Comments by "" (@obsidianjane4413) on "TIKhistory" channel.

  1. And there was always that counterbalance of the threat of being killed by your own gestapo, sandwiching you with the tender mercies of surrender to the Red Army gives very little opportunity but to stand and fight.
    58
  2.  @nigelwatson2750  Nothing will invalidate your point more than the crinkle of your tin foil hat.
    37
  3. That Krylov issued an order is slim evidence the Chuikov was relieved. Any of that would have been documented., especially if Stalin was involved. Its much more likely it was a command decision by Krylov, or simply Chuikov was doing something else or even sleeping. Chuikov requested the withdrawal of his headquarters because they were under direct fire and you can't run an army like that, not that he personally wanted to save himself. Like you mentioned, he would have been very aware that that wasn't going to happen.
    24
  4. People who create ideologies often reach back to historical examples and philosophies that agree with whatever they are pushing more often than they are inspired by them.
    14
  5. Sadly he has to do it otherwise some dimwit troll will misrepresent it as his actual statements and not a quote.
    13
  6. "Nazi" refers to members of that German party 1920-1945 specifically, and has become a derogatory (cliché) insult, that is perpetually misapplied. Like to nationalistic American republicans, who are very much not socalists. So very much no. Anywhere.
    11
  7.  @nigelwatson2750  Delusion will do that for you. Ignorance is bliss as they say.
    10
  8. Nein. They really were doing it to avoid falling into the hands of the Red Army. They knew exactly what kind of treatment they deserved.
    8
  9. Yugoslavia, Greece, Africa. Mussolini was what we call a "delay fish". Without the overt German invasion, Its much more likely that Yugoslavia would have descended into a civil war fueled by three sides, German, USSR and UK (Churchill). Basically what actually happened, but without Wehrmacht as "referee". The bigger factor were the German divisions tied down in occupation of the Balkans and Greece that were absent from the Ost Front for the entire war, not just the first campaign season. The German problem was they couldn't kill the Red Army and get around them fast enough, not that they didn't start fast enough.
    7
  10.  @giveussomevodka  Did you wake up stupid today or are you always like this?
    7
  11. @Kilian Klaiber It may not be a good argument but its an accurate adjective.
    6
  12.  @lovablesnowman  If you know anything about the Soviet Union is that after Stalin died a lot of his "dirt" cam to light and there were plenty of witnesses in high places who would have had motivation to "set the record straight". In addition, Stalin had absolutely no incentive to build up Chiikov as a hero at this point. You are making the mistake of trying to shoehorn the facts to fit a theory. That isn't how you history.
    4
  13. Meh. They would have just been early model Pz. IIIs an IVs. ;)
    3
  14. When a video lives up to its clickbaity title.
    3
  15. As another point of context, the German unions were more than the US or UK unions, they were more like trade guilds. They did not have an adversarial relationship with company owners and managers, since they were often one and the same. So as usual, the truth is somewhere in the middle. Its more that the Nasties usurped the unions, more than broke or replaced them.
    3
  16. You apparently need to watch it again.
    3
  17. I disagree with the premise you've articulated several times that the Nazis didn't bring up unconditional surrender because it would "give them an out". Unconditional surrender is just that, unconditional. You are placing yourself at the mercy of your enemies. Which would facilitate that "national and cultural annihilation" boogieman of Hitler's (because it is what he would do to them). This is why it wasn't mentioned by Goebbels and Co. It would have been an admission that things were so bad that this "unthinkable" was on the table. My theory of why the German military bought into Hitler's gibberish and fought to the last was that the German generals had been junior officers during the Great War and in the chaos of the inter-war years. Hitler himself had been an enlisted man and this clearly impacted his outlook and worldview. This trauma, that we call PTSD today, mentally damaged these men leaving them vulnerable to sociopathologies. They were able to do what we would consider irrational, and frankly, evil, and persevered at it because of this absence of empathy for not just others but also their personal surrender to the "cult" not so much of Hitler or National Socialism, but to the Prussian military order. They were willing to not only die but see that many, many others die needlessly, rather than admit that they were wrong or failures.
    2
  18. You quoted Malone? Oh, you're gonna get a lot of "stick to tanks, mate" for this one. ;) Ethnicity is like religion in that it provides a rationale for politicians to justify grabs for power and wealth. It clarifies the "us and them" . Its very depressing that Putin has dusted this one off to justify his invasion of Ukraine. Don't forget that propaganda isn't just lies. It can also be the truth. Propaganda is just information that is weaponized for political effect. A message or belief that a government (or other group) want to reinforce.
    2
  19. This video's subject matter makes me want to bleach my brain. Nazi Aryanism is like the concentrated essence of stupid. Bravo to Tik for being able to pull it off without having to be drunk.
    2
  20. The problem is that the diversion of consumables (fuel, ammo, food) didn't stop when the invasion "ended". The Germans then had to occupy the country and fight a presentient insurgency for the rest of the war.
    2
  21. Probably not the Stalingrad series that is dropping your views, since military history is what most of your subs are here for. But its all the delving into political and economic opinion stuff, ie; not "sticking to tanks". The All Mighty Algorithm favors consistent and regular releases. I personally don't even watch your non mil.hist stuff, and I even agree with most of your opinions. I just don't need/want to hear ranting about sociopolitics. I also don't care about you answering the stupid questions from the peanut gallery. And so I don't notice sometimes when your actual history vids drop. Because the algo is capricious like that. Maybe I'm wrong if your "not tanks" videos are getting more views and subs... Then march to the sound of the monitization...
    2
  22. I understand you were trying to answer this off the top of your head, but should take this down. There are lots of inaccuracies here.
    2
  23. Wasn't he an agent for the Army ordered to infiltrate radical groups though?
    2
  24. No German (or otherwise) general would ever order a "Run for your lives!!!1!" order. How much fuel (and aircraft etc.) was used in the attempted airlift?
    2
  25. Uh... Operation Lustre wasn't an invasion, unless you count Greek dithering in the face of impending doom. No because Germany invaded Yugoslavia in response to the May coup, not the war in Greece. Germany invaded Greece to support Mussolini and to prevent the region from being used as a base to bomb Romanian oil fields.
    2
  26. A good Prussian gentleman like von Manstein could never have admitted that he screwed up. As oft discussed, the opportunity for a break out was gone by Nov. Manstein really was hoping for a "Weihnachtswunder", relying on the ability to German soldiers and jr. officers to defeat huge Red Army forces that they had displayed countless times before. But they were spent, and that is why the order really never came, by the time it should have, according to the plan, there was no possibility of it being workable. So it didn't matter if he ordered it or not.
    2
  27. You are giving Nazism far too much intellectual credit.
    2
  28.  @audrius337 Wehraboo somewhere else. It was gibberish created to justify a psychopathic world view and facilitate an organized crime syndicate masquerading as a national government.
    2
  29.  @markaxworthy2508  The Italians were quite busy in Libya at the time and its troops were not particularly enthusiastic about the whole adventure. It is very possible that a renewed Greek offensive with British support would have succeeded, and turned the whole thing into a disaster that could have threatened the Fascist regime. This is a major factor in the German invasion. The Germans won the war on maneuver not attrition.
    2
  30. Probably not. It took the Red Army two years to its crap together. Also, deploying for exercises does not mean they would be deployed properly and well, they had major systemic defects.
    2
  31. "Nasti Germany transends economics." But not in a good way... The distinction between nationalist socialism (totalitarian Germany, Italy, Japan etc) and erstwhile communist socialisms was that the intent in the former was to preserve the existing capitalist/industrialist institutions, whereas the later abolished and gave ownership to the workers (just kidding, it went to the state). That is what that passage is trying to articulate here. Both are functionally totalitarianism, but in national socialism, a firm could notionally exit a market/industry whereas that would be a very unhealthy choice in Stalinism. So neither extreme views is really correct. They were very different takes of the same ideological bad ideas.
    2
  32. Yeah a largely a pedantic "what if, with hints of wehraboo" argument because by mid '45 the German army was prostrate anyway and its resistance on both West and Eastern fronts had broken down. Even if the Western Allies had agreed to a separate ceasefire, and Germany could have sent what forces it had left East, the Soviets still would have steamrollered them as well so not even that argument holds water.
    1
  33. @14:30 Hitler became "political" because he was sent as an agent to spy on revolutionary groups, not on his own volition. He was looking for ways to work his way into what ever groups he could. So him showing interest in the socialist parties, doesn't mean much or indicate his ideological orientation. He was, amid other things, an opportunist, who probably latched on to the DAP as much for being able to gain influence as much as its toxic ideology appealed to him. And the rest is bloody history...
    1
  34. Additionally; The ports in Brittany would have doubled the Allied supply lines. Very likely they would have been wrecked and rendered useless by the defenders before they quit. German forces weren't "not there" or in rout. They were withdrawling in as good an order as possible to the Siegfried Line. Ike didn't know how weak the German forces were or if they would have been able to pull off a surprise somewhere. You know, like the Ardennes Offensive? Speaking of, Imagine what would have happened to Monty in December '44 if Patton was still West of the Meuse? Armchair generaling in hindsight is always easy. That is why I hate it when historians try to "critical analysis" (whatifing) instead of just sticking to facts.
    1
  35. Please stick to tanks mate.
    1
  36. The propaganda tail wagging the dog?
    1
  37. The entire Mediterranean theatre was a major distraction and drain on resources that Hitler wanted to focus on Barbarossa. The occupation of Southern Europe and the N. African campaign didn't just soak up hundreds of thousands of men, but took up (and lost) a lot of their logistical capacity, that was already not Germany's strong point.
    1
  38. Dramatic TIK is dramatic.
    1
  39. @9:00 More like just like Hitler and Co. did with German competing parties, they cannibalized them rather than destroyed. "Convincing" like minded groups to fold themselves within the NSDAP and suppressing the rest. Its a nuanced distinction, but as you mentioned, there were plenty of window lickers in each of the countries Germany occupied who were far enough on the socialist side of the national socalist spectrum, that the Nazis could "work with them".
    1
  40.  @wtice4632  By working for the workers interest and wages...
    1
  41.  @jrton1366  Try comprehending what I wrote.
    1
  42. Well, Stalin was still busy getting paybacks for his humiliation of 1920. Likewise the rest of Eastern Europe was still raw from the chaos if various civil and territorial wars post WWI. Also the Red Army was a devastated mess from Stalin's purges, full of troops terrified into passivity led by militarily incompetent but politically loyal (to Stalin) hacks. See: the Winter War. Mussolini's machinations were all part of his delusion of Neo Romanità. Which he had already pursuing during the 30's. Pretty much all of this was a culmination of the failure of the Triple Entente to reestablish political stability in Europe and it would have required better men to have delayed or reduced the war. They might have even avoided it altogether if the better angels of their nature had been on their game.
    1
  43. Did you self-demonetize? lol.
    1
  44. Just keep in mind that the truth is never simple.
    1
  45. Plus Hitler's mad-on against the Soviets. He probably would have insisted on Barbarossa even if the French and English were still in the fight on the continent.
    1
  46. There's always retail... I told you doing Stalingrad was a bad idea because its already been done many times and in excruciating detail and it would be very difficult to create any "added value". Also you should listen when people tell you to "stick to tanks TIK". Those made your channel and not socioeconomic rants, especially when you go into the weeds of contemporary politics. Its polarizing and you drove original viewers away.
    1
  47. After WWI and into the '30s everywhere in Europe, heck, around the world, there were 51 flavors of revolution all vying for control as every over educated trust-fund kid who had read Das Captial thought they had the answer all the problems.
    1
  48. @44:00 No excavations are necessary. Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) would show what's under the surface.
    1
  49. Pretty much. Very likely Yugoslavia would have collapsed into a civil war with very little provocation. The Germans only needed to make sure that the British or Soviet backed sides didn't gain an upper hand. So it would have been a miserable non-factor in the war.
    1
  50. 'Cause Jerry don't surf.
    1
  51. Remember kids, Orwell didn't invent "doublespeak", he just coined a term for it.
    1
  52.  @darken2417  Franco retained power because he was an authoritarian dictator. He retained the trappings of monarchy because they gave him legitimacy for retaining that power. It was all pragmantic calculation and not ideology. If he'd thought he'd have better odds with it, he'd have been a card carrying communist.
    1
  53. @18:06 He still had to keep people motivated and on his side while taking them literally down the road to hell, esp. after the reverses late in the war. It would "break the spell" if he suddenly dropped the religiousity rationalization. He had to "stay on brand". I'm sure he did believe this stupid crap, he was that delusional. No one actually sane would have made the decisions he did.
    1
  54. ​ @Sphere723  "needs to be an explanation of why major German industrialists financially back the party in the 1930's." You pretty much answered it in the 2nd para. Hitler et. al. presented themselves as the better alternative than the Bolsheviks who very literally would have burned Germany Inc. down and mass executed the aristocracy and bourgeoisie. It wasn't just a fear, they were terrified of it.
    1
  55. Hermann Göring, the best general the Allies had.
    1
  56. You are missing the atomic factor. While it doesn't seem like the British planners took American nuclear weapons into account, because they didn't know or didn't want what was highly secret information in a paper study. Stalin DID know about the US atomic program from the NKVD infiltration of the Manhattan Project. This would have been a serious caution to Stalin if war with the West had broken out in '45. Besides being legitimately war weary. But The book you are using seems to have a very heavy cold-war hind-sight bias to it. Governments and generals gin up "what if" and speculative studies for all sorts of scenarios. That Churchill had them run one for war with the Soviets over Poland doesn't mean he actually intended to launch one. The Soviets did agree at Yalta to a "sovereign Poland" that would have been as independent as a Western dominated one, from their perspective. So this is an extremely weak casus belli to use. A slightly less plausabe one could have been instigating some kind of action in occupied Germany that blew up into a general conflict. But again, no one on the ground was in any mood or condition to continue dying.
    1
  57. "2+2 =5" Welcome to probability statistics. "mushroom management" Its not. Its motivation, not management. No one ever wants to be the last guy to die in a battle. If they think their effort/risk isn't going to make a difference, then they will sandbag and freeride. Which will then weaken the force and jeopardize the mission.
    1