Comments by "Paul Anthony" (@paulanthony5274) on "War Academy" channel.

  1.  @alanfitzgeraldsr2201  He was poisoned by his hatred and ridiculous idiological beliefs. Naive wouldn't be my fist choice of word either. He just believed certain things that were not true and was a stubborn man. An idiot really. Where as Stalin although evil was shrewd and thought things through without being poisoned with ridiculous theories like Hitler had.
    5
  2. Pretty loose with other things too, like saying they expected the campaign to last six weeks. That would be at the very least and most even Hitler thought around 3 months would be the length of the battle. Even then I see that as ridiculous. The Russians would never quit or su for peace, they'd just carry on because they knew it was a war of annihilation. They knew they wouldn't get treated like the western European countries. Totally stupid idea to invade Russia as we all know. But why didn't Hitler see it? Those quick victories went to his head.
    4
  3. Sounds about right with most wars.
    3
  4. frogman1941 Lend lease was paid back by 2006 so get your facts right. 61 years after WW2
    2
  5. Pulling Guderians panzas back to help army group centre didn't help the campaign either.
    2
  6.  @CLARKE176  That's not my point. He neglected all political duties it was a system of government without any real system to it its amazing that it actually worked. If it wasn't for the president of the German bank Schach then he wouldn't have got anywhere atall.
    2
  7.  @angelocappella3397  Are you trolling or just plain stupid?
    1
  8.  @kingrama2727  idiot
    1
  9. True that France fell in 6 weeks but the defeat as you well know was on the cards in as little as 2.
    1
  10. He neglected political duties right from 1933 not just in the russian campaign.
    1
  11.  @CLARKE176  What do you mean no he didn't. Clearly you don't know how he achieved it. It was done through a series of sophisticated loans done through the main german national bank and Schach which Hitler used to put people into work in the armaments factories and autobahns. That money had to be replaced somehow and it was done through war. Hitler didn't strengthen the economy he borrowed and gambled. Economies are strengthened through sales and profits. How could the economy be strengthened through building autobahns and tanks and planes and other things. It was a series of loans. Pal you don't know what you're talking about!
    1
  12.  @jonnyd9351  I didn't mean it per say my point is you can win battle after battle but the other side doesn't give up so you end up quiting or losing or similar. Like Hannibal, Vietnam, Napoleon. Like I said I meant it loosely as in different scenarios but winning battles but then losing the war or that section of a war or operation. I'm sure you could pick holes at what I said and you'd probably be right but I'm just saying it in a certain respect. I suppose I could have worded it different so I apologize for that and I can see why you would say that. But often success after success leads to over confidence and mistakes by many a field commander or C.I.C.
    1