Comments by "Mitch Richards" (@mitchrichards1532) on "TIKhistory" channel.

  1. Nazis declared war on Jews in 1920.
    3
  2. That was happening because the Soviet military expansion had not kept pace with events, and especially not kept pace with Germany.
    3
  3. No, they didn't. 43% survival rate for Soviet POWs in German hands, 67% for Germans in Soviet hands. The German survival rate takes a hit due to the POWs taken at Stalingrad, but also isn't very accurate due to the number of Germans that were captured but never made it from the front to the ca mp to be processed as a POW. The only accurate way to measure is to compare known POWs + MIAs, then we can add about 1.1 million more to the German number and 4 million more to the Soviet's.
    3
  4. Bigot...
    3
  5. So it seems the Nazis shouldn't have murdered 2.8 million Soviet POWs prior to the Soviets taking significant numbers of German POWs?
    3
  6. ​ @reichstreu3362  In regard to "Eisenhower's Death Camps". If you support that theory, how do you account for Wehrmacht MIA distribution? To mean, the Wehrmacht unit and personnel records track last known whereabouts of missing personnel, of which we know how many went missing, on what front and when. If 1.1 million remain MIA on the Eastern Front and 41,000 in the West, what front is the "missing million" located? Check out this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXTGfG3mlXA at the 4:45 to 5:20 mark. And also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WpAMCD1jHo at 2:10 Each Wehrmacht Soldier, living or dead, has a unit personnel file with their status, deceased (when, where, where buried), alive (current address) Missing (last known whereabouts, any efforts to locate, family requests, etc.). Where does this information factor in your belief or faith in "Eisenhower's Death Camps" since it clearly demonstrates that there was no mass death there. You know?...no bodies ever found, not even pics of bodies or even starving men?
    3
  7.  @oscartang4587u3  Or maybe read Dr. Tooze' "Wages of Destruction" first....
    3
  8. So what's your point? The events that make up the "Shoʾah", a term used by Jewish people since 1946 didn't have a mainstream anglified and marketable name so therefore it didn't happen? What does your theory have to do with debating the hard evidence? Clearly nothing whatsoever and you're just looking to create a sideshow, a diversion from the evidence and lays the seeds of doubt. Typical dishonest denier tactic.
    3
  9. There is much mention of better trained officers coming out of the academies/schoolhouses to replace older officers of the Civil War era. First of all, an officer coming out of an academy or schoolhouse is a STUDENT being thrown into a position of leadership without the luxury of a Western style NCO cadre to lean on. They know the schoolhouse process, solution, etc. and that's it. According to COL David Glantz, most of them came into a situation where there weren't enough officers to keep up with the overly rapid expansion of the Red Army, so most were put into levels of command one or two levels higher than what they were trained for. You cannot assume that a schoolhouse adequately trains an officer to be proficient at their job, that is actually rare even in Western armies. Now picture a freshly trained student/officer taking command at a level above his training with a unit lacking manpower, specialists, equipment, and training, then being thrown into combat against an enemy that is far superior. That kind of explains what happened in 1941, no?
    3
  10. Try questioning a denier, see how productive that is. Seriously, try it.
    3
  11.  @Winterwolf-fs3wh  "denier" is short for Holocaust denier. A denier of established fact about the Holocaust.
    3
  12. Anyone supporting Irving most likely didn't read Dr. Evans' book. It's pretty clear that Irving is a knotsie fanbois and all of his narratives are just historical distortion to try and rehabilitate the little moustache. Anyone supporting Irving is also very likely a denier and anti-semite, and that is just my opinion based on personal observation of these very comments.
    3
  13. Irving who? There's no new material from him and he's basically a nobody now since he was exposed as an opportunist charlatan.
    3
  14. Thats an incredibly simplistic way to make an excuse for the Nazi murder of 2.8 million Soviet POWs...and way off the mark. The Nazis planned to murder those Soviet POWs from the start and its documented.
    3
  15. He's legally obligated to speak ill of Irving? Ok, prove it. Sounds like a total self-serving BS statement.
    3
  16. Sounds like neo-na zi revisionist BS.
    3
  17. A statistical analysis of Austrians revealed under 5%. Several divisions destroyed at Stalingrad were mostly raised in Austria under the old Wehrkreis system. Austria did an analysis of survivors after the war and it revealed the under 5% survival rate. Hiwis aren't part of the total number of prisoners either. Its primarliy Wehrmacht with a few Romanians (under 3k).
    3
  18. sheep....
    3
  19.  @cal3207  So what exactly is wrong with the "official account" of say... the bombing of Dresden? Irving claims a different figure by a factor of 10 and uses a fraudulent document for his basis.
    3
  20. It wasn't...
    3
  21.  @billballbuster7186  Oh now its a "tantrum" 🤣 Your argument was crushed, you tried to divert, you got called out on it. Get over yourself, you suck at trolling. 😂
    2
  22. War is ugly.... "de-housing" the populace creates problems for the enemy, clogs the roads with people, creates requirements for food and shelter, etc. It generally stresses the enemy's logistics, saps their combat power. I'm not justifying it, but this is how its viewed at the top.
    2
  23.  @koko2bware  Typical denier response, you go straight to diversionary equivocation....its a denier trait. The topic was Irving and the Hcaust, but you go for the shotgun approach of diversions. lol So where are all those bodies at Dresden, or when it suits you that's not a requirement?
    2
  24. No, it the Germans are inner Earth people and they were executing the orders of their alien masters... : )
    2
  25. Commissar order was issued BEFORE the invasion genius. wow
    2
  26. Amateur thoughts... Look up "Historical Method", and see that there is a tried and true academic process to producing a "fact". Some willingly, knowingly, choose to deny facts that are produced following this process. The question isn't who is right, but more like why do people choose to deny fact in the absence of any plausible alternative produced by the same reliable method. Some people simply choose to deny things without any alternative whatsoever, why is that? It has to do with psychology, not history IMHO.
    2
  27. Suvorov wrote a book that targets an audience that won't research or analyze his claims. Its written in simple language, makes broad accusations, is based on anecdotal evidence instead of hard facts, and makes general references rather than being specific and to the point. I highly recommend reading David Glantz' "Stumbling Colossus" for comparison and to ensure you get a different point of view on the topic.
    2
  28. TGBSET? (The Greatest BS Ever Told).
    2
  29.  @dragosstanciu9866  He just wants you to know he's a neo-na zi nutter.
    2
  30. He didn't sacrifice anything. He tried to sue a major publisher for millions of Pounds and he lost. His own books were used against him when it was proven in court that what he claimed his source material said was different than what it actually said. He's a charlatan who profited from controversies of his own making. He got caught...
    2
  31.  @jamesinnitbruv  Dresden claims of 100k-250k civilian casualties by use of a known forged document (TB47). He initially retracted his claimed estimates, then later walked that back and made higher claims and contested the authenticity of the forgery. He claimed that the city was full of refugees and that it was destroyed by the Allies. The fact is, the city center was destroyed, 6.5 sq km out of 328 sq km of the total city area in which the population was swollen by 100k refugees. To claim that out of approximately 750k people in the greater Dresden city limits, 33% or more of them were in 2% of the city at the time of the attack is absurd… no? He assigned the Allies a genocidal intent and a bogus 10x bloated casualty figure of civilians, claimed there was no military value, and used that to equivocate the Holo caust in some sort of zero sum moral accounting. That's one example of how he goes about distortion, denial, and writing a pro-N A zi narrative intended to stir up controversy around his books and profit from the attention. He was just a cheap salesman underneath it all.
    2
  32.  @jamesinnitbruv  A few other main Irving themes: That there were no hom icidal ga s chamb ers. That Je ws were not kil led in g as cham bers or at least not on any significant scale; That the Na zis had no policy and made no systematic attempt to exter minate the European Je wry and that such dea ths as did occur were the consequence of individual excess unauthorized at the senior level; That the number of Je ws mu rdered did not run into the millions and that the true de ath toll was far lower; That the Holo caust is largely or entirely a myth invented by Allied propa gandists and sustained after the war by Je ws in order to obtain financial support for the newly created state of Isr ael.
    2
  33.  @jamesinnitbruv  In an ocean of evidence you choose a specific pint of it to contest and convince yourself its all fake. Typical denier tactic that no one falls for, except deniers. As you said, that's not how it works. The Holo caust was a much larger event than a gas cha mber at one ca mp. Irving denied or downplayed the whole narrative, not just one small piece. BTW: You asked "What specifically did he misquote?" and I specifically gave you TB47 from his Dresden book. Obvious proof beyond doubt that he deliberately "misquoted" a source in order write a false narrative and draw distorted conclusions, make disparaging comments about the Western Allies, and make a bogus moral equivocation to the Holo caust. He claimed more Germans were lost at Dresden than Jewi sh people in the Holo caust. Thoughts? Comments on his Dresden book? "What specifically did he misquote?" -ANSWERED specifically.
    2
  34. Dumb... lol
    2
  35. Rus religion was brought by Eastern Orthodox Byzantium, not Rome. Get a clue...
    2
  36.  @hakapeszimaki8369  Nope.... That's just a BS hollow counter-accusation for the simple sake of argument.... Rejected as such.
    2
  37.  @hakapeszimaki8369  The Allies "crimes" are not hidden and in most cases are not "crimes" as 21st century whiners wish to portray them as. And yes, like it or not, in WWII and after the US has fought for the right ideals and causes. The efforts may have miscarried, but the moral approach was right.
    2
  38.  @KansasHempMan  What's cute about Irving using known bad information?
    2
  39.  @KansasHempMan  Cool story, now f'ing copy-paste where I did what you accuse and prove it...LIAR. You're a N A Z I fanbois and denier trash, get over yourself. Irving DID use known bad info as evidence in his Dresden book, he was publicly outed for it. You can ignore it if you want to, its what people like you do in order to maintain your warped views by not letting actual fact get in your way. F'ing trash
    2
  40.  @KansasHempMan  No re tard, the only good info comes from legitimate primary evidence, not fake, known forgery, etc. Know the f'ing difference. You can try to make it ambiguous as if there aren't rules for evidence, but unfortunately for you there are rules that govern accuracy of sources, quality of evidence, etc. Irving is a known charlatan, and you are now a known shill.
    2
  41. Dr. Evans is a Phd Historian educated at Oxford and has many years of experience. Penguin books contracted him as an expert in his field to analyze Irving's books in great detail to establish whether or not he used his source material faithfully or distorted it. Guess what that revealed.
    2
  42.  @FortniteBlaster2  Irving pioneered the German archives? lol, ok... Odd how when people check his citations and find that he didn't faithfully translate or quote them that you would take issue. Your opinion of Dr. Evans is just that, YOUR opinion and not even a fact based one. You just make a BS statement to devalue and cancel his expertise and protect your hero Irving. That is NOT an accurate reflection of reality. Irving is exactly what Dr. Evans revealed him to be. Irving's own failures, distortions and lies are the indictment.
    2
  43.  @FortniteBlaster2  When Irving relies on knotsie propaganda for Dresden figures and none of the actual evidence supports the knotsie figures, you call that interpretation? You can try to cancel Dr. Evans evidence of Irving's distortions, but only fanbois like you will agree. The Historical community knows he's a fraud, and only those who want to believe what he writes will support him. He's a provocative writer to the novice reader....that's all he is.
    2
  44.  @FortniteBlaster2  I created no fallacy... I simply referred to an issue that is available on open source with just a few key strokes. Irving did what I said he did, it was proven. " You are in denial to sustain your worldview." Nope... I suggest you look a little deeper into the criticism of Irving's work to understand and see for yourself what exactly he did and when. He has you fooled, which isn't a good look. The main issue with Dresden is the actual proof. Physical forensic proof, names of victims, photographic evidence, etc. All of that points to a far different conclusion than what Irving states, or knotsie propaganda for that matter. Is Goebbels a Historian you trust also?
    2
  45. An attorney gets $500 an hour in a case like that, and then there's additional fees for assistants, fees for materials, etc. Evans was paid what an average Phd. counsel would get for his time and expertise in research and analysis. Should he have worked for free? Get real
    2
  46. Ok, now stand on the other side of that statement. Is the denier narrative full of contradictions and anomalies? Hmmm... They don't even have a coherent alternative narrative, any alternatives to where millions of people disappeared to. So how can you point out issues with a narrative without having some sort of alternative explanation that has been researched, analyzed, and vetted as being based on fact? Until denier nation can accomplish that, there can't be any kind of "equal" footing for debate. Clear? Until there's "2 sides", you can't have a 2 sided debate.
    2
  47. nope... "funded the whole Nazi regime" 🤣
    2
  48.  @joelmarinier9199  Agreed... "the Red Army for all its shortcomings was back on the offensive and had been able to reequip a great number of men and formations very fast". That's a relative issue. The Wehrmacht lost combat power while the Red Army made gains. The German Army never had enough Infantrymen for their formations, and by mid 1942 they were steep into a downward spiral that they couldn't recover.
    2
  49. Bullshit to your statement.
    2
  50. I have to assume the "sources" for the 10 million estimate are Soviet propaganda. The Wehrmacht did not condone ra pe in any way whatsoever. It was a moral issue, but that took a backseat to military discipline. The Army was very keen on tight discipline of its combat formations both in and out of the line. The Army provided brothels, con doms, a ticketing system, etc. for troops in in rest/refit. Also of note is that 10 million is MORE than the number of German Soldiers that served on the Eastern front. Soviet women were not their full time job obviously, and their full time job of fighting the Soviets tended to take up the vast majority of their time. 10 million is absolutely ridiculous and is likely a reaction to the bad press the Soviets received for what they did to Berlin in particular, and Germany/Eastern Europe in general.
    2