Comments by "Bruce Tucker" (@brucetucker4847) on "Sean Munger" channel.

  1. An excellent presentation! The one important thing I think is missing is the Anglo-German naval arms race and its vital role in causing the UK to seek an understanding, if not an alliance, with France to oppose German territorial expansion in western Europe. While the Belgian treaty may have been the cause that roused the common people to support war, the vital interest the cabinet was most concerned with was keeping the German battleship fleet bottled up in Kiel - a German navy mostly limited to operating in the Baltic was not an existential threat to the British Empire, but a German battleship fleet based in Belgium or northern France, with free access to the Channel and the North Sea, absolutely was. This is something the German government apparently failed to appreciate in the slightest: they expressed surprise that the UK would go to war over a "scrap of paper" (the Belgian treaty) without realizing that the UK was NOT going to war over Belgium, Belgium was just an excuse the Germans had given the British government to enter a war that they already knew they had to fight over the German naval threat. Many historians regard that naval race as a terrible strategic mistake on the part of Kaiser Wilhelm (who had read Alfred Thayer Mahan's book more than was good for his limited intellect) because it transformed Germany from a continental power that was not much of a threat to British world interests into a potential world power that was the greatest threat to those interests. In the late 19th century, when Germany had no oceangoing navy to speak of, the British had regarded Russia as its main potential enemy, fearing a Russian push from its Central Asian provinces towards India. The prospect of German battleships poised to descend on the Home Fleet at a moment's notice made the Russian threat seem insignificant in comparison. But because the Germans had to spend most of their resources on their land army, while the British did not, it was inevitable that the British would win the naval race and consequently that the German navy would be just powerful enough to force the British to fight a war to keep it out of the Atlantic, but not powerful enough to win the war at sea or to deter the British from going to war.
    72
  2.  @SeanMunger  If you're being called both a fascist and a communist for coming to a given conclusion, it's a good sign that your conclusion is reasonable.
    50
  3.  @JLFAN2009  Some think Garfield might have lived if he had received no professional medical care at all. The bullet didn't kill him, he died of an infection that was possibly caused and certainly exacerbated by the doctors probing his wound with unsterilized instruments and fingers. OTOH the infection may have been inevitable with such a deep wound. Garfield's assassin claimed at his trial that Garfield was killed by malpractice, not by the shot, but from a legal perspective that argument had no merit then and still doesn't today.
    5
  4. At 11:45, you left out Andrew Johnson, who ran for re-election in 1868 but did not win the nomination. However, Johnson was from a different party than the president he succeeded, and it was the Democratic nomination he sought and failed to win in 1868.
    5
  5. It doesn't even show that. Spies like Robert Hanssen and Aldritch Ames passed numerous polygraphs during their careers. The only real value of a polygraph is in spooking people into making confessions they otherwise wouldn't make. It doesn't detect lies, it detects stress and strong negative emotions like guilt and shame which may or may not have anything to do with the subject lying - and a psychopath who doesn't feel guilt or shame will often pass a polygraph no matter how guilty they are.
    2
  6. Yes, it was survivable, there was no indication that it hit his spine or any major blood vessel.
    2
  7. There would have been some other crisis that started it. The reason the July 1914 crisis turned into WW1 when previous crises had been resolved (relatively) peacefully was that the German General Staff thought that if they put off a reckoning with France and Russia past that time the economic conditions for such a war would only get worse for Germany. Austria-Hungary would never have dared take such a belligerent stance versus Serbia if the German government hadn't promised them full support against Russia and spurred them on every time it seemed the Austrians' enthusiasm for war might be flagging.
    1
  8. Al Haig would have been in control.
    1
  9. I think it must have been a plot by communist elements seeking to push back against America's growing world influence, and also to move the policies of the country to a more progressive direction. Think about it. Pushing back, and to the left. Back, and to the left. Back, and to the left. The logic is unescapable. (j/k)
    1
  10. Original sources have come to light since that time that were not available to the author(s). Also, many soldiers who fought in WW1 would have still been alive in the 1960s, but almost none of the leaders and government officials in 1914, the youngest of whom would have been in their 90s, were still alive. Most of them had died before WW2 started.
    1
  11. They'd be taking care of his post-assassination needs by killing him before he got arrested and either making it look like suicide or giving his corpse the Jimmy Hoffa treatment. No even marginally competent conspirator would leave the patsy alive to tell his story.
    1
  12. Cuban intelligence was a joke in the 1960s, they were the least competent and professional of the entire Soviet bloc. They would never have been able to pull a conspiracy like this off without it being discovered. Also, you're forgetting that no one knew the motorcade would pass by Oswald's workplace until a few days before it happened, and Oswald showed no sign of having decided to kill the president or making any preparations to carry out the assassination until a day or two before it happened.
    1