5.  @Tiberius_I  The T-34 was superior to the American tanks, but were better than the Soviet light tanks. The amazing thing here is hoe the Soviets out produced the Germans.with a smaller industrial base. https://www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/tech/land/tank/tank-pro.html
    2
  6.  @flashgordon6670  Stalin invaded Finland (November 1939), more than a year before Congress passed the Lend Lease Act (March 1941). The Soviets attacked/seized land from Finland for the same reason that they attacked Poland, Estonia. Latvia, Lithuania, and Romania. The Soviets like the NAZIs were aggressor countries. "Dependent" is your word. Lend Lease and other Allied actions were very important to the Soviets. Just as the Soviets were very important to the Allies.
    2
  7. Brilliant assessment. Explaining why socialism does not generate wealth. It is so patently obvious. There are NO (not one single) prosperous socialist country. The only prosperous countries are countries with capitalist countries--unless the country sits on lakes of oil. And even if it dies (Venezuela), socialism creates poverty and shortages. So why do so many young Americans think that socialism is the economic systen of the future which will generate unprecedented prosperity.
    2
  8.  @Iv4Bez  I wanted to mention that I have enjoyed our exchanges Rather than resurrecting Cold War Soviet propaganda, your posts are reasonable, well-informed, and well thought out.
    2
  9. @ Lex Bor Nonsense. America does not exploit the countries where its trops are deployed. Please open a history book.
    2
  10.  @coldfusionspacexxx9814  Well you are a true student of Marx. You get full marks for accurately stating Marxist ideas. The only problem with that is that countries adopting Marxist ideas have failed. Which doesn't speak too highly of the validity of Marxist idea. Have you looked at Venezuela recently? Perhaps you missed the fact that the Soviet Union collapsed years ago. Or that China has adopted capitalism. You might want to open a history/economics book or two. There are certainly wars waged for economic reasons. There are many that are not. And of course many that economics was part of the reason for war. Just what was the economic reasons for the North waging the Civil War or the American involvement in Vietnam? In both cases, there were economic reasons not to fight the War, especially given the cost.
    2
  11. Beautiful post. Short, sweet, and precisely correct.
    2
  12.  @fatherelijahcal9620  Absolutely.
    2
  13.  @AFGuidesHD  Please open a World War II history book and a map. Britain had a large Empire, but the pink of contemporary maps did not extend to Eastern Europe. Britain did not possess Poland to 'give away' to any one. Poland was seized by the Red Army in the most horrific conflict in human history-the Ostkrieg. And neither Britain or America had the military capability of dislodging the Red Army from Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe after the War. Poland's misfortune was that it was located between the two most barbaric totalitarian regimes in history, NAZI Germany and the Soviet Union. That was not Britain's doing - it was simple geography.
    2
  14. The Soviets would not have allowed them to buy Western military equipment in quantity.
    2
  15. @ Filip Kopec Correct and it was run by a NAZI.
    2
  16. Perhaps Elon should buy YT.
    2
  17. Excellent assessment. Very good discussion. You have caused me to rethink my view of Rohm.
    2
  18.  @patrikpataki9291  Actually I agree with you here. But then you have to explain why with all the support for socialism around the world even before the Russian Revolution have there been no true socialist regimes? Not one of the Socialists that seized power implemented true socialism. I gave 25 as a rough number. Apparently, there were many more. On all continents and countries of a wide range of economic development. And covering more than a century. Why did not one of them establish a true Marxist, socialist regime? Why have they all been Marxist-Leninist or different flavors of stare socialism?
    2
  19. The AA guns were mostly manned by Hitler Youth boys. The first major accomplishment of the bombing was the destruction of the Luftwaffe which has to come up to defend the cities. This made D-Day possible. German air doctrine did include strategic bombing. Have you never heard of the Blitz. It is just that they did not have the industrial capacity ti build four engine strategic bombers.
    2
  20. morewi Germny's Axis allies were very poorly equipped, largely unmotorized, and lacking in heavy weapons. Some 80 percent of the Deutsche Ostheer was unmotorized infantry. Their Allies were even more poorly equipped. Given the potential of German industry, their failure to equip their forces in the East is one of the most poorly studied aspects of the War.
    2
  21.  @KretinoSantino  It is important to understand why the Romanians, as well as Hungarians and Italians, collapsed. Far too often it is attributed to fighting spirit. That may be a factor, I do not know enough to comment here, but I do know that they were unmotorized and not equipped with modern weaponry, especially heavy weapons like modern tanks and artillery. The Poles collapsed in 1939, but no one who has studied world war II would day they lacked fighting spirit. What they lacked was modern weaponry. The real question is why the Axis Allies were not better equipped. The Germans had a far greater capacity for heavy industry (meaning steel production) than the Soviets even before occupying most of the western Soviet Union. I virtually never see the answer to this important question: 1. Poorly German economic performance (in the economy) managed by Goering. 2. The War in the west which diverted German industrial support from the Ostkrieg.
    2
  22. II is certainly a factor, but more important is motivation. Killing civilians was not an Allied war goal. It was a PRIMARY German war goal.
    2
  23. I agree with you, but too often overlooked is the superior industrial performance of the Soviet industry. Even after the Germans occupied much of the western Soviet Union and with a smaller heavy industry sector, the Soviets outproduced the Germans in key areas, especially tanks and artillery. World War II was in many ways a war of industry. and Germany despite being an industrial giant failed.
    2
  24.  @noway8563  I think you are correct about what Stalin wanted. But as far as I know, there was no discussion about when to invade Poland and no attempt to coordinate the invasion.
    2
  25. It is hsrd to refute facts. Why do you think the Soviet Union has been discard into the Ash Can of history?
    2
  26. Try living in Venezuela or North Korea and then complain about a Western economy.
    2
  27.  @ottovonbismarck2443  Before the Nuremberg trials he made propaganda broadcasts fir the Soviets.
    2
  28.  @aleksazunjic9672  Absolutely correct. And for a time Western historians bought that. Of course, the Soviets were not blameless. they closed their archives to Western historians which Putin has also closed.
    2
  29.  @UmbraHand  The problem is that most of those authorities are New Deal apologists. The facts are 1) Government not business caused the Depressioin. 2) The New Deal did not end the Depression--read about the Roosevelt Recession. 3) New Deal policies prolonged the Depression. 4) The War ended the Depression, but only temporarily. 5) The War created a new problem, how to pay down the enormous debt.
    2
  30.  @fabiofaria4243  I heartily agree. The British were very happy to allow the American bases. It drew the United States further toward war and into the Battle of the Atantiuc..
    2
  31.  @rickmoreno6858  Your argument is not helped by insulting people. I disagree that the welfare state is identical with socialism. I will not, however, return your insults in kind. Insults are easy. History and economics more complicated. Socialism is the abolition of private property. The welfare state can be funded by taxing private companies and individuals and only possible where there is a vibrant capitalist economy. . The modern welfare state interestingly enough was begun by German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. Do you call him a socialist?
    2
  32. Another excellent video. You are correct on all accounts--except one. You suggest that there was not a substantial second front until 1944, meaning D-Day. This is incorrect. You are only talking about manpower. You of all people must know that manpower is not the only element in combat power. And in fact, there was a substantial second/ Western Frint front from the beginning. This is especially the case when you are talking about logistics. The Germans throughout the war devoted OVER HALF of their industrial output to the war in the West. This meant that the Ostheer was poorly equipped and supplied. The simple fact is that it does not take a lot of industry to build horse-drawn carts. It does to build aircraft, ships, V-weapons, and the Atlantic Wall.
    2
  33. @ dave h What nonsense. America is going bankrupt, but the idea of starring a war to finance the debt is absurd.
    2
  34. Thanks for running the numbers. Very helpful. One comment. The German problem was not just logistics. It was also the diversion of German production to fight the war in the West. While the bulk of the German Army was committed to the Ostkrieg, but this commitment was not the same for the German war economy. The bulk of German industrial production went to the war in the West, leaving the Ostheer poorly supplied and supported. https://www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/air/eur/sbc/eco/sbc-gie.html And the Axis Allies were even more poorly supplied and equipped than the Ostheer.
    2
  35.  @land_and_air1250  Couldn't agree more. This is why all Socialist countries beginning with the Soviet Union came up with Marxist-Leninism, meaning state totalitarian control of the economy and the population. It is not what Marx intended, but it is what every socialist state adopted.
    2
  36.  @gandydancer9710  Gandy, You know I occasionally listen to C-Span which runs videos of university lectures, often on interesting topics. It is amazing the amount of PC, CRT, and woke drivel that they work into their lectures. And not a murmur of objection from the students. I sometimes e-mail them, but they are almost never willing to defend their lectures. I think that they have grown up in a Marxist ideological bubble and are just unaware that there are legitimate objections to how they spin the American story. Some of course are all too aware. Interestingly some of the worse are the professors in women's studies. They go on and on about how terrible it was for women in America. Now I do not mind this because it is substantially true, but what I do mind is that almost never do they point out that America was at the forefront of the fight for women's rights and the situation for women in America was better than in almost all other countries, and not just Islamic and Hindu societies. Also note how the movement to attack Western Civilization never touches on the fact that it is in the West that the movement for women's rights arose. One final matter. The universities go and on about inequities in America. Never mentioned is how expensive university education has become. Cost increases have outpaced virtually every other sector in American society. This, of course, creates hurdles for low-income students, forcing them to borrow huge sums. And because of admissions policies, accepting unprepared students, many do not graduate, leaving them with no degree, but with huge debts to pay off. This is basically a scam on unsuspecting low-income young people. And of course, never mentioned by the PC media
    2
  37. @Tee Key But only after working for Hitler for several years helping to stabilize NAZI finances.
    2
  38. I viewed this again and saw another important point to make. Your presentation is excellent and your major points are well taken and supported. I think pulling all this together, your points stress the importance of the War in the West. Now I do not mean in any way to dismiss the monumental achievement of the Red Army, but only to point out that the war in The West was vital to the Soviet victory in the East and dismiss the Soviet/Russian notion that they won the war on their own and the War in the West was a sideshow.
    2
  39. Tik, Of course you are correct, but why do you take the idea that Hitler was not an aggressor so seriously? Anyone suggesting that has no interest in history, but mostly abhorrent racist agenda to pursue.
    2
  40. Razvan Anghel You make an importnt point. And I suspect the same is true for the Hungarians and Italians, Too often the Axus allies are dismissed as incompetent and lacking in fighting spirit. Simply ignored is that the Germans did not provide then heavy weapons. Almost never asked is WHY? Why were the axis allies and much of the Ostheer so poorly equipped? After all the Germans had a much larger heavy industry capacity than the Soviets. There is endless discussion of tactics and not a word about economic performance. The simple fact is that the German economic performance given their industrial capacity was miserable and much of their industrial output was diverted to fighting the War in the West. The men with east, but industrial output went West--a recipe for disaster, In addition, the Soviet economic performance was startling.
    2
  41. The Finns were not members of the Axis, but they were co-belligerents. That comes very close to being allies. It was rather like the status of the Soviets toward the Western Allies.
    1
  42.  @johnburns4017  Why do you say that? The values, goals, system outlook, and much else radically differed. The only point of agreement was to destroy the NAZIs. This is the very definition of co-belligerency.
    1
  43.  @johnburns4017  What you wrote was certainly simple, but a mere statement of your opinion without any supporting logic or facts. It may be true, but because you believe it to be true does not make it so. I gave you the opportunity to substantiate your opinion. Your refusal to do so speaks volumes.
    1
  44. There was no peace treaty signed in 1945. What was signed were surrender documents. As for the War in the West, it was vital to the Soviet victory. While German MANPOWER was mostly committed to the Ostkrieg, over half of the German INDUSTRIAL OUTPUt went to the War in the West. This was a major factor in the Soviet victory. The Ostheer was poorly equipped and supplied. Some 80 percent of the Ostheer was unmotorized infantry moving East on foot with horse-drawn carts.
    1
  45.  @TheImperatorKnight  True, but why. One of the reasons is that so much of Germany's industrial output went to fight the war in the West., leaving the Ostheer poorly equipped and inadequately supplied.
    1
  46.  @Bagunka  You may be sick of hearing it but it is absolutely true that America and Britain saved the day. 1. You show a very poor understanding of the history of the War. When you say "NO OTHER Allies force fought Germany for that many years straight!" You are not talking about the Soviet Union, you are talking about Britain which began the fight from the very beginning in September 1939. The Sovirt Uniion did not join the fight until 1941. 2. You do not seem to realize that the Soviet Union started the War when they along with Germany invaded Poland (September 1939). And the Soviets were a faithful NAZI ally, supplying the NAZI war machine with oil and other key resources. They were a NAZI ally (Seoenber 1938=9-June 1941) 3. America can be criticized for not joining the fight earlier, but we were not a BNAZI ally and supplying the German war machine. 4. America did not join the War until 1941, but American material support helped save Britain and supported the Brutish war effort. 5. American material support through Lend Lease was of huge benefit to the Red Army after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union.6. 6. American and British naval power prevented Germany from importing the oil it needed to conquer the Soviet Union. 7. It is absurd to say that America "came in at the came in last minute when it was already obvious that Germany is going to lose." The United States entered the War in December 1941 when NAZI armies had occupied vast areas of the Soviet Union and then launched a massive offensive in 1942. No one at the time was thinking that the NAZIs had won the War. 8. While German MANPOWER was mostly deployed in the East, the American and British war in the West caused the Germans to divert much of their INDUSTRIAL OUTPUT away from the Ostheer, leaving them poorly equipped and supplied. This was an important factor in the Red Army's victory. 9. It was the American and British War in the West that prevented the Soviet Union from occupying all of Western Europe and establishing Communist police states as they did in Eastern Europe. 10. And as after World War I, America prevented mass starvation in war-devastated Europe after World War II.
    1
  47.  @RouGeZH  Absolutely correct. Although you fail to mention that the Soviet Union was a a NAZI ally for nearly 2 years of the War.
    1
  48.  @RouGeZH  It is an open question what country was the most impactful. It is true that the Red Army killed the most Germans. But one reason they did this was material support from the Americans and the diversion of German resources to fight the war in the West. And you are just ignoring how the Western Allies prevented the Red Army from advancing into Western Europe. That was part of World War II as well.
    1
  49.  @Bagunka  D-Day was in 1944, but you do not understand the importance of the war in the West. German MANPOWER was mostly in the East, but much of Germany's INDUSTRIAL OUTPUT went to fight the War in the West. This divergence left the Ostheer poorly equipped and supplied and was a major factor in the Soviet victory.
    1
  50. The AA guns were crewed by Hitler Youth boys and thus not a drag on the war effort, The huge amount of ammunition used is another matter.
    1