Comments by "" (@tomk3732) on "The Armchair Historian" channel.

  1.  @suityboi2126  What would be the point of non stationing NATO troops in DDR when they can be stationed in say Poland?
    1
  2. Even in retrospect plan West was correct vs. French plan of giving up western Poland. There was no illusion in Polish high command that there is no way for Poland to win with Germany without help - there was no perfect plan with that result. As soon as it became clear that France and UK will not enter the war in active capacity morale plummeted - it is difficult to fight when you know you will loose. Invasion by over a million Soviets from the East eliminated any Romanian bridge head ideas. Both Germany and her allay, Soviet Union started WWII by pummeling together small Polish nation of 35m people. That will shrink to just 23m after the war in 1945.
    1
  3. Do not like free Russian Donbass? Move back to Ukraine.
    1
  4. Well, Italians were so bad, that one of their armored divisions got out maneuvered and defeated by... Greek infantry division. Italians were soooooo bad, that Greeks refused to surrender to the, but instead surrendered to the Germans. Sure, there are LOTS of excuse made for Italians, as many or more then for the French. What this video is missing is the fact that Italians performed poorly even when - as stated above, they had better materials, more manpower etc. I.e. their tank division lost to... infantry. You can criticize Italian tanks etc. But the enemy was poorly armed and not that well trained infantry.
    1
  5. Same thing was said of the French. Its morale booster. No one needed to say this about say Poles or Russians or even the British troops.
    1
  6. Incompetence run from top to very bottom together with total luck of any kind of fighting spirit. Italy may have poor tanks but forever it shall be remembered that their armored division was out flanked and beaten by Greek infantry.
    1
  7.  @thecommentaryking  From history. Read about Italian campaign in Albania followed by Greece.
    1
  8. The US was approached even earlier in 1918. It is now common knowledge that US policy of "freedom" is only reserved to its own people - and freedom is definitely not something that is to be given to others or encouraged. Vietnam had to fight for its freedom & through rivers of blood it expelled its jailers.
    1
  9. Ah the British - always want to control these French :) Its like Russians always want to control Poles and Germans everyone else.
    1
  10.  @dovetonsturdee7033  There was these "few" wars over the last 1000 years you know.
    1
  11.  @dovetonsturdee7033  Well, one has to point out that it was the British that had possessions in France, not the French in England. Also what was this whole thing of Jean of d'Arc? Was not half of France conquered? Also in later period it was more of a German game - as Germany was more of the power wanting to control all of Europe - something that Russian Empire was strongly opposing.
    1
  12. We find out more in the future.
    1
  13. EU was mostly fine, the NATO was an issue. They could join both. Be rich.
    1
  14. It was not just generals. Morale in French army was low. Very low. They did not want to fight for Poland. They bought into German propaganda. They could not take more human losses of another war... That fear paralized their actions. There are very few times when French army fought ok in 1940. Even fewer when they did well. Most of it was miserable performance. Great French leaders of the past looked away ashamed to be of relation. Army spirit was broken from general to private.
    1
  15.  @harpunonosy1232  The question is which borders do you use, if you use borders of 2nd Polish republic, as you seem to like to use census of that type, then a lot more Poles died then you claim. Or at least people that were citizens of Poland. In 1939 population of Poland was around 35-36m and by 1945 it was just 23m. So around a 1/3 either died or were forcibly moved etc.
    1
  16.  @harpunonosy1232  Problem is that it is rather hard to find these missing millions.
    1
  17. Worse. In 1914 to 1918 they had fight in them. Will to resist. In 1940 they had will to surrender.
    1
  18. Neither was any other force - in Poland there was a LOT of fighting between factions - 1000s were killed either by Poles themselves or using German hands. Free French were quite red themselves.
    1
  19. Wait, is the war in Russia then, or in Ukraine. And why is Putin winning, if he has failed?
    1
  20.  @A_annoying_rodent  Well Ottomans switched sides - as Poland was to be partitioned they were the only power to formally protest. So Austria would not have to fight them. End of Poland meant rise of Russia and end of Ottomans.
    1
  21. Imagine we would be speaking German now if not for Italy
    1
  22. Let's hope war ends this year. Once Ukrainian offensive is over it will be clear there is no path to any Ukrainian victory.
    1
  23.  @GobliniusGoblin  Sure they made progress! A lot. Same progress as allies made in 1917. I fail to see why progress has to be counted in land - we had a large war with static lines for 4 years!
    1
  24.  @maregondrako  LOL, be home by Christmas vibes LOL! Or we take Crimea by June... 2022 (!) Also west totally overplayed with that 3 day claim - come on - western media is like the worst predictor.
    1
  25.  @GobliniusGoblin  How can anyone sane say Russia is not winning?! They are on Ukrainian territory fighting war of attrition. Ukraine has no economy of any kind, around 1/3 of its population run away, a lot is under Russian control. Ukraine is 100% dependent on the west and they just run out of ammo. They also run out of junk to send to Ukraine. so how can Ukraine win, win no ammo, no equipment, no economy and no people? Why pyrrhic Russian victory - they have not take huge losses, their economy is strongest in Europe. So ... where it this pyrrhic part?
    1
  26. They could have made a point and fought till November. Obviously for honor only but honor would cost blood.
    1
  27. By middle of 1944 Germany was done for - even if they moved their army and predicted Bagration to the tee they would have faced heavy attack in the south - Soviets had 10x as many tanks, aircraft and artillery as well as at least 2x as many people. They were also far and wide more mobile - if Germans resisted heavily up north they would not do so down south and vice versa. They could not due to fuel and transport shortages react & even if they did they had nothing to react with. In the beginning Soviets had 3:1 advantage in man power (under 500k vs. over 1.6m including support) - later on German reinforcements made it 2.5 to 1. Soviets suffered much higher losses then defending Germans BUT they could afford these losses - Soviets lost more then 2x as many tanks as all German tanks present. But they could afford that, Germans could not. Reserve units of Germany army were panzer divisions with whole 56 tanks operational (!)
    1
  28. Nah, they have nothing on "Ukrainian" unrecognized territory were over 1 million were killed with axes and pitchforks, some burned alive and many skinned alive. Young kids were thrown into fire, older ones impaled on fence posts, one child had its eyes gouged out so it starves to death. One of the authors of this geneocide is current Hero Of Ukraine, Stephan Bandera - imagine, Himmler of Ukraine is a Hero today! See, others have worse.
    1
  29. According to wikipedia entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/185th_Paratroopers_Division_Folgore Italians did have AT guns (through small) and did cause some considerable (for Italians) casualties to attacking allies. Whole division, except about few hundred men, surrendered to allies when they run out of ammunition (how was that possible). So no, they did not just have hand weapons, and no they did not almost all die. Division participated in other battles but did not find what they did at these encounters.
    1
  30. @George S Did they help? Nope.
    1
  31.  @pathfinderlight7084  Interesting, did not know that about British army - not that Poles were immune from "political" adventures in the army - the reason Poles had so many cavalry units is due to "old guard" not letting "new people" have their tanks. Each cavalry brigade horses eat every year monetary equivalent of few dozen brand new modern tanks. The favorism in officer corps started at flag officers - below a general things were quite straight and proper.
    1
  32. I made a comment it was not a Power but a Puppet - guess he did read my mind.
    1
  33. They seen what occurred in Poland so they knew what was coming as they sold her allay. Maginot line was whopping failure. Its main purpose was to prevent Germans coming into France... Which it failed at 100%. Germans went through weakest link like knife through butter.
    1
  34. It depends which units faced which other units. If you did not have 50 year old Germans facing 20 year old US but left of "good" German infantry (where did it come from) US forces were known to show weakness and quickly fall back - i.e. regular US infantry was no match for regular German infantry - you need to write simulation that better shows historical reality. If your simulation was correct it would not take as long for US army to push Germans, especially with huge numerical superiority as well as enormous material advantage. I would rate average US army vs. regular average German army infantry as around 35 to 65 in favor of the Germans - i.e. much better. Granted Germany by mid 1944 did not really have too much regular infantry on the western front and units known as salt and pepper were more evenly matched to US troops.
    1
  35. Before operation MG Polish commander told his British superiors that this is madness. He was forced to obey by going over his head to Polish central command. British command during WWII was terrible and UK military was very vengeful against anyone whom pointed their total inadequacy in command. I hope no Pole today would spend any of his blood defending UK ever again. With such allies as UK and France whom needs enemies.
    1
  36.  @dovetonsturdee7033  The agreement between Poland and her "Allies" France and UK was a farce. There was zero intention to help Poland a supposed allay vs. Germany. Neither UK nor France did anything of value during September 1939 and enabled not only German attack but follow on Soviet attack. Afterwards UK offered little resistance together with French during invasion of France. So what were these destroyers there for as not to defend UK from Germans or escort convoys? What were Polish pilots doing over UK skies shooting at Germans but defending UK? There is a reason today why Poles do not want to invest in more ships with cynical comment that in case of war they go fight for UK again, not Poland. It is a well known mistake of Polish government that was weakened by death of Piolsodski to allay herself with UK and France and defend empire of both (!)
    1
  37.  @arjuna03  Which was with idiotic timing. Goa was to be transferred back to India rather shortly - why push it? This was one of the main political motivations for the Chinese. Epic level mistake by India.
    1
  38. More like army of sheep with low morale commanded by scared sheep. I mean non existant morale. Rotten. Ready to fall over.
    1