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

  1.  @scottblack7182  Absolute nonsense. Without Churchill, the British were preparing to negotiate with Hitler and there would have been a British Vichy.
    1
  2.  @trevorbirkbeck4011  What were all these failures? He had many bad military ideas, but the War Cabinet and then the Americans talked him out of almost all of them. Britain had many military failures, but that does not mean Churchill was responsible for them. As head of government, he brilliantly turned the British economy into one fully supporting the military, much more effectively than the NAZIs did, He also from the onset saw the importance of America and successfully sought the all-important American aid leading to Lend Lease. He effectively helped form the Grand Alliance with the Americans and Soviets. And it was Churchill who prevented the attempt by Halifax and others to negotiate with Hitler.
    1
  3.  @markgarrett3647  You are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, what happened in Britain during the summer of 1940 has huge implications that are difficult to overestimate. The Pacific was a secondary theater for very good reasons.
    1
  4.  @markgarrett3647  Nonsense. The President understood that the threat posed by the NAZIs was an order of magnitude beyond the threat posed by Hitler. Just look what a few Red Army divisions did to Japan in 1939 while the Germans smashed their way to Moscow in only 5 months.
    1
  5.  @alanpennie8013  I wouldn't say that's it. He commanded a criminal enterprise in inolved in mass war crimes and murder, but his names on those orders was more than enough for his conviction.
    1
  6. AFGuidesHD Not but the Americans Liberty Shio program solved the shipping program. And the United States built escorts,, jeep carriers, and long-range aircraft not to mention radars that played key roles in winning the Nzttle if the Ztlznbtuic.
    1
  7.  @Warmaker01  Quite right. But the Battle of the Atlantic was fought out before American destroyers were available in numbers. The British made do with Corvettes, produced in numbers by the Canadians. The Corvettes were not suited for the North Atlantic, but the Canadian sailors made them work. The American contribution in 1942-43 was primarily Liberty Ships, airpower, long-range aircraft, and radars.
    1
  8.  @jthunders  The whole point of the Battle of the Atlantic was to save Britain and keep Britain's lifelines to America and Canada open. The U-boat threat was basically defeated by mid-1943. Doenitz withdrew the U-boats from the Atlantic. It was then that D-Day began to become feasible. The needed supplies were certainly a factor in waiting until June 1944. It was an important reason, but hardly the only reason: 1. The U.S. Army basically did not yet exist in 1942. There was only a limited draft in 1940 and the second one in 1941 just before Pearl Harbor. But the U.S. Army was still very small, without modern weapons, and ill-trained. 2. The British and Americans did not yet have air superiority over the beaches. That was not achieved until Big Week (February 1944). 3. The U.S. Army had no experience. That did not begin until Torch (November 1942). And Kasserine showed that the Army was not yet ready to take on the Germans in France even in 1943. 4. The needed landing craft and Mullberry had not yet been delivered. In particular the LSTs. 5. The Red Army had not yet bled the Germans sufficiently in the Ostkrieg, but I am not sure that was a factor in Eisenhowers' thinking. It was on the British side.
    1
  9.  @jthunders  I didn't even know that there was a historian in the family. Except for family, I never met another Weidner.
    1
  10. Actually it was not so much the War--it was the Socialists they elected at the end of the War, Notice how German and other Western European countries recovered very rapidy after the War. https://www.histclo.com/country/ger/chron/20/pw/dec/1950/gem.html
    1
  11. Or for that matter academia which is dominated by left-wing professors.
    1
  12. It was not gold and silver that made Spin poor. It is how they used it. I suggest you look at Zimbabwe before waxing eloquently about fiat currency.
    1
  13. Have you looked at the Baltics, Georgia, and a few others?
    1
  14. When speaking of anti-aitrcraft guns in the East, it is important to note how much German artillery was deployed around German cities to protect against the Allied strategic bombing campaign. The same is true if the ordinance consumed. https://www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/air/eur/sbc/gd/flak.html
    1
  15. @ Derrick Field Actually, Chamberlain was reluctant to declare war even after Hitler invaded Poland.
    1
  16. Do you not realize that they elected socialists in 1945?
    1
  17. @ Taylor C Absolutely correct.
    1
  18.  @thethirdman225  I would not say 'the prevailing view of history'. I think virtually all important World War II historians recognize the critical role that the Soviets played in the role. And that the accounts published by the German generals were self serving, not to be ignored, but requiring critical evaluation. Personally what I see on internet is just the opposite, mostly Russians insisting that the Soviet Union won the war on its own and the war in the West was a side show of marginal importance. And I see many Westerners taught to be critical of America in our universities adopting this line of thought. In reality, the War in the West was vital to Soviet success in the East. https://www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/air/eur/sbc/eco/sbc-gie.html
    1
  19.  @thethirdman225  First of all you are ignoring the fact that the Soviets were a NAZI ally for nearly 2 years and supplied them with the critical resources need to invade France and and wage the Battle of Britain. Stalin might complain that D-Day was late in coming, but the Allies were not supporting the NAZIs for nearly 2 years like the Soviets. Second, the "prevailing view" you mention is not adopted by any important World War II historian. Ambrose I think comes closet to it, but this is not the view of almost all Western historians. Third, there was a gold shipment in 1942. It bis the only one I know if. Do you know of more? I would be interested. The Soviet gold supply was not drained. The vast amount of Lend Lease purchases was done on credit. And unlike the Soviets there were no war-time deliveries to the NAZIs. Fourth, you are correct that the General generals were important in creating the WW II narrative you speak of. But also important were the Soviets who closed their archives to Western historians. Fifth, the war in the West played a significant role in the Red Army victory, forcing the Germans to devote most of their industry to the West. As a result the Ostheer was poorly supported. Most of the Ostheer was unmotorized infantry which had to fight in foot--a major reason they failed. https://www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/air/eur/sbc/eco/sbc-gie.html As to your last point, the hate America crowd rampant on campus and the media do not like to admit that America played a central role in destroying the great totalitarian powers of the 20th century. This they like to claim that it was primarily the Soviets that defeated the NAZIs.
    1
  20.  @thethirdman225  You have to be kidding me. Do you ever turn on the television or read a major newspaper (New York Times, Washington Post. etc.) Are you unaware of the 1619 Project or Black Lives Matters? Or perhaps our new Vice President blaming the border crises on America. Or left wing professors claiming that everything in America is a race issue. And attacking capitalism. Now even the Constitution is at grabs--commonly called a slave documebnt. "Critical to the Allied victory'-- just how is that damming with faint praise?. Please look up the meaning of 'critical' in the dictionary. In fact I have one of the largest sites on the internet about the Ostheer. I challenge you to find any thing that diminishes the scope of the Red Army victory. https://www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/cou/sov/ww2-gpw.html The outcome of the War was determined in the East. My point is that the War in the West prevented the Germans from using their superior industrial power (over the Soviets) to adequately support the Ostheer in the decisive campaign of the War..
    1
  21.  @EllieMaes-Grandad  Yes and no. High fuel prices were a form of rationing.
    1
  22. Excellent discussion. You have to engage woke America and as you point out Critical Race Theory which is actually being taught in American schools. Educators are teaching American children to hate others and themselves. They say they aren't which just goes to show how dishonest they are. They are dismissing Dr. King's ideas. And you are absolutely correct. They want socialism even though it does not work. You cut to the quick.
    1
  23. I find Western military historians fairly objective. Actually more objectuve than the wider historical community which now a days spouts a lot of left-wing nonsense.
    1
  24. Tik, Another excellent video. I heartedly agree with you in your very important videos about socialism. Here I have two comments. 1. I agree with you about the major issue with coal was distribution, not production. I do think, however, that you underestimate the impact of having to supply the occupied areas. I know you briefly mention it at the end, but it is worth noting because the failure of the NAZis to maintain production levels in the Grossraum was an important factor in the German war economy. Before the War Britain was an important coal exporter. This stopped cold after the 1940 Western offensive. To keep the occupied economies rimming Germany has to replace the British coal with their own. 2. While I think you are absolutely correct about socialism, there is one little detail I see you avoiding. The Soviet Union with a substantial portion of their country occupied, including major industrial cities, managed phenomenal production of arms. They were aided by American Lend Lease, but still, this socialist economy produced arms on a prodigious level. Not on American levels, but given that so much of the country was occupied and that that they had a smaller industrial base than America, they achieved impressive results.
    1
  25. @ Pat. More like the Great Depression.
    1
  26.  @pcka12  Perhaps you can explain them to me. I think Germany was certainly affected by World War I. But I don't see how World War I was a contributing factor to the Depression. And the Depression was a major factor in the rise of the NAZIs.
    1
  27.  @pcka12  I do not disagree that World War I was a massive event. I do not disagree that Germamy's sole goal was a sliec of the pie. Germany was the most industrialized nation in Europe and already had an important slice of the pie. But I do not see how that caused the Depression. There are a range of matters that have been identified as the cause of the Depression.. None that know of relate to World War I. Remember that the Depression began in America, not Germany or Britain..
    1
  28.  @pcka12  Your first paragraph is nonsense. Britain and France had no interest in building America into an industrial power because they had to compete with American industry. Italy was a poor country and had little capital to contribute anywhere. There was British investment in America, but by individual investors who saw profit potential. As to America having no where to go after World War I, that is Marxist doctrine, but obviously absurd. The American GDP in 1920 is a small percentage of our GDP today. As for your second paragraph. you are on firmer ground. Europe and America are badly in debt and this cam not go on for ever.
    1
  29.  @pcka12  I have lees of a problem with what you write here than your first formulation. But there are issues. Most of what the British imported was raw materials, food, and munitions. The United States did not have a large arms industry so there was not a lot of manufactured goods. There were some trucks. America was already the most industrialized country on earth. America was already an industrial power. Much of the growth at the time was due to Henry Ford and the Model-T. What the War did was to make the United States a financial powers because the Allies were dependent on loans from New York banks. The orders were placed, but they did not need Government authorization to place these orders. American arms production was so limited that the AEF mostly used British and French weapons. World War II was very different. Here the Federal Government got involved and not private banks. And the United States very rapidly built a major arms industry. And the Federal Government supported the British and Soviets (after June1941) in every conceivable way, something he Government did not do in World War until declaring war (1917).
    1
  30.  @pcka12  Pat, a little detail you leave out is that the war ended in 1918. When the United States declared war (April 1917), it not only did nit have a significant Army, but a significant war industry. American troops were not committed to combat in 1917 because they had to be trained. When they were first committed to combat (early 1918), their training was still not complete. And they trained and went into combat with a great deal of British and French weapons. For example, "A Springfield rifle was by far the most superior and the only weapon needed by advancing infantry in Kyler’s opinion. The rifle was dependable, easy to care for and had an adjustable rear sight for easy aiming.The Springfield.30-06 caliber rifle, however, was in short supply so the United States outfitted its soldiers with the British Enfield .303 caliber." https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2604&context=theses (p.10). I use this quote because the rifle is the major weapon of an infantry soldier. And the United States had a goof one, but they did niot have the capacity to manufacture them in quantity when America entered the War. You can search the internet and you will find that the AEF had to rely heavily on British and French weapons. America was the most industrial country at the time, but not major arms industry (April 1917). Converting that industry to arms production took time, more than a year. Significant weapons production did not begin until mid-1918. You are correct that by 1918 (late 1918) the United states had geared up a massive arms industry, but of course before it had any impact on the War, the Germans asked for an armistice. America by late 1918 could supply the AEF, but this was not the case in 1917 and early 1918 when the AEF went into combat.
    1
  31.  @pcka12  1. World War I ended November 11, 1918. There is no difference of opinion on this. 2. There was a U.S. economic involvement in the War. There was no lingering impact on industry, only a mild recession after the War followed by the Roaring Twenties. This had nothing to do with the cause of the Depression. 3. There was a significant impact on agriculture, American farmers geared up to feed Europe and after Europe recovered had production that could not be sold. This was, however, not a cause of the Depression.
    1
  32. Tik, I usually agree with you, but on the teaching history, I do disagree. I had really good history teachers in both high school and college. They really kindled an interest in history and the principles of history. Such as differing between facts and opinions, the need for sourcing your work, and the fallacy of judging the past based on modern values, etc. I think what you are talking about is that many history teachers today see their role as left-wing social justice warriors
    1
  33.  @Peorhum  What nonsense. You need to read a bit about Stalin and the NKVD.
    1
  34.  @4Bobay  Excellent choice. He also did a fine biography of George Kennan.
    1
  35.  @bcgames4054  Perhaps recognized is a better word. The Soviets had been waging but since 1917.
    1
  36.  @vlad78th  I think you are correct, had he been well.
    1
  37.  @Peorhum  Written by historians? What has not been written 'by historians'. Of course this has been written by left wing historians who approve of Stalin's aggression and suppression of the Europeans countries that the Red Army occupied. Real historians like John Lewis Gaddis and George Kennan who do not approve of the NKVD, political murder, concentration camps, slave labor, rigged elections, suppression of human rights, etc. applaud Truman for saving Western Europe. (Notice I name actual historiians and do not just say "by historians'.) You might want to read Solzhenitsyn to understand the character of the regime you are trying to defend,
    1
  38. I never heard the President say this. But you are on the wrong platform here. So far I don't see You Tube censoring conservative voices because they can not win factual arguments.
    1
  39. The difference is that the PRC has a capitalist and highly productive sector. And they are beginning to generate serious technology.
    1
  40.  @marcuslim5184  The Chinese are putting enormous resources into technology. The EU is not prepared to challenge them. WE don't know about Biden yet, but reversing the Trump order on the Confucian academies is not encouraging.
    1
  41.  @nickhambly8610  Again a post without sources. Why would you continue to make such a absurd claim without sources. What is your motivation, it certainly is not historical truth.
    1
  42. Again, lots of words, but no source or expiation as to where where all the bodies are. . That speaks volumes about the validity of your claim. .
    1
  43.  @nickhambly8610  I suspect at your grammar school they explained that opinions should be based on fact. Now for the sixth time I ask you: 1) what are vour sources and 2) where are the 3 million bodies?
    1
  44.  @nickhambly8610  More nonsense and failure to provide either 1) sources or 2) the location of 3 million bodies (rather hard to hide). But you hit the head on the nail - you see no need to provide facts. Is that what the masters at you Top Grammar School taught you?. I have a lot of respect for British education. I'd be wiilling to bet you wouldn't get very far with this idea and this is not what they taught you. Namely making assertions without any factual basis. Which is why you simply manufacture facts to try to prove that the Western Allies committed terrible war crimes. The interesting question is why you feel the need to prove this and promote the idea without any factual basis..
    1
  45. @ Samuel Yahata It doesn't help to have a Communist Pope.
    1
  46. The difference is that Harris' Britain did not start the War and that Harris was helping to put a stop to genocide.
    1
  47.  @kcfett9947  What do you disagree with? Do you think Britain started the War? Please read about Chamberlain abd appeasement? Do you think that Germany was not committing genocide. Please read about Generalplan Ost. Just how would you have stopped NAZI and Japanese aggression?. To me the greatest war crime of all would have been for America not to use its prodigious power to destroy those evil regimes and their killing programs..
    1
  48.  @kcfett9947  KC I agree war is a terrible thing. Congratulations on your degree. I also have a degree in fact two. What I do not see in your response is how you would have stopped Hitler and the Japanese without war. Surely you are aware because of your history degree, the extent Prime--minister Chamberlain took to appease Hitler. I do not think you begin to capture the evil of the NAZIS in your post. Killing civilians was not incidental--it was a primary NAZI War Goal. It was why the NAZIS launched the War. Here is my research on it. It is an order of magnitude beyond what the Allies did. I hope you will tell me what could have been done short of war to stop this. https://www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/tol/ger/crime/nazi-crime.html
    1
  49. One reason they did so well was that they introduced the assembly line and mass production techniques to a greater extent than the Germans. This was also an American contribution.
    1
  50. @leonpaelinck World War II in general does not play a major role in American history classes. By the time the teacher gets around to it, it is near the end of the year and it is often rushed over. And in recent years, increasingly politicized teachers, often give an anti-American view of the War.
    1