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

  1. At 5:12 , the numbers are not bogus, not at all. They are the baseline of reality in this topic. Saying they are bogus is akin to throwing them away, which revisionists will do happily and write a whole new false narrative and use your video as a reference. The fact is, the Wehrmacht does know how many men went MIA on the Eastern Front (3.2 million Vermisste) and how many were ever repatriated after the war (about 1.92 million). We don't have actual stats down to the eaches, but what we have is in the right proportions in a holistic sense of German casualties in WWII. We know what divisions were deployed, when and where, how many men they had and how many they lost according to their unit histories. On the Eastern front that is consistent with what the Volksbund has been finding as it searches for and locates thousands each year in the East. I suggest you look up the Volksbund channel here on YouTube. The number of "live" POWs (2.3 million per NKVD/KGB) has to be qualified, only POWs who reached NKVD in-process were counted. The number of German POWs as reported by Red Army units that took them in is a better match to Wehrmacht estimates. Many were murdered shortly after capture or before they made it to be in-processed as official POWs.
    2
  2. "look it up"... Ya ok. So, you take Soviet casualties and compare to German and come up with a ratio? Where do you account for the Soviet casualties to the Finns, Romanians, Hungarians, Italians, Slovaks, etc.? And where do you account for the casualties caused to allied Axis nations by the Red Army? Seems the Soviets did quite well at Stalingrad and you can't leave Axis casualties out and just focus on German to make it look better. KIA is 6.88 million Soviets to 4.43 Axis for the whole war. Not quite 7.2 to 1 is it...
    2
  3. That's pure BS and you know it.... Irving writes and creates controversial topics because controversy sells far better than the truth. At the very basis of his motivation is financial gain. He is a writer looking to make a name and a living. THAT is why he writes an opposite view on controversial topics, to make money. Did you think he is some sort of suppressed truth teller? lol
    2
  4.  user-wj6dt5bq3w  Sure, you're saying he offers something different than Rezun? He has evidence where Rezun doesn't? The fact is, the Red Army forces in the Western Mil Districts are very well documented in multiple languages. The historians I listed above used Soviet archival documents along with German documents to demonstrate a holistic analysis of the Red Army. That cannot be spun a different way or pawned off as Russian historians are the only reliable source. Soviet documents coincide with the German military experience during Barbarossa in such a way that there is no doubt as to what Soviet intentions were for 1941.
    1
  5. At @ , the numbers are not bogus, not at all. They are the baseline of reality in this topic. Saying they are bogus is akin to throwing them away, which revisionists will do happily and write a whole new false narrative and use your video as a reference. The fact is, the Wehrmacht does know how many men went MIA on the Eastern Front (3.2 million Vermisste) and how many were ever repatriated after the war (about 1.92 million). We don't have actual stats down to the eaches, but what we have is in the right proportions in a holistic sense of German casualties in WWII. We know what divisions were deployed, when and where, how many men they had and how many they lost according to their unit histories. On the Eastern front that is consistent with what the Volksbund has been finding as it searches for and locates thousands each year in the East. I suggest you look up the Volksbund channel here on YouTube. The number of "live" POWs (2.3 million per NKVD/KGB) has to be qualified, only POWs who reached NKVD in-process were counted. The number of German POWs as reported by Red Army units that took them in is a better match to Wehrmacht estimates. Many were murdered shortly after capture or before they made it to be in-processed as official POWs.
    1
  6.  @johnpeate4544  John, a great post and far better than a Youtube comment section deserves. Better to bring the effort to a proper forum. That said, you talked past my point which was the 15th Army, not the Scheldt itself: "The 2nd and 3rd order effects of not sealing the 15th Army's ferry route were the long and painful clearing of the Scheldt, the failure of Market Garden, and the denial of use of Antwerp until 28 Nov. According to Horrocks, “With the capture of Brussels and Antwerp 30 Corps was ordered to halt. The reason given was that we had out-run our administrative resources.” Brian Horrocks, Corps Commander (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1977)" -a true military blunder...
    1
  7.  @johnpeate4544  Sealing the 15th Army off on the Western side of the Scheldt cuts them from supply, degrades their combat capability, and strikes them from the German order of battle for Market Garden and beyond, where they played a pivotal role. It also facilitates opening Antwerp much earlier because they wouldn't play a role in the Scheldt fighting either. "A swift strike after seizing the Albert Canal bridges intact across the South Beveland isthmus on to Walcheren Island had the potential for isolating the Germans on the Scheldt’s south bank and expediting the clearance of the estuary, resulting in the opening of the port." "The Allies’ Biggest Blunder?" Brig. Gen. (ret.) Raymond E. Bell, Jr.
    1
  8.  @johnpeate4544  Fair points. Sorry I'm a bit too busy to engage in depth on this. Great content so far. Cheers
    1
  9. So you think the Jews control the world in a giant conspiracy.  Ok, just say so.
    1
  10. What was left of Germany at this point of the war was roughly shaped like an hourglass with Dresden at the narrow middle point. It was the transportation and communications hub linking Berlin to the south of the country. To break the lines of travel and communications meant cutting off Berlin before the Soviet offensive to take it, and also cut off the N azi elite from fleeing to the Bavarian Alps as Allied leaders feared. That and industrial concerns, supply hub for the German Army, impress the Soviets, etc.
    1
  11. In the military, school trained does not mean competent. So take "school trained" officers in brand new units that lack men, equipment, etc. and elevate them two levels up in rank beyond their training. They don't know their role, don't know their job in a technical sense, most people with experience have either been purged or are afraid of it and their unit is partially equipped and manned. What combat value can you expect from that unit? Once a unit is manned and equipped, it can START to train as a cohesive unit per it's doctrinal role. Thats how officers gain experience and it cannot be replicated any other way. So tell us again how the purges were good? lol
    1
  12. I agree with you, except this part: "millions of Soviet women raped and taken as sexual slaves by Nazi germans." There were a few instances, but for the most part the German military judicial system and Commanders at all levels strictly forbade that type of thing. The reason being one of military discipline, efficiency, etc. and not out of respect per se for the civilian population. Some women ended up in military controlled brothels, but unit Commanders kept their men in check while in the field. These are the facts, not my personal opinion. The ratio of women violated by the Germans and those by the Soviets are night and day... The Red Army was not very disciplined, the vodka flowed, and men were like savages.
    1
  13. What are crematoriums?
    1
  14.  @koko2bware  People like you try to use the fraction of a percent of the whole to dispute the 99% as if there's really an argument. Nuremburg laws, KZ lager, ghettos, einsatzgruppen, etc. are clear evidence of millions of people. And stop liking your own posts dipsh't. lol
    1
  15.  @6uild6ack6etter2  That's your personal metric for "proof". Just curious, because the rest of the sane world doesn't use such a narrow self serving and inaccurate measurement.
    1
  16.  @6uild6ack6etter2  Like I said...its your metric, and its a BS attempt. In your life you've taken thousands of sh'ts, but what proof do you have? No film of them all, so its purely circumstantial that you can prove it...According to the logic you are attempting to trot out there in your quest for Hcaust denial. If you did film it, that's pretty f'd up, much like the proof your asking for above. If you didn't, then maybe a sh't denier like you will claim its all fake and you are clearly totally full of your own sh't. Make sense dipsh't? 🤣
    1
  17.  @koko2bware  You speak in complete nonsense...
    1
  18. What are you smoking?
    1
  19.  @WhenDoesTheVideoActuallyStart  Krivosheev's book shows that the Soviets raised 7 million additional men by the end of 1941 and ended December with a frontline strength over 4 million. The Germans/Axis outnumbered them in the first few weeks in the Western military districts, but thats it. After that, the Soviets had a numerical advantage, small at first, then it grew to very high proportions.
    1
  20. The Penguin lawsuit was Irving's genius, he tried to sue Dr. Lipstadt and Penguin for millions. lol
    1
  21. If Dresden is 127 Square miles in size and the Firestorm destroyed the city center of 3 square miles, why do people mention the entire population and all of the refugees when talking about casualties?
    1
  22. It was less than 8 out of 10, and that accounts for Army Soldiers, not Luftwaffe, or Kriegsmarine. Also, what that stat doesn't consider is that the majority of German losses in the East came after the war was basically decided and they were collapsing. If you look at years 1941 through early 1944, the Soviets and Western Allies were more like 50/50. Details matter.
    1
  23.  @not_retr0  Reality check. The Soviets captured 3.2 million German Soldiers, of which 1.92 million ever came home. The Germans lost 5.3 million men in the war or never returned, 4 million are from the Eastern front and that is the origin of the 80% fallacy. If 1.3 million of the 4 were POWs that didn't survive, that's only 2.7 million lost in combat. So now it's 67% of German Soldiers lost to the Red Army. Then there's the issues of when. The Germans lost 1 million men KIA defending the Eastern front and Berlin in 1945 alone, when the war was basically decided. So that's 1.7 million German Soldiers between 22 June 1941 and 31 December 1944. Its pretty close to 50/50 in terms of meaningful operations.
    1
  24.  @willcruz943  Agreed
    1
  25. False... He was referenced by name 3 times by D. Lipstadt in her book as a denier, and it was Irving that chose to sue for libel hoping to make money from it. He got more than he bargained for, and when real Historians with Phd level research and analysis skill sets dug into his work, they were able to prove he was a complete fraud. Get your facts straight.
    1
  26. "why were the Soviets also massed on the same frontier?". They weren't... Soviet airfield construction was behind schedule and got out of sync with the deployment plan. Soviet fighters had about a 400 mile range which is pretty short, thus they had to be relatively close to the frontier to provide coverage. The new airfields were behind schedule, which forced newly deploying units to double up on the existing airfields. Revisionists ignore this, interpret these bloated airfields as normal and that the Soviets were building more... (which is pure BS). Soviet troop concentrations were 60-100 km behind the border while the frontier was screened by very light NKVD border troops. Soviet tank concentrations were 80-120 km behind the front, which is more or less their tactical range. They were not co-located with their fuel, ammunition or maintenance support. There was no way they had any offensive intentions in that type of deployment. No Soviet offensive before 1941 or after looks like the Red Army's dispositions in June of 1941.
    1
  27. Nope... During "discovery", a team of expert witness Historians analyzed his books against his source material and found a huge number of situations where he had distorted the evidence and bent it to his agenda. It wasn't 1%, it was enough that many of his major points or even an entire thesis of a book was based on a lie. Understand? Its Historical Distortion intended to rehabilitate the N@zis and AH in particular.
    1
  28. Wow really? How interesting, what was the model of the aircraft so I can look it up? lol (stealth, ssssuper secret, made of unobtainium)
    1
  29.  @kaletovhangar  Exactly. 70 built, far fewer actually operational and they were obsolete by 1941. Basically amounts to a fantasy.
    1
  30.  @kaletovhangar  I understand the design appears equal to contemporaries, but its the actual service record that demonstrates the flaws (use of obsolete tech in an "advanced" design).
    1
  31.  @kaletovhangar  Cheers! I dug pretty deep into the Rezun/Suvorov BS, most of it is just plain lies.
    1
  32. "how much is to blame on fantastically competent Allied bombing?". 0% ?
    1
  33.  user-wj6dt5bq3w  "Who gave you the wrong idea that this debate was limited to just Suvorov vs. Glantz?" Dunno genius.... Maybe you should read the video title and watch it: "Why You NEED to Think Critically | Suvorov ✨and Keitel's "Preemptive Strike" 1941 Idea". Glantz wrote "Stumbling Colossus" as a direct refutation of "Icebreaker" and its full of Soviet archival material.
    1
  34.  user-wj6dt5bq3w  Cool story, I have an MA in WWII Mil History.... and I'm a LTC (G4 career logistician). So ya, I DO actually know. Clearly you either have not read Glantz, or it went over your head. The Soviet forces in the WMDs were absolute trash, incapable of strategic offensive or defensive operations. Their level of training was at the company level, in its infancy rendering them incapable of large scale combat ops. The Soviets knew it, its in their own reports which Glantz cites.
    1
  35.  @cachazacachazacachaza  Thats a BS justification and false. They fed over 2 million French Pows and close to a million Poles too, they simply had different plans for the Soviets.
    1
  36.  @cachazacachazacachaza  lol... widely known? Ok, post a single source that supports that. The Germans had all of occupied Europe to draw from, and they did. In 1941 the Germans and Europe in general had no food shortages. That came much later in 1944, after all these millions of Soviet Pows were long gone.
    1
  37.  @Treblaine  "However the most important weakness of the German military - its logistics - almost none of the Generals really understood or appreciated. " Have to respectfully disagree on that. The most important weakness was their Intelligence services, both in collecting information and protecting it, they more or less sucked at both. Barbarossa's operational plan was based on very bad Intel estimates and assumptions, after which the logistical support plan had to be built according to the objectives laid out. The operational plan wasn't realistic, the logistical capabilities were limited, what happened after the plan went off the rails is an amazing adventure in logistical improvisation that was nothing short of a miracle. In the end, it was the logisticians that got F'd by the Operations section of OKH, and also FHO in due course. An interesting parallel is that the same thing happened to the Personnel section of OKH. Even if the Germans had perfect logistics during Barbarossa, they ran out of Infantry long before (In late Sep) they reached Moscow.
    1
  38. Easy and true explanation... Hitler's Intel and operations staffs provided really bad estimates and also provided best case scenarios. None of that is a secret and the briefings, etc. are all on archive. Hitler wasn't "mad", but he was an amateur and didn't have the training or experience to ask the right questions. He trusted his staff of professionals and when things went bad, he stopped trusting them and took over thinking they were idiots. Pretty simple, but completely factual.
    1
  39.  @koko2bware  "During trial Evans was clueless on the technical questions" Ok, you made the claim.... Show an example for proof, otherwise its just BS.
    1
  40. Wish I could give you a thousand thumbs up!  An educated voice of reason.
    1
  41. Agree for the most part, the issue of Dresden as the transportation hub connecting East Prussia to the rest of Germany and chiefly to the Bavarian Alps (the alleged "redoubt") remains which makes Dresden a legitimate and primary target. Unoccupied Germany was somewhat of an hourglass shape with Dresden at the narrow chokepoint connecting the two parts, making it an obvious target. If the N A zi leadership moved from Berlin to the Bav Alps, the war would last a little longer, and no one wanted that...
    1
  42. lol, made by a 23 year old kid without any education or training in historical research, analysis and historiography. Tobias Bratt, a kid with the ability to cobble together bits of video and text to make a BS false narrative that soft mined folks buy into because they need an anti-establishment cause that makes them feel smarter than the "sheep". Well, you're a sheep too, just another color and a little dumber.
    1
  43. Well that was total BS.... lol With Krema 1 through 5 the capacity exceeded 5k per day, and that's leaving out the outdoor "rail method" (as used at Dresden after the bom bing). Most of them were herded from the sorting ramp and went to Birkenau and not Ausch witz. So no hair cut, no nada. Off the train, off the ramp, off with the clothes, done.... How does that math work genius? Thats how it worked according to victims and perpetrators.
    1
  44.  @melc311  Dunno... cremated? You know, the whole point of a crematorium? Ash is easier to dispose of in every respect compared to bod ies, yes? Asking where bod ies are in a thread talking about Krema with a 5k per day capacity is pretty f'ing du mb. lol
    1
  45.  @HansChucrute88  "and we have the exact numbers of coal sent to Auschwitz" Actually we don't have those numbers, the records are only partial. "People still say they made soap from human fat, lamparines of human skin." The only people saying that are deniers who repeat it as if people are still saying it. Fact is, it was debunked at Nuremburg.
    1
  46.  @angelozachos8777  Wow, correct. Apples to oranges though.... Now, how long does it take in a much larger piece of equipment (built for purpose) that has no modern legal requirements about multiple loading, no standard of reduction, or respect for the "customer" and can mingle ashes? A system like that in continuous use can take new material every 15 minutes because that's all it takes to remove the water from the material as the remainder burns. You really haven't researched this have you. Topf und Sohnen, look up the company genius.
    1
  47.  @HansChucrute88  "The thing is criticize, being skeptical or even be ignorant should not be a crime." Very fair point, agreed. There's a point when skeptical crosses over to denial, and to me that's when irrefutable facts are presented and rejected without consideration.
    1
  48. Drama queen....
    1
  49. Agreed, and the same goes for rookie staff officers who don't know what to track, what to report, and aren't capable of providing expert opinion. Think of that in context of the spotty information coming from the field from the incompetent junior officers you mentioned.
    1
  50.  @FortniteBlaster2  Goebbels was the Minister of Propaganda, so how exactly do you approach him as a reference of information? In the same manner that Irving did for Dresden figures? Irving makes claims 10x over what forensic evidence supports. The German Red Cross was able to provide just under 25k names of people lost at Dresden. RAF before and after photos show a city area far too small to even contain the number of victims Irving claims, let alone also account for the survivors. Also of note, most victims were found in air raid shelters and passed due to a lack of oxygen. The Dresden raid was an incendiary operation, not a nuclear flash. It's obvious that people went to basements and shelters, where they were later found and accounted for, identified for the most part. If you buy into Irving's figures, you are clearly intellectually dim-witted or just plain corrupt. However, if all you read is Irving and deliberately avoid the academic criticism of his work, I suppose he seems like the greatest WW2 Historian of all time.
    1