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