Comments by "bakters" (@bakters) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
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