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

@silentbob5566 The D3A had an edge in speed and range, but the SBD was vastly superior in the qualities that really mattered for a dive bomber, payload and toughness. And the range was somewhat irrelevant since the limiting factor on raid range was the range of the escorting fighters.
1
@allangibson2408 It was theoretically carrier-capable, but given how accident prone they were in landings on grass fields it probably would have had a horrific operational loss rate in actual carrier service. As the Navy has been trying to convince landlubbers for the better part of a century now, there's a huge difference between designing a plane for carrier use and slapping a tailhook on a land-based fighter and calling it carrier-ready.
1
Race is more than that, it is the defining of phylogenetic groups of humans based on physical characteristics. By phylogenetic groups I mean large populations who have unique common ancestors. Japanese people and Chinese people do not have unique common ancestors; neither do Jews and Germans, or Europeans and Africans, or even Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans. That is to say, there is no common ancestor of all sub-Saharan Africans who was not also an ancestor to Europeans, and vice versa.
1
@SepticFuddy We call Obama black because it suited the interests of the slaveholders who decided this sort of thing 300 years ago for mixed race children to be considered black, and therefore their property, rather than white, an therefore not their property. That's really all there is to it. It's one of those things that has gone without saying for so long that everyone has forgotten why we started to think that way. And ironically, Afrocentrists today will insist that it's because "black genes" are dominant and strong and "white genes" are recessive and weak.
1
The eastern front had about twice as many divisions, but something like 3/4 of the Luftwaffe's fighter strength and AAA was deployed either on the western front or defending against US/UK strategic bombing. So it was far from insignificant or a sideshow.
1
That is complete nonsense. The UK was the last major combatant to join the war in 1914 after having made multiple attempts to mediate a peaceful solution between Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, and Serbia. The German high command was pushing Austria to attack Serbia in the hopes of starting a war with Russia before the UK government was even involved in the diplomacy surrounding the crisis.
1
There is no Aryan invasion theory. It's a strawman. And most of the rest of what you say is nonsense invented by liars with an agenda only slightly less problematic and no less fantasy-based as that of the Nazis.
1
@TheImperatorKnight "Can you not pay for these things directly through the market?" No, you can't, because you can't buy public safety just for yourself, it is inherently communal. (You can buy private security, but it doesn't perform the same function.) The criminal who would mug me or rob my house would also mug you or rob yours, putting him in prison benefits you as much as it does me - it benefits all of society, not just the person he happens to be caught robbing. You can't pay for tanks and fighter planes to defend your own life and property but not mine, war obviously doesn't work that way. Either all of us are defended or none of are. Also things like pollution - we all breathe the same air, I can't pollute my air without polluting yours as well, so either it is prohibited for everyone or it isn't prohibited for anyone. You can't buy your own clean atmosphere. It's a combination of the problem of free riders and the tragedy of the commons. Libertarianism has yet to come up with any answers to these problems. And these are hardly socialist ideas. Edmund Burke would agree with me 100%. I am pretty sure Thomas Sowell would as well, at least as far as national defense and public safety are concerned. Socialism is redistribution of wealth from individuals to other individuals to be more "fair", not banding together and pooling resources to handle issues that are inherently communal like national defense and public safety. In fact, those are the primary purposes for which governments were instituted, as America's founders stated in our Declaration of Independence.
1
Not having another war with 100 million people killed or more was the main thing they got. They also got more or less a free hand in western and southern Europe - for example, Stalin left the communists in Greece hanging for the British to suppress. The absolute, overriding concern of Allied policy from the time the defeat of Germany seemed assured was founding a postwar order that prevented another world war from breaking out. Sometimes this involved appeasing the Soviets, sometimes (as in Korea) it involved confronting them. The strategy may not have been perfect or pretty, but it ultimately succeeded, and if it hadn't, neither of us would likely be in a position to have this discussion today.
1
"Pure and righteous Aryan" in the context of that inscription has nothing to do with physical characteristics ("race"), it means he spoke the correct (in his view) language and practiced the correct religion.
1
If they'd captured it, they still couldn't have transported the oil back to Germany. It was always a pipe dream.
1
The evil capitalist looks a lot like Death Piggy. I'm just sayin'.
1
The FG 42 was advanced from an engineering perspective and had some very influential design elements, but overall it wasn't that good at its job - it was too heavy and high-powered to be a good assault rifle and was too light and had too little ammunition to be a decent LMG.
1
Very unlikely, FDR was in terrible health for the last couple of years of his life and many of those closest to him feared he wouldn't survive a fourth term as president.
1
The key point is that the state's whims were limited to some specific subjects and did not touch on others. In, for example, Soviet Communism, the state and party control every aspect of economic activity.
1
@shangri-la-la-la So is National Socialism.
1
@leodesalis5915 It is an oxymoron because socialism is based on economic class. If it is based on something other than economic class it is not socialism. Socialists can be racists, of course, but that's not the same thing.
1
@MadManRob "If you are saying North Korea is undemocratic then all socialism is undemocratic." That is 100% bullshit, both from them and from you. Way to go for learning how to actually make people stupider after listening to you.
1
Nazis gonna natz.
1
"Apart from the holocaust" - But other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? In a more serious vein, Hitler made it excruciatingly clear in his writings and his speeches that his policy was extremely personal, driven by a racist theory that demanded the enslavement or outright annihilation of competing races (primarily Jews and Slavs), not just a few modest territorial adjustments. The Holocaust we got, horrific as it was, was only a foreshadowing of the far greater horrors that would have followed a German victory.
1
@shorewall If it looked like the Soviets were going to win, probably try to set up some sort of deal with the German generals to intervene on Germany's behalf if they staged a coup and got rid of the Nazis. The main reason such a coup never happened IRL is that Hitler appeared to be very successful until 1942.
1
"Miss the story of the American plants that produced the motors for the german panzers." How can you miss something that doesn't exist? That is utter and complete bullshit.
1
@richardjansen3317 Do you have a source for that? Ford and GM had thriving businesses in Germany (and many other countries) before the war, but the plants there were entirely under German control once the US entered the war.
1
@torindechoza7266 America was at war with Germany 5 1/2 months after the USSR was, and while we know with hindsight that the failure of Barbarossa doomed Germany's war effort, pretty much everyone at the time outside the German high command thought that Germany was still winning the war in December 1941. The USSR declared war on Japan nearly four years after the US and UK did, and only after it was obvious to everyone on the planet that Japan had utterly lost the war - the only question was what would be required to get them to accept the inevitable.
1
@torindechoza7266 You know there might have been some slight military action on the part of the US before D-Day. It might have even involved members of my family. If you want to know more, I suggest you check out the World War Two channel with Indy Neidell.
1
@Ghost23712 Yes but he was unable to give up any of the occupied territory. Britain was never going to accept a peace that left Germany occupying the Channel coast, it was the same reason they went to war in 1914. And his aggression and broken promises had become so egregious that Britons had come to think they'd be better off dealing with Stalin than Hitler.
1
@4asgard5 It was not social or public ownership. It was ownership by an oligarchy that owed nothing to its subjects and gave them only what it felt was necessary to keep them fully engaged in war production and the war effort generally. That is not socialism. Socialism means more than naked authoritarianism. The late Roman Empire and the Bronze Age Empires of Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon operated much the same way, if less efficiently because they lacked modern means of surveillance and control, and no professional historian on the planet would describe those societies as socialist.
1
@KingRyanoles Sure, lots of them. the USSR and Cuba were intended to be socialist, they were just very badly executed and rife with corruption. The key difference with Nazi Germany is that in the former two factories and other businesses were seized by the government with no compensation for the owners and all profits went to the state, theoretically to be distributed to the people, while in Nazi Germany the owners retained ownership and continued to make large profits even if the state exercised some control over production. There are also many mixed economies that lean heavily towards socialism, like most of western and northern Europe. The US is a mixed economy too, just not as socialist as most of Europe.
1
@adamandrade4539 I define socialism by what socialists say socialism is.
1
You're making a big mistake making pedantic arguments from dictionary definitions and etymology, language doesn't work that way and technical and academic jargon REALLY doesn't work that way. As a military historian you ought to know that; the word "gun," for example, has a different meaning in professional military circles than that found in a dictionary or in everyday use by civilians. (And woe to the poor recruit who tries to argue with his DI that his rifle is a gun as defined in Mirriam-Webster's!)
1
Yes, but that was because it didn't expect France to collapse the way it did in 1940. In 1939, the rational expectation was that along with the total naval blockade of Germany, even less challenged than it was in 1914-1918, the French and British armies, which were greatly superior to Germany's on paper, would ultimately prevail - especially given that few probably expected the Nazi-Soviet pact to last all that long.
1
99% of arguments from etymology are nonsense, especially when applied to technical or academic jargon.
1
@KI.765 I'm not saying they don't have specific meaning, I'm saying that when you get into detailed discussions in any specialized field those meanings are not found in a general dictionary. The meaning of "socialist," for example, isn't what's found in Webster's OR on Wikipedia or even the OED, it's a meaning that has to be gleaned from a thorough education in economics and political science. There's no shortcut to that. If you don't have a good professional education in those subjects, all you can do is consult someone who does, or be willing to do a LOT of reading - I mean years doing literally nothing else. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I'm an attorney. I occasionally find myself getting into debates online about the interpretation of statutes or case law and the meaning of certain terms. Anyone who doesn't have a professional legal education simply isn't equipped to have that debate with me, just like I'm not equipped to argue the meaning of quantum theory with a particle physicist. And if I'm involved in a discussion of what is or is not included in the legal concept of habeas corpus and the other guy starts throwing definitions from an English-Latin dictionary at me, useful discussion will have ended because they simply have no idea what they're talking about or how irrelevant their points are. Habeas means one thing in classical Latin and something entirely different in a modern American legal context. Saying TIK should stick to panzers isn't an insult, it's simply a recognition that he's out of his field and doesn't understand the definitions of the words he's using in the context he's using them, and is compounding that error by looking to the wrong places to gain that understanding. I have two very well-educated housemates, one is a PhD candidate in Political Science and the other in History, and if they tried to have a debate about tanks with TIK and started dragging in the OED definition of "tank" to say that an underground oil tank is a form of AFV, I would tell them to stick to their fields and let the experts say what is or is not a valid definition of "tank" in this context. OTOH, they both agree that TIK's understanding of the nature and meaning socialism is deeply misinformed.
1