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

  1. After Germany invaded Poland despite the British and French guarantee. So no, Germany started a war knowing full well that Britain and France would have no choice but to join it. And it's very clear from the historical record that not only did Hitler understand that, he wanted Britain and France to declare war. He understood that the only way he'd have a free hand in Russia was to knock Britain and France out of the picture first. Where he miscalculated was thinking that Britain would agree to peace when France was conquered. Had he studied the Napoleonic Wars a bit more closely he might have realized how unlikely that was.
    4
  2. To say that you have to be profoundly ignorant about Russian serfdom.
    4
  3. I thought the person in the first picture was handing over gold to someone who's sold out Germany, which he's got tucked under his arm.
    4
  4.  @pauliusiv6169  What happens when Putin invades your village? Nation-states exist for a reason - and the reason is they used their military-industrial complexes to swallow up all the villages that weren't part of other nation-states and didn't have military-industrial complexes. And what happens when the village next to your village pours mining slag in the river you both use as your water supply, but they're upstream of the pipe and you're downstream?
    4
  5. But only as part of an integrated European economy, and that was utter anathema to Hitler and the Nazis. The same goes for Japan - it's doing much better than it did under militarist rule, but only because it gave up trying to conquer all its neighbors and agreed to trade peacefully with them instead.
    4
  6. He knew that the Allies still had enormous stocks of chemical weapons left over from WW1 and Germany did not, and German intelligence thought the Americans had something like Sarin themselves (not knowing that their research on organophosphates was for use as insecticides), so he thought that expanding the war to chemical warfare would only make things worse for Germany.
    4
  7.  @bludfyre  "I would argue that "fascism" is socialism for a narrowly-defined ethnic or national group" I agree completely. That is why fascism is not socialism. Socialism is aimed at the betterment of the working class, fascism (and nazism, to the extent it is a different thing from fascism) is aimed at the betterment of an ethnic group. Socialism is entirely about economic class conflict, fascism is about a different breakdown of classes of people based on race or ethnicity, not economics. TIK fallaciously argues that socialism is not about bettering conditions for workers because its policies actually make things worse for workers. He is correct in that premise -socialism does not, in fact, work - but wrong in his conclusion. The fact that socialism makes things worse for workers is an inherent error in socialism, not a thing that makes socialism not socialism, or a thing that defines socialism. You can't say, as he does, that because socialism makes things worse for workers, any system that makes things worse for workers is socialist. That is the commutative fallacy.
    4
  8. Central planning and control are not the same as socialism. There are socialist models that do not involve central planning (anarcho-syndicalism being one example), and there are systems that use central planning that are not socialist. Almost all highly organized ancient societies before the late Roman Republic fell into the latter category, as does North Korea today (it claims to be socialist, of course, but then it also claims to be democratic and I assume you aren't naive enough to believe that).
    4
  9. Marx was like Freud: he invented a set of tools for understanding history and political science, then used them to construct an overarching theory purporting to explain everything in its field. Just as most psychologists today owe a great deal to Freud's work while rejecting his overarching theory as an explanation for all of human psychology, many historians and political scientists today (and in Hitler's day) owe a great deal to Marx's analysis while rejecting his overarching theory.
    4
  10. The idiot Kaiser set the stage for WWI by threatening Britain's naval supremacy with no logical reason for Germany to do so.
    4
  11.  @damienchall8297  They did when it suited them. And I can't tell you how many times I've argued with Christianity-haters who have insisted that the Hitler was a devout Christian.
    4
  12.  @philipcone357  You don't think Stalin's insistence on turning the territory his soldiers had conquered into the Russian Empire 2.0 had anything to do with it? He was already liquidating anyone who might have opposed his puppet governments as early as 1944 (see: Warsaw Uprising), nearly a year before Roosevelt died. Churchill's contribution was recognizing that Cold War was inevitable given the nature of Stalin's rule, just as he (alone) realized even before Munich that Hitler's nature made WW2 inevitable as long as he remained in power.
    4
  13. Who gets the profits? If you hold a gun to the owner's head and tell him what to make, but he still takes home millions based on his ownership of the company, that isn't socialism. It's not pure capitalism either, it's a third form of economy. We can debate what to call it but just calling it socialism is no more accurate than just calling it capitalism. And that goes double if the private factory owner is the one who controls every aspect of production other than what the final product is.
    4
  14. Also, arguments from etymology usually lead to nonsense anyway, but they're particularly silly when you get your etymology wrong. Latin "publicum" does not mean "state," it means exactly the same thing as the English "public". "Res publica" was used in Latin to refer to what we would call a state, but, just as in English, there were many uses of the term "public" that were not related to the state - "res publica" was not a synonym for "publicum". Also, the ancient Roman conception of the state was different in many respects from out post-Westphalian conception of the state. I won't try and describe all the differences here - you really need a semester or two in historical political science at a university for that - but suffice it to say that the ancient Romans would have regarded your conflation of the "res publica" with a group of workers murdering their employer and appropriating his factory as both ludicrous and insane.
    4
  15. Businesses had little autonomy in some decisions but a great deal of it in others. It's not all one or the other. And many owners made huge profits, which is just one way in which the system was by definition not socialist. Also, depending on when and where we're talking about, serfs often had a great deal of autonomy in some decisions but not in others - but the areas in which they could exercise autonomy were generally different from the areas in which Germans under the Nazis could. Serfdom and feudalism were not as simple or uniform as most modern people imagine.
    4
  16.  @AmariFukui  And capitalism has a way of working its way into every socialist system, because markets (if only black markets) are an inherent part of human nature and impossible to completely suppress. But we shouldn't let that cause confusion as to what capitalism and socialism actually are, and just as important, what they aren't.
    3
  17.  @ManiacMayhem7256  High taxes don't make a country socialist.
    3
  18. I mean, it's easy to laugh at, but obviously it worked on some people.
    3
  19.  @SchmulKrieger  I'll accept your first sentence; I've read Kant, and found him extremely difficult to follow, and been told that part of the problem is that his work is difficult to translate into English in a way that is both accurate and easy to understand. Your second sentence puzzles me, though. Are you saying there are very few academics in America? I'm not sure where you get that idea; there are over 1.5 million people employed as professors at institutes of higher learning in the US, plus another 3 million graduate students.
    3
  20.  @jamemswright3044  Socialism is an economic system in which control of the means of production is exercised either by the workers directly or someone acting on behalf of the workers and with their participation rather than by private owners or their managers, and in which the surplus value of work (profit) is returned either to the workers who created it or to society as a whole. A system in which the government controls (or partly controls) production for its own ends and appropriates profits for reasons other than returning them to ordinary people - to support a state religion, for example, or to line the pockets of the ruling class (kleptocracy), or, as in the case of Nazi Germany, to support the military for its own sake - is not socialist. That is of course an ideal, and many systems that are or purport to be socialist can be so corrupt or inefficient that little or none of the surplus value actually gets to workers or to society as a whole. At what point such systems cease to be socialist in anything but name is a matter of debate. I'm pretty sure if you survey professional economists, historians, and political scientists you'll find that 95% of them define socialism more in line with the above than simply "government control of the means of production".
    3
  21.  @oslier3633  What does that have to do with anything we're discussing? Are you trying to claim that was the result of racism? Because Jews were not seen as a separate race back then, and unlike in Nazi Germany, Jews who converted to Christianity and their descendants were considered to be the same as any Christian. Btw, I didn't say capitalism invented bigotry, I said it invented the concept of race as we know it today, which is a very different thing.
    3
  22.  @BIATEC88  Yes, he did. He said the real Nazis today are socialists.
    3
  23. One thing that will help immensely in understand subjects like this is to get rid of the idea of a one- or even two-dimensional political spectrum. It isn't how far to the left or right you are, or even just how far to the left and right you are and how far towards authoritarianism or individual liberty you are, there are at least six political axes that are theoretically independent of each other, and different axes are deemed important by different groups. Nazis and communists aren't at the opposite ends of a political spectrum, and they also aren't on the same end of one. The same can be said of communists and democratic socialists. It's very silly to say that Nazis and communists are the same because they are on the same end of the personal freedom axis, and equally silly to say that classical liberals and anarchists are the same because they are bunched together on the opposite end of that axis. They have that in common, but on other economic/political axes they are complete opposites.
    3
  24. That is what it means today. That is not what it means in the Rig Veda (although it doesn't mean race in that context either).
    3
  25.  @keithstevens5614  The idea of a conquering caste has been pretty much demolished by modern archaeology. There may have been a migration (genetics support that there was) but it was not violent as it was in Europe. More than likely Indo-European culture simply became a high-prestige culture which others already living there adopted, mixing with the pre-existing local culture to produce what we know as Vedic culture. It's undeniable that some aspects of Hinduism (most notably Shaivism) predate the arrival of Indo-European-speaking people.
    3
  26. Because the guards needed a break from the summer heat, I guess? They had lots of recreational facilities for the guards. Anyway, they weren't gassing all the people who came there, some were selected to be worked to death instead.
    3
  27. Nelson, poor fellow, simply wasn't able to see the signal telling him to withdraw.
    3
  28.  @TheImperatorKnight  The position of the Church has always been that the Apocryphon of John was not actually written by the Apostle John, it is a forgery. I believe that the consensus among secular scholars is also that it was written by unknown gnostics in the 2nd century and was not written by the author of the Book of Revelation or the Gospel According to John.
    3
  29. Because the US has a long history of racial discrimination, and France does not (at least, not within its own borders). Race may be BS from a scientific standpoint, but when something as such a long history with such extreme political, social, and economic consequences today, it becomes real because we have made it real.
    3
  30. The first fatal flaw in your analysis is separating the Vietnam War into separate and barely related conflicts. From Hanoi's point of view it was one continuous struggle for national liberation that started in 1945 and ended in 1975, separated into phases named by the principal opponent in each stage. For them the Paris Accords of 1973 were not the end of anything but American involvement. A vital clue in this interpretation was their rock-solid insistence that any "peace" treaty left their forces in place in South Vietnam ready to renew their offensive any any time they chose. The South Vietnamese government understood this as well and that is why it was vehemently opposed to the treaty, but they had no power to compel the US to stay in the war or support the South after the treaty was signed. Yes, Hanoi really needed a truce in 1973to stave off the collapse of their offensive capability to US bombing, but they understood that Nixon needed an end to US involvement in the war even more, and that they held the upper hand in the truce negotiations and could hold out for their bottom line which was the maintenance of that offensive capability not only against, but in South Vietnam. The Napoleonic Wars are a good comparison, and I think most historians, while giving individual names to the various phases of those wars, would indeed regard them, or certainly all of the phases after the breakdown of the Peace of Amiens in 1803, as one continuous conflict that Napoleon ended up losing, separated into phases defined by who was actively fighting Napoleon at any given time. Every one of those wars was fought for the same reason, Napoleon's desire to make France the hegemon of Europe with his own Imperial dynasty at its head and the refusal of the other European powers to accept that result, and ultimately they achieved their goal and Napoleon failed utterly in his. Any temporary successes he achieved along the way, however impressive, didn't affect that ultimate result. As you stated, the American goals in the war were the preservation of South Vietnam as an independent, non-communist country, and the containment of communism in Southeast Asia. Regardless of the temporary lull in the fighting in 1973 - a lull that every major player on the planet other than Richard Nixon, and probably even he, understood could not possibly be anything but temporary and brief - the fact remains that within two years of the American withdrawal South Vietnam was absorbed by the communist Hanoi government and Laos and Cambodia were controlled by communist governments as well. Watergate and Nixon's fall certainly made South Vietnam's position more difficult by cutting off any possibility of continued US support, but I believe the ultimate result, the complete conquest of South Vietnam by the communist North, was inevitable from the day the Paris Peace Accords were signed. Public support for any continued US involvement in Vietnam was about zero even before the Watergate scandal broke, and the Saigon government simply wasn't capable of resisting the North's attack without massive US support, if not active intervention, and the leaders of both North and South Vietnam understood that. The lack of US enthusiasm for keeping its promise to Saigon was not a surprise to Hanoi, they had been counting on it - they could watch CBS Nightly News even if their subjects couldn't. The second fatal flaw in your analysis is confusing battlefield success with strategic success. Body counts and battles won do not determine the winner of a war, achievement of the political goals of the warring powers do. If we go by body counts and number of battles won, the British won the American Revolution and the Confederates won the American Civil War, but obviously no one would claim that. Britain lost its American colonies (aside from Canada) and the South was forced to remain in the Union, so they lost those wars. South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia were taken over by communist governments, so the US lost its struggle to prevent those outcomes by military force. As to America gaining by, for instance, lessons learned, the British Empire's naval superiority and general geopolitical position against its greatest rival, France, were better in 1784 than they had been in 1775, but again, few if any historians would argue that that means the British won the American Revolution. Don't get me wrong, I am an American patriot and I think the US military achieved remarkable things in the Vietnam War and were forced to leave the conflict by purely political, not military, factors, but like Napoleon's astounding victories in battles like Austerlitz, military successes mean nothing if they fail to achieve the political goals they are intended to achieve. The simple fact is that the US did not possess the political will to win the Vietnam War, and so it lost the Vietnam War. North Vietnam's military position in 1968 was not good, the Viet Cong had virtually ceased to function as a fighting force, the Soviets lacked the stomach for a direct showdown with the US over Vietnam, and Hanoi's relations with China had broken down to the point that China was no longer a sanctuary or sufficient supply route for the North Vietnamese, so if the US had had the political will to mount an invasion of North Vietnam comparable to MacArthur's invasion of North Korea in 1950, the result very well may have been a collapse of the Hanoi regime and a complete US victory - but the US did not have that political will, and all of the leaders involved knew it, so there was no such invasion and no US victory. (And of course, there was also the possibility that such a radical change in US policy might have resulted in an equally radical change in Chinese and/or Soviet policy and a much more destructive direct war between superpowers, and that possibility is a large part of the reason for the American unwillingness to support such an invasion.) The real crying shame is that the Johnson administration, and especially SecDef MacNamara had concluded by 1965 that the war was unwinnable for political reasons, but they lacked the moral courage to try to explain this to a then-hawkish public and accept the political cost of having the war lost on their watch. I'm pretty sure Nixon and Kissinger understood this as well, and they had no more moral courage than LBJ did, but they were much better politicians and managed to spin the inevitable loss into a US victory under Nixon's administration followed by a "loss of the peace" under his successors. He just got booted out of office more quickly than anyone anticipated and his successor lacked both the political support and the motivation to stave off the debacle in South Vietnam until a Democrat was in the Oval Office. IMO it is a testament to the consummate and devious political skills of Nixon and Kissinger that they sold their BS so cleverly that intelligent and informed people like you are still buying it today.
    3
  31.  @MarkErikEE  You are correct that socialism is all about the workers. You are wrong in thinking Nazism was about workers. Hitler and the Nazis had to appeal to workers to get elected, but it was always about the German people as an ethnic group, not any particular class. Capitalists, managers, and professionals were part of the German volk every bit as much as workers were. It wasn't socialism with a side of nationalism, it was nationalism with a side of socialism, and in some other ways, a side of capitalism. Everything Hitler wrote and said in his adult life supports this view - class was nothing, race and nationality (which were inseparable for Hitler) were everything. The Bolsheviks were not national socialists, they were international socialists. The dispute between Stalin and Trotsky wasn't about nationalism, it was about whether communism should consolidate its gains in the nation it already controlled before trying to spread to others, or whether it should always try to spread to other nations from the moment it gained power in one. Stalin took the former view, Trotsky the latter. Of course for Stalin it was always really about his own personal power, as Orwell described, but that doesn't really speak to Stalin's ideology so much as his lack of a genuine one. (Which also distinguishes Stalin from Hitler, for whom his nationalist and racist ideology was the only point to having power.) You can't hope to understand Hitler without starting with what he took from Nietszche and Darwin (mistakenly in both cases, but those were his core beliefs).
    3
  32.  @parlyramyar  You're not paying attention. Again, socialism and collectivism are not the same thing. Socialism is about economic class. Nazism was about race. The two views are incompatible. Collectivism that is not based on economic class is not socialism. If you redefine socialism to mean any form of collectivism, you have negated socialism as a meaningful concept. You might as well define capitalism as socialism because capitalists believe that capitalism is better for workers.
    3
  33.  @mrmoofle  Nazism was as well.
    3
  34. Montemayor has done some good videos on battles, but if you really want a great WW2 channel, check out the World War Two channel with Indy Neidell - he does a week-by-week review of everything that happened 79 years ago that week in every theater of the war, and most of his focus for the last few months has been on Asia and the Pacific.
    3
  35.  @patricksachs3655  How does a private party provide you with a nuclear deterrent but not the people who don't choose to pay for it?
    3
  36. Doctrine. Precision bombing was very difficult in daytime, impossible at night, and RAF Bomber Command was designed exclusively for nighttime bombing because they didn't think unescorted bombers could survive over Germany in daylight, and didn't anticipate a fighter being developed with the range to escort such raids. (They were right about unescorted bombers, but when escorts became available, the USAAF was able to take advantage of them because it was designed for daylight bombing.)
    3
  37.  @spartanrh83  That's a lot of nonsense. Germany had lost the war, its allies were all surrendering, its army was broken and the front was collapsing, its economy was completely collapsing, its people were starving. Things were only going to get worse for them. Blame the Allied leaders for the stupid vindictiveness of Versailles, not the German civilian government, because there was absolutely nothing the German government could do to prevent it.
    3
  38. The mistake you're making is ignoring the even more massive elephant in the room, the fact that the DAF was a means for the state to control workers, not a means for workers to control the state or the workplace. The fact that DAF was often adversarial to management does not mean it was controlled by the workers. This is the difference between the DAF and a real labor union. The quote you put up at 12:03 shows this - corporate management was taking directives from government officials, not workers' representatives. A labor union isn't just an organization of workers, it is an organization run by workers or by representatives elected by workers. In general you always seem to fall into the trap of reasoning that Hitler had to either be a capitalist or a socialist, and therefore that you can show he wasn't a capitalist, he must have been a socialist. This is a classic false dilemma fallacy. The Nazis were neither capitalist nor socialist, they were a third system in which neither the interests of capitalists nor those of workers controlled policy, they were both subordinated to the militarist state. Everything done by the DAF was intended to benefit the state and its war machine - if it advocated for better conditions for workers, that was solely because it had determined that better conditions would make workers more productive in support of the war effort. George Orwell, as good an authority on communism, socialism, fascism, and Nazism as I think there has ever been, put it best: the Nazis borrowed from both capitalism and socialism whatever policies they thought would make the economy more efficient in serving the state.
    3
  39.  @TheImperatorKnight  That's not the point of socialism, it's the outcome of socialism, which is a different thing. Socialism is an inherently flawed concept.Socialists are mistaken in thinking their policies will benefit workers, but that is still their belief, and if they don't believe that, they aren't really socialists. I don't know about the UK, but in the US union leaders and representatives are elected by the workers. Of course there is corruption in the process, as there is in everything that humans do. But the unions are NOT controlled by the state the way the DAF was. Unions that are controlled by the state, whether the state is nominally socialist or not, are not really unions.
    3
  40.  @ETBrooD  I said it didn't exist until the late 19th century, not that it doesn't exist today.
    3
  41.  @panzerofthelake506  "how would those bigger organised groups raise money if everyone only cares about themselves and their own well being?" And there we have it. Anarcho-capitalism, like communism, works perfectly once you perfect human beings so that none of them would ever seek power over others or abuse any advantage they have or can obtain. In other words, once humans stop being human.
    3
  42.  @TheImperatorKnight  The fist part may be true under a restrictive definition of capitalism, but the second is a very silly thing to say and it shows how little understanding you have of economic issues. It's a very childish thought process to conclude that because socialism is the opposite of capitalism, whatever is not capitalist is socialist. Thinking that everything has to be shoehorned into one of those two categories also shows a very poor understanding of history before the modern era. Were medieval monasteries or Bronze Age kings and bureaucrats capitalist or socialists? The answer, of course, is that they were neither.
    3
  43. Anarchy is your sixth grade gym class, forever. Anarcho-capitalism is much like socialism: it's a great idea that cannot possibly work because it requires human beings to be Vulcans, elves, or something other than human beings. It's also a religion. Libertoons irrationally worship the market in the exact same way Marxists worship the inexorable march of history. Your blind faith that the market, which is incapable of ever being wrong, will take care of everything is no less irrational than the blind faith of socialists that the government or the Party, which is incapable of ever being wrong, will take care of everything. And anyone over the age of twelve who think taxation is robbery is profoundly ignorant of the foundations of liberal (in the classical sense) economics and politics. Again, it's exactly as ignorant and naive as "property is theft". It's something a teenager who knows nothing about the real world says. I would highly, highly recommend you study of on Edmund Burke and the American Federalist Papers and proceed from there. Or better yet, study economics and political science at a university. And study some history that doesn't involve tanks. And the belief system you're describing utterly and completely fails to take into account that some things (not restaurants) are inherently communal. Clean air and water, for example. Sure, the market can provide drinking water for a price. But I don't just want my own personal drinking water to be clean, I want the creek behind my house not to be toxic and stinking and kill all the wildlife, and also not kill me if I happen to fall into it. How can a market possibly provide that? How do I buy my own individual creek and not have the same creek that flows past everyone else's house? And what if my upstream neighbor values pouring the waste from his lead mine and smelter into the creek more than he values the water downstream from him being clean? How can market possibly address that? And do we really want to pay individually for clean air to be pumped into our own little airtight bubbles so we can breathe it? The reality is that everyone breathes the same air, regardless of how much we pay or how much we pollute as individuals. You're too young to remember the days when we had "market-provided" clean air and water and the government kept its nose out of it, which meant we had rivers catching on fire and life expectancy cut by ten years or more by breathing smog all day. In practice, the way the market provided clean air and water was that rich people all lived upwind and upstream from the pollution and poor people lived with the smog and toxic rivers. But that only worked so well, and the wealthiest men in London still breathed toxic fumes when they went into the City. And the idea of a "market for security" is quite simply idiotic. Yes, there can be market solutions to providing those services - but the market cannot possibly determine how much funding should be put into security, or provide the funding, because security (beyond the level of private bodyguards, who are pretty much zero use when another country invades or lobs nukes) is also inherently communal. If I think I need $100 per capita worth of security, and the other 99 people in the area to be secured decide they want to pay zero for security, my $100 will buy $1 per capita of security for me and also for all of my 99 neighbors, who will pay nothing but get the exact same security that I get. Thanks, I'll take the state military-industrial complex over that any day of the week. And then we can get into a market for justice. Then again, let's not. I can only take so much brain hurt from the stupid in one day.
    3
  44.  @jimmydesouza4375  The British Empire and its economy were doomed regardless, as was European colonialism in general. 80% of the Eurasian-African landmass was not going to let the other 20% rule and ruthlessly exploit it forever. The imperial powers would have to either let their empires go or move to a more mutually beneficial arrangement like the Roman Empire, but their arrogance and racism would never let them contemplate the latter unless it was forced on them.
    3
  45. I find it highly ironic that a bunch of late 20th and 21st century anarcho-libertarians have adopted as their symbol a man who plotted to assassinate an entire democratically elected legislature and replace them with a foreign-imposed theocracy.
    3
  46.  @markmanning6542  Unrelated word. The Sumerians didn't actually call themselves Sumerians, they called themselves "saĝ-gíg" which means black-headed people. "Sumer" was the name given to them by their Semitic neighbors and "Sumerian" is a modern European adjectival form.
    3
  47. A trade union that is an organ of the state is not a trade union. The Nazi "Union" wasn't an organization of workers, it was a mechanism to control workers.
    3
  48.  @adolphdresler3753  Social control of the means of production, which means either by (in most cases) or on behalf of the workers. In a broader sense, any system in which the distribution of wealth is a political process and is intended to benefit the working class almost exclusively. The existence of some amount of corruption doesn't necessarily take the system out of the realm of socialism (it makes it flawed socialism), but at some point you have to say the scheme is no longer intended even theoretically to benefit the working class and what you have is a kleptocracy. The Nazis did not come anywhere near either of those models, so they were not socialist. To the extent they controlled the means of production, that control was not exercised by or on behalf of the workers, or to their benefit, it was directed to the benefit of the military machine. To the extent the Nazis granted any concessions or benefits for workers, it was only because they calculated that this would make the workers more productive and efficient servants of the military machine. For the same reason, the Nazis generally did not interfere with the extraction of large profits by the industrial capitalists, not because the Nazis were devoted to capitalism, but because they deemed that this was the best way to maximize production in support of the war effort. Unlike TIK, I'm not just making up my own definitions because they suit my purposes. This is how actual socialists define socialism. George Orwell called all of this 75 years ago.
    3
  49. Which is why it was so foolish of Hitler to become so obsessed with Stalingrad.
    2
  50. What would have made sense was a Panther that didn't have extra armor and gun piled on to the extent that the transmission was severely overworked. Wondertanks in the repair depot or broken down and abandoned on the road don't do anyone any good. Most of the advanced German weapons suffered from this syndrome - maximizing performance on paper without any thought to how they would actually function in the field. Supertanks so heavy that road bridges would collapse under their weight, superguns that needed ammo they no longer had the raw materials to make, superjets whose engines broke down after 50 hours of use because no material then invented could stand up to the heat they produced, superrockets that killed more workers designing and building them than enemies they targeted.
    2