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

Remember kids, Orwell didn't invent "doublespeak", he just coined a term for it.
1
@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
@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
@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
Hermann Göring, the best general the Allies had.
1
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
"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