Comments by "bakters" (@bakters) on "Churchill was an idiot" video.

  1. It's easy to criticize people who do stuff for the inevitable mistakes they commit. It's much harder to find a competent replacement for them. The Italian campaign has shown what the "replacements" were capable of. The level of incompetence on display there makes you appreciate the Montys and Bradleys despite all their shortcomings. I believe it's the same situation with Churchill, but that's harder to assess. " we won despite of him " I fail to see how that makes any sense whatsoever.
    148
  2.  @raylast3873  I watched the vid, I'm interested in history. Sorry, but we disagree for other reasons than me being utterly ignorant.
    15
  3.  @raylast3873  From what I've seen so far, he demanded aggression from his commanders. Maybe to a fault, but it's hard to tell what would have happened if he did not demand so much from them. When you wait longer and prepare better, it's quite likely that the enemy will do the same. And no amount of training is equivalent to even a small amount of actual battlefield experience, so maybe it's worth it to attack sooner and on smaller scale than build up to Goodwood and fail anyway? I believe Churchill was very aware of that, was very aware that generals need to be forced into aggression, just like all the troops in war need to be forced into aggressive mode. Defense comes more naturally, but it still has a chance of becoming the great route of Korea.
    12
  4. ​ @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
  5.  @myhonorwasloyalty  " cope anglo " I take it as a compliment to my language skills. Thank you very much.
    3
  6.  @ErikHare  " He should have stayed out of it. " If he stayed out of it, very little would be done. Then Britain would possibly have a little bit more resources at her disposal, but much less experience. Going after the Germans without experience was a recipe for disaster, then on a much larger scale. Second Dunkir is not out of question. How would post-war Europe look then? A commie block all the way. Even more difficult Cold War, even more and more successful Commie revolts all over the world.
    1