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

  1.  @dafeekielelliott2442  Look up this article: "NO, THE LONDON BLITZ WASN’T STARTED BY ACCIDENT"
    1
  2.  @dafeekielelliott2442  How many civilians did the Luftwaffe "not" k ill the day before the RAF Berlin raid? And conversely... Everything I've found regarding the RAF raid on Tempelhof resulted in 0 German casualties. You need to step up and acknowledge that at that point in the war the Luftwaffe had already deliberately hit civilian targets. They were already guilty of what you accuse the British of.
    1
  3.  @dafeekielelliott2442  You've taken an apologist's position, like it or not its what you've demonstrated here with your argument. The target for the British raid was Tempelhof and the intent was to hit Luftwaffe aircraft and facilities as stated in the orders for said raid. " But the intent from Churchill was clear, he wanted to bo mb population centers" -STRAWMAN "And once again, this was an escalation because a few German planes flew off course, despite strict orders from Goring to not bomb London, and kil led no one." Over 100 were killed and 300 injured. The Luftwaffe dropped bombs on the financial heart of London and Oxford Street in the West End. You don't have your facts in order.
    1
  4.  @dafeekielelliott2442  Dude what? You said: "Please stop lying and do some research, before the British sent the 100 plane bombing raid on Berlin both sides deliberately avoided bombing each other in ways that would put a lot of civilians in danger." The British kil led 0 German civilians.... The Germans caused 100 ki lled and 300 injured on 24 August, look it up. There were 6 major raids throughout that day, targets included Upminster, Dagenham and Essex (all basically part of London) and they hit London proper that night. Deliberate or not, they were hitting civilians. The British hit back and despite missing everything, they hit the Germans decision making process pretty squarely. So far NONE of your replies have addressed Guernica, Rotterdam, Warsaw... You are blaming the victim and taking an apologist position.
    1
  5.  @dafeekielelliott2442  Guernica, Warsaw, Rotterdam.... Luftwaffe targeted civilians with terror attacks as part of German operational plans to meet campaign objectives. Your entire position here is a lie... Get over yourself and the BS apologist position you've taken. No one is falling for it. The Germans initiated terror bom bing of civilians in WW2, not the British. Guernica, Warsaw, Rotterdam....
    1
  6.  @CoCAccount-bv2rp  "Stop listing cities that have nothing to do with the British-German conflict, it's about Germany and England, not Poland or Russia." BS.... It's about WW2 and the German Luftwaffe bom bing civilians as a form of warfare. They clearly pioneered it, so you cannot blame the British for doing it first. I'm not British either, so I don't have an agenda here. If I did it would be German since I am Deutche-Amerikaner.
    1
  7.  @enemanozzle  Total B S... Look up Tagesbefehl No. 47 East Germany discovered 1965. Tell me what you find genius. Also, look up the RAF aerial pics of Dresden, then look on Google maps. The city CENTER was destroyed, not the whole city. We're talking about the commercial district that made up about 10% of the city's overall area and had minimal housing for residents or refugees. You can't fit 250k people into that small of an area even if you tried, let alone during an air raid. It would have looked like Woodstock 69. Wake up...do some research.
    1
  8.  @501sqn3  Reliable sources that I've seen say 22-25k. Never seen 35-50k.
    1
  9.  @501sqn3  There was an in depth inquiry to settle the issue: In 2008, an independent historical commission formed by the city of Dresden concluded that approximately 25,000 lost their lives in the attack. Abschlussbericht der Historikerkommission zu den Luftanfriffen auf Dresden zwischen dem 13 un 15 Februar 1945.
    1
  10. Hyperinflation is how you beat unfair war reparations.  Its calculated, tactical, methodical....
    1
  11. Does anyone know how much money Irving thought he could get from Penguin? lol
    1
  12. Denier conspiracy
    1
  13. Conspiracies happen, true story and no sht.  Conspiracy theories and nutters exist in great numbers, also a true story.  The true nutters can't tell the difference and say things like "jewish Narratives" when discussing anything related to WW2.  Honorable mention to "victors write the history" and other intellectual cop outs like that.
    1
  14.  @Crashed131963  Germany, Italy, Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria. If the Soviets are knocked off, the Western Allies cannot achieve an unconditional victory, only a negotiated peace. Without the Soviets, the Axis can control all of continental Europe, Western Russia and move forces by rail to the Middle East. Rommel in North Africa and Guderian in Persia?
    1
  15.  @Crashed131963  Fighting a massive war on the Eastern Front dwarfs the costs of occupation and the Wehrmacht did that for 3 years after Barbarossa failed. If it succeeded, the riches of Western Russia would more than pay for any occupation and further campaign into Persia. The man power issue is a non-issue with willing local Nazis and nationalists in every country as happened historically (Vichy, Quislings, Cossacks, Baltics states, etc.). Plus you have Axis allies also occupying as happened historically (Romanians in the Soviet Union, Bulgarians in Greece, Italians in Greece, Balkans, North Africa).
    1
  16. Irving is not a persecuted rebel, he's a profit drive charlatan. That's a fact and wishful thinking, rose colored glasses, etc. will not change it.
    1
  17. What BS.... lol
    1
  18.  @petervote7914  Cool story, but just a piece of the pie and by no means anything more than just a piece.
    1
  19. 5 mil? Sure, ok.... 7 million Germans in total died during the war or were missing after, but 5 million were in the gulag? Where do you get you (BAD) info from???
    1
  20.  Hussein  7 million Germans, no way to tell how many were actually Nazis.
    1
  21. Thoughts on Irving and the TB47 controversy?
    1
  22.  @dalee.schnurjr.3146  Repeating debunked stories is not revising history... Its just repeating debunked stories. The firestorm was courtesy of the RAF by the way, not the US.
    1
  23. USA 1776
    1
  24.  @dpjbdpjb  Can you explain your math?
    1
  25. Stalin killed millions of his own people before the war started, a war he helped to start by enabling the Germans to invade Poland. Then he took part of Poland, part of Romania, part of Finland, all of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
    1
  26. How does Irving earn a living...
    1
  27.  @urdude67  I wouldn't buy anything that supports Irving in any way. Irving sued Penguin for money. He sells books for money, speaks, guides, etc. So that pretty much squashes what you said about Dr. Evans. Irving did it for the money, always has.
    1
  28.  @urdude67  Irving was banned from nothing prior to attempting to sue Dr. Lipstadt and Penguin books. I think you need to look in the mirror and find your own "open mind" before making false statements without prior research. Doing that speaks volumes of why you shill for Irving. Dr. Evans was kept on retainer and paid for his services, which were to research and analyze Irving's published works. What he found directly in Irving's published works was demonstrated for the world and is on the trial's website to this day. Try and disprove ANYTHING that was discussed there. Anything.... There is no need to speculate, paraphrase, or generalize, its all there for you to see exactly how it was shown in court.
    1
  29.  @Azoria4  He was NOT the go to Historian at the time and the fact is that he is a historical writer, not a Historian. He does not have the education or training to earn that professional title. "Doing it for the money" is different than earning an honest living. It means sacrificing your integrity among other things in order to capitalize on a situation. In his case, controversy sells far better than honest history ever did or ever will. So he used distortion to write a controversial narrative purely for financial exploitation and personal gain. It was proven plain as day over the many weeks in court. He's a charlatan, nothing more.
    1
  30.  @Azoria4  "You’re acting like there’s a business in Holocaust denial." Correct, it's called "revisionism" and it doesn't stop with denial. Irving was NOT the "go to" Historian just because you hold him in high regard. He was exposed as a fraud and charlatan by the legitimate historical community, and no amount of PR can change that. Irving now has his own history to answer to, one in which he attempted to profit from knowingly distorting his sources to build a bogus narrative. Denial in general and his Dresden book in particular. He was caught, exposed, and that's it... No going back.
    1
  31.  @Azoria4  "so you really think he opted (FOR THE SOLE PURSUIT OF MONEY) to be a Holocaust denier? " Nope... Those are YOUR words, not mine. Creatively paraphrasing my points to make a false argument? That's a strawman, which makes you about as honest as Irving. Bravo... (slow clap for you). Take a bow. Back to what I did actually say... Irving profits from controversy of his own making. By creative use of fact, ommission of others, emphasis on useful facts while ignoring inconvenient ones, he creates a distorted and controversial narrative. That type of sensational writing is what sells, and it isn't honest. That is Irving. Get over it,
    1
  32. 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
  33.  @TrueNorth333  It's 25k based on the bod ies recovered. Most lost their lives in cellars from lack of oxygen or carbon monoxide. The idea that many were incinerated doesn't wash with the facts. And who said there was 300k refugees in the city center??? There might have been a few thousand at most, the rest were on the roads headed west since night was safer to travel.
    1
  34. Broad Front strategy vs one that didn't happen, and we can only speculate about... If the Western Allies did go with the narrow front, the enemy still would have gotten a say in the situation and there's no guarantee of success. The strategy employed DID work regardless of nit-picking.
    1
  35. John Mosier????? lol, he's the laughing stock of the historical community.  I suggest you lose that book and all memory of it...
    1
  36.  @davidhimmelsbach557  Mosier is an idiot...
    1
  37.  @davidhimmelsbach557  You can divert all over the place, doesn't change the force array, troop dispositions, readiness rates or overall state of affairs for the Red Army in the Western Military Districts for summer 1941. They were under-manned, under-trained, under-supplied and hundreds of kms from the border and not concentrated. Get a copy of Glantz "Stumbling Colossus" for details.
    1
  38.  @davidhimmelsbach557  Sounds like Rezun on your brain.
    1
  39.  @davidhimmelsbach557  Fact, this is a YouTube comment section, hardly the place for real debate. Fact, you are fully convinced of Rezun's BS theory and immovable in your opinion on the matter. Suggestion: Join a real forum.... Axis History, Armchair General, Feldgrau. Guess you're not familiar with Glantz...
    1
  40.  @davidhimmelsbach557  Mosier remains an idiot, apparently you are too for trying to parrot his crap. BTW- I am quite well read, have a MA in WWII military history, speak German, was assigned to EUCOM for 3 years as a Staff Officer. Fact is, I'm far more well read than Mosier, which is why I know he's an idiot. I suggested real military history forums to you, bring your Mosier arguments there and see how they hold up...lol
    1
  41.  @davidhimmelsbach557  Mosier as a Historian (his Phd is in English, not History) discussed: https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/forum/historical-events-eras/world-war-i/162971-moisers-verdun-opinions https://forum.axishistory.com/search.php?keywords=mosier&sid=961fac50967949c0f4e890c0a73056d9 Its pretty universal, on any serious military history forum/discussion to include his peers, he's not taken seriously: https://forum.axishistory.com/search.php?keywords=mosier&sid=961fac50967949c0f4e890c0a73056d9
    1
  42. Germany was suffering economically because they spent far too heavily on re-armament. The Soviet build up was a reaction to German success in France 1940, they knew they were next. Suggest you get a copy of "Stumbling Colossus" by COL Glantz.
    1
  43.  @Justjunniee  Source?
    1
  44. No, he'll argue, which doesn't mean he's proven anything. He's a cheap salesman, that's it.
    1
  45. German officers maintained a journal as part of their job.
    1
  46. @ Irving"s "truth" actually wasn't truth, so I guess he should have feared investigation. As for the Holocaust, investigate away and post the findings, so that in turn can be "investigated".
    1
  47. Britain was not shafted.... They simply didn't get to take advantage for once, the shoe was on the other foot that time. The amount of aid they received in Lend Lease and the fact that the US entered the war has to factored into what Britain received.
    1
  48. No they didn't, I see this misinformation posted all the time. If you think so, then name the date and target, lets look at it.
    1
  49.  @dafeekielelliott2442  The target was Tempelhof airport and Luftwaffe aircraft, not the city of Berlin. The Germans accidentally hit London the day before and inspired the RAF, so regardless of how you spin this the Germans bombed civilians first and had a long history of it. Look up the Zeppelin and Gotha campaign in WWI, then Guernica, Rotterdam, Warsaw, etc.
    1
  50.  @dafeekielelliott2442  Nope, I won't allow you to ignore German bombing of London in WW1 as if it never happened and set a precedent. They kil led almost 1500 people, injured 4000+, and caused extensive damage. In Spain they hit Guernica, in Poland they destroyed Warsaw, they terror bom bed Rotterdam. By the time the RAF hit Berlin, the Luftwaffe had already kil led thousands of civilians. The sense of entitlement was removed by the RAF and it was in ni way an escalation when the Germans had been doing it all along as if no one would retaliate.
    1