Comments by "bakters" (@bakters) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
148
-
100
-
@MrReco12 "opened up her own successful newspaper"
She co-founded a newspaper, which was a strictly political organ of her party. Her whole adult life revolved around politics. From what I can see in a quick search, she really never worked a proper job. Maybe as a tutor, that could work, but a quick search does not even mention that, so I suspect she didn't do much of it.
""not truly capitalist" because they have a central bank"
Is it, though? If the currency is controlled by the government, if they can (and arguably do) hyperinflate it at will, thus robbing everybody of their savings, how does it relate to the central tenant of capitalism, which is the private ownership of the means of production?
How much do you really own, if all the numbers on your account can be made worthless at will? What's going to happen if you can't pay all the taxes, which can also be administered at will?
Your property will be taken by those who actually already own it, that is the government.
42
-
38
-
I'm glad that two of my counterarguments ended up in the Top 5, but since there will be a follow up, let me reiterate those you didn't address yet.
1. Military argument.
Encircled army is still dangerous, possibly more so, since they can't fall back, but only as long as they didn't run out of supplies. You reduce the pockets of resistance with patience, that's the cheapest way.
2. Gambling argument.
You don't make risky moves if you are obviously winning already. An all out assault was risky. The Germans could be pushed back and suffer unnecessary losses. It just was not necessary in order to win.
And overall, I remain unconvinced, obviously. While your theory may not be too complicated to work, it's still more complicated than the alternative. The alternative is, that the Germans tried to avoid unnecessary losses and simply made a mistake. Not a huge one! It wasn't a big mistake. British army was soundly defeated, whether they evacuated some soldiers or not. As long as the Germans followed up with an invasion quickly , they could still occupy Britain.
So that's what they tried to do with the Battle of Britain. And yet again they overestimated the capabilities of Luftwaffe.
This approach is demonstrably simpler than what you propose. Does it mean that Hitler never considered your line of reasoning? Of course not, so your theory is still valid and potentially useful in explaining some aspects of WW2.
36
-
33
-
+Graff_Zitel - Actually, most people stopped by blocking detachments were not even sent to penal battalions. They were sent back to their own units. Very few were shot, just as you wrote, but almost none were shot without trial. Sure, it was a quick deal, but there was a trial and execution, not gunning down your own retreating units.
Penal battalions could be additionally motivated with a machinegun behind their backs, but those machineguns also served as a reserve force, and were sent into battle when needed.
The funniest part of it all for me, is that the reality of war meant that capable fighters were rarely used in blocking detachments who were not expected to see the enemy eye to eye too often. Invalids, halfwits that sort of stuff. And Soviets wanted to use them for something, so they were often sent to do the mundane tasks like digging latrines and that sort of thing.
Not particularly nefarious picture, all in all.
28
-
27
-
21
-
Great video, though of course I disagree with some ideas put forth here.
First, I do not think that the parallel between Marshal and Stalin goes very far. Peacetime army is dominated by guys skilled at internal politics, wartime army rewards skilled fighters. As you mentioned yourself, Red Army was at war pretty much all the time. They already had fighters on top, but Stalin ended it with the purge, and replaced fighters with apparatchiks. Marshal did the opposite.
Second, there is this idea that the old staff was not capable of fighting a modern war, which differed hugely from earlier wars. I disagree, on many levels. Like, the cavalry was not outdated, especially its tactics, if you wanted to do mobile warfare without huge amount of trucks. Put those guys on tanks, they'll do just fine. Infantry not so much. And also I do not think that WWII differed much from earlier wars, but that's another story.
Then, Stalin removed Tukhachevski and other military theorists who figured out how to end the trench stalemate. Old guys they might have been, but somehow they figured it all out. Their replacements were careful to forget all that in fear.
Finally, Wehrmacht was led to battle by old men...
USA had practically no war experience. It's obvious that their ranks were dominated by professional paper-pushers and ass-lickers. This "they are just too old" rhetoric is simply an euphemism, so they can feel better, while incompetence was the real reason.
Big and crucial difference between Marshal's and Stalin's "purges".
Still, wonderful video.
19
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
@duongngole4785 Youtube blocked my previous, more verbose answer. Possibly due to me linking some sources? Quite likely. So you won't get them. Maybe because this topic confused some AI? Quite likely both.
Anyway, the Museum of the Warsaw Uprising reports multiple times on various ways in which Soviets agitated for the uprising. Since at least May 1944. In very unambiguous ways. Which I won't quote, due to the reasons stated above.
Stalin was obviously behind it. It benefited him. There are quotes from him being glad all the mayhem happened.
Bór-Komorowski is obviously guilty of giving the order, but it was not his sole decision. The representative of the Polish Government in Exile was in close contact with him, there were talks with the Soviets ongoing, so he had reasons to believe the uprising will be a success, even if a costly one.
Scapegoating him makes no sense. If he knew Soviets will do what they did, his decision would be very different. We know that, because he wrote about it earlier. He considered Soviet help and frequent airdrops to be absolutely necessary for the uprising to have any chances at all.
As we know, those conditions were not met.
No sources, no links, no quotes.
Blame Youtube. I tried.
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
+CreatorUser - Assuming the fall of Soviet Union, especially early on, without the drain of the protracted war, it's hard to imagine how USA could have won.
Sure enough, Soviet Union wouldn't fall totally. There would be some remnants of them behind Urals. Americans could have supported them, but Germans wouldn't have to do much to keep those forces at bay.
With the full might of Axis forces defending Europe, there would be no hope for serious invasion.
A-bomb is a game changer, because it allows destruction of a full city without committing huge resources to the task. Sure enough, that's a lot of advantage, but how many cities would need to be destroyed? Hamburg or Dresden were flattened with conventional means, and it mattered little overall. It's hard to win by killing civilians. Actually, it's just more food and resources which can be diverted to the frontlines.
You are not proposing to nuke Paris, are you? If not, then German armies don't even need their own civilians to support them.
Hard to tell, but I think that Nazis would have kept their empire for a while if they won in Russia.
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
" semi-competent commander "
I happen to believe Monty was the best W. Allied commander. I don't mind Goodwood or Market Garden much. Both seemed like a risk worth taking, and despite all the bad press, they weren't total disasters.
I mean, what was the cost of Market Garden, actually? I just looked it up, and it was on the order of 15-17K, but that includes POWs and wounded, so the loss of life was much smaller. The Germans lost about half as much.
It's almost worth it from the "war of attrition" point of view, considering the paras were lightly equipped troops. And it could have worked. In high stakes poker, if you don't bet favorable odds while you can afford to lose, you are a bad player.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
@michaels4255 It's natural for humans that they want to survive more than they want to win. For example, during WWI they had to rotate the units, because if left in the same place for longer they tended to strike a deal with the enemy. Not what you want in a war of attrition, especially if it's your side which has more men.
Men need to be led into attack, and that's why the officers die more often than the enlisted. They get up first. On the defense, the officers tend to stay behind. Why? So they can prevent their soldiers from retreating. During the age of sail the captains were heavily incentivised into aggression, both positively and negatively, meaning they could expect high monetary rewards for being aggressive, and harsh punishment for avoiding action.
Why such measures were implemented and kept?
So, this attitude appears to be universal and goes up the ranks. Chuikov in Stalingrad always wanted to retreat, once he simply ran away. Paulus didn't want to attack, he'd rather wait for supplies and build up his forces, but obviously, that would strengthen the opposition he was facing too. Many Soviet commanders were unwilling to continue the fight during the Barbarossa. Vlasov even switched sides.
We have this idea of idiot commanders recklessly sending their men into the grinder. That's also true, but it's partially because those men were pre-selected for this particular capability. Often with disregard for other crucial capabilities.
It's not easy to make men kill and die. That includes the generals.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
+__ __ - Every system has its inefficiencies. In capitalism money talks, so you can simply buy the most advanced jet engine in the world. I read a book on how industrial espionage worked back in the Cold War era. It was based on greed. Did it work? Make your own guess...
BTW, I'm from Poland, raised under their rule. No, I'm not a Rusophile. I like the people, all of us do, but their "vlast" is a different story altogether.
Anyway, stuff like that happened before. Two superpowers in eternal struggle, one based on trade, the other on discipline. One was the cultural capital of the world with loads of money on disposal, the other had better soldiers.
You know who eventually won? Not Athens, not Sparta, but Thebes. Who were promptly beaten by yet another even younger and hungrier power.
In essence, stop worrying about Russia. If they could beat you, they would already. Worry about who is new Thebes, and even more who is about to become the new Macedon.
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@doomsdaybro8290 " going after a criminal wouldn't be coercion "
That's a neat trick. It never occurred to me, that we can simply redefine coercion in such a way, that prisons are places of voluntary confinement.
Respect! ;-)
" they're stopped from being able to argue for their own rights "
Trouble is, he says you attacked him first and caused damages. He simply helped himself to whatever was lying around to cover the costs.
Now you are the criminal, maybe both of you are, so nobody can argue anymore.
Problem solved, I guess. ;-)
Anyway, "stopped" by whom?
" unjustifiable acts "
How do we know which acts are justifiable or not? Say, I caught the rapist and did him "justice", according to how I felt at the moment. Then I even dumped his ashes into the gutter, which accidentally clogged it, but whatever.
How do we know if I had rights to do it?
BTW - His family says he dindu, since he was studying at the library at the time. They have three witnesses who confirm their story.
How do we solve this conundrum?
I assume that "innocent until proven guilty" approach does not work in this case, since it requires a working system of justice, based on coercion, authority and other anathemas.
6
-
6
-
+__ __ - I just want to comment on rape accusations and Lend-Lease impact.
Starting with this rape thing - I did not study the problem too much, but I'm sure it happened, simply because I read accounts of people I trust. Still, how much and how bad is questionable.
What I know for sure, is that both Germans and USA wanted to paint a different picture after the war was over. Germany were allies, Soviets the enemy, so Orwellian 1984 kicked in, and you "had always been at war with Eastasia".
And I know one other thing. There was this movement of refugees from post-war Poland, who constantly cried a river about "atrocities". Once we became an independent country, we went to them to apologize, but we asked first for documents and testimonies.
They didn't come up with anything! It was all empty blame-shifting.
While of course on the other side there are *tons*, literally, of documents and testimonies of unimaginable atrocities.
So, take that into the account.
Oh, screw Lend-Lease. My post is already long enough.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
I just wanted to say that I'm really impressed with this vid, and a bunch of others I have watched this night, since I've discovered your channel. Important topics, doubly important since people often have a flawed perception of them, and absolutely great presentation.
Regarding this one, I want to thank you for answering the question I had for a long time. Was Sosabowski really guilty of some part of the total failure? I tried to read on what he did, and I never could find anything damning, apart from his lack of respect to his superiors. The quote from Frost, that "they fired the best general we had" finally cleared it for me.
One more comment. The reason Sosabowski accepted the whole plan probably had something to do with the fact, that it was the last and only semi-realistic chance for independent Poland. That's why they faught in the first place. Even if it was risky, even if it was costly, he'd still go with it as long as there was a decent chance of success.
And this chance actually existed. It all could have worked. It should have worked. What a pity.
6
-
6
-
6
-
" you end up with [...] comfortable half-truths "
If she admits she cheated, because he was so bla-bla, and she was so bla-bla as a result of that, you still know she most likely cheated.
If he admits he hit her, because she was so bla-bla, and he had to bla-bla, you still know he most likely hit her.
So despite of all the coloring, you did manage to establish those events as quite probable, at the very least, if not simply as facts.
Coloring is just a seasoning which makes the harsh truths more palatable. They still remain under there, though.
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@johnpeate4544 " Goodwood was a success "
In all honesty, I think so too. It's just that I was willing to count that one on the side of failures. (Only because if they knew what's gonna happen, they'd totally demolish the Germans there. Hindsight, like always.)
" similar distance, taking 3 months and 3x casualties "
There's the rub, really. If you slow down to catch a breath, you let the enemy prepare too. Even if you do nothing and simply sit there, your troops will still melt from under you. War is hell, so the saying goes: "If you find yourself going through hell, keep on going !".
Simplistic, but kinda accurate.
" He received a ‘Secret’ cable "
That's another area where hindsight works best, meaning the intelligence reports. First of all, your intelligence is always fragmentary and conflicting, even if the enemy is incompetent in this regard. I mean, your own troops often end up confused about what they are supposed to do, so why would you expect that intercepting all this info would give the other side military omniscience? It simply doesn't.
However, the enemy isn't always incompetent and they do interfere.
I wrote this in the context of "there were reports of Panzer divisions in the area" before Arnhem. Gavin also had such reports, he believed them, and that's what doomed the whole operation in the end.
(With that said, he still effed up. There was no reason for him not to capture the bridge first and dig in later. It's always easier to defend a town.)
5
-
5
-
5
-
@88porpoise I had to check what I wrote, because your response is so unrelated.
Anyway, the "status quo" was, that there was no Poland for 150-ish years. Of course we didn't want that to be maintained.
Regarding your actual accusation, I'm not going to defend the Sanacja regime or Piłsudski. They were the reason why Poland was subdued so easily and so quickly. But of course, they couldn't do it without outside help. Money talks, and they had the finances and other resources available, in order to try and seize the power. Over and over again, until it finally worked.
TL:DR - It's complicated. Kinda tragic too. In short, life.
But even with all that taken into account, even considering that the regime I absolutely despise made plenty of mistakes, Poland did not do anything particularly damning.
The people simply would not accept it.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@Lothar Nauth "The Nazis were not socialists."
Weren't they? What was the name of their party? The National Socialist German Workers Party...
"believed in prussian identity"
They were Nationalists, so obviously they believed in national identity, but Hitler hated Prussians anyway.
"traditional gender roles"
True that. They also didn't openly oppose religion, so they had their unique flavor of Socialism. Soviet Union started with an opposing view on gender roles and religion, but ended up exactly in the same spot as Nazi Germany. Women were expected to be virtuous mothers, while religion was replaced with secular cults based around state and state leaders.
"suppression of all individuality, strict order and hierarchy"
Anarcho-communists believed otherwise, but Soviet bolsheviks were very much the same.
"The reason why they added "Socialist" to their name was because they already had "WORKERS" in it."
Well, they also promised and realized state intervention programs which were directed toward improving the life of the common worker, like autobahns or armament. The industry technically remained in private hands, but only as long as the owners did what they were told.
How does it differ from Soviet Union, where you were a director of a factory, but only as long as the ruling party (CPSU or NSDAP) accepted you at this role...
Well, there was a difference, I admit that, but not a huge one. The main difference being that the Soviet Union has already worked through the economy collapse and they settled on something workable in the long run, while Germany was still waiting for the disaster to strike.
5
-
@ComradeOgilvy1984 "caring about individual rights"
I wrote "individual freedom ", not rights. Rights are not freedoms. Rights need to be guaranteed by something, freedoms do not. Just leave them alone, they will be there.
Just for example, freedom of speech is not a right (though it's called that often). If there is no law which forbids you from speaking your mind, it's automatically present. Hate speech laws on the other hand, protect your right to not be offended, so they grant you a right which was not there before. As we can see, hate speech laws infringe upon freedom of speech.
The left tends to concentrates on rights (ironic pun not intended), while the right concentrates on freedoms.
Fascist were lefites also because they concentrated on rights. Germans, as a collective group, had a right to lebensraum. In order to guarantee this right, the freedom of others needed to be infringed upon.
Authoritarianism is simply an emergent quality of leftiest's ideologies. While authoritarian right is definitely possible (monarchists are right-wing, for example), libertarian left is not. Concentrating on collective rights necessitates organized coercion.
Italian fascism started as an offshoot of anarchist ideology, but it didn't matter in the end, did it? The worker's right to "fair" pay needed to be guaranteed by the state. That's how it always goes.
5
-
" Heraclitus' emphasis on change and contradiction profoundly impacted philosophy, despite some notions being logically flawed. "
They were not flawed. When Schliemann have found Troy, it was in ruins. Was it "the same" Troy as that of Iliad? No, it was different, yet still the same.
TiK claims that it's a false contradiction, because it's the same city. Well, it was just a mound of dirt by then, so not even a city. How can something be considered to be "the same city", when it's not even a city anymore?
The contradiction is real, if a statement can only be either true or false, with no in-betweens. That's not true, though. We've known that truth can be a function with possible values from 0 to 1 only for a relatively short time. TiK still doesn't seem to understand it.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
You are such a smart guy, that it genuinely boggles my mind when you have troubles following what I would consider to be a very basic reasoning.
Let's consider late war war 2.
Q: Are Germans capable of offensive operations?
A: Only to a very limited degree.
Q: So why are you surprised that they preferred to use their tanks defensively instead of offensively?
A: ????
Regarding spear and shield. - It's not used the way you seem to think it was used. You do not hold it out, you keep it close in, in an overhand grip, sometimes even with the point hidden behind the shield itself. Then, you do not "poke" at the enemy. You throw at them, but "catch" the spear before it leaves your grip. Spear and shield combat is done at a fairly close range. Sure, you'd still have a reach advantage over sword and shield, but late republic / early empire legions carried thrown weapons to diminish this disadvantage. Both legions also worn swords, so that did not change.
You can carry either a javelin or a spear into battle. Take your pick.
In other words - Early legions had better reach due to throwing weapons, late legions sacrificed this advantage for a more effective close combat weapon. Exactly the opposite to what you have suggested.
4
-
I wouldn't dismiss Monty so quickly. I'm sure he was aware of the situation around Antwerp, and if he considered the immediate push to the west incorrect, I suspect there were reasons for it. Ike also was capable of pretending to "know it all" from the start, especially with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.
What I mean by all that, is that the defense of Rhine estuary did not require huge amounts of supplies being shipped constantly. Clearing it would still be a difficult task, whether the German troops were totally cut off, or not. Does it really make sense to spend your troops to do so, while you have an easier target right to the East? More profitable target too, since defeating it allows you to poor more reinforcements into the vital bridgehead.
Regarding push towards Rhur and Berlin, I think it was on the cards. Maybe not before Christmas, but who knows? There is a big difference in the amount of required strength between winning a battle in the open against uprepared enemy, and brute-forcing a highly contested and well prepared defences on the Rhine.
4
-
4
-
@SoMuchFacepalm " The old stuff is still there. [...] No contradiction "
What if I borrowed a car from you, then returned it crashed?
Would you still maintain with similar zeal, that it's the same car, bro!
I know I would... ;-)
More seriously, apparently there are objects which are exactly identical. Like, each electron is exactly the same as another electron. There is no such thing as a "broken" electron. If I borrowed one electron from you, there is no way I could cheat you, by returning a similar but different electron.
Then there is no contradiction (and Heraclitus was incorrect, since some things do not change).
Otherwise contradiction exists, but it's caused by our imprecise language and logic that we use. We say "the same", when we mean "so similar, that it makes no difference".
Honestly, I think I solved it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@darkoneforce2 " virtually anything moving towards the front "
Soviets did that. To a lesser degree, but the scale W. Allies did it was of questionable value.
Basically, instead of the dream of destroying the enemy forces before they reach the frontline, you simply limit their mobility. They have to camouflage, hide, move at night, drag some defenses with them, but once they do that, it's very ineffective. People keep making YT videos trying to puzzle out why anybody would do it at all, THAT ineffective!
With that said, Soviets did such missions. Apart from bombing Frenchmen. They weren't any good at it, apparently.
" The sacrifice of bombers didn't change the fact that the US achieved total air superiority. "
But at what cost? You risk a heavy bomber in exchange for a chance to get a fighter? That's a really bad trade.
One could argue, that it would be better to use those assets more carefully, and simply deal with some enemy air presence, but that would make way too much sense...
" The american planes were simply better "
Nah. You guys simply had more of a much better aviation fuel. That's the whole difference.
" boom and zoom tactics "
That's "hit and run" in common lingo. Meaning, you take a potshot and scram, leaving the assets you were expected to protect unprotected.
Brilliant!
" german planes when they had to land due to running out of fuel "
While they were defending Germany ? Right on top of their airbases?
Okay, that's enough. I stop here.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@seanmac1793 " the object of the narrow front [is to go] through there and into Germany "
Yes, eventually . The immediate object was to cut off the ports and clear them.
The irony of the whole situation was, that regardless if you like the narrow or the broad front strategy, you still need the ports. So you must attack in the North first , no matter what.
The obvious advantage of the narrow front approach was that they could do it immediately, when the enemy was weak.
" You don't put an army group commander over another army group commander "
Of course, those petty little narcissts would totally flip out if you'd do that...
I'm so bitter, because I'm from Poland, and that was the last chance for us to become independent. The W. Allies could have taken Berlin. For two reasons:
1. They'd be faster if they took the ports half a year earlier.
2. What was the alternative for the losing Germans? Soviet occupation, and they really didn't want that.
With the W. Allies right around the corner, we'd be able to keep Poland free. There would be a nation wide uprising if necessary. It already almost happened. The armed resistance against the commies went on for the next 20 years, and there was practically no chance for a successful resolution. If there was a chance, we'd go for broke.
All of that at stake, much different shape of the Cold War, because the West is much stronger while the Soviets are weaker.
But you can't make one narcisst bend the knee to another narcisst. Well, of course you can't. If they weren't narcissts, they wouldn't be able to do this job at all. Normal person would end up broken when every mistake and every success results in people getting killed.
It is what it is.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I came back to comment again, after I've listened to Sławomir Menzen, who is a Polish politician from Konfederacja:Wolność party, which is the absolute extreme right, the most pro free market party in Parliaments of Europe right now. Nobody comes even close. Law and Justice party, which is considered to be far right in the West, is center-left in comparison to them.
So, he's a wise guy and he offered several insights, which I consider to be worth propagating further.
1. The country can't be ruled by economists, because economy is incapable of establishing truth. The lead economists disagree with each other on absolutely fundamental issues. In other words, they don't know squat.
2. He compared Classical Economy to Classical Physics. Newtonian physics worked perfectly well on usual scales, but when the velocities became very high, the masses very big, the distances very small and so on, it failed us. He suspects (he's still working it out), that it's quite possible that Classical Economy will fail us when the scale of events becomes extreme.
The example he considered here was immigration. It's obvious that small scale immigration has positive impact on the economy, but just because that happens, we should not assume that large scale immigration will be even better. One does not guarantee the other.
3. Free market has limitations. The two obvious examples, which we know to be true, because we have observations of it happening, are armament and food production. Investing in armament is extremely wasteful. During peace, nobody needs weapons, and especially nobody needs factories which are capable of producing huge amounts of them, but once the war starts, you can't simply buy arms outside. You either produce those weapons internally, or you are badly armed.
The same goes for food. It may not be economical to keep producing food locally, but once the cannonballs starts flying, it's too late and you face starvation.
4. There is no way of making money on Science. The only difference between us and Dark Age Europe is what we know. Scientists did not earn a dime on what they discovered. Inventors often do not, scientists have no chance. Yet, the whole world benefited from their discoveries immensely . Nothing ever has changed the world as much as Science. Maybe agriculture, but I doubt it.
Why did I bother writing all of that? Because I got the impression, that from Socialist you switched into an Anarcho-Capitalist, which means that you totally flipped to the other side. Menzen is an extreme far right, yet he recognizes the limitations of the philosophy he considers to describe the world the most accurately. Philosophy! Economy is not a hard science. Only empirical sciences are hard, the rest is just running your mouth a lot.
So I simply hope you will keep on thinking and keep on developing your understanding further. Don't just flip from one side to the other. You are way too wise for that.
3
-
@ExternalThreat There are exceptions like awards, but otherwise science is a non-profit activity. Galileo, Copernicus, Gauss, Ampere, Volta, Darwin, Newton, etc, the list is endless. None of those guys was able to market and sell their ideas.
Since there is no profit associated even with the most beneficial and useful scientific discoveries, capitalism is incapable of funding science. Science initially was funded by scientists themselves, and that's why they were always wealthy to begin with. It was a hobby of the rich. Later we figured out that's it's so useful, that it actually makes sense for the society to fund it.
Transistor which made it possible for You to read my post, was funded by the state. Internet was funded by the state. It's quite likely you used an ARM processor to send your post. The earliest projects were funded by the state. So on, and so forth. Open up and examine your smartphone. I bet you'll find a state funded project at the root of most, if not all, of important technologies which make it useful.
Capitalism is an evolutionary system. You have a nerve which starts in your head, goes around your heart and goes back to your head. Why such nonsense? Because evolution is incapable of insight, so a complete redesign is simply impossible. Humans are capable of insight, though. That's why we sometimes decide to do what makes "no financial sense", because we are able to foresee that it might lead to large scale benefits in the future.
3
-
You are British, so you must be aware of how many various, and extremely differing, nations this conglomerate was originally composed of. It was the same for every nation ever . They start as a "multiethic" conglomerates, then they agree on a set of values and become a nation.
Hence, every "mono-ethnic" state is a result of a successful multi-ethnic experiment. Like Britain, France, Germany, China, India, Italy, Poland, Russia, USA, Greece, and even Spain.
Hence, if you try to oppose the one with the other, it's like trying to oppose small business with big business. If you are good at what you are doing, you gonna grow. It's like trying to oppose children and their parents. Yes, they differ, but without a parent, there would be no children.
What I mean by that? People are conformist not because they are "incapable of thinking". This strategy, of becoming a part of a team, and working toward a common goal, was proved extremely successful over and over again.
Actually, it's what differentiates us from apes. They can do it too, but they aren't even closely as good as we are at this game.
Maybe those "unwashed" and "unthinking" crowds do something right, after all?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@pavlovsdog2551 " Red Army was NOT destroyed "
4.5 mln casualties, more than 2 mln prisoners. The Red Army was not just destroyed, it was destroyed twice over.
" if the Germans HAD invaded in May, despite the weather, and allowed the front to stagnate along the border for a few weeks "
The answer is very easy. The Germans wouldn't have been able to inflict those staggering losses.
" allowing the Soviets to fully commit their reserves "
The Soviets wouldn't have done that, simply because they weren't able to supply more soldiers on the front. Actually, they might have pulled some of their units back, and deploy the defense in depth, simply because a stationary unit is not using as much resources, while a fighting unit needs a lot of those.
At the same time they'd surely train their reservists. No advantage for the Germans.
" BEFORE unleashing the blitzkrieg beast in June "
So they'd train the Red Army in combat for a month, before trying to totally humiliate it? They'd let them build fortifications, fire incompetent commanders, quite likely get rid of the "double command" of the political officers, so forth?
I mean, they'd likely win the early battles even against a better prepared Red Army, but their victories would be much smaller in scope and they'd likely never be able to even reach Moscow.
Their strategy was correct. Hit them hard and hope they'll collapse soon after.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
What a horrible babbling! I mean Marx, not you TIK. Even with clarifications provided, which do make it more comprehensible, it's still horrible babbling.
(Edit: Regarding evolution of human "sub-species", I can't write the word, it's being shadow-banned. Anyway, it's pseudo science. Human "sub-species" definitely do exist and saying that this idea has no basis in genetics it utter idiocy. Sorry, there is no other way of putting it. Genetics determines those very obvious phenotypical differences, like melanin levels, the shape of the nose, eyes and many others.
It's not my fault that current science is so broken. I wish it was different.)
3
-
3
-
+Michael McCabe - Sorry to say that, but the information about Piłsudski on badassoftheweek.com is not correct. It's the version of history Piłsudski liked to spread about himself, and managed to do so while he gained absolute power in Poland after his putsch.
For once, he's being portrayed as a great military leader, while he had no military education. He was a professional spy and a politician, not a military leader. We know that for sure. It's not a speculation, them's the facts.
Then it's written that he lead Polish forces during this battle. He didn't. He resigned just before the battle and went AWOL, doing other stuff, and took back his resignation letter only after the battle was already won. We are absolutely sure that happened, because his resignation letter was copied and couldn't be wiped out from historical record after Piłsudski usurped power in Poland. Though they tried.
People who actually lead Polish army were Rozwadowski and Weyand. Rozwadowski was later murdered by Piłsudski.
Sad, but true.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+fazole - Yeah, it's true that they tried to win a quick war, but that's mostly because a quick war was the only one they could hope to win. It's also the most attractive proposition, since it offers high rewards at potentially low cost.
Regarding "high level of strategic thinking", I just don't know. I simply doubt that people capable of high level of tactical thinking were totally out of their depths there. War is war. It's not like it changes into something totally different on higher levels of abstraction. You need supplies, reinforcements, medicare, food, clothes, fuel, ammo and what not whether you are leading a country to war or just a platoon.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It's been tried. The citizens were rich, the government was poor and powerless. We were wiped out off the map !
One single province of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth was richer than the whole of Prussia. There were no roads, very few bridges, small and weak army, extremely low taxes, your ancap paradise. Yet it was the poor Prussia, even poorer (though bigger) Russia and Austria who took a piece each and the map looked quite different all of a sudden.
What's up with you and utopist ideas? First socialism, now this, the exact opposite? Grow up already. It's all gray.
"Imagine multiple police services competing in fighting crime."
I don't need to "imagine" it, it's been tried. You could hire a dude to execute the court order for you. There were private wars with private armies running into the thousands , regular sieges, the lot. The history of Rzeczpospolita should be a required reading for any ancap fanboi.
How would you fire a corrupt judge? They stayed in business, simply because there was no way of getting rid of them! You guys are so naive.
I could go on like that forever and find an actual example for every "imagine" of yours. Do some reading on Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. I mean it.
2
-
@ZIEMOWITIUS " AnCap practices only apply to a certain group of people "
We were asked to "imagine" what would happen if taxes were low, government was poor and citizens rich.
Well, that undoubtedly was the case.
The roads and bridges were supposed to "build themselves", by pure "free market" magic. It did not happen
Romans build roads, PLC build palaces.
Ancap position was proven incorrect.
We were told to "imagine" what would happen, if private security was more powerful than that of the government. The "free market magic" was supposed to create a safety paradise, with extremely efficient armies and what not.
It did not happen
Private armies resulted in private wars. While those armies were much more numerous and powerful than the state armies, their average quality was definitely lower.
Ancap position was proven incorrect.
The same with judicial system etc.
" It sure sounds like you're inventing it out of the blue. "
Wacław Potocki, a poem titled "Nierządem Polska stoi" (Poland is based on anarchy). Early XVIIth century.
" Non-nobles, who comprised well over 90% of the population "
That's not true for PLC. In some regions, like around Warsaw, the percentage of nobles was close to 30%. Somewhere around 15% overall.
" a lot harder to become a citizen "
You could buy a title from a pleb.
You could serve in the military and be granted a title.
Finally, and that did happen often, you could simply lie. The only guys they caught were those who lied about belonging to a powerful family. The family took offence and whipped the liar, so forth.
It follows, that if you were smart and lied about being from a poor family, nobody ever would catch you.
" The szlachta themselves were the state "
Nice denial tactic. I was told, that "less government = always better", and when we see that it wasn't always better, you run away into "it wasn't pure ancap" BS.
" it was a revolt against the szlachta "
Those were common in Middle Ages, while they never happened in PLC.
And the one in Galicia was after a "capitalist" reform, which we are told, was
"objectively" better and more fair to the peasants.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Gvjrapiro I responded already once, but the post was blocked. Didn't know why? Too direct, though no insults, so it shouldn't be that. Then i got it.
I explained why Hitler was against comintern, and it had something to do with his racial views and the nation which at the time dominated those circles. Unfortunately I named them, which is not something you can allow on a YT channel.
Apart from that your "self-admitted righty" argument is pointless, because nazis were self-admitted socialists. Whether you believe them or not, you just can't use this line of argumentation. It's pointless.
Regarding "social views", I mentioned "Women who flew for Hitler." There were at least two high-profile female test pilots. Nazis used films produced by female director. Those king of things simply didn't happen in less progressive societies of Western Democracies.
But they did happen in Nazi Germany. So nazis were socialists not only on economy, but also with respect to gender roles.
Sorry for my post being long winded and boring, but a more direct one was blocked. Just what nazis would force people to do. Censorship and propaganda, very lefty thing, and it's the world we are living in.
2
-
@Gvjrapiro "a right wing philosophy that called itself socialists"
That's false. Nazi 25 points program is easily searchable. Do it. There is a lot of socialism there (majority!), nothing is libertarian, some parts are nationalistic. Definitely not a "right wing philosophy". Not by a mile.
"I agree, there is no such thing as a right wing socialist... which means"
...That you are experiencing a cognitive dissonance. You have two, maybe three options here. Follow the reason and change your views, forgo the reason and keep your views, or simply leave it all alone for a while. But it will come back.
"It seems a hell of a lot more common for righties to be racist"
So, who founded KKK?
"why would they take down some random history channel?"
Because of censorship. Hate speech laws is censorship and YT plays according to those. Partly because they have to, partly because they want to. It's their "religion". Many people have been blocked, their channels deleted, just because they didn't conform to what Silicon Valley culture considers acceptable. It happens all the time. TIK is scared, and rightfully so. He does not share YT approved views, so he can be deleted, like so many people before him.
"Mate, that's capitalism."
I agree, I'm a centrist actually. My belief is that we have anti-trust laws for a reason so we should simply enforce them. YT has absolutely dominant position on the market right now, they should be held accountable for that. And it's a public forum, where free speech should be protected.
That's not what they do, though.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
That's the problem with philosophy - It relies on surface level of understanding and sophisticated use of language way too often. For example, you say that "We sense reality directly through our senses. Our eyes do not change reality before it hits our brain."
That's factually incorrect. Our senses are a bunch of neurons, which become excited by stimuli, then send the electrical signal (done chemically, just for fun) into our brain. The brain creates a sensation. There is nothing direct about this process.
Anyway, yes, we can't know everything. Yes, it's impossible to prove that we know something, especially if the other side refuses to listen. However, we can know something nonetheless. And we can know it, because our ideas can be verified .
In history, it does not happen all the time, since new sources become available only when someone researches a new concept. Yet, still, newly discovered ancient texts do appear from time to time, so even that happens. Apart from that, we can verify history through non-historical means. Archaeology, chemistry, biology, genetics, everything we've learned since the original idea or narrative first appeared.
Then it's the "crossword puzzle" analogy. There is a crossword puzzle popular in my family, where you have to guess not only the words, but also where to put them. The beginnings are very hard and there is a lot of guesswork involved, but by the end, when it's all filled out, it's obvious that it's the only correct solution (with minor errors still possible).
So it's really possible to know something and history is not special. Every other branch of knowledge relies on the same mechanism.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@BenTrem42 Re: philosophy of science
It seems rather obvious to me, that philosophy of science follows science, strives to describe it, instead of being the basis of the scientific investigation.
" rigorous experiments do not disprove [theories]. "
Well, scientists usually talk about verifying or testing theories, much less often about falsifying them. The difference is subtle, but meaningful.
The concept of falsification suggests, that all theories are "wrong", and it's just a matter of time before we are able to show it. That in turn suggests, that "truth" is just a momentary illusion, while I (and most scientists, I believe) think that the Sun is really at the center of the Solar System, electrons really exist, a heart is a pump, our mind is in our brain, etc.
In other words, I do believe that science discovers objective truths about reality, not just builds progressively more precise mathematical models of it.
If mathematical precision was all that mattered, Ptolemy was "correct", while Copernicus was "wrong".
2
-
@Loehengrin " your own motivation in adopting Objectivism "
I can't say that I adopted it, at the very least because I don't really know what it is all about.
All I can say is, that I disagree with their premises, as outlined by TiK. Namely, I'm quite sure that our sense definitely are not a perfect representation of reality.
I might like where they end up, but it's really hard to adopt a worldview based on silly premises.
" Why adopt any school of thought "
A part of it would be convenience. It's extremely tiring to try to figure out every decision you make from ground zero, even if you have the capacity for it.
The other reason is necessity, because most of us simply do not have the capacity to think everything through at every step we take.
Therefore, it's useful to have at least a starting point, which is much further out along the way. It may not be the perfect way, but at least the direction is already predetermined. For better or worse.
" I find the road that looks most likely to take me to my destination "
You wouldn't need to make this choice, if the route was already pre-planned by a worldview that you adopted. What's more, once you adopt the worldview, you don't even need to choose the destination.
Beats the pants off the alternative, which is aimless wandering from "start to finish" of our short stay here. Definitely for most of us, I believe.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@steenkigerrider5340 "The Germans lost an army 3 times the size of Stalingrad in Tunisia"
That's total nonsense. You are living in a la-la land. The total loses in Tunisia amounted to 250-350 K, while during the rather narrowly defined Battle of Stalingrad the Axis have lost 650-870 K. That's after the late August, which is a period TIK is just entering in his Battlestorm documentary. I don't remember how many episodes of heavy, really heavy, fighting he already covered, while he obviously ignored all the other operations on the (so called) Eastern Front.
That's easily over a million of casualties in the whole campaign, only in the Northern sector of Fall Blau. So it's actually almost exactly the other way around. That is, the Germans at Stalingrad alone suffered losses three times the size of the Tunisia disaster.
"considerable amount of troops to cover their whole southern European flank."
Sure. Still, one out of five (that's 80%) of their troops fought on the Eastern Front. Coincidentally, that's the percentage of Soviet troops which fought there too. 80% vs 80%.
"The concentration of panzer equipment was nowhere greater than in Normandy."
Remember to shout it very loudly, while covering your ears at the same time. I'm not sure it will work, but no harm in trying... ;-)
"Let's agree to firmly disagree on this one. :)"
I'm not giving up yet. So far you seem like a reasonable person, who was simply misinformed during all those years of Cold War. I mean, we'll see. Maybe agreeing to disagree is the best we can do, but I'm not giving up yet.
"in the early 70's Visited Eastern Germany"
I visited there in late 70s. It looks like we narrowly missed each other, or so it seems almost half a century later. Time's flying.
BTW - roughly at the same time three of my friends (all kids, of course) decided to run away to America. I mean it. They lifted some change from their parents and tried to get to you guys. Everybody had a laugh.
Well, you used to be great, while we were shit. Not so obvious any more, is it?
2
-
2
-
"[Soviets] only lost three men for every casualty the Germans suffered"
That's not true. During the whole war, Germans have lost about 5mln dead, while Soviet losses amount to 11.5-ish mln of combat related deaths. To get any further than that, you must include civilian deaths. Leningrad, Stalingrad, famine, mass murders and so on. Do you really want to go that far to uphold your nazi-superiority myth? Well, you may, then 3:1 is possible.
Anyway, out of 11.5 mln soldiers about 3mln were POWs starved to death. So that's 8.5mln combat deaths. I doubt that starving people in POW camps is a mark of military prowess, but you are free to think what you want.
Then it goes further, because Germany wasn't fighting alone. The total Axis losses in the East claim up to 6.4mln dead, when you include non-German combatants.
8.5/6.4=1.31
I hope it's a hard pill to swallow. I'd gladly make it harder, if only possible. Just give me a hint how. :-D
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Regis1995 Actually, we didn't disagree all that much. It's possible to establish facts, and once we came to that, our disagreements suddenly appeared much smaller than before.
And that's the sad part. Because I do believe that if you let people discuss freely, and if they somehow manage to keep it civil, they eventually get closer to the truth and also their stances become less extreme.
The Internet helps, probably more than anything before that apart from print, but just as people back then went through a painful and often violent process of coming to grips with this new medium, we may still experience the worst of our Brave New Medium.
Still, it's a great thing. Have a nice day and a civil discussion about non trivial matters somewhere else, because Youtube is apparently not the best place for it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@yulusleonard985 "A6M zero skip alot of armor for mobility that it will easily turn into ball of fire."
That's mostly a myth. First of all, if there was a specific tradeoff with their relative lack of armor, that would be the range rather than mobility. The "fireball" exaggeration comes from that too, that is they chose not to use self sealing fuel tanks, because they decreased the range of their planes. (Interestingly, they opted for fire extinguishers instead.)
The upside was though, that with the tanks empty your plane was not weighted down with armor and sealing rubber, which allowed it to land at a slower speed.
In carrier operations there is a very solid relationship between the landing speed and accident rates. Apparently, accident rates grow with the cube of the landing speed, so adding some safety features is a double edged sword. Not even talking about the risk of running out of fuel in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
Anyway, armor protection is usually overrated. It protected just the pilot, only from certain angles and mostly from machinegun fire. The main reason for using it, in my opinion, was to increase the aggression of the pilots. Japanese hardly needed it.
2
-
2
-
@brucetucker4847 " * little effort was made by the leadership to preserve their lives. Putting them in flimsy, highly combustible planes* "
That statement is pretty much false. First of all, in carrier ops there is a very steep relation between landing speed and accident rate. I think it's square, from memory, so lowering your landing speed is guaranteed to save lives.
Then it's not true that Japanese planes were flimsy. They were light, but light in aviation often means strong. If you add weight anywhere, the loads increase, so you are forced to make the structure stronger, which means heavier, and so forth. Therefore a lighter structure might and often does prove to be stronger.
Anyway, they hardly had any choice in the matter, because of the engines they had available.
Regarding "highly combustible", Japanese planes carried fire extinguishers, which apparently worked fairly well. While self sealing fuel tanks seem like a great idea, they decrease the range and increase the weight even when empty. Is the tradeoff worth it? Would you rather risk running out of fuel because you got lost on the way home in exchange for a slightly lower chance of losing a plane in combat? Would you rather land at higher speed or lower? What if you are wounded?
Hard to tell.
" American plots were a LOT more likely to survive ground looping an F4U "
I think you chose your example poorly. F4U was notoriously difficult to land, simply because you couldn't see anything in this plane. I'd much rather land an A6M2. Nice and slow. Those huge ailerons still working. A beaut.
" the Americans always had more planes and more pilots, the Japanese did not "
What if it was the other way around? Would people argue that the Americans made all the wrong compromises, with their big and clumsy planes, difficult to land, expensive to build, etc?
I think yes, people would argue that. Which means, that the final outcome should not influence our analysis too much. The war was won through numbers, first and foremost.
2
-
@brucetucker4847 Re: armor is heavy, planes must be light
Duh!
Re: We used what we got.
Duh!
Re: Zero followed a faulty design philosophy.
You don't know what you are talking about.
Re: Self-sealing tanks.
Seafire was pressed into a service it was not designed to serve in. It was conceived as a high altitude/CAP fighter, which means it would fight with its top tank empty. It wasn't the case for carrier ops, because they tend to be at low altitude.
Regardless, they didn't make the top tank self-sealing, because it would cost them too much range. It was too costly. Therefore drop-tanks one way, and you fight with a firebomb in front of the cockpit. Tough luck.
Zero was more of a challenge in that regard. It absolutely needed huge range because of the theater. Additionally, the cost/benefit ratio for self-sealing tanks in the wings works out much worse than for a fuselage tank (but at least wing flames don't burn off your face...). Later Japanese used this safety feature, but only after the war came much closer to their home turf. Then they could afford it. Earlier on, they simply couldn't.
Re: Japanese engines.
I pointed that out. Give them double-wasps, they'd design their planes differently. I guarantee you that.
Re: Zero not superior, because it was underpowered.
Not superior to what and for what task? Most naval fighters simply could not dream of performing the missions Zekes were capable of. Over Darwin Australians, on their own home turf, lost more Spitfires due to running out of fuel than the Japanese. And it was a beast in a scrap too. Contemporary advice to the allied pilots was to go into a 6g descending spiral and hope that you survive it better than the Zeke's pilot, because the allies had those early g-suits.
Or just dive (translation - run away!).
Kind of desperate, isn't it?
" any account of any Allied pilot declining to wear a parachute "
That's most likely a myth. You simply can't pilot a Zeke without a chute. You sit on it! Maybe bomber crews? Well, in that case, I could at least entertain this possibility. Though chuting out in the middle of the Pacific, on a far ranging mission, is not necessarily a way I would like to go out either, so I could understand.
With that said, I agree that humanist ideals were alien to the Japanese civilization. It does not mean it cost them the war, though.
2
-
@shrose68 "Just know that thinking that "big government" equals "left wing" is a childs understanding of political economy"
At which point did I suggest that my understanding of ideology is so one-dimensional?
With that said, lefties prefer big government. Always. (Until you count anarchists as lefties, then not always, but I'm not sure they qualify to be called that.)
Anyway, I believe you see that Nazis can't be classified as far-right, if they are openly left wing on many aspects of their ideology.
That's just silly.
Libertarians are far right. Nationalists with a capitalist twist can be too. Nationalists with a socialist twist? Sorry, does not compute.
"Just because the Nazis called themselves socialist doesnt mean they were" and "Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea"
Yeah. That's true, but Nazis actually realized socialist agenda, while there is no democracy in Korea.
Socialists believe that everybody should get as much as they are contributing to the society. Regardless of market forces, regardless of inherited wealth, regardless of personal achievements. Hitler didn't just say he agreed with that. He actually did stuff, which lead us to believe he really meant it.
It's not only what you say, it's what you do. So while there is no democracy in Korea, there actually was a form of socialism in Nazi Germany.
2
-
2
-
@ComradeOgilvy1984 "Either way, the one dimensional political model TIK employs is hopelessly simplistic"
Is it really? Let's see.
Communism-Socialism-Liberalism-Center-Conservatism-Libertarianism and Fascism?
Fascists are to the right of Libertarianism? National Socialists are more to the right than Libertarians?
No, this model is not totally useless, but the reality is simply different. Fascists should be between Communists and Socialists on economy and personal freedoms, while they should be considered to be almost exactly centrists as far as social order is concerned (family, religion and nation).
They were right bang in the middle on those issues and very much to the left on pretty much everything else.
So how come they are considered to be far right? Well, let's examine their doctrine. They believed in indoctrination and propaganda, so lying to the public was right up their alley.
What would have happened, if people who actually believe in many aspects of Fascist ideology took over? Just hypothetically speaking, you know.
Would they honestly admit that discredited Fascism and Nazism were close to their ideals, or maybe rather they'd try to use indoctrination and propaganda in order to paint one of theirs as belonging to the camp of their ultimate enemy?
It's just a thought experiment, obviously. Luckily we are not in this alternate universe, where people are indoctrinated to such an extent... Clown World is just an illusion and white is actually black. ;-)
2
-
@ComradeOgilvy1984 "extreme form of Royalism, thus a true and inevitable outgrowth of right wing thought, right?"
No, not really. Monarchists believe in free market and small government. They just don't believe in democracy, so in order to prevent political entities from gaining support by granting more and more promises to the masses, they want an independent power structure, which will be immune to this process.
They do not consider the individual to be an unimportant part of a hive structure. They just (realistically?) believe that the position of an individual is very vulnerable and needs protection. Hence monarchy. That will "solve" all the problems with democracy, won't it? ;-)
Anyway, one thing monarchists can always rightfully claim, is that monarchies did work . In the long term! While socialism somehow always ends up being badly implemented...
"shoehorning complex political thought into a left to right spectrum is hamstringing the discussion."
Sure. Especially when it looks like the worst crimes against humanity were all committed by the left, so it definitely is wrong to do it that way... ;-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@paranoidandroid9511 "hey are to the right of center since you have to be part of the "racial national identity""
Oh, I see, they were righties, because they were racists? Well, then African National Congress are righties too... ;-) Though they foolishly claim to be hardcore Socialists.
Whether you are willing to put forward national goals, racial goal or gender goals has little to do with what kind of goals you are trying to achieve.
Nazis tried to achieve Socialism for Germans. The goals are what matters here, not the scope. When you advance as a politician from local to national level, you don't suddenly change your political affiliations, do you?
"Having an economic and a social axis makes sence becausee you may have people who combine parts of diferent ideological trends. Like beeing caltural liberal, but fiscal conservative."
How about religion axis? How about family? How about environmentalism? And so on, and so on. Why only taxes and personal freedoms? Actually, wasn't it authoritarian-libertarian axis just a post ago?
Oh, I got it again. You complicate the model for as long and on as many levels until you can put Nazis on the right!
Damn, I can be real dense sometimes... ;-)
2
-
2
-
"Poland being aggressors stem from the Polish-SOVIET war of 1920"
The war was started almost solely by Piłsudski, who was a guy transported from his luxurious quarters in Magdeburg, technically in German captivity. This war was in German interests, because it coincided with many plebiscites deciding the fate of many formerly German territories. Germans did gain from it.
Piłsudski was a German "guy" (read spy). He refused the deal offered by the Soviets and went on a rampage toward Kiev, despite a very strong opposition in Poland. This opposition is documented very well in surviving press archives.
"Polish–Ukrainian War of 1918"
Purely defensive. Later on Piłsudski closely cooperated with Ukraine and even tried to guarantee them independence. It didn't work, though.
"Polish–Lithuanian War 1919"
It wasn't even a war. Polish people took Wilno several times, but never from Lithuanians. Because Lithuanians have never controlled it, and that's because they didn't live there any more (confirmed by independent censuses). Not our fault, is it?
"numerous uprisings"
Yeah. It's a proof, that plebiscites were at least manipulated to the German benefit.
"Did the Poles assist the Germans in the annexing of Czechoslovakia?"
There was no cooperation. Polish forces took over a very small part of contested territory with no opposition and almost no violence. Czechs did the same 20 years earlier. Tit-for-tat, no hard feelings.
"rose tinted glasses"
No, I don't think so. I believe that we are viewed unfairly. Many people here are very disappointed about it, tbh. They are like: "What was the point of all this heroism? They rag about us all the same. We should've behaved much more egoistically."
I think they might be correct. Unfortunately.
2
-
@REgamesplayer "inhabitants were polanized"
Became polonized, eventually. Through marriage and schools. They became Poles.
"Lithuanians who were identifying themselves as poles" were Poles. That simple.
"Your nation had aided Nazies"
That's a lie, and a very frustrating one too. We, did, not, do, any of it. At all. And we paid a huge price for it.
Yet now you rag on as anyway. I mean, really... People who argue we were idiots for not trying to cut a deal of sorts do have a point!
"Munich agreement"
Why do you cry a river about it? If Czechs would, I'd understand, but it's always somebody else...
Until you are a Czech, shut the eff up! Your feelings do not matter to us.
Anyway, the Czechs accepted the "loss" of Zaolzie. Both the Poles who lived there and the Czechs who lived there, preferred to be in Poland instead of in Nazi Germany.
Weird, I know.
"Each and every pole I talk about is full of shit and throws half understood half-truths."
How come, if this topic is barely existent in our education system? Is it possible, that we tell how it actually was, while the accusations of systemic propaganda you guys throw our way should possibly be reversed?
Think about it, man. We don't hate you. We never did. You do hate us, but you guys were always decent enough to refrain from murder. That counts! Big time!
There is no reason for all this enmity.
2
-
@REgamesplayer "They were Lithuanians and other nationalities identifying themselves as poles. This is different."
You mean, the culture does not matter, only blood? Who are you, a "j e w"? Don't be like them. You guys are better than that.
Anyway, 100 years later, they still identify as Poles.
"invading foreign countries together with Nazies"
Czechs invaded Zaolzie in 1920 together with the Soviets. Do we care? No. So just shut up about it. It's none of your business. We invaded Zaolzie in 1938, for exactly the same reasons they did. Do they care? No. So just shut up about it. Your opinion does not interest neither Czechs nor us. It's none of your business! Do you understand that?
"It is far more convenient and pleasant to play victim's card"
Could be why it's not taught at all here. So it means, we are not propagandized to hold some special view, are we? Who is being propagandized, then?
"by trying to steal our capital"
I asked you what would you guys do if you were us? You never dared to answer. Please, do.
Anyway, "trying"? There was no "trying" involved. If we "tried" at all, we could roll over the whole Lithuania. With ease. We just defeated the Red Army, if you happen to remember...
BTW - If we didn't defeat the Soviets, you'd become a Soviet republic 20 years earlier. There is no reasonable doubt about it at all. Think about it, just for a second. You'll immediately know I'm correct.
"political cooperation impossible. We had entered into state of cold war"
I know. I'd hope you guys would stop it 100 years later, but it's not so easy, apparently. Aren't you guys tired of it all? Maybe it's time? Finally?
"Germany had offered us to attack Poland together to take back Vilnius."
I didn't know about it. Respect!
"founding legends are formed about Vilnius"
I understand. You guys should have taken Piłsudski's deal (he was from Lithuania). You'd have kept Vilnius and everything around in exchange for not being hostile to the Poles.
But you rejected the deal! What would you do, if you were us?
"to be independent and not crushed between Soviet or Polish occupation. "
Do you understand we could have occupied you guys with ease? Two weeks all told, or thereabouts. If not for our interests, the Soviets would have immediately "liberated" you, like they did 20 years later.
You were an independent state, for the first time in centuries thanks to us. Be a little bit less salty, how about that?
"Poland could not figure out anything for two decades and had locked entire region into cold war with itself."
Okay, I agree with that. How about you guys? You did everything perfectly well, didn't you? ;-)
"We were brothers mere decades ago."
Nah. When Poland has failed you and the Commonwealth collapsed, you turned sour toward us. That's the truth of it.
Yes, we have failed. Sorry.
"Two nations with one of the greatest historic bonds which ever existed between two nations completely ruined by Vilnius."
This is a convincing argument that it wasn't worth it.
You see, it's not like we care about the territory. Wilno is not that important to us. It was about the people. And the danger that you guys will turn Soviet.
We barely escaped sovietization ourselves, Germans were in danger, everybody was. Would you make an effort and understand our point of view?
Nowadays, when human lives are not in danger and the demographics is much more in favor of Lithuania, we have no claims toward Vilnius whatsoever.
But it's a shame that what happened has happened. We shouldn't be enemies.
I live around Czartoryski lands. They trace their roots to Gedymin and are very proud of it.
Take my hand, brother.
2
-
2
-
@aleksazunjic9672 "It is far better to use coupons then to have mass starvation."
Coupons become currency then. The rich can buy all the coupons and still have access to all the goods. I've seen it myself, it's not a "theory", it's what actually happens.
"While coupons are not ideal, they are only solution in case of shortages."
Shortages primarily come from destroying the purchasing power of currency. In a reasonably free market economy, there are no shortages, only high prices. If the prices are forcibly kept low, people buy more than they need, which results in shortages.
Do you remember the toilet paper shortage from two years ago? If the sellers were free to rise the price of goods, that would never happen. The shops would rise the price to the point, when they can't sell any more, so there would be some toilet paper left, albeit very expensive.
You freeze the prices, you are guaranteed to get shortages. Even without any other intervention.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
@lloydgush That's what Heraclitus said, that change is the only permanent feature of the Universe. He considered it a paradox, and on some level, he was correct.
TiK said that it was silly, because "you can get into the same river twice". But you can't, since rivers change over time, so Heraclitus was more correct than TiK.
What I said, my original thought, was that paradoxes like that stem from our misunderstanding of logic. We still tend to think in terms of boolean logic (true or false, no in-betweens), while a diffused set logic (truth, in-betweens, falsehood) fits much better to how we use language.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheImperatorKnight "debates in the comments"
Okay, let's debate why those people preferred the suicide over the return to the Soviet Union. You seem to argue, that they simply loved the free world so much, aka communism is worse than death, which suits your narrative and political views (mine do not differ by much, just to be clear on this).
I argue, that they knew what they have done, so they expected a fate worse than death, therefore they chose to escape it by more painless means.
Sending them off was not a crime against humanity. Sending off the innocent, and I'm sure there were quite a few of those mixed in the broad stroke of global politics, was a crime, at worst. However, not a crime against humanity. To fall into that category, the Allies would need to purposefully oppress some populations and commit atrocities against them.
I argue that nothing of the sort happened here.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@heijimikata7181 If Germans did the same, it still wouldn't have been a war crime.
Say, they captured some Hungarian communists during Barbarossa, and Hungary wanted them. Regardless of what Hungary did with those dudes, it's on them.
" illegal imprisonment and banishment "
They were POWs with no legal right to stay in any Western country. You can't banish someone who's not your citizen, so there was no banishment. POWs can legally be held captive.
Anyway, let me quote my other post, since almost nobody seemed to read it, and it's relevant to the whole picture:
"But let's not forget, what those people did in Nazi service. Was I a Polish guard in one of those camps (as TIK reported that happened), I'd not lift a finger in their defense. They were the worst of the worst. They were the most brutal, immoral, absolutely awful people purposefully sent to Warsaw in order to punish it for the uprising, just to give an example.
So, cry me a river over a rezun slitting his own throat for a change..."
Yes, those people you guys so valiantly defend were the actual perpetrators of both war crimes and crimes against humanity.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nadiafriesen971 Jet engines don't need high quality fuel. Usually they run on kerosene (high flash point, high caloric content), but they will burn anything. Also, contrary to popular belief, they aren't particularly inefficient while running at decent power. They can't idle, that's true, but that's also less of a problem for planes.
Sure, there were shortages which limited Me-262 utility, but those had to do with alloy metals. Germans lacked those, so they ended up making critical parts out of mild steel, which of course made the engines burn themselves out very quickly.
Regarding the impact of oil shortages, I think that TIK overstated his case here a little bit, like it happened before on some other occasions. Oil wasn't necessary to run WWII economy. It was based on coal. Oil was necessary to make modern war of maneuver on large scale, but that's a different story, isn't it?
Regarding what if scenario, USA was gearing for war, we know that for sure because numbers do not lie. Could Germany be eventually defeated without the involvement of Soviets? Maybe not, but who said that Soviets wouldn't be convinced to attack them?
Regarding Germans taking over North Africa, I doubt that would happen, and if it did, then it would be a trap. Royal Navy was too much for Kriegsmarine, so the more units you send there, the better for the Allies. As it was, they couldn't supply Rommel. A tiny force by comparison to what was needed for a proper invasion.
1
-
@nadiafriesen971 First the facts. I wrote that I checked the timeline and the first combat mission of Gloster-Meteor was in July 42 . Why have you ignored it and wrote about "first flies" in 1943? Meteor went into combat just few months after Schwalbe, and it was a better plane too, because the Brits had access to alloy steel, unlike Germans.
Regarding Malta, Egypt or Suez - it's largely irrelevant. Malta almost fell, because Brits weren't sure if it's worth fighting for, but once they decided to keep it and make a stand in Africa, they achieved those goals.
Say they lost Egypt. So what? They still keep all of the Middle East with their oilfields, resupplying their army in Iraq is no more difficult than in Egypt (you have to go around Africa in both cases), so what exactly changes? Germans still can't resupply their forces, Brits still can, USA is on another level and most probably joins soon.
The same game on a different field.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You argue that because the individual exists, therefore all collectivist ideologies are inherently flawed. If I understand you correctly, showing a strong example where collectivist ideology was successful would totally ruin this argument, would it not?
Whatever you may say about anything else, nations definitely exist. They not only exist, but they have proven to be a very powerful concept, capable of huge successes, however you want to measure those successes. Territorial success (controlling vast territories), material success (amassing huge wealth), cultural success (imposing their culture and language over others) and reproductive success (spreading their genes). All of that has happened over, and over, and over again. Not a fluke!
So if collectivism is apparently impossible as long as the individual remains in existence, how come ethnocentrism was still capable of all of the above? How come it happened so often and for so long?
That's simply because while extreme individualism and extreme collectivism are on the opposite sides of the spectrum, like all other extremes, the existence of a spectrum itself proves that the compromise between those two opposite concepts is obviously possible.
And history has shown us, that at least sometimes this compromise is also extremely powerful.
1
-
1
-
@NorthAmericaIsBestAmerica "Most of the high octane fuel used by the Soviet Airforce came from lend lease."
That's what Wikipedia says, but I have my doubts. They quote that the total amount of all petroleum products delivered to the USSR under LL was almost 3mln tons. Even if all of that was high octane aviation fuel, it's still less than documented domestic Soviet production. They managed to produce about a million tons of avgas alone , per year, throughout the whole war.
http://www.teatrskazka.com/Raznoe/StatSbornikVOV/StSbVOV04.html#t6
We can also see, that while their gasoline production went down quite a lot at some point, they managed to keep their avgas production up and later even increase it by 50%.
Oh, their aviation fuel had an octane rating of 95. US made avgas could be better, resulting in lower sparkplug fouling or even higher octane rating, or both. That could be true, but while definitely helpful, I can't see how it could be considered essential.
1
-
@NorthAmericaIsBestAmerica Yes, sources are unreliable, all of them. But they are the sources ! Without unreliable historical sources we are left with speculations, which is way worse.
Anyway, I find it suspicious that the Soviets could build a half decent and definitely sizable aviation without at least some basic understanding of how to increase the octane rating of gasoline to the required level. And they had that for sure before the war even started.
So you see, both the claims of Wikipedia and your own are possible to be refuted with rather basic reasoning, therefore I find them very doubtful at the very least. Worth some checking, maybe? Who knows, there could be some truth to them, which the Soviets then and the Russians now are reluctant to admit. But still, rather doubtful.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Opposite stances can be both partially correct and partially incorrect. It's very rare, when trying to describe very complex systems like economy or social behaviors, that one stance describes the reality so accurately, that it completely nullifies the opposite viewpoint.
For example, just because Keynesian economy leads to socialism does not implicate that "taxes are just theft", which is something you seem to believe in. Just because education is a state sponsored babysitting program does not mean that it's largely useless. Well, why not we try and see how a fully "homeschooled" society would look like? Thankfully, we can. It happened before. Most people were illiterate and extremely ignorant, hence very vulnerable to propaganda.
So, is education worth it in the end? I don't know for sure, but at the very least I'm aware that there are serious risk in ignoring it altogether.
Or, another example. You quote a scientific opinion and treat it as a statement of fact. Which it is not, and the only way of knowing that, is by understanding the basis for the statement. I'm referring to "races don't exist" statement, which you very obviously do not understand. I'll just point out that it's the very same people who say that races have no scientific basis, who insist on "fair representation" of various ethnic groups. So, if that was a statement of fact, how come could we even recognize "unfair" representation?
In summary, maybe, and quite likely, I'm missing a lot of nuance in what you say, because of cultural and language barier, maybe I'm oblivious to some sarcasm, but it does seem to me that you show a tendency for jumping between extremes. It isn't all bad, since you are always willing to question your current view, but it seems to be a thing, so it'd useful to at least be aware of that.
Best wishes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@horatio8213 "TIK do it and you should do it the sam to prove him wrong."
I did. The relevant topic is the state of Soviet economy post war. I have found the source and posted the title, quote, reasoning behind it and a direct link. In a separate post.
This tank thing was just an addendum. I found it symptomatic, because similar to this video, TIK have read a bunch of sources, analyzed them as best he could, then came up with a conclusion which could be easily falsified.
Anyway, I have found it.
Under "Soviet "War-Winning" Tanks in 1941? The Role of Tanks on the Eastern Front WW2" video I wrote:
"What's the point of putting high velocity guns on tanks? To punch holes in frontlines? No. It's to punch holes in enemy armor.
If tank-on-tank encounters were as insignificant as you seem to put it, WWII tanks would be designed differently.[...]
To which TIK responded with:
"There's two aspects to this. One, your tanks need to be able to fight enemy tanks, because they may run into them and there's no guarantee there will be a friendly AT gun around to help. And two, the Matilda Mark II suffered from not having a sufficient gun, and couldn't fire HE rounds, making it poor against infantry (which was it's purpose, as an "infantry tank"). So you do need higher calibre guns. You also need range, because you don't want to be out-ranged by the enemy AT guns - e.g. 88mms in North Africa comes to mind.
But here's a question for you - why are light tanks still in use? Surely, they would have been replaced by heavier and heavier tanks if they weren't capable of going toe-to-toe with a heavy tank?"
So, as we see, my argument was valid and I did not distort his opinion. If I did, he could simply dismiss it as irrelevant. Which he did not do , but responded with a counter of a possible lack of friendly AT gun.
Of course I responded further, but that's where the discussion ended.
1
-
@horatio8213 "You just prove that TIK was right, because he in both statements put point on importance of anti-tank and kiling soft target."
Nonsense. If you are correct, my argument would be irrelevant. Dismissed, not countered.
If you are correct:
Me: You said tanks hardly ever fight tanks.
TIK: That's not what I meant.
Me: Oh, sorry.
If I am correct:
Me: You said tank-on-tank doesn't matter, because tanks fight infantry while AT guns fight tanks. So why bother with AT guns on tank turrets?
TIK: Idunno. Just in case?
See? By trying to show that my argument is wrong, he validates my understanding of his position.
Besides, I challenged him on this once again quoting Nicolas Moran. He responded that Chieftain thinks like a tanker, not like a strategic commander. AT guns are cheaper, so that's how you are supposed to deal with a tank.
No! I'm not searching for it on Youtube! Let's pretend it's just my fantasy.
"Going to soviet economy you claim something without proper sources."
Nonsense. I wrote that I have the data and I have explained my reasoning. Do you want to read through it? So far only one person here addressed this topic at all.
"TIK bring his sources and his understanding of facts looks proper."
TIK is also extremely biased against Socialism, in case you didn't know. He's a human being. Listen to him, but don't just blindly follow everything he says.
Now, don't get me wrong. I like TIK, I respect him, but I'm no fanboy. I also hate Socialism (I was raised under this PoS), but I'm not blinded with hate because of that.
1
-
@horatio8213 TIK wrote: "One, your tanks need to be able to fight enemy tanks, because they may run into them and there's no guarantee there will be a friendly AT gun around to help. [emphasis mine] "
Basically, "Idunno, just in case." He truly believed, at least back then, that AT guns are for fighting tanks, while tanks should just act as mobile artillery. There are people who think that tanks mostly shoot other tanks, TIK recognized them to be wrong, so the opposite is obviously true, isn't it?
"Tank with great AT gun but without any way to attack soft targets (only MG is poor tool for that)."
Actually, Chieftain claims that you mostly fire your MG, but whatever. But I agree. You need both, and there were various ways how people tried to get there, different early in the war and late. I get it. TIK did not. Because he read a bunch of books, where tank-on-tank engagements appeared to be statistically insignificant.
But it's often like that. For example, on a different channel, people analyzed the effectiveness of close aerial support and came to the conclusion that it was almost useless. Very few hits, even less kills, so why even bother? They speculated that psychological impact could maybe explain that.
But it's not how it works. People avoid danger, so if you know there is an enemy tank in the area and you have no means of taking on him, you just don't go there . If the enemy is bombing the hell out of your transport columns, you don't use them during the day, you hide, you organize AA support and so on.
However, all of those avoidance measures cost you dearly. In ground taken, poor supplies, heavily impacted mobility and so on.
But the kill statistics don't show that, do they? So that's how people make false conclusions. TIK is not the only one here.
1
-
@horatio8213 Oh, I forgot the "You didn't show me the sources, I never asked for!" accusation...
Reassessing the Standard of Living
in the Soviet Union: An Analysis
Using Archival and Anthropometric Data
Elizabeth Brainerd
"Four different measures of population health show a
consistent and large improvement between approximately 1940 and 1969: child height, birth weight, adult height and infant mortality all improved significantly during this period. These four biological measures of the standard of living also corroborate the evidence of some deterioration in living conditions beginning around 1970, when infant and adult mortality was rising and child height and birth weight stopped increasing and in some regions began to decline."
One should always try to find a way of crosschecking the final conclusion. TIK has failed to do so. Despite arriving at a really weird conclusion, that Soviet Union was basically in a state of constant collapse. It did not surprise him, because he believes that Socialism is unable to produce wealth, but can only redistribute it.
That's what he read in a book, so it's obviously true...
So once again we have the same process at work. Socialists claim that Socialism is the best thing ever, TIK knows they are wrong, then the opposite must be true.
1
-
@horatio8213 "Then using simple logic iI ask about it."
No, you did not. You just accused me of not showing any sources, while I actually wrote that I did. In a separate post, not in this thread, in which up to now right next to nobody seemed to be interested in discussing the effing video.
"And that is your capital evidence that TIK mIssunderstand economics and policy in USSR?"
Yes, and I'm quite convinced about it. He did say that food production numbers were faked, while the population was starving. The first thing is to check how the population was actually doing, which I did, and TIK did not!
They were doing better than before, so TIK is wrong.
"whole industrialized world came with great jump"
I agree, but TIK claims that the Soviets did not participate.
"Also data itself as usual in USSR could be altered for many reasons."
Sure... Everybody was on it, but only from 1935 to 1970. Because before that the data show a decline and after that there are obvious signs of a recession.
That's just silly. Don't be silly. It hurts my brain.
"Whit less childrens even with less resources you can uplift their state."
Check the demographics data. It's just not true. Old men breed just fine, boys grow up quickly, so losing young men is no biggie.
"You mix two set of data and try that way made TIK thesis wrong."
Nonsense. He did say that the Soviets were simply faking it all, while the food production went down and didn't reach 1940 level even by 1953.
That is total nonsense! The population was doing better with every year even during the war. Think about it. The war was less of a problem than Stalin's purges, holodomor, kulak purges and lysenkoism.
Okay, time for a summary. I truly believe that your whole case stands on "TIK didn't really mean it!" So we both agree on the issues I raised, but you excuse TIK for being silly, because he surely couldn't have meant it.
Time to wake up! He really did.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@horatio8213 "[Ukraine] Starved by Stalin."
All of USSR was starved by Stalin, not just Ukraine. It was worse there than elsewhere (apart from Kazakhstan), but the famine was widespread.
"your claim about war rise production of grain!"
I never claimed that. Per capita means "by head" or "na głowę" (I'm Polish too). Neither Ukraine nor Kazakhstan could feed themselves in the early to mid thirties. Soviet Union could lose both and not get that much worse per capita !
"Ukraine was and still is food basket"
Sure, but if Socialists took over Sahara, they'd run out of sand. An old joke, but fitting.
Nobody, including you, seems to be aware of how bad the situation was during the famine of 1932-1933. The cannibalism was widespread. People were eating their own children.
When you compare wwII with that, it actually is possible that it wasn't any worse.
Why don't you read the paper? Just throw the title in Google and it's freely available from a bunch of sources.
Anyway, I actually studied it a little bit, trying to find traces of unreliability or fakery and can't find any . I mean it. It all looks convincing. Why? Let me explain.
The data are often scattered, there are holes in various sets, totally surprising results, which often paint a very damning picture of the Soviet Union. It all seems legit. Fake data tend to look very smooth and show no surprises. Also, when a liar admits he did something wrong, you tend to believe him. The data admit that the Soviets did plenty of wrong. Legit again.
Let's discuss Leningrad in particular. In the data it looks like children's health did not go down during the siege and later even went up considerably. Not what everybody would expect! It could be a blip, the data might not be very precise, too much noise, whatever, but you wouldn't expect that someone would fake such a result!
So fakery is probably out, but how about unreliability? If the data are more or less reliable, various independent datasets should agree with each other, and they do. The height of girls, boys, total calories per capita and calories from animal sources.
So it's possible that the data are reliable and we simply do not know how come children didn't suffer as much as expected.
You do not fudge I don't know result!
So once we exclude all the scatter and concentrate on clear signal, we can quite convincingly state that from 1935 till 1965 the condition of the Soviet population steadily improved .
1
-
@horatio8213 Gdzie na to wszystko są jakiekolwiek dane? Bo jeśli to prawdziwy obraz rzeczywistości, to musiał on mieć wpływ na populację.
Naprawdę przeczytaj tę publikację.
Na przykład są dane dorosłego wzrostu względem roku urodzenia. W późnych latach trzydziestych, kobiety są niby o centymetr wyższe od mężczyzn, co nie ma sensu, czyli dane są po prostu niedokładne.
Nikt nie naciąga danych w ten sposób! To prawdziwe dane, tyle że niedokładne. Ale jak pominiesz rozrzut, to i tak wynika z niego że ludzie w ZSRR rośli coraz wyżsi i tyle. Jakim cudem, skoro stale bidowali?
Dalej - są dane wzrostu dzieci miejskich i wiejskich. Duży rozrzut ale trendy oczywiste. O dziwo, w czasie pierwszej wojny też im się powoli poprawiało, ale przyszedł Lenin i zrobił głód. Potem na początku za Stalina szli ostro w górę, aż zaczął rozkułaczać i znowu głód.
Po co ktoś fałszowałby dane w taki sposób, że Leninizm wygląda gorzej niż pierwsza wojna światowa a Stalinizm wygląda na większą klęskę niż druga? Te dane nie są fałszywe.
"Odbudowa trwała, ale jako całość demogrrafia i ekonomia ZSRR nigdy nie odrobiły strat otrzymanych w drugiej wojnie."
Jesteś wyjątkowo odporny na argumenty... Nawet CIA szacowało wzrost PKB w ZSRR i im wyszło co innego. CIA też uprawia sowiecką propagandę?
1
-
@horatio8213 "Dane szacunkowe CIA [...] mocno przeszcowane"
Owszem. Od 30 do nawet 100% (realny wzrost dwa razy mniejszy niż szacowany), ale trendy z grubsza te same. Czyli można traktować je jako niezależną weryfikację, nawet jeśli bardzo przybliżoną.
"jak Japonia podniosła się z klęski po wojnie"
Oczywiście. Ci mieli cud, Sowieci nie mieli, ale to nie znaczy, że im się w ogóle nie poprawiło.
Dobra, znudziło mi się. Pogadajmy o czymś innym. Chleb niedawno zacząłem robić bo mam swoją mąkę (dzierżawię gospodarkę) i wszyscy się zajadali. Wirus ludzi wystraszył i chleba nie ma, no to co, aby drożdże kupić i git.
A tu kicha. Drożdży nie ma, bo wykupili. Tylko suszone dostałem, ale do kitu i nie rosło.
No to na zakwas przerobiłem i taki chleb mi wychodzi, że pojęcia nie masz. Ludzie wtryniają bez pojęcia. A tu jeszcze kobiety żurku na zakwasie nagotowały i też zupełnie bez porównania. Nie ma tego złego, co?
Szczerze polecam! Na sklepowej mące to zakwas się będzie długo robił, bo moja to rośnie jak na sterydach, ale wyjdzie. Roboty to mniej niż z drożdżami, tylko czasu wymaga. Chętnie pomogę, jeśli masz ochotę spróbować. Nie święci chleb pieką... ;-D
Trzymaj się.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@darkoneforce2 " * had very small range. And that meant they couldn't go far behind the front line.* "
Yeah, they couldn't go to Berlin, so women and children were safe, but they were good enough to escort IL-2s conducting tactically relevant missions.
Regarding air superiority, I'm not saying that it is useless, I'm only saying that how useful it seems depends on the price you pay for it. You guys were willing to trade a crew of 12 (not even talking about women and children) for a chance to get a single fighter. The pilot likely survived, too.
Just because you guys paid too much for something does not mean that the goods you purchased were worthless. And further, those who refused to pay the same price are not necessarily stupid, are they?
" germans finally wihdraw from Monte Casino "
Oh, that means my uncles fought for nothing. One stayed there too...
" An american bomber has more armor "
Look it up. Practically nothing. You repeat wartime propaganda. 80 years later.
Daytime "precision bombing" was a flop. The losses were unsustainable.
" Bomber losses were never really the problem "
BS
Regarding dogfighting tactics, when you escort a force, you need to stay with them. Or they become defenseless. Boom and zoom is fine, if you catch someone unawares and then escape to safety. For actually contesting an airspace, it's not all that. Soviets had both types of fighters. For escorts, they preferred Yaks.
Regarding killing off the pilots being the goal, I finally agree. Most of them died on the Eastern Front, though...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheImperatorKnight " Freedom comes from the ability to say no "
Many of my ancestors were enslaved. I bet they said "no" many times over. The trouble was, that the slavers were free to ignore it.
The rather inescapable conclusion should be, that if we make slavery illegal, we limit the freedom of the individual.
" to say that men COULD create slavery is missing the point "
Oh, the problem doesn't even exist? Silly of me not to see it that way...
" slave has the freedom to fight back "
Believe you me, they did.
But every prisoner ever had this choice available to them, so they were all "free", apparently.
Ergo, the problem does not exist. Again...
" Give me liberty or give me death. "
Fine, it might come to that, but I'll start with 20 lashes. I need to protect my investment, you see.
" democracy isn't freedom, it's state tyranny "
Stop redefining words. Yes, democracy is not freedom. No, it's not tyranny. Tyranny replaced democracy in many Greek city states. Those were two different forms of government.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ZIEMOWITIUS If you were a noble, PLC was pretty damn close to the ancap nonsense.
In feudal societies the power of the king was very strong, attenuated only with high aristocracy, who could lay a claim to the throne themselves.
Nothing of the sort happened in PLC.
It's the crucial difference, that allowed for the anarchistic character of PLC, which is stated over and over in the sources. They thought that PLC was anarchy, I didn't invent it out of the blue!
As far as capitalism goes, it was that too. Extremely low taxes, private security, private law enforcement, private just about anything you could imagine.
Yes, only the citizens held all those freedoms, but it wasn't very difficult to become one, if you had the guts for it. You didn't have to ask the king for permission, for starters.
As far as the fate of peasants go, let me just say that when supervolcano erupted in 1815 and brought the "year with no summer", there was famine all around the world, but not in former PLC lands. The only peasant uprising (common during Middle Ages) that ever happened here, was in the Austrian partition, which switched to paying rent with money, not work.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@panzerofthelake506 " Hierarchies in the animal world are based on families "
What do you mean by that? That a dominant stag is somehow allowed to rule, because he's a son of someone?
That wouldn't be true. He's dominant, because he dethroned the previous stag. Likely his father.
So, what do you mean?
" have no enforcement "
No enforcement? You live in a city, don't you? You read about the animal world in books about politics, that's all you know. Am I right?
" don't have hierarchies at all like Tigers "
Packs have hierarchies. Animals who don't form packs will still fight for dominance, but a strict hierarchy is hard to form. Because they rarely meet each other.
" There is no "structure" "
That's not true! Hyenas, for example, have a very strict structure.
Okay, I've no time. In a nutshell, humans are animals and our social structures are nothing special in the animal world. What distinguishes us from them is how big our societies can get.
But that's a new thing, in evolutionary timeframe. Thousands of years only.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Somberdemure " Define violence "
"the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy" From Webster.
" then there is self-defense "
Usually being violent is forbidden, but there are exceptions. Self-defense is one of those.
" which the state does "
So whenever the state uses a threat of physical force, it's violence, even if it rarely goes that far? However, when a citizen uses actual physical, or even deadly force, it's a non-violent self-defense?
You guys are as bad as marxists in smearing the meaning of words until they fit your agenda.
" reaching for straws and trying to over complicate rebuttals "
Unfortunately I had to dig deep, in more ways than one. I mean, I literally had to bury my dog this month. He was killed in a pack dispute.
I wish I was wrong about how dogs settle their disagreements, but unfortunately I was correct.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheImperatorKnight I recently exchanged a few posts with those haters. They have no arguments.
Yet they tend to repeat that names don't matter and that even if someone actually meant something at one point, later they could change.
That's pathetic, I know, but it's there. So in case you plan a follow-up, please consider including the actual Nazi practices. Of state-controlled wages, prices, profit margins, factories, shortages that followed, large scale corruption etc. and that it was pretty much exactly the same in the Soviet Union.
Actually, do what you want. You tend to know best anyway.
1
-
1
-
@Gvjrapiro "a form of socialism that was right wing"
Whoa! That's so absurd, that it literally melts my brain.
Oh, wait! I get it! Since Nazis were racist, it's simply impossible for them to be lefties? Well, how about current lefties who are willing to forgive everybody everything, but for the white man, who is always hated and always blamed for all the calamities, imagined or real?
Those are our current lefties, and they are very racist.
"what is socialist about giving women planes?"
Never heard about liberation of women?
Regarding Youtube, they block mostly right wing and centrist views. They let some token weirdos off the hook, because they have no clicks anyway, and YT can always point toward those to show how "fair" they are. But they are not fair.
With that said, I believe it was TIK who blocked my post. I don't blame him, whether he skipped through it in person or it's just some script which does most of the heavy lifting for him. He's in a tough spot, simply waiting for the moment when the YT gods strike his channel down. Being cautious is just prudent.
And that's how censorship works. I was raised under it, so it really annoys me when I see this POS coming back in force. YT tries to appease the rage-crowds, TIK tries to appease the YT and I'm trying to appease TIK. Nobody says what they think anymore and free exchange of ideas is broken.
Which is exactly what they want.
1
-
@Gvjrapiro So the Nazi program was just a rouse? Fine, let's pretend it's true, but even then it was a socialistic rouse, not a right-wing one. Definitely not a "right-wing philosophy" in any sense or form.
"Voter reform?"
Can't find it. What do you mean?
"no mention of actual socialistic policies like redistributing land directly to the people"
That's false. "17. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land."
"I gave my reasoning, the actions and worldview of Hitler was decidedly right wing,"
That's false. So far you voiced your opinion, but provided very weak arguments in its support. All of them you had to concede when confronted with verifiable historical facts. Those arguments were:
1. Nazi "self-admitted" to be righties - No worky, since they claimed to be Socialists.
2. It was just economy - No, it wasn't. They allowed women to reach high profile positions in roles previously reserved to men only.
3. They followed a "right-wing philosophy" - Proven incorrect. Their philosophy is clearly outlined and it's definitely a socialistic one.
"conservatives founded the kkk"
That's a blatant lie, because I can't imagine it would be an honest mistake. It's so easily searchable.... Even people who try to deny it, do not say that the conservatives founded it, they only say that it was a "grass-roots" movement and that plenty of Democrats simply happened to join it. But it's obviously false. "Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White" - "Although it is relatively unreported today, historical documents are unequivocal that the Klan was established by Democrats and that the Klan played a prominent role in the Democratic Party, [...] In fact, a 13-volume set of congressional investigations from 1872 conclusively and irrefutably documents that fact."
"Of course that isn't what they do, they want to be profitable."
That's not the problem (righty channels obliterate the left for clicks). The problem is that YT and many other Internet giants have very clear and very lefty agenda. People are not motivated by profit only, ideologies do matter. And it so happened, that every Internet giant is located in the same cultural background of Bay Area Shit-Francisco. Their ideology obviously does not work and they managed to achieve so much progress at home, that it's literally the shittiest city in the USA, with Boubonic Plague making a comeback.
Still, that's what all of them believe in, so that's what they do.
So we can hope that a more politically-agnostic site will rise up and overtake YT or we can demand free-speech protection from dominant Internet giants. I believe the second option is both more practical and actually makes more sense. A public forum should be treated as public space, not a private space.
1
-
@Gvjrapiro "the contents of a lie don't really matter if we agree that it's a lie"
We didn't agree. Assuming you bring back your "self-admitted righty and fake socialist" argument, I think it's totally false. So far I didn't bother calling you on "self-admitted right" part, because I considered this argument to be moot from the get go, but if you insist, go ahead. Provide me with a quote and context. I'll gladly tear it apart. And obviously, they were not "fake socialists" either. It's a long story, so I urged TIK to make it into a full video if he is so inclined, but the actual practice of Nazi Germany was socialistic. They were true socialists, not a fake ones. (Not Marxists, though. I don't claim that!)
"enjoyed by the citizen of the state alone "
Voting rights are restricted, not granted. You aren't German? No say! You are a "degenerate" German? No say either. No contradiction between declarations and practice detected.
"disproves your "no libertarian" line"
Total nonsense. "abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land." - That's exactly against libertarian positions. They want ad valorem tax and free trade of land. Man, you have ways with arguments...
[Lots of hand-waving skipped]
"tell me how it was socialist"
No problemo.
11. Abolition of unearned incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.
12. [...] personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
13. We demand the nationalization of all associated industries
14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
16. We demand [...] immediate communalization of the great warehouses [...].
17. We demand [...] provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
20. The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program,
21. The State is to care for the elevating national health
Minor points:
7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens.
9. All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.
10. [...]The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all
And I still feel like I'm missing something!
I don't understand your arguments about KKK. (Oh, BTW, I'm not American. I'm Polish.) One link does not open, the other shows KKKs are afraid of communism. Well, you don't have to be far-leftist to be a lefty, do you? Then it's something about pro-2a and so on. Are you trying to twist it all around again and claim that Democrats who founded KKK were righties, while the Republicans they used to hang were actually lefties? I can't imagine you'd go there, so please clarify. Or let's just forget about it.
"Profit, and profit alone."
That's not true. Sure, that's how market works, but that isn't how people work. YT, Google, Apple, Patreon and all that jazz is ran by people. For example, how would you explain Star Wars wreck if profit was the only motive of people who are behind it? Or The Last of Us 2, for a recent example. Markets don't care for your motives, but people do.
"Nike can say black lives matter all it wants"
How about Gillette fiasco with their "boys will be boys" ad? They lost loyal customers, they almost buried the brand. Why would they risk it, if all they cared for were profits? And even with Nike, why do they assume that their main customers aren't fed up with riots, whining, robbing, shootings and so on? Why do they even risk picking a side here? Because they believe it's the "right thing to do". People can't just work, and work, sleep, eat, work, get old and die. They want to work for something!
Ideas matter and they have consequences. That's why I discuss ideas. Because the consequences can be truly disastrous.
Man, it's not as long as I feared. Success!
1
-
@Gvjrapiro Sorry man, all of it is very long and it's simply impractical to discuss any of it in detail. Anyway, I'll try to address a few points.
1. "framed it as a lie"
I just follow your arguments to their logical conclusions. If they are liars, you can't take their word for anything, so "self-admittance" means nothing. Anyway, I don't think they were liars.
2. You really do claim that the Democrats were righties and Reps were lefties... My, oh my. I refuse to discuss this issue any further.
3. Since we can't agree on very basic definitions, I also skip all your twisting and turning regarding Nazi 25 points program, but I'm glad you (seem to?) admit that it was socialist at least in letter.
4. The talk with Hitler.
Hitler is not lying to this Strasser guy. He followed in practice what he declared in this discussion. It's also in perfect agreement with the Nazi program, because they were not strictly against private property, as long as people did what they were told . So he can keep Krupp as a de iure owner and de facto director of "his own" factory. That's what they have done all the time. As long as the "owners" were obedient they could keep their stuff, thought the interest rates and prices were fixed. There was no free market in Nazi Germany, apart from black market. Black marketeers were equally viciously and ineffectively persecuted. I was raised in such economy. It's socialism.
5. "Self-admittance" quotes.
Man, it's a lot of them, and all of them that I've studied are totally irrelevant. Yes, Nazis and Fascists were to the right of bolsheviks . They were not communists, they were not Marxists. Every quote which emphasizes how they are to the right of Lenin is totally irrelevant. Find me something where they say they are to the right of center! Or don't, cause you won't. Because they weren't. Giovanni Gentile was a socialist and he was the main fascist ideologue.
1
-
@Gvjrapiro "3. Yet I am using the basic definition, and parts [of the Nazi program] were [socialistic], but some parts certainly were not."
That's good. I started losing hope we'll ever agree on anything. Anyway, now we see that framing Hitler as "far-right" is simply a lie. Not a misunderstanding, not an oversight, it's a lie. He was center-left at worst.
"objectively true claim that they were not socialist"
Depending on the definition used, it can be true. But there is no sane definition of far-right which would fit Nazis with respect to their program, their philosophy and actual practices. So it's a lie. Because people who pushed for this classification definitely knew and understood all of this.
" state control is not socialism."
State control is the only practically viable option. You let people do what they want, they will act according to the market forces and ruin all of your utopia. I mean, some people won't do it, but others will and market will select for those "bastards". Sooner or later every socialist regime figures it out and it all ends in tyranny. It's been tried so many times already. How you people manage to still believe in this nonsense? Actual religions are so much more sane in comparison.
"In this quote, he clearly references "the right""
Yeah, but it's not about the Germans, but about those people we are not allowed to even mention. (They) acted both on the right and left, and (they) profited from politics.
"Carl Schmitt"
That's an easy one. I've known a bunch of people who were not communists, yet they were members of the communist party. The answer is simple. Power. You wanna do anything, you have to get into the power circles. In a way it's similar to monarchists starting in an election, and we have a bunch of those in the parliament. Besides, Schmitt was an anti-bracket guy, which obviously helped him to fit in. I didn't bother searching for the other one. Do I have to? Is he somehow important?
"support from foreign capitalists like Ford"
Ford built Soviet Union. Nothing new or unusual here. Or maybe bolsheviks weren't Socialists either? ;-)
"Why did he purge the aryan socialists"
Infighting. In Poland we had Piłsudski, a leader of Polish Socialist Party, who also purged most of the left (and right). BTW - Hitler admired him. He spent an hour honoring his death in front of a symbolic coffin in Polish Embassy in Berlin. Anyway, Stalin killed off Trotskists, Lenin killed off mensheviks. That's normal socialism. They kill. A lot.
"but not the aryan upper class?"
They did what they were told. Anyway, are you trying to argue, that Hitler wasn't a socialist, because he didn't murder enough rich people? That'd be funny. Please, do! (Yeah, I'm a bit tipsy by now. ;-))
And tired. But at least I'll look at the rest of your post.
Why a bunch of people preferred fascism to communism? Because communism is actually worse. Fascists weren't nazis, they didn't murder the (). They actually hardly murdered anyone.
"Jesus was j(censored). So what? [...] those who formulate new ideas"
You don't know much about Jesus, do you? He was an apocalyptic J(censored), just a minor sect in Palestine. Most (practically all) of the new ideas of Christianity were formulated by the Greeks, who wrote the Bible, and later by the Romans.
Seems like I'm done finally? Good. I'm tired, hungry and tipsy. Good night to you, mate.
1
-
@Gvjrapiro Let's just summarize, shall we? What we agree on and what we'll never agree on. Actually, let's start with disagreements.
Nazi program was not realized in practice - I'll never agree with that. I believe they did almost exactly what they promised to do. ""What Marxism, Leninism and Stalinism failed to accomplish, we shall be in a position to achieve." - said Hitler to Otto Wagener, his economic adviser, and he really meant it.
75% of Nazi program is right wing - I'll never agree with that. Neither you do, I think. You wouldn't constantly try to devalue this evidence by claiming "it's just a pamphlet, just a propaganda piece" if you did. Because it would mean that they were fake-righties, not fake-lefties, as you constantly argue.
"the nazis were absolutely socially far right" - Definitely not. They were centrist, at worst. Everybody seems to forget, that traditional gender roles were universally accepted. Nazis were no different. Even Soviets didn't differ much (I mean they tried, bu the experiment totally failed).
"far right in nearly all policies that did not impact economics" - Total nonsense. I'll never agree with that. They implemented censorship, state owned press, total control over education. Eguenics was an idea supported by plenty of leftist, including Wells or George Bernard Shaw, who wrote: "Extermination must be put on a scientific basis if it is ever to be carried out humanely and apologetically as well as thoroughly... If we desire a certain type of civilisation and culture we must exterminate the sort of people who do not fit into it." Again, Hitler simply put those ideas into practice.
Stateless society idea - I'll never agree with that. It's a pure utopia, which leads to dystopia. All utopias do.
NEP wasn't socialism - C'mon man. I don't even.
Which countries do I consider fascist - Spain, Italy, Hungary, just to narrow it down. J()ews had it fine there, until Germans took over.
Where do we agree?
1. Nazi program had some aspects which were socialistic.
2. While you can argue that Nazis were right wing, far-right claim is badly supported.
3. Nazi economy was a Centrally Administered Economy, which is what you typically find among socialist states.
4. In NSDAP there were socialists, at least initially.
Anything else?
1
-
@Gvjrapiro 1. Unification of Germans - Realized in practice.
2. Denouncing of treaty of Versailles - Done in practice.
3. Colonies for lebensraum - Poland, big parts of USSR taken. Realized in practice.
4. Restricting the civic rights to ethnic Germans. - Done.
5. Restricting the rights of foreigners. - Done.
6. Purging foreigners off any public offices. - Done.
7. Purging foreigners off the Reich. - Some left, some were murdered. Mostly done.
8. No immigration. - Realized.
9. Equal rights for citizens. - Aristocracy (hated by Hitler) was not privileged, so it was true.
10. Do as you are told, or else. - Of course realized.
11. Abolition of unearned incomes (rent-slavery). - Sure. By printing money, so they become meaningless, but they did it.
12. "War profits" a crime. - They did it. Selling pigs at market value was a crime, people were convicted for it.
13. Nationalization of war industries. - Of course. They never specify the means and there was no need for "literal" nationalization, as Hitler clearly outlined over and over. He must have thought people to be really stupid for insisting on minutia and I agree with him on that.
14. Division of profits of heavy industry. - Of course happened. Fixed prices and profit margins made sure of that.
15. Welfare expansion. - I'm not sure about the scale of that. They surely state-funded cruise ship vacation for at least some workers, so I think we can count that one.
16. Support for small retailers. - From what I've heard, it happened.
17. Expropriation of land as needed. - Of course.
18. War against "degenerates", regardless of race. - Sure.
19. Abolition of Roman law tradition. - Of course.
20. State controlled education. - Obviously.
21. National health improvement program, exercises and such. - Hitlerjugend alone should count.
22. National army. - Did they ever...
23. State controlled media. - As above.
24. Free religion, the opposition to J()ewish-materialistic world view. - Very successful at that. Fanatics were not uncommon at all.
25. Strong central government with unlimited authority. - Well, I don't believe in unlimited anything, but they came close... ;-)
You see, people who think the way you are used to, simply play with words, like they have no real meaning. Like there is no reality which those words are suppose to (possibly precisely) reflect. But the reality is out there. It's waiting. So you can twist and turn, reinterpret this, redefine that and find a corner where your cherished ideas are perfectly protected from any possible attack.
But there are people who take those ideas very seriously. If Antifa ever takes over, you'll be forced to know them intimately. When comrades Cleetus and Jazzira smash your door in, Jazzira following up with a swift kick to the balls, just because you are a disgusting white male, only then you will realize the truth of it.
But it will pass. Apparently, even deep in "re-education centers" of this world, people find a way of sheltering their most dearly beloved ideas from the infringements of harsh reality.
So, good luck with that. You will need it.
1
-
@Gvjrapiro "You're accusing me of saying words with no meaning?"
No, that's not what I wrote. I wrote that you play with words, like if they have no real meaning. Which is dangerous, because words do have a meaning.
"Mate, you literally said that overinflation is the same as abolishing rent."
Literally? If you are in debt, inflation will erase it. I've seen it. It really has this effect. Is it "the same", especially "literally the same"? Of course not. Close enough, though.
The difference between you and me? You write that the first several points of the program are nationalistic. I agree with that! Why? Because it's true. I vote nationalist right, I don't like the association, but I agree with you, because it's simply true.
Now, I could argue that nationalists back then were not far-right and not always even right of center. There were monarchists, theocrats, capitalists and libertarians to the right of all of them, and some nationalists were obvious lefties. To distinguish themselves from nationalistic right, they called themselves appropriately, yes, National Socialists.
Which is a concept you simply can't accept. Too painful, isn't it? Wait for comrade Jazzira to know what a real pain is.
"And mate, not sure if you could tell, but I am an organizer for my local antifa chapter."
You think it makes you somehow immune to what is going to happen? Nope. If you guys ever win, your fate will be the worst. Why? Because guys like me will be defeated by the enemy, which is easy to swallow. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, such is life. You guys? You will be defeated by your own. By the people you dedicated your life to. By your own children.
Stay strong. You will need it.
1
-
@Gvjrapiro "Debt, which is a different thing entirely from rent."
It was probably badly translated. Hitler meant interests on debts.
“Our financial principle: Finance shall exist for the benefit of the state; the financial magnates shall not form a state within the state. Hence our aim to break the thralldom of interest. Relief of the state, and hence of the nation, from its indebtedness to the great financial houses, which lend on interest. Nationalization of the Reichsbank and the issuing houses, which lend on interest.”
But I don't even need to defend this position. Rents in a regulated market can't catch up to even moderate inflation. I lived under hyperinflation and I paid rent, so I kinda know what I'm talking about here. We were all poor, but paying rent was peanuts.
"actually cared about the nation above race"
Current left keeps on dividing the nation into so many subgroups, that I genuinely lost count. I'd call them racist, but the PC term is racialism. Moot argument anyway.
"LEft wing nationalism tends to be isolationist"
So guys I vote for (and we are Winning!), are actually lefties? Damn, they fooled me so well... ;-)
"i'd love for my old buddy Jazzira here to fucking shatter my nuts, because that would be more entertaining than this."
You think: "What can she do to me, she's just a frail lady?", but she was 250 before fat shaming became a thing, and you also forgot that gender is just a social construct, so she's sporting a significantly bigger package then you do and knows from personal experience how much it hurts to be kicked there... ;-)
"Thanks for your fun little fantasy"
Fantasy? So whom you guys managed to get elected so far? Gay Obama for starters, but he's not your harmless gay. He kept on murdering his former partners until one of them became so scared, that he decided to testify. He was very convincing. Not a harmless gay, this Obama guy... Then it was the turn for Killary. Nuff said. The elites of your movement had to make sure that Epstein killed himself, which was such a blunder.
So, who are the people you vote for? Nice guys, aren't they? Let's wait until they don't have to pretend to be so nice, then you'll see how my "fantasy" plays out.
"right wing infighting isn't as much of a thing"
No, it really isn't. Nowadays it's like "Nationalists of the World, unite!" , which is really funny, but I like it. Re: Christians vs. Muslims? You were mislead there, I believe. It's Muslims vs. Infidels. You are an Infidel.
1
-
@Gvjrapiro "Mate, you think we like obama? Or Hillary? Come on now."
That's whom you gonna get, though. And once they come to power, through subversion of democratic processes, who is going to be the most dangerous people to them? Guys like me? We are joke to them. They know us, every single one, there are spies in every place, they got hooks, and we are branded as enemy already. So not us. It's you guys! You know way too much. And you are idealists, which is a synonym for "people hard to control". You gotta go. Sorry. Them's the rules.
"Nah, it's conservative monotheistic religion vs the other conservative monotheistic religion."
No. Crusades weren't a thing, until Islam tried to take over France. They took all of Africa and Middle East? Nothing. They took Sicily? Nothing. They took Spain? Still nothing. But once they crossed over Pyrenees, people became scared. Rightfully so.
Nowadays they took Lebanon. You think if people of Lebanon were not Christians, they would be treated differently? Sure! You are correct. They would be treated even worse , because that's what is written in their holy book.
BTW - I'm an atheist. I'm not defending Christianity because I've so much invested into it. Still, I like Christianity. It's the basis of our common culture, yours and mine. BTW - What cultures Islam has created? Well... Let me think... They inherited some astronomers at some point, but after that? Zero.
1
-
@Gvjrapiro "all of the elections that I don't actually give two shits about"
I'm not blaming you, I'm warning you. But I agree, I should've figured out you don't care about democracy. That's even worse, actually. I was somehow deluded, that you guys at least hoped to win without destroying everything in the process. Not? Well, I pity you guys less now. Still, you are humans, so... Yeah.
"No, not really. History helps."
What? The Battle of Tours 732 A.D., the First Crusade 1095 A.D. (A few years between the two, don't you think?) I'm not going to watch an hour long video and try to figure out what you might have meant. What's your point?
"just a re-written bible"
You never read either, so why do you try to pose as some sort of an intellectual? Please do. They differ. A lot!
"europeans were still trying to carve huts out of solid shit to live in"
Well, there was this thing called Rome and Greece before that. Not very well known fact, but it really happened.
"biggest [Greek] libraries" - I fixed that one.
"longest lists of inventions" - From a very short period in history. It basically lasted since they took over actually advanced civilizations, until they managed to bring them down. They were good at it, so it didn't last too long...
1
-
@Gvjrapiro "US elections, which are not democratic"
Do something about it! Our guys did. pilnojwyborow dot pl, which means "watch/supervise the elections" was a marvel which was professionally assured to be impossible to achieve within the available timeframe, even if we'd had any money. But someone did it anyway. Pretty much for food. It worked, we can prove it. (Then it didn't, because of corona, but not much loss. We "won" anyway.)
"The crusades were not retaliatory by any measure."
People were genuinely fed up. I know what Italians went through, because my people went through it too. The biggest slaver raids had reached up to where I live right now. The people were rounded up, marched to Crimea and sold in Bakchisaray. You know where the word "slave" comes from? From Slavs.
With that said, I don't really disagree with you. It was a complex issue. Saying it's that one thing is simplifying way too much. Though that one thing was there. We still remember, so how could you expect they'd forget so soon?
"Yes, empires that stretched into muslim territories and partially collapsed because of the attacks of those reigons, and left europe in shambles for literal centuries."
You've absolutely no idea about history... That's just rubbish what you wrote. Sorry, man. That's pitiful.
"I'd like to see some, really any, citation on this."
I've found something on your level. NY Times, I'm afraid... ;-))
"how-islam-won-and-lost-the-lead-in-science.html"
"The Golden Age
When Muhammad's armies swept out from the Arabian peninsula in the seventh and eighth centuries, annexing territory from Spain to Persia, they also annexed the works of Plato, Aristotle, Democritus, Pythagoras, Archimedes, Hippocrates and other Greek thinkers.
Hellenistic culture had been spread eastward by the armies of Alexander the Great and by religious minorities, including various Christian sects, according to Dr. David Lindberg, a medieval science historian at the University of Wisconsin.
The largely illiterate Muslim conquerors turned to the local intelligentsia to help them govern, Dr. Lindberg said. In the process, he said, they absorbed Greek learning that had yet to be transmitted to the West in a serious way, or even translated into Latin. "
[...]
"Why didn't Eastern science go forward as well? ''Nobody has answered that question satisfactorily,'' [That's a lie, BTW. At some point their Theologians figured out, that if Allah decided that 2+2=3*11, that's what it really is, so logic was useless. Which reminds me, that the intellectual fathers of your movement not so long ago decided, that establishing truth is impossible, and our science goes the same way Islamic science went.]
Okay, the rest is total bollocks. Read at your own risk.
1
-
@Gvjrapiro Stop the press. Pinker is being cancelled. Over some tweets. So, he's the enemy of the people now? What chances do you have?
Anyway, let's read your post.
Democracy is hard and very imperfect! - I feel you, man. I really do... ;-)
Muslim countries did relatively well. - Sure. The climate, as recorded in high resolution Greenland ice cores, was more favorable over there at this time. However, it doesn't mean that a slave industry operating successfully and preying on your own people will be considered a minor issue all of a sudden, does it?
"the romans and greeks had many troubles [...] but one of them certainly was muslims"
Lol. I'm not sure, but it's possible I wrote this acronym for the first time in my life. Anyway, just drop it. Whatever. It's not important.
"a large amount of time was spent reexamining and recovering literature and science from the greeks and romans"
True. It went off for reals, once we captured Cordova, with all the Arabic translations.
"the inspiration of the inventions of those empires did come from the islamic world."
Sure. And nothing good came out of there ever since. ;-)
So, that's the "mystery" of Arabic Golden Age. A bunch of ruffians attacking barely functional civilizations, taking them over, subduing them, but a few remnants of what was already lost still managed to do something impressive. Truly great people, those. The optics was discovered in a prison cell, apparently. But once they ran out of remnants, that was it.
"And what "movement" would that be?"
Postmodersnism. Watch Stephen Hicks. He's brilliant and not boring. A rare combination.
"Please, enlighten me."
Discover the savior of mankind, the lord Jesus. You will be happier, and you will have purpose in life, which will very unlikely kill yourself and others. He was a good man. Recommended. And the Greeks who wrote about him were effing brilliant.
It's only a half joking comment.
1
-
@Gvjrapiro No comments on Pinker being cancelled? Just as we speak? That s*t apparently happened today...
"And I could be mistaken, but didn't similar discoveries like that help to kick start europe back into an enlightenment? "
Absolutely true. But they got it first and got nowhere with it, so I wouldn't fall head over heels with praise. Could we do without those early sources? I think we could. It would be harder, but I think we could do it. Aristotle would be hard to replace, though. His logic was kinda crucial... Oh, I don't know if it was in Arabic sources. I just don't know, period.
Anyway, It's good we got the library in Cordova before some fanatic Muslim idiot decided to burn it down, like they did in Alexandria.
"Again, they [the great people of Islam] were conquerers"
No, not really. They were the conquered.
"postodernism isn't really like... compatible with my "movement?"
Well, you may be a true old-schooler then. Kropotkin and all that. Yeah, that's more likely. Back then we used to have science! But your "pupils" are postmodern, so you should still know how they "think".
"but the whole "unquestioning obedience and faith for a purpose you will never understand" kinda turns me off"
On the other hand, Jesus was a true communist... ;-)
1
-
1
-
@Gvjrapiro "They wouldn't do it if it wasn't legal, dude."
Legal shmegal. Do you understand the consequences? Half of the territory of various states can stop belonging to them now. Federal territory is being vastly expanded, though. With no proper legal or fiscal systems in place. That could be truly disastrous.
"correct legal procedures to get it, and not just decided it was theirs."
What a bureaucratic way of thinking. Anyway, all of that missing paperwork was neglected nearly 200 years ago, but it somehow still counts. That's so crazy, I can't even.
"Islamic empires absolutely existed"
Sure. We've been battling one of those for several hundred years. But it doesn't mean that "they had a relatively stable empire going until WWI", or however exactly you've put it. They never had any single empire, which unified even the majority of Islam. They still keep on fighting among themselves. Nothing new here. It was always like that.
"they wouldn't have been able to pose such a threat to the romans"
I thought you'd google it up eventually, but Rome fell before Muhammad was born. Like 200 years before, or thereabouts. The level of education in the States is truly atrocious. You guys are below the World average right now, according to the research I've seen. Poland is right below NE Asia, who actually rule.
Oh, my. You are falling apart so fast... Turn it around, or something. We kinda need you to stay up for just a little bit longer. You can't expect a broken country to be able to stand up to Russia after only one generation of independence.
1
-
@Gvjrapiro "new deal is formed"
So Oklahoma is about to go bankrupt and the Indians can rightfully expect all the taxes from Tulsa. What kind of deal would be profitable enough to them, so the'd agree? "We don't kill you, if you agree..." kind of a deal?
I think it's a political plot. They'll force Trump's hand, then impeach him, or something? Maybe just steal his votes? I don't know, it's so silly. But it's also a treason in my book. Only the enemy of the state would rule such a thing.
"You don't get to keep something just because you stole it 200 years ago"
Actually, you do get to keep it, if it was a long time ago and you made it all your own, with investments and improvements. Such a silly ruling, that. You guys go total bonkers.
"The eastern roman empire"
There were more of those. Carolingians, Germans and Russians had empires, which claimed to be the direct descendants of Rome. Even our Rzeczpospolita was based around the Roman Republic model and all the nobles spoke Latin. Sure, Byzantines had more of a claim than others, but they spoke Greek and were actually Greeks. Anyway, they never "stole" any Muslim lands. The original Muslim lands were deep in the desert, everything else they conquered, then forced their religion onto the local population. That's how you got all those "deep Muslim thinkers". The locals still remembered how to do science, and as long as it wasn't forbidden, they did some of it.
"How we're keeping up in quarantine?"
Splendid, actually. I live in a countryside, so lockdown didn't affect me in the slightest. I learned how to bake my own bread and do it all the time. Many people have told me they've never ate a better bread in their life, and those are Polish standards, which aren't half bad at all. I don't miss much, but I worry about the coming recession. With that said, I'm equipped to survive for quite a long time.
1
-
@Gvjrapiro "Not really [not the taxes], nor would they want them most likely."
You mean, they are allergic to money? That would explain it all right.
"the US getting most of its land back with either added reparations, protections, or more land for native americans."
Oh, I get it! You pay them more money so they don't take less money, and give them more land so they won't take less land! That's brilliant in its simplicity.
I have a better idea, though. You pay a little bit to the biggest twat, because you accidentally killed his dog. You know, he deserves a bit of reparation for an accident, doesn't he? He shuts up, understandably, so it's just this unfortunate ruling to deal with now. I'd have a few ideas there too. High treason is out, unfortunately, so we'd have to get creative... ;-)
The question is, why didn't they do it like that? They don't like killing dogs? Well, kill the twat then. It's not like they've never killed for much more minor issues, is it? So why?
Because they want chaos. They really do. They hired you to sow it, just for an off the cuff example. So, how do you like being a tool? Still useful...
"Well in practice yes [settlement laws, I hope I use the correct term]"
No, not just in practice. It's the law. After some time passes and especially with a lot of effort put into the "thing", you get to keep it, even if you kinda stole it back then. Time and effort counts. It's the law, not just practice.
Anyway, I live in crowded Europe. Every piece of land I pass when I want to take a piss into the nettles is claimed by five countries. Indian claims don't impress me much. What are they going to do? Hire a shaman to charm my chickens? Well, that would be disastrous.
"i'm pretty sure I didn't say anything about stealing muslim lands"
What did you mean by that: "empires that stretched into muslim territories"? The Greeks trying to steal their deserts? I agree the Greeks were super smart, but figuring out those sands will make you rich a millennium later was beyond even their eggheads.
"I've taken to some home baking, and it's actually quite fun."
Want some tips? I believe I have it figured out reasonably well. Easy, quick(ish), really, I mean it, really tasty (but it's my flour mostly, sorry) and even looks good.
"Also gardening"
I totally hate it, but I do it too. You just can't beat the taste. You get used to good stuff, it's like an addiction.
1
-
@Gvjrapiro "Well I'd hope that you could cite some US law saying that then."
It's hard to google it in English, because "settlement" refers also to settling a case out of court, which results in plenty of false positives. I've no time right now, but literally a few seconds search in Polish, where we use a unique term, was immediately successful.
I won't cite it, but the property is legally yours after 20 years, if you didn't try to steal it (purchased in "bad faith" is the term they use). After 30 years it's yours even if you tried to steal it.
It's a very common concept, so I'm positive USA has similar laws. It's a very practical thing. It cuts down on people trying to dig through archives in order to reopen a very old case, where nothing is clear any more, laws have changed, witnesses non-existent or hard to find and so on.
"land that were never legally yours"
I didn't know you guys were such legal fundamentalists. How do you explain "Just Act 447" then, where United States declares it will break the international law in order to appease bogus claims of some powerful people vigorously waving their victim card?
"Anything to do with cutting down on or finding alternative ingredients would be really helpful, since our stores are all out of stuff."
For bread you need flour, water and salt. That's all. No yeast.
So first you create a sourdough starter. Mix a table spoon of flour with equal weight of water and leave it be for a day. Then double the weight (two spoons of flour this time and that much water), leave it for a day, double again (three spoons this time). The lid on the jar you use must be loose. It will grenade on you if you seal it shut!
Depending on the temperature and the quality of flour (whole grain, rye, "organic" is the best) after a few days of that you will have a sourdough starter. It will bubble up and smell sour. At worst it's going to take a week, so starting small can be beneficial.
Then you can bake a sourdough bread. First feed your starter for the last time and wait 6-12 hours so it expands fully.
The recipe is silly easy. 1-2-3 2%. 1 weight of starter, 2 weights of water, 3 weights of flour (whichever kind you like), 2% salt content. It will seem like a lot of salt, but it's just fine, don't worry.
Mix it all together, leave it for 15min or so, then kneed the dough for at least 10 min. Leave it in a bowl for practical reasons. It's so sticky, it's a mess. That's fine. After that stretch-and-fold the dough every half and hour, so the gluten will properly develop. You grab the edge, pull it up and fold it on top. Go around once, that's enough.
Then transfer the dough into a baking tray or simply a metal pot. Cover the bottom and walls with a bit of oil, transfer the dough, cover it with wet towel or simply a lid and let it raise. 4 hours is the minimum, 12 might happen occasionally, but basically you wait until it raises enough. How much is enough? It should at least double in volume.
Then you just bake it inside the baking tray or a pot. High temperature, and bake until it's baked. There is no rule to it for how long, but somewhere around 45 min should do. The first 20min you can bake with the lid on (if you use a pot). That helps with "oven spring".
Whatever starter was left, feed him and store in the fridge. Take him out the day before you plan on baking again, feed him and it will be ready tomorrow.
It's a simplified recipe. It doesn't require too much handling skills, refrigeration and all that jazz. It works. I do it all the time.
1
-
@Gvjrapiro Regarding the treaties and annexation laws, I really don't care about the legalese. The spirit of the law is obvious. You keep it for long enough, it's really yours, regardless of what some tambourine thumper might find profitable to abuse.
I mean, stop being such wussies. I suspect you might not be aware of it, but Poland was shifted west after WWII. Germans still didn't sign a peace treaty with us, because they've lost quite a bit of land to us. Do we care? No! They can have it back only by force!
And that's it. Do you threaten us with war? Bad idea... It's going to be long, bloody and you'll most probably get your arse handed to you once more. No war? Get lost, then. I'm washing my dog today, so I've more important business to attend to.
Though actually, I allegedly distilled some stuff today. I can give you a lot of hints on that too. I don't drink it myself (family does, though...), gotta keep the habit in check, but it's good stuff nonetheless. Season it for half a year in oaken barrels... Beautiful. Approaching the level of single malt, which is achievable at home, but since it's not for me, I don't bother with that much hassle. Others aren't such connoisseurs to care for the top shelf quality. But it can be done.
Regarding bread, I've a bit more time now, so I'll systematize the process a bit.
Three stages:
1. Get the starter going.
2. Mix the ingredients and develop the gluten matrix (kneeding, folding, stretching).
3. Transfer the dough into the baking container and let it rise.
4. Bake it. (So it's actually four stages, after all.)
This process is a combination I developed from English, Russian and Polish videos. English sources usually make it way too complicated. A lot of what they do is necessary only if you want to bake a free-standing loaf, but why bother? You use an oven pan, a pot of any sort, whatever, and the loaf does not need to be able to support itself. It's so much easier that way!
Then, the local, traditional ways of making bread resulted in fairly sour taste. You may like it that way and still use my approach. It still works. But neither me, nor my family enjoys the sour taste all that much. A little bit is cool, though. A matter of personal taste, obviously.
And it's quick. I start in the morning and I have the bread in the afternoon. Most of the time is simply waiting, so I can do whatever I need to do in the meantime.
We rarely buy bread anymore. Only if my started goes too sour and I need to start over. Otherwise, it's home baked bread. And nobody bothers me with pizza anymore, which is actually harder to do at home, so that is a plus too. ;-)
1
-
@Gvjrapiro "no longer exists, they can't really settle a deal"
Nonsense. Of course they can, they just don't want to. You could maybe argue that when they were divided it was a bit more complex, but even back then the West Germany was settling deals regarding war reparations. Soviets stole all of ours, but Germans don't care, obviously. And rightfully so, I believe.
"so we can't just pretend that we can take land as we please"
What do you mean by "pretending"? You can take whatever you want, by force or other means. There is no pretending there.
"especially when that land is so substantial and goes directly into the nations"
Especially then. If it was all peanuts, I could imagine giving them that, just to feel better about yourself. But better half of Oklahoma? And possibly way more than that? That's madness.
On another note: Today is the day of remembrance of Volyn Massacre. It went on for a long time, but the corresponding Sunday of 1943 was especially bloody. Ukrainian nationalists attacked a bunch of churches and murdered about 8k of Polish women, children and elders (very few men). With hand tools. Extreme cruelty. Truly extreme cruelty. For no good reason (Poles never murdered Ukrainians). About 100k dead overall. Still within living memory.
What our media said about it? Nothing. Actually worse than that. Some Muslims some time ago had a bad day in Srebrenitsa, so that's what they mentioned...
I find it truly offensive.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@juliancate7089 " conditions for continued employment "
That's a long term transaction. Once a week or once a month deal. Still, many people were screwed up at the end...
" you can either accept them as conditions for continued employment, or you can say, "no thanks" "
How about I sell my produce (I'm a farmer, BTW), they load it onto the truck, and them I'm left with promises instead of money?
How do you deal with that?
Cash on the spot? Well, we need to weigh the produce, at the very least, so it's not always possible to know how much do they owe me. So, how do you deal with a recurrent problem of being screwed up?
" No one is forced to accept the rules. "
Then there are no rules , period.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brmbkl " political movements are well defined "
We inherited the definition from Marx, who created international socialism. He wanted to dismantle nation based societies in favor of class based society.
However, that's only one type of socialism. There were others. National socialism, tribal socialism, religious socialism, maybe more.
" US would be inherently Socialist, because it's a nation. it's not. "
They have public schools, public roads, some form of public health care, social help programs, very high taxes and largely centrally governed economy.
Whether you like it or not, USA is quite socialistic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If the food production went down, the average height and weight of the population must go down to.
Reassessing the Standard of Living
in the Soviet Union: An Analysis
Using Archival and Anthropometric Data
Elizabeth Brainerd
http://ftp.iza.org/dp1958.pdf
"Four different measures of population health show a consistent and large improvement between approximately 1940 and 1969: child height, birth
weight, adult height and infant mortality all improved significantly during this period. These four biological measures of the standard of living also corroborate the evidence of some deterioration in living conditions beginning around 1970, when infant and adult mortality was rising and child height and birth weight stopped increasing and in some regions began to decline."
It was a five minute search, at worst, and it totally falsifies your stance. Well, until we go into deep conspiracy and start suspecting that Soviet statisticians were super smart and kept on making up antropometric data from 1935 till 1970, but not earlier or later than that.
I understand that you hate socialism, I do too, but Soviet economy was basically working. Not as well as capitalist economies, but it did work. Why shouldn't it? It was a tyranny. The vast majority of people through the vast majority of human civilization were living under tyrannies. Ancient Egypt had a central government and it was producing grain.
It's not like civilization did not exist before Adam Smith, is it?
1
-
TLDR: Why invent the Hitler?
I deeply oppose the idea, that historical truth can only be subjective. What happened really happened, and sometimes we really know what it was.
Not always, obviously. So it's the crucial difference between objective truth and absolute truth. The last one is out of our grasp, the former one quite often is not.
Also, just because you can't convince some people, it does not mean that "their truth" is just as valid as carefully considered interpretations of sources, backed by reasoning and serious multidisciplinary cross-checking.
I've heard Dr Ewa Kurek stating once, that history is hard science. That's how she treats it, and I do agree with this approach. Hard sciences are capable of establishing objective truths.
Not! absolute truth. That's the difference between knowing something for sure, and knowing everything.
In summary, I do think that without the belief in objective truth in history, we simply can't do it. Because if that was the case, we could pose then a very valid question of "Why invent the Hitler?"
1
-
1
-
A bit of constructive criticism and some answers to the questions you raised. (BTW - feel free to remove this post. I write it for You, not for Youtube.)
1. Since you insisted on pronouncing Paulus correctly, I think you should also improve your pronunciation of Reichenau. It's Reich-enau, like in reich, where "ch" is a soft "h" sound, not a "k" sound. The word "reich" as read by "google translate" sounds legit to my Polish ears.
2. 6th Army was not a "bunch of murderers". Sure there were some murderers there. Some created by war, some were already like that before, but most of those guys were just a bunch of kids. Therefore it's not wrong to sympathize with them. Any army can be turned into savages if the high command tolerates such behavior. Reichenau not just tolerated, not only approved of or even applauded, but simply ordered barbarity. He's responsible for what happened, and other people like him. Not those kids starved at Stalingrad (apart from those who actually deserved it, of course).
3. Walther is pronounced a Vahlter, not Walter. Schwerin is prononced as Shverin, not Shwerin. In general, German "w" is pronounced as English "v", and German "v" is pronounced and English "f". (I wouldn't bother with this, but you seem to care. Blame yourself... ;-))
4. The only picture of Richard von Schverin I found which appears to be at least plausibly correct is this one: https://forum.axishistory.com/download/file.php?id=16558&sid=696d491b2196a7be8d5efc9929a80c30
It has been requested previously in 2003 in this thread: https://forum.axishistory.com//viewtopic.php?t=23159 . I can't tell if it's legit or not. It seems like somebody verified it at one time... Use it at your own risk.
5. The symbol for 79th Infantry Division can be found here: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/79e_division_d%27infanterie_(Allemagne)
6. It's Hans-Heinrich Sixt von Armin, or Germans don't know how to spell it either. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Heinrich_Sixt_von_Armin
7. The symbol visible at 13:54 appears to simply represent the 113th Infantry Division. It's their logo. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/113th_Infantry_Division_(Wehrmacht)) I've looked through a bunch of WWII German tactical symbols. I don't think they used this symbol for anything else, or I've just wasted about an hour of my time. Which is possible...
8. The symbol of 71 Infantry Division is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/71st_Infantry_Division_(Wehrmacht)
I'll send what I've written before something freezes up and I lose it...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BenTrem42 " You can then say absolute things about the system. "
Under those assumptions, it works.
" No uncertainty? "
For an ideal gas, pv really equals nRT.
For a real gas, it depends. While real gases never follow this equation with absolute precision, your real measurements are not absolutely precise either.
So this statement remains true. You'd have to phrase it a bit differently, though. Like in: "This specific gas, under those specific conditions follows pv=nRT as closely as we can measure it."
And this statement would be absolutely true.
" No Heisenberg? Nothing quantum? "
I think they tried to figure out how a steam engine works, so there was no quantum physics yet.
And they did figure it out. What I mean is, that steam is very far from an ideal gas, but the closer it gets to it, the closer it follows the ideal gas equation.
1
-
@Eddie_of_the_A_Is_A_Gang " asking for something it establishes can be confusing "
Okay, I'll give you an example. If someone asked me the same about chemistry, I could have said, that we know that the simplest possible atom consist of one proton and one electron. It's established knowledge, because all chemistry relies on it and chemistry works.
Got it now? Tell me something like that about epistemology.
" Man is born tabula raza is one of them "
You mean, it's one of the "false" epistemologies? Because that is not a true statement.
Anyway, those other guys? Are they true or false, and how do I tell the difference?
" an Axiom cannot be just something you assume "
That's how it works in math. (It's not "just" an assumption, but whatever.)
" If you assume God exists, you would still be wrong. "
Assuming you are a zebra, your fur is vertically striped. Do you understand that it's a true statement, regardless if you are a zebra or not?
" Axiom is undeniable because the very action of denying it implies the Axiom "
I can easily assume, that the sum of all angles in a square is more than 360, so what? It doesn't "deny" Euclidean squares.
My assumption is even true on Earth, but it does not make Euclidean squares false.
" Existence, Consciousness and Identity "
Those are very complex ideas. More like topics. How come you guys can base anything solid on such nebulous foundations?
Let me guess. You can't. I'm right, am I not?
" man Act, because to deny it is to do an action "
What if you ignore it? (Oh my, it can't be that silly, can it?)
1
-
@Loehengrin " you can go a long way just by asking how do we know what we know? "
I did that, actually. I think I even have a working concept (an analogy) of how we know stuff. Unfortunately, it's very simple, so probably destined to be ignored. It's hard to impress people with simplicity.
" I choose objectivism because all other schools of thought lead to conclusions I don't like "
It's not as silly as it seems. If the conclusions are absurd, it's at least very likely that the method is at fault. Like in, you calculate a chemical problem and arrive at a negative mass. You did it wrong, didn't you?
Once in a blue moon there is no escape, which happened to me (the problem was badly formulated). But usually it's the other way around.
" Objectivism is nothing more than relativism LARPing as realism "
Does it mean we can't know anything? If so, I disagree. We really know that Earth is not at the center of the Solar System, or our space probes would not land where they need to land. We know that electrons exist, because if they didn't, we wouldn't be able to communicate right now. Etc.
1
-
@Eddie_of_the_A_Is_A_Gang " apple to oranges "
Knowledge is knowledge.
Yes, I do assume that things exist, that they can be defined precisely enough, and that we can be aware of their existence. Thanks for clearing it out.
Those are assumptions though, not conclusions.
(I mean, there are people who seriously postulate that the Universe is a simulation running in the mind of God. If that were true, your axioms would be incorrect, but still work properly.)
" If you assume something that is faulty, whatever statement you have made is not based in anything. "
That's not true. The statements are based on the assumption . If you are a zebra, then your fur is striped.
" arbitrary statement have no truth value "
Then 2+2=idunno, because 2+2=4 is an arbitrary statement.
" i gave you the philosophical definition of an Axiom "
That's how people thought about axioms in math too. But then they learned stuff, and now they know better .
What have you guys learned since then?
" *''Right now, i am not writing''
Well clearly i am writing, this statement cannot be true.* "
Well, it can be. It's a side note, but the diffused set logic would really help you guys. Another thing mathematicians have learned since antiquity...
" It remains true even if you ignore it. "
You said that the action of denial was what defeated the denial itself. Inaction does not defeat anything.
" At that point, there is only one thing you can do. Stop the conversation right there. "
Cope.
1
-
@BenTrem42 " or you missed the point of the original question "
You asked about uncertainty, if it makes "absolute" statements impossible, as far as I can tell.
So no, it does not. The statements themselves rely on a set of assumptions, and as long as those assumptions are being met sufficiently, those statements remain perfectly true. (Especially if you take care to verse out all the silent assumptions most physicists take for granted.)
" you don't deal with uncertainty "
I thought I did. The part with "even if the gases aren't ideal, we can't know that, because our measurements aren't ideal either".
If that's the case, the gases behave exactly as our models predict they should, so our statements (equations) are 100% correct.
" probabilistics, another big part of ontology/epistemology "
Is it, really? That's news to me. Anyway, I don't see any problems inherent to what I wrote so far with regards to that. And yes, obviously I'm aware of that aspect of reality.
" So ... nothing for me to engage here. "
Another one? You philosophers appear to be particularly timid guys. One solid punch, you're outta there!
1
-
@BenTrem42 " is all about gases "
Just an example somebody else used. Yes, the ideal gas laws can never exactly reflect the behavior of real systems. So? Did we learn anything of importance once we discovered them?
I think yes. Unequivocally yes!
" under what I take to be Newtonian theories "
Actually no, but whatever. I don't wanna go there, until there is a real need for it.
" Heisenberg and things quantum [...] how brain works "
Deterministic chaos is a thing too. There is no need for quantum effects in order to not be able to predict the outcomes with any certainty.
That's what you guys don't seem to understand, seriously. You see, there are deterministic mathematical equations, which are so sensitive to the initial parameters, that we can only predict some general behavior (atractors, that kind of stuff). It takes a lot of runs to figure those out, otherwise it looks like there is no regularity to it at all.
We can easily conceive a reality in which we have access only to the results of such equations, so Heisenberg's uncertainty can very well be a natural consequence of complex deterministic interactions.
Anyway, yes. Quantum effects govern all chemistry, so whether we talk about real gasses, or a lot of goop called the brain, they surely do matter.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@seanmac1793 " Patton [...] needs to be able to force the Germans to not abandon his front. "
Must, resist, smartass, comments (so hard though, no joke).
Forcing Germans to move is great. Imagine they had a well supplied division, and they move. What happens? They expend their resources and arrive at the front partially depleted.
Lots of fuel used up, some of the tanks left, because they couldn't fix them on time, other broken down, lots of trucks used up, lots of them shot from the air. How about artillery? It's not easy to transport, is it?
It's all good.
And once they finally GTFO, Patton can take all this ground with reduced opposition.
You think I'm joking. During the Bulge Patton wanted to draw them in as far as they were willing to go, only then counterattack.
Whatever people might want to say about this "nice gentleman", he was not stupid!
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sean640307 " Britain was sending tanks "
Britain received three times bigger help from Lend-Lease than Soviet Union. Whatever they sent is absolutely dwarfed by what they got, and all of that still wasn't enough to build an army capable of destroying Wehrmacht.
BTW - how effective those weapons actually were? I mean, I read on Soviet Hurricanes and Spitfires. They were all in British measures (non-metric and non-American), nobody knew how to operate them, no spare parts and they were often beat-up planes too.
Those planes broke-down, the cannons jammed, Soviets literally hated them.
Crappy American planes? Fine! There was a supply chain, enough of the planes to train people to run them, so forth.
" it's incorrect to you casualty numbers as the pure basis for measuring effort "
Of course! Poland has lost the most and all that effort was largely inconsequential. I agree with that!
" Look at Normandy, for example "
Exactly. Omaha beach was an average day in Poland. We were losing that many people every day of the war.
" If the USAAF and RAF raids hadn't curtailed the German oil production "
I don't think they did. We (since our guys did that too), we mostly killed innocent people. For barely any effect too.
Until the real goal was to weaken Europe... Then it did work. But that's beside the scope of this discussion, so whatever.
" considerable increase in oil production "
All of the synthetic oil was just a meager trickle. Burning women and children did very little to slow it down.
Although... I don't doubt for a second that we are uncomfortable enough with that reality, to invent a narrative which "explains it all away".
1
-
@eliasthienpont6330 " 2000 kCal is indeed what an average person requires "
Requires for what? Sitting in a warm room?
" in the freezing Russian steps during actual combat 4000 kCal is almost enough "
Before their rations were cut, they consumed 4.7 Kcal/day. 700 Kcal/day of excess would result in them gaining, what 5kg per month? Well, 30*700/4 = ~5kg indeed (converted to "bacon" of bodyweight).
Were they fat?
The thing is, if you are short of that many calories per day, you will be losing bodyweight at a similar rate.
Royal Navy during the age of sail consumed about 5 Kcal/day/man. Were they fat?
Competitive athletes may require 6 Kcal/day for men and 4 Kcal/day for women.
Are they fat?
If not, then that's what they need . It's no magic, it's thermodynamics.
Even current day MREs amount to about 3.8 Kcal/day, but that's an emergency food.
" food package in the USA [...] assuming a 2000 KCal diet "
Get out of the car, walk to work, do physical work , then try to keep your bodyweight on 2 Kcal/day.
People, use logic. If 4.7 Kcal/day was what sustained the soldiers during summer, then in winter they needed more in order to function at their full potential. 5.5-ish, or so. That's on average. Big guys needed even more than that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@steenkigerrider5340 "Only proves how gigantic superior the US"
Of course, what else? ;-D
"400.000 vehicles."
Below I quote a summary of a fairly detailed report:
"on 22.6.41 Red Army had around 270,000 trucks, and received another 745,000 during the war. Out of these, 150,000 were new domestic production, 221,500 trucks drafted from the industry and agriculture sectors, 60,600 captured enemy's trucks and 312,600 lend-lease trucks."
Above a million in total, from which LL trucks were about 30%. Not bad and definitely important, especially considering those were good trucks, but not critical.
What I like the most about those LL trucks, is that they were delivered in bulk. Enough to build a supply and maintenance chain around them, so they could actually deliver the goods, both literally and figuratively speaking.
That was not he case with regards to a lot of LL deliveries. Imperial, metric and even effing Whitworth! Not even talking about the lack of manuals, basic training and so on.
Did it all help? Sure. There's no denying that. But the raw numbers do not tell the whole story.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Were you inspired by James Lindsay of the New Discourses? If yes and if you credited him, I'm sorry, I've legit excuses for writing this comment before watching and digesting this whole vid.
However, it's possible you were not inspired by this dude, which would validate your research even more. It'd be like two different people, studying two apparently opposing ideologies, who discover the exact same undertones in both of them.
Anyway, I feel I need to ask now. It's prolly already too late, considering how many comments you get.
Edit: I'm sorry, I'm really tired. I already found out that “Race Marxism: The Truth about Critical Race Theory and Praxis.” is in your sources list. The question stays, though. Was he "one of" the sources, or "one of the" sources?
1
-
@Paciat "Also soldiers were trained to burst shoot an MG 42? So? It only proves my point that even in 1943 6 men caaaying ammo for it wasnt enough to fire it on full auto."
MG-42 was not a water-cooled heavy machine gun, which is supposed to fire continuously. It was a light MG, which a single man could carry. One belt of continuous fire would overheat the barrel, but unlike BAR (which served in a somewhat similar role), you could change the barrel quickly.
If you fired in short aimed bursts, you could at least in theory achieve the same tactical effect without the need to change the barrel as often. But I've read somewhere, that by the end of war the Germans have problems with providing enough barrels to replace the shot-out ones. Apparently, exercising trigger discipline under extreme stress is not an easy task, so quite a few barrels were damaged. (Still, better than BAR, where you'd have to replace the whole gun.)
Anyway, MG-42 is considered to be the best machine gun of wwII and beyond. Probably still better than "the pig" of Vietnam era.
1
-
@Raskolnikov70 "modern-day armies eventually settled on an intermediate-cartridge"
They didn't "settle" on this one cartridge. Actually, all modern armies use at least four cartridges. High caliber heavy MG (50BMG, 14.5mm), regular MG caliber (7.62 NATO, 7.62x54R), intermediate cartridge (5.56, 5.45) and a pistol round (9mm NATO and Luger).
An intermediate cartridge is an ineffective MG round. That's why nobody actually replaced anything, they just added yet another round to their supply chain. The main reason why nobody did it earlier, was probably this added logistical strain which amounted to not that much extra effectiveness. Once all the armies fully mechanized, it was a much easier pill to swallow.
Anyway, Germans are often laughed at for their apparent lack of consideration when adopting new marginally more effective weapons, which required a separate supply chain, but in this case they don't look too bad... Your "typical" German squad would need only 8mm Mauser and some small addition of 9mm Luger once in a blue moon. The Soviets would need a full supply of 7.62x54R and a full supply of 7.62 Tokarev. In case of trouble, the Germans could feed their MG with smallarms ammo, while the Soviets not so much. They could run out of either ammo and lose battle effectiveness, while the Germans would keep on fighting.
1
-
@Paciat Firepower eats ammo, that's how it works. Yes, the US squad could work around the deficiencies of BAR thanks to their excellent rifles, but the squad was still centered around the BAR.
I wasn't aware that the Soviets managed to pump out so many SVTs. Weird, since it wasn't a mature design yet, quite finicky with corrosive ammo, but apparently they tried their best.
Not my fault that the US Army in wwII was using wwI "walking fire" concept weapon. That's what they had, that's what they used. Not the best, by a long shot, but it still worked way better than nothing. Overall the quality of US equipment was probably the best out there, but BAR was not really well suited for the role it was used (SAW/LMG).
1
-
1
-
11:03 - "The German soldiers on Eastern Front committed horrendous crimes, and the all did it"
I understand it's not scripted, you speak off the cuff and all that, but regardless, I want to protest this statement. Very few people are capable of committing horrendous crimes. Most German soldiers didn't do anything particularly bad. Most normal people would do what they did, because German soldiers were normal people. We have no grounds of condemning what we'd also do. It can't be a crime if you'd do it, and I'd do it too.
To make it clear, I'm from Poland and I'm in no shape or form a Wherhaboo.
It's just like saying that burning women and children alive is automatically a crime, regardless of the circumstances. If you'd be drafted into a bomber crew, you'd do it. I'd do it. (I'd also shoot at parachuting Germans, and that's a crime all right. I'm fine with that. You probably wouldn't, I would. I'm worse than average, obviously.)
But it does not mean we should condemn people for being forced to do something horrible.
1
-
@Centurion101B3C "[shooting at] a civilian or non-combattant, you are right. That is a crime"
That reminds me of Saburo Sakai. He was tasked at intercepting enemy transports leaving the Indochina, but a nurse stood in the open door of the plane in flight and begged him to let them go. He did. He felt guilty about it afterwards, but I bet he'd feel even more guilty, if he downed a plane full of children and wounded. We can tell he would, since after the war he swore to never kill another living being and turned vegetarian.
She found him after the war, it's all confirmed true.
What if he followed his orders? Should he be condemned as a war criminal? What of the U-boot crews, who were demanded to shoot at survivors of the ships they sunk? Would I do the same? Civilians and all?
Yes, I would. I can't condemn them. Sorry. If I was drilled to follow orders and I was ordered to do something like that, I'd do it.
Actually, another story. Early in the war an U-boot captain decided to help the survivors of the boat he sunk. He took their lifeboats in tow and tried to get them closer to shore. The allies learned about it and ordered an air-strike on this whole deal. Yes, they ordered an air-strike on their own people. The strike happened, the u-boot escaped, but the people in lifeboats suffered casualties.
What of the people in this plane? Attacking their own. Are they responsible?
No, not them. Given what they could possibly know, they did their best, I suspect. Others? Those who made the decision? War criminals all right.
So, when were they hanged? Never...
1
-
@shibre9543 My grandpa always told me, that Germans were decent people. If they were ordered to do you harm, they would, but otherwise they very often tried to help.
That's a statement from a person living through a reign of terror piloting program. The Germans experimented in this area, if cracking down with extreme repressions will get rid of the resistance. They admit in their reports that it didn't work, yet they still kept on going.
Still, it's hard to condemn regular people for participating in all of this. You hardly had a choice. If you refused, they'd sent you to the front, where you'd most likely die, and rather quickly too.
Compliance was basically self defense. Military is based around discipline, because otherwise you'd never be able to send your dearest friends to the likely death. It's much easier to order your men to shoot at some random people.
(There are always those, who revel in cruelty. They are few and far between. I don't defend them.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Regis1995 "the difference between upper and working class is determined by who owns the means of production."
Stalin owned Soviet Union, Hitler owned the Third Reich. Both of them were super upper class, by your own definition. Where are the differences?
" there is no upper class in the Soviet Union."
How about those bridges on the moon, heh? I have three more bidders banging at my door, so decide quickly.
"The Third Reich never intended to have an egalitarian society; they HATED this part of Marxism"
Oh, that's why NSDAP was a worker's party? So the workers would know to shut up and work?
I mean, don't be that silly. NSDAP has called itself a Socialist worker's party for a reason. They were aiming for an egalitarian society for the Germans. International socialists wanted an egalitarian society for all workers of all nations, so initially there was a difference.
But then war has happened and in order to win, Soviet Union had to turn to nationalism as well. So, what was the difference after that happened?
"Soviet Socialism was a heavily authoritarian kind of Socialism."
Unlike the Third Reich? Because if they were the same also in this regard, why do we even talk about it here? Show me the differences, not similarities.
" (government) mediated between upper class and lower class"
You mean, Hitler, Goebbels and Himmler were mediated by the government? Because they were the actual upper class of the Third Reich, so the government supposedly told them what to do?
BS. Hitler owned the government and told it what to do, not the other way around. Just like it was in Soviet Union. Where are the differences?
"There is no mediation because no upper class exists, there is no profit as all value is distributed among workers. There are no clashing interests that need to be reconciled. "
The holy RNGeesus, that's so stupid it hurts my head.
1. Lenin, Stalin and so forth, were tyrants. In the classical Greek sense. They owned their states and they were the pinnacle of power and social status.
2. All their lackeys were the second level of social class, right below the monarch. They were the aristocracy.
3. The directors of factories, big land farms and so forth were the third tier. They were the nobility.
Nothing. And I mean it. Nothing has change since the Tzarat, apart from kicking out the old elites and bringing in the new ones in its exact place.
So finally, there was a difference between the Soviet Union and the Third Reich. Because in the Third Reich they didn't murder and/or disown all of their old upper class. Only the Jews.
Oh, and that too. In the Reich the Jews were at the bottom, while they were at the top of the Soviet Union.
But why do I have to write it? Finding and showing the differences was supposed to be your job. I was supposed to dismiss them as inconsequential.
1
-
1
-
@Regis1995 I wrote a lengthy response (in which I agreed with some of your points), but it's not appearing, at least for me. I don't know who deleted it.
It could be me, by mistake, though I don't believe it to be true.
It could be TIK. I think he's progressive, and I wrote some stuff which could be interpreted as criticism of this ideology. That would reflect very badly on him, but since I don't know it's his fault, I reserve my judgement.
Or it could be Youtube. Some keywords appeared to often, the thread was nested too deeply, my "social score" is possibly already damaged to some extent, so some algorithm decided that my post does not need to appear.
Whatever the case may be, I rest my case. The discussion of ideologies is obviously not welcomed here. Consume the content and be content, that's the message. I get it. I have bread (I bake it myself), I have entertainment, and that's where it ends.
A bit sad, though.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheImperatorKnight " normal people don't go after an innocent people "
You mean, without law? Why then preppers have WROL (without rule of law) acronym?
According to your current delusion, everything's gonna be perfectly normal even without law.
I mean, have you not seen people blatantly stealing someone's else property, just because there was a natural disaster, and the rule of law was momentarily weakened? They didn't even care about being filmed!
" It's also not "good for business" to go after innocent people; in fact, it's bad for business "
Slavery was/is business. In Bakhchysaray for example, you could take a loan and finance an expedition. The Vikings, for another example, often collected savings of many members and expected the profits to be shared according to the size of the said investment. We know, since they wrote (in largely illiterate society) very detailed lists. They paid someone to do it.
" plagiarism, which everybody understands to be both unethical and immoral "
That's patently false. First of all, there are licenses which allow for derivative works. Lots of authors use them.
Then, very obviously, people create a lot of derivative works even when it's not released on such license. There are whole genders of music and literature which are based on pre-existing original works.
Have you seen memes? No attribution, no compensation. How can you even consider making such blatantly incorrect statements in our viral culture?
" YouTube and the Brazilian State did nothing "
But they could, which is important. Both Brazil and Youtube recognize copyright law.
And in case you just threatened the dude to send an angry mob his way, you could do it even if you were in the wrong. It happened many times before. And it worked.
1
-
@TheImperatorKnight " it's called taxation "
Taxation is taxation, thievery is thievery. You might consider those things to be related, but do not equate them, or you are doing the "woke" thing, of smearing the definitions of words beyond recognizable borders.
They do it, because they want to deceive us. Why would you do it?
" taxation is slavery "
Cop&paste my response from above.
" someone who believes in theft and slavery "
Oh, and sophistry. Wokies love it too. They do it in order to "win" an argument, while being wrong. Why would you do it?
" YouTube has done anything about it? "
They don't have to. It's the author's duty to, at the very least, complain,
Don't tell me it doesn't work, since there were a bunch of trolls who made it their business model to mass-claim a bunch of videos on the most shaky grounds.
Anyway, I know for sure that people who organize armwrestling events managed to make sure, that reposting their pay-per-view content to be blocked.
" why has "the law" sat on its hands "
Do you want "the law" to interfere in your private life even before you notice anything went wrong?
I definitely would not!
You behave like a kid who takes all the "nice things" for granted, then refuses to do the chores, because it's "slavery", or something.
Grow up!
1
-
@TheImperatorKnight Re: "what's the difference? "
Very simple. We, as a society, agree to pay taxes, because it benefits us.
I does not mean we always agree to it, and that all taxes are beneficial, or that taxation is always warranted. However, as a very general rule, we do agree to it, for the very reason stated above.
Nobody ever agreed to be robbed or have things stolen from them.
" Why should I be compelled under threat of force to hand over that pay? "
Because we work as a team. We all need roads, an army, a police, a court system and more. If you defect from it, you basically become a sort of a parasite, who reaps all the benefits of a working system, while you contribute nothing to it.
That's why paying taxes became a moral issue among citizens .
With that said, I do not defend our current system beyond reason. All systems can go wrong. The question remains, what now?
A revolutionary utopia? Communism was such a "fix", for example. So, who did better? Citizens who worked hard trying to fix their faulty capitalism, or the revolutionaries, who tried to create an utopia?
What's worse, even communism sorta worked. Very badly, but it did function. Ancap? Nope. Never. Never will. It's literally worse than communism.
" by "society" you mean "the State" "
Nope. By society I mean society. If your society became so divided, that nothing but force keeps you guys together, you guys barely have a society.
That's a separate problem, though.
BTW - there is this guy, Stephan Molysomething. So he shared your genuinely (for once!) far right views. He visited Poland and enjoyed his stay here. Safe, clean, free, the lot. He adjusted his views afterwards, and claimed that collectivism does work.
Well, it can only work, if a genuine collective exists. If it's all forced, it does not work very well. Still better than anarchy, though.
1
-
@TheImperatorKnight " Taxes are not agreed on "
I'll give you an example.
Everybody knows about the siege of Vienna in 1683. Military campaigns are expensive, so the citizens of the PLC had to vote in war taxes. In this particular system, everybody had to agree. Literally. Every citizen had a right to veto every constitution. Which did happen way too often. Not in this case, though.
In this particular case (and many similar ones), taxes were definitely agreed on.
" they're enforced "
Of course! Military campaigns need real money, not "I'll pay you tomorrow" kind of money. Also, this example shows exactly how people who defect from paying their dues still reap all the benefits. With the Otoman army defeated, they all can enjoy peace, just like those who funded the campaign and/or served in person.
Especially military service was extremely expensive. And obviously risky.
" taxes don't benefit us in the slightest "
Well, they surely benefited the people of Vienna...
" A free market would provide these things so much better, cheaper and more efficiently "
It did not happen in PLC. No roads, no bridges, very poor law enforcement. The citizens were rich . Like in, a single region of Poland was richer than the whole of Prussia. (BTW - they had roads and bridges)
Yet it was Prussia which partitioned Poland.
" There is no 'we', there is only you and I. There are only individuals. "
That happens, when the army *routs" . By this moment all cohesion is lost.
They cease to be an army. However, they were an army before that, and an army is not a simple collection of individuals.
It's the same thing in societies. A working society is more than a collection of individuals.
" the State that is the parasite "
Why would people volunteer to defend this "parasite"? Once lost, why would an uprising happen almost every generation, which aimed at bringing back this "parasite"?
You guys had it so easy, that you lost all touch with harsh realities. You could have easily sat through WW1 and made peace in WW2 at any moment. The very existence of your own state was never in serious question. You guys are like a kid who always had a car, he can hardly imagine how life without a car would look like, yet he complains that the car he didn't pay for is old and needs some maintenance.
Literal spoiled brats. Loose your state, then you'll know if you want it back or not.
I have to go. Sorry.
1
-
1
-
Japanese aircraft were excellent. A6M2 Zero is often considered as the #1 ww2 fighter, depending on context and period. It had the range of the P51 very early in the war, snail-pace landing speed, unsurpassed maneuverability, good climb rate and good firepower.
Americans like to claim they could match it early on (no, not really) and that they totally dominated with their later constructions. It's all based on propaganda, which appears more convincing than it should due to the last-ditch Kamikaze raids with practically untrained pilots. Interestingly, even taking those extremely inflated "kill claims" at face value, later A6Ms do not look too too bad when you factor in the operational losses, which strongly depend on landing speed.
Also, the Japanese rifles were arguably the best bolt-action rifles of the war. The strongest action with the best safety features on top of it. Dead simple bolt construction. Three big pieces or so. Nice dust cover. Even their last-ditch rifles with no corners left to be cut perform satisfactorily.
The only real disadvantage those rifles had, was that they were hand-fitted. Not uncommon back then, but parts interchangeability, which we take for granted, was a major achievement of the more developed industrial powers.
1
-
" the historical method is a cousin to the scientific method "
If that's the case, you'd have to throw away "bad sources", just like the scientists throw away bad data.
Contrary to the popular belief, scientific data are usually bad. That's the norm. It takes a lot of verification, ideally by independent researchers, ideally through independent methods, to finally be able to say, that: "yes, atoms are not indivisible and electrons do exist".
You practically never analyze "all the data". (And if somebody does that, it's likely because they intentionally introduce more noise, in order to get to the predetermined conclusion.)
However, I do agree that there exists a similarity between both methods. Meaning, it takes a "cumulative evidence" in order to become more convinced and less skeptical about some idea. Ideally acquired with different methods (archaeology, genetics, what not).
1
-
1
-
@johnkeeports8795 The examples you gave for those more interesting questions seem to fall into two categories: very broad and very detailed.
Regarding the broad questions (why Nazis went to war?), it's likely that those questions might not have a straight answer.
Sometimes they might have a straight answer, though. Like, for example, I do believe that I know why Bronze Age collapsed and why Rome collapsed. I do think there existed the main reason for it, so sometimes it might work. But often it won't, simply because the question is not precise enough to have a precise enough answer. Precise enough to be considered either true or false, in a meaningful sense.
Regarding the detailed questions, the number of correct answers is inversely proportional to how detailed the question is. It's the problem of deterministic chaos, or the butterfly effect. Too many stars had to align in the exact right places in order for some detail to happen, so that asking "why" is not very productive.
So yes, we will never know everything, even in math (that's been proven). Does it mean we will never know anything? Of course not.
As we see, history is not special at all. Math, physics, chemistry, biology - all knowledge - is exactly the same. If historical truths can only be subjective (not really true), then all truths can only be subjective.
While we know, from experience, that is not the case. We really know something about how nature works!
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Андрей Борцов - Oh, of course they started the whole thing much earlier. In 1915, to be precise. On the German side there was a guy called Jacob Ganetzky, otherwise known as Fuerstenberg, and Parvus on the Russian side. Ganetzky had money from Count Ulrich von und zu Brockdorff-Rantzau, a German ambassador in Copenhagen. von und zu, what an irony! ;-D
And, as I showed earlier, they continued the whole deal for a long time.
"but the Bolsheviks' coming to power was unprofitable" - They planted Lenin in Petersburg, FFS.
"TELEGRAM NO. I925 AS 4486 Berlin, 3 December 1917 [...] It was not until the Bolsheviks had received from us a steady flow of funds through various channels and under different labels that they were in a position to be able to build up their main organ, Pravda, to conduct energetic propaganda [...] The conclusion of a separate peace would mean the achievement of the desired war aim, namely a breach between Russia and her Allies. "
I would say that a separate peace with Russia was "profitable" enough...
"but you can not finance idea." - So, who paid for Pravda?
Regarding Sissen documents - I barely know anything about them. Just that it was a fake, as you say.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jameshannagan4256 " The Soviet army in 43 did not have enough food to feed their army never mind the civilian population "
You are basically arguing, that USA won the war with 0.03% of their total war effort.
Them's the numbers:
Total LL program = 15% of USA war effort
LL for the Soviets = 1/5 of that, that is 3% of USA war effort.
Food = 13% of everything, which is 0.03% of U.w.e.
Even if we'd assume, that the Soviets had absolutely no room for maneuver, it still seems very suspicious to claim they'd have collapsed without American condensed milk and chocolate.
I mean, do you guys really think that without American boots, the Red Army would have walked barefoot? No. If push came to shove and they simply couldn't make enough, they'd requisition all the boots from the civilians, who'd have to make do with sandals, clogs and footwraps.
The same story with aviation fuel. The Germans didn't have good avgas, so they relied on water injection. Why not the Soviets? They shot down enough German planes to figure out how to do it, but what's the point, if Americans send you all that avgas?
It makes more sense to do other stuff, but that's how the "tipping point" theory is largely demolished, because it relies on small but supposedly crucial deficiencies, with the Soviets doing nothing to combat those problems.
1
-
@jameshannagan4256 " Soviet produced stats "
Those are American stats!
" they would not have been able to procure FOOD fron the civ population "
So, in your version of reality, Leningrad fell, because people were reduced to eating people?
" Ukraine mostly occupied by Germany "
Stalin purposefully orchestrated Holodomor in order to starve them to death not that many years back. Yet, they survived.
" they did not have nearly enough to feed their army never mind the populace "
If that's so, then LL couldn't have made that much of a difference. Famine was inevitable...
" the [Germans] may have been able to supply their army better and help their logistic issues "
Yes, that is true. However, it does not mean that the Soviets would have collapsed. First of all, it takes time to build a supply network. You can't just throw money and manpower on a bogged tank and make it go. It takes time to build those roads, to organize an efficient way of reloading all your cargo into a railway network which is incompatible with the rest of the world, and so forth.
Then, it's the problem of Germany being already invested in her navy. You can't just juggle the numbers from one page to another. It takes time and effort to do it with any efficiency at all.
So it's not that simple. In part they were already committed to their chosen strategy, in part you couldn't expect miracles even if they weren't.
1
-
@Nightdare " they found another added problem in North Africa called American assistance "
That's two years later. Three, if we count in the planning phase.
" They didn't expect to need more troops on the eastern front "
And they were correct. In order to use more troops, they'd need a better supply chain.
Anyway, Wehrmacht outnumbered the Soviet armies it faced until fairly late in war. When the numbers shifted in favor of the Soviets, the Soviets were winning.
No wonder, at this point they pretty much mastered the logistics of large scale warfare, which can be seen when they absolutely steamrolled through Manchuria.
BTW - It's often brought up that "Soviets committed their forces piecemeal, instead of throwing them all at once at the enemy".
Can people be that simple and not understand, that two soldiers with ammo will always win against three without?
" they received lots of 'labor' courtesy of the Russians "
Not only them, they captured some of the people I knew too. But what do you "really" get this way? Unskilled labor? Very little of that is actually useful. And as far as skilled labor goes, the will does matter.
So they ended up short on people. Not the soldiers, they had enough of them (albeit since 1941 the quality dropped), but of not so simple workers, needed to feed the war machine.
" Any idea how much the Atlantik wall cost? "
I've seen the same stuff in Eastern Prussia. Yes, it was expensive, but I wouldn't say it was "too expensive".
What I mean by that, if you build even a very elaborate bunker, it's all in the same place. You build a rail extension, a road to it, a reloading station, put some slaves to carry all the stuff from one place to another, and then it's almost a waste to build a simple bunker.
So you build a big and elaborate structure and maximize the return on your investment. Or a least plenty of simpler ones concentrated around your rail network.
" Most of eastern USSR was flat "
I grew up in a similar area. Yes, it's mostly flat, but then there is a river... For a river to be crossed by a train you need to build a huge bank, like 6 stories tall even, and a bridge.
Yes, it's doable, because you have a rail literally right there, but it takes time .
And you simply can't throw more resources at it and hope it's gotta scale. It won't.
" old soviet rail lines "
Yes, they ended up using those. However, weren't that You who proposed that they could "easily" build their own rail network ?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kilianklaiber6367 It depends where you live. The further East you go, the more continental the climate gets, and that means harsher winters and hotter summers. Then the transition period is extremely unpredictable.
Yes, it can snow in May. Rarely where I live, right next to Vistula, but it happens. Wet, cold and windy Mays are quite common, though.
Anyway, the whole idea of Barbarossa was to capture the Red Army right next to the border and destroy it there, where the supply lines were short and sweet. It succeeded. If they rushed the offensive and chanced on bad weather, it could have failed.
1
-
1
-
@heespeseth You are wrong. That simple.
Spec-ops on garrison duty - not in combat - I stress it!
"The current USARIEM study began at the Combat Diver Qualification Course in Key West, Fla. Crombie said preliminary results indicate that service members at that venue needed 4,600 calories a day. "
As contrasted with regular soldiers, who need less.
"NATICK, Mass. (Jan. 24, 2013) -- A typical service member in garrison needs to consume about 3,250 calories a day for sustenance. "
"The MDRIs for calories can meet the needs of the average Army personnel. Men and women should have 3,250 to 4,600 and 2,300 to 3,150 calories, respectively, per day, which will fluctuate based on size. The Departments of the Navy, Air Force and Army say the daily calorie requirements are based on a 174-pound, 69-inch man and a 136-pound, 64-inch woman. "
3500 in combat is a starvation level diet. That's acceptable for a short period of time, especially if you have to carry all of those extra calories on your back. It's not sustainable, though. You need about 5K for that.
"The RN was and is stil on an unhealthy diet :)"
I beg to disagree. If they ate 2000 cal surplus, which is what you seem to claim, they would look like whales. Study the paintings from the period. Those guys were wiry! (Apart from the higher ranks, who ate better and worked much less.)
1
-
I don't buy this argument, but I left a like, because the reasoning and presentation was so enticing.
Anyway, I don't buy this argument for two reasons.
1. Military reason.
The encirclement works, because the encircled are cut off from the supplies. If you attack them immediately, there is hardly any advantage to it at all. They had no time to run out of supplies yet, did they?
2. Further development.
If Hitler wanted Britain alive, he wouldn't have risked the Battle of Britain. A costly stalemate. What's the point of it? To train the British in Air War, strengthen her diplomatic position and waste all those highly trained German airmen and expensive equipment?
Finally, the Dunkirk basically worked anyway, for the most part. People make a big deal out of evacuating some soldiers outta there, but soldiers are not the army. Depending on the circumstances, the equipment can be way more important than the recruits. It takes a lot of effort to build a gun, while the people who man it can be sufficiently trained relatively quickly and cheaply. Highly trained people are expensive to replace, but most grunts are not.
In other words, even if the evacuation at Dunkirk failed, Britain would have achieved similar levels of war readiness in similar time. Soviet Russia managed to do so very quickly, so why wouldn't eventually? And what if they could actually halt the Germans at Dunkirk and escape anyway? What if apart from inflicting immediate damage, they'd use this temporary advantage to rescue some equipment too?
That's the scenario you don't want to risk, if it's obvious you are already winning.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+TIK - I'm not trying to argue they were perfect, but sure enough they didn't look incompetent throughout all the time since 1939 till 1942. They pulled off what appears to be some sort of a miracle quite regularly.
Regarding the core of your question, there are reasons why Germans were much better initially than the Allies. For once, it's Reichswehr. A relatively small army, where you needed to be a genius or a hero to even enter the ranks at anything above grunt level. The doctrine, the will, the culture - all of that mattered too, but whatever. I can pretend it didn't, because I don't really need this argument.
The only thing that really matters is that Germans were experienced at modern war, while the Allies were not. Bad commanders were kicked out long time ago and people were chosen for their commands more in line with their actual battlefield abilities.
While in peacetime armies of the Allies the command was often a result of skilled internal politics.
We should also remember that plenty of those former enemies were hired by the Allies post-war, and their opinions were deeply respected. It's rare to do that to the foe you just beat, so my guess is they were the real deal.
So I do have reasons to assume that gross incompetence should not be considered until other options are exhausted. Mistakes? Sure. Everybody makes them. Gross incompetence, which your video seems to suggest? An interesting opinion worthy of consideration, but I'm not changing tack based on just that.
BTW - I'm not a particular fan of Wehrmacht or even Germany herself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@brucetucker4847 I know what the general opinion is. I simply don't know if there are any numbers which support it. I used to be told, that hellcats had 11:1 kill/death ratio too, but I never bought it.
Similarly here, all I got from you is an opinion, and "trust me bro, I read the books". "They were losing pilots right and left, because they simply didn't care." is not a statement I will accept on that alone.
Regarding plane construction, I don't think your stance makes any sense. Self sealing tanks and cockpit armor obviously helped a little, but were not game changers. If they were, they'd do it, though even a late war Seafire had only one tank self-sealing. Does it mean that the British were some feudal death cult too?
If cockpit armor was such a useful feature, why was it so fragmentary? Were Americans a death cult, or there were reasons not to make the coverage more complete?
Though, considering the torpedo bomber losses at Midway, you could argue that Americans did not shy away from sending their top quality pilots into certain death, so maybe they were evil worshipers after all.
1
-
1
-
Post-modernists do not claim that "their truth" is objective. They claim that since we can never agree, we can never establish the objective truth, so it doesn't even exist, or might as well not exist at the very least.
Because of that, the only thing that remains is "wining". In a debate, for example.
Which is what you are actually proposing, are you not?
(Obviously, post-modernists are demonstrably wrong. I have fiber optic network in my village now and if all the "truths" on which this technology relies were mere illusions, or petty "wins" in petty "debates", then it all wouldn't be able to work. So we really know something , even if we'll never know everything.
History is the same. It can be treated as hard science with its ability to cross-check and establish some ideas as facts, even if a lot of it will always remain speculative, hence subjective.)
1
-
1
-
@ComradeOgilvy1984 "Circular reasoning. [...] using words redefined to fit"
That's what I accuse the left of. Nazis, literal National Socialists, are redefined to become "far-right" in order to fit the need of distancing them from the left and associating the right with the crimes they had nothing to do with.
Mussolini was a Socialist. Giovanni Gentile was a Socialist, Goebels was a Socialist. Hitler was a Socialist too. And Lenin, Trocki, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.
"hollowness of your (and TIK's) understanding."
Oh, sure. We are so "hollow", because we recognize that National Socialists were Socialists. That's such a simplistic view of reality, isn't it? The reality must be more complex than that, because otherwise the left would be blamed for all those crimes against the humanity.
That can't be allowed to happen!
1
-
@damienrichards7216 "as the only way to stop a "Bolshevik style revolution" [...] (although this was merely a perceived threat in reality the socialists had very little power). "
Who killed Mussolini? Could you maybe remind me how he died?
"my point being that someone can call themselves something (and even believe they are that thing) but then either change into something different or not care much for it in the first place."
Unfortunately, that's not the case as far as Fascists and especially Nazis go. Both of those movements put in practice broad state intervention programs. Starting from regulated wages and prices, through profit margins and going as far as state sponsored holidays. They did all of is merely three years after they gained power! Three years!
They didn't outright seize the means of production, but the control of the government was vast . You were allowed to remain the nominal owner, but only as long as you produced what you were told to produced, by using methods as approved by the government and selling it all at a price as assigned by the government. Only in name you could call yourself an "owner".
In practice, you were a director of a state owned factory!
"I do however agree that the soviet union was ironically similar to the 3rd Reich in a major way because although they went about things in different ways they ended up with a very similar result."
There is no irony, because the ways in which they went about things were almost exactly the same. Large scale state controlled economy, huge black markets, shortages, the reign of terror, infighting.
Just, the lot. They were the same.
1
-
@paranoidandroid9511 No, I wrote that we should take a weighted average of all those issues and put the dot on the line wherever it belongs.
"Weighted" means, that if the issue is important to someone, it carries a lot of weight. For example, a fervent feminist would be considered a lefty, even if he/she happens to support libertarian capitalism, but can hardly be bothered to ever talk about it.
Or, a fundamentalist Christian activist would be a righty, even if he sometimes dreams about living in a Christian commune with no private property to speak of.
In a nutshell, we take everything into account and then simplify the living out of it. Sure, it won't work in some fringe cases, but in general it's what we already do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@REgamesplayer "annexing foreign land is morally wrong"
Sure. How about a plebiscite, so the people would decide where they want to live, heh?
Nah, that won't do...
How about you have as independent as possible democratic government, which does not threaten the Poles? You can keep your treasured historical places! As long as you are friendly, we don't care!
Nah, that won't do either...
What would you guys do if you were us?
"Poles rejected international courts and ruling on Vilnius."
Could be true. So, what should the Polish army do, when Wilno is taken from the Soviets? Make a generous gift to you guys? You behaved like an enemy, you were allied with the Soviets...
Do you know what's happened to about a million Poles who remained in the Soviet Union? They were murdered. 200 thousands of them, give or take.
One in five shot dead.
If I was in command of the Polish army back then, I'd never give Wilno to you guys. Get salty all you want, but there are priorities. I would not abandon the people I was sworn to protect.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@aleksazunjic9672 "In fact, starvation was constant part of life."
That's simply not true. For example, Poland has never experienced famine, as of yet. It may change shortly.
Market based economies do not result in starvation. If the food becomes more expensive, people invest more effort into producing food. It only happens when there is a large scale disaster, like war or large scale crop failures (Bronze Age Collapse, for example).
Anyway, let's imagine that some climatic disaster happens, crops fail all over the world, then how are you supposed to solve this issue by coupons? Will this piece of paper produce nonexistent food out of thin air?
On the other hand, socialistic policies do result in famine, and that's why I'm worried about our future.
1
-
@januslast2003 "Whether a subsidy is good or bad depends on the frame of reference."
I agree with that. Libertarian capitalism is an utopia, just like communism, meaning that it works best on paper, but in reality it always fails at some point.
For example, capitalism encourages efficiency, which leads to specialization (aka, it's cheaper to buy food, so we stop producing it). That's great, until you factor in the disasters. Those happen both in economies and in nature. From observing nature we can conclude, that while specialist species can thrive under stable conditions, they are the first to die out when the inevitable happens.
Another problem is simply force. Libertarian capitalism assumes, that no one will ever use force to get what they want. That no one will ever unite, in order to obtain more force. That's very unrealistic.
When we factor that and similar aspects in, we end up somewhere close to the gray area of observed reality.
1
-
@iamcleaver6854 "free food, eat apples"
Apples are "free" now? Grand. Hogs like apples a lot, hogs grow fat, humans like fat a lot ... profit!
"taxes collected"
From what? Last time this "healthy food" idea was tried around here, the stores in schools forced to sell apples and carrots, which no kids wanted, instead of chocolate and icecream, which all of them want, started running at a loss.
How can you tax something, which runs at a loss?
(Anyway, apples are just sugar and starch. Carrots are sugar and starch too. Starch is a more complex version of sugar anyway. Fortunately, all those starches and sugars can be turned into alcohol... Profit?)
1
-
1
-
1
-
@iamcleaver6854 "and use the tax revenue to lower prices on carrots and apples"
If you do that, then I could buy carrots and apples cheaper than I can grow them. Why would I grow them then? Tell me, please. I do grow both, atm.
"if you want to fill yourself with extra calories, do as you will"
So, what are you actually solving here? The poor can stuff themselves full with free "healthy" food, then finish it off with what they actually want, because they can suddenly afford it.
I repeat, what problem have you solved?
""leftist", whatever it even means. I never said I am."
You proposed policies, which are unavoidably lefty. Sorry, but as long as you think what you seem to be thinking, you are a lefty.
"Of cause it is about myself."
I know. It's just that you guys like to claim high moral grounds. Which usually you do not deserve.
"price controls. Taxes don't make the market less free."
You want "free" apples and "expensive" candies. That's price control. You propose to do it by means of taxes. You contradict yourself.
"The market should serve the nation"
How about, "the market should serve the people"? That's easy to do.
1
-
@iamcleaver6854 "the government would pay you for it! The tax revenue"
Per hektar dedicate or per ton? In the first case, it's the most beneficial for me to fill some papers, collect my subsidy and do nothing. In the second case the most economical solution is to not even do that. Just "buy" underpriced carrots and sell them at a profit to the gobment.
You know what, I have a better idea. How about the gobment takes away my land and plants those apples themselves? Yeah, I know it's been tried, but this time it's gonna be all right...
"The people who before couldn't afford to buy healthy food now can."
I'll tell you a secret. They always could afford to eat less junk and buy some carrots instead. They could always afford home cooking, which is cheaper than take-aways. They just do not want to do it.
"What do I seem to be thinking?"
You think that government has the means, the reasons and justifications to force the population. It's totalitarian attitude, where government intervenes into almost every aspect of life. Because that's where it will end up, and unfortunately that's where we are going anyway.
"It is hilarious. Most liberals end up calling me a fascist. To libertarians I am apparently a lefty"
I don't think it's funny at all. There is no contradiction here. BTW - I am not a libertarian.
"If the government ORDERED to sell a product at a particular price"
That's what they end up doing. If the stores could make profit by selling cheap, then they would still search for a better price elsewhere, where there are no/less subsidizing. If they don't make any profit from selling cheap, they need to be forced into carrying those products.
The only way in which we can combat all that is by total control. The producers need to be tightly controlled, the suppliers, the sellers. Everybody. Just to have some "cheap" apples...
Apples are cheap anyways! You go on with your scheme, there will be no apples . I have seen it. In real life!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dannyhalas9408 "The Luftwaffe couldn't hit the royal navy at sea"
I consider this a "silly talk". I mean, it's quite possible that the Luftwaffe lacked the necessary expertise to do effective attacks in this environment, but the equipment they had was sufficient. If you can dive-bomb a bridge, you can dive-bomb a bridge on a destroyer. Even if it's "moving". Not so easy if it's shooting back at you, obviously. Nothing ever is so easy if they are shooting back at you, especially if you are new at this thing.
"fast moving [destroyer]"
You mean, full forward at a mind-bending 20 kt? Well, that's a whooping 10% of a (cautiously) diving Stuka! An expert pilot can probably distinguish between a stationary vessel and a "fast moving one" in a double-blind study. Probably...
"Most of the boats capsised."
I flat out don't believe that, until they did a very German thing and tested the limits.
"towing"
River barges tended to have their own propulsion. With enough ooomph to overcome a very significant inertia and, surprise of surprises, river currents.
But I'm not saying that what you say definitely did not happen. Something like that could have. I'm just saying that I suspect there is more to it than what you just wrote.
"the destroyers could just pull up near by and the waves would tip them over."
That's just total nonsense. Germans had Kriegsmarine with proper seamen. Those guys knew what they were doing. Your scenario is basically impossible, if seamen have any say in the matter.
1
-
@dannyhalas9408 " I think maybe you need to educate yourself"
Challenge accepted.
"British Tribal-class destroyers could move at a speed of 67 mph"
Well, I "educated" myself at Wikipedia, which claims they moved at 61 km/h, not 67mph. That's 33 kt instead of 20 or whatever I wrote before. Not much of a difference, if any. Not when being dived on.
"what hope could the Luftwaffe have of hitting targets moving that fast"
What if you try it yourself? You know, there are free-to-play games, where you can bomb ships, strafe trains etc. I did it for a little while some time ago. I couldn't tell if the ship (or train) was moving or not, until I observed the smoke or the wake.
How about you do it, so we can compare notes?
"The speed of diving Stukas has nothing to do with their ability to hit fast moving targets"
Should I educate you about the physics of inertial frames of reference, or we are playing at educating exclusively me?
"Dive bombers in reality really weren't that effective,"
Particularly at Midway.
"the benefits were more psychological in reality"
Especially for Akagi, destroyed with a single psychological hit.
"10% of the troops didn't manage to get ashore at all"
I thought all of them drowned, since most of the boats capsized...
"The Kriegsmarine didn't have many experienced seamen"
Of course.... I forgot that Germans can't sail. Not further than Jutland, for sure.
Regarding the whole exercise, it does look like they were testing the limits. Tugging a long train of "dumb barges" out to sea and attempting a landing is taking it to the extreme. Still, most of the barges did not capsize, did they? Because you wrote they did, and I objected. Not on the grounds of German supremacy, but on the grounds of seamen supremacy. No sane captain would go that far. They tend to know what a boat is capable of. That's how they got the job.
1
-
@dannyhalas9408 "the destroyers are a whole 6 km slower"
67 mph is 108 km/h. That's not 6 km/h difference. That's speedboat range. Strange blunder, from someone so well informed....
"actually trained and outfitted to attack ships"
You mean, outfitted with bombs? Stukas could do that too.
"I made a mistake about most the of boats capsising during the exercise."
How about "simply pulling along" being enough to capsize the boat? A minor overstatement, I suppose.
"Unsurprisingly you don't mention anything about the exercise at all, apart from the nitpick."
It's not a nitpick, it's calling out BS. It's the question of trust. Can I trust you when you say, that they planned to tug over a thousand "dumb barges" across the channel? As their main means of transport? That seems like a folly all right, but since you were off elsewhere, I'm not inclined to believe you here either.
The exercise went badly, as was probably expected by those who carried it out. If they were significantly short of experienced crews, as you quote, the invasion was doomed to be a disaster, if attempted.
But even considering such a scenario undermines TiK's theory. You do not go to such lengths if you desperately try to keep Britain in the war.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
A counterargument: What about the archives?
Do they say that they do what is asked of them and even have some capability left? If not, I don't believe you. People almost always are willing to overstate their own achievement and claim they did well, even if they didn't.
Your hypothesis requires me to believe that people on the ground were willing to take the blame for someone's else failure, and keep their mouths shot. While I could believe that, I'd need more evidence than some rather shaky happenstances.
I mean, screwups happen and sending the wrong packets is almost expected. Also, there is nothing particularly mysterious about having more planes at some day than another. They just fixed them, how about that?
So if the say, they can't fly because their engines are frozen solid, maybe, just maybe, they were simply frozen solid?
1
-
1
-
1