Comments by "Nattygsbord" (@nattygsbord) on "The Armchair Historian" channel.

  1. I know one thing for sure, and that was that Stalin was a southern compatriot from Georgia who hated Yankee imperialism and rich capitalist New York bankers and supported the right to forced labor.
    332
  2. French tanks got blown up by a minefield, and the French could not penetrate the Siegfried line. They could probably have made a more determined attempt to invade Germany, but I don't think they would have succeded. Atleast not in time to save Poland.
    31
  3. Real capitalism only exist in fantasy. Just like real Communism or true Islam.
    29
  4. According to Mark Kurlansky did Venice attribute their success to their salt trade policies. *"Venetian exporters were required to bring back salt when they returned to Venice, for which they were paid a subsidy. Salt was then resold by the Republic at a profit. According to Kurlansky, salt accounted for nearly 50% of Venetian imports between the 14th and 16th centuries."* https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1524-6175.2002.01091.x So their government anti-free market subsidy helped Venice to become one of the greatest trading empires during the middle ages. Because it allowed trade ships to go out and buy salt from other towns to secure the salt supply of Venice, and meanwhile did the traders also bring with them other type of goods from other towns so that Venice became the great trade center of Europe. So trade grew thanks to this salt subsidy, and as more trade was done, then more ships were built, and the more ships Venice had then the more powerful navy their naval power became.
    15
  5.  @Moshe_Dayan44  George W. Bush started wars of aggression... like Hitler. Bush built Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo bay to arrest people without a fair trial and then torture them with the most barbaric methods known... Just like Hitler. USA blackmailed and threatened other countries - including their European allies and Bush said "you are either with us, or against us". Bush dismantled habeas corpus - just like Hitler. Bush created the Patriot act that took away peoples right to privacy by letting the NSA read all Americans email conversations - just like the East German dictatorship took away their citizens privacy and read their private mails and bugged their phones. Bush did allow his troops to commit war crimes - Hitler also allowed his troops to murder civilians unpunished. USA plundered occupied territories - Nazi Germany plundered conquered land. Bush did try to silence the media by only allowing himself to be interviewed by TV channels and newspapers that were uncritical of him, while critics never got a seat at the white house to ask him questions or hold him accountable on behalf of the American people. Bush treasury secretary Hank Paulson threatened the Congress with declaring martial law if they did not give away 700 billion of tax payer money to him and his criminal banker buddies that had created fraud and crashed the economy and caused the financial crisis - He committed blackmailing, treason and behaved like a fascist like Mussolini that wants unlimited power without any accountability. Bush did push for online censorship in the name of fighting copyright infringement, terrorism and child porn... but in reality did he only want to rob kids of their money so the copyright industry could get richer and silence Assange so he would not expose war crimes US troops had committed. So are there many similarities between George W Bush, Tony Blair and the EU on one hand, and Nazi-Germany on the other? Defiantly. Bush America and Europe under the EU are evil empires. When I see the EU flag I think of Nazi-Germany. The EU hates freedom of speech. Article 13 is an evidence of that. And so are their blasphemy laws in Austria. And their censorship of the press https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3823706/European-human-rights-chiefs-orders-British-press-NOT-reveal-terrorists-Muslims.html The censorship of fake news in Germany shows us that the Germans in 2020 know as little about democracy as the Germans in 1935. And when the people vote in the wrong way, then the politicians in the ignore their will - as they did when the French and the Dutch down-voted the EU constitution. And when countries vote for governments that aren't pro-EU, then the EU invades those places and put a pro-EU government in power like they did in Italy and Greece. So the EU firmly believes in the Brezhnev Doctrine. You can call the EU and George W. Bush's America for many things, but "democracies" is not of those words.
    9
  6. I would argue that South Korea beats all of them.
    8
  7. Too bad that Peter III died so early :(
    6
  8. Goebbles had strong antisemitic views even before the nazis got into power. And he talked about extermination (Ausrott) of the jews in his "totaler kieg speech". They guy shurely know what was going on and he was in favor of it. Some nazis did not like the killing jews, but Goebbles was not one of them, on the contrary was it probably he togheter with Hitler, Heydrich and Himmler who were the ones most influencial in pushing Germany towards a policy of mass murder.
    5
  9. why is it always republicans who are butthurt above removing confedrate statues? Why did MAGA supporters carry Confederate flags during the storming of Capitolium? To me as a foreigner it seems like the only ones likeing the Confederates today are republicans.
    5
  10. True. Nazi Germany and Communist Russia came together in a defensive pact in the last moment to stop the aggressive warmongering Poland from achieving world domination!
    5
  11. Bullshit statement from an ignorant person. USAs economy took decades of industrial policy to create. The country had the highest standard of living in the world when World war 2 started. And Americans had a higher standard of living than Europeans already in the late 1800's- And that it thanks to protectionism that allowed the country to industrialize without getting its industries smashed to pieces from foreign competition the same way that other colonies like South America and India got their smashed by industries in their motherland. USA got rich while other colonies or former colonies didn't.
    4
  12. Well the rich business elite do not like your idea. They rather want a system with unemployed people get small benefits. If everyone had a job, then there would be a shortage of labor. And then would workers wages go up. And that would mean less money over as profits for the business owners. I do however agree with parts of your idea. There should be a job guarantee programme where every person is guaranteed to get a job at a minimum wage if they cannot find a better job. Then people learn new skills and do not get stuck in long-term unemployment and lose their self-respect and self-esteem. But instead can they feel pride in owning their own wage by serving society instead of feeling like a burden to others. And wages will not be pushed up and causing wage inflation, since the government sector is not competing with the private sector for the workers and thereby pushing up wages. The wages are at minimum wage level, and most people will move to a better job in the private sector as soon as economic growth picks up and the corona crisis is over.
    4
  13. His speech is rethorically well designed and worth learning from. Its his masterpiece. Otherwise do I think nazi speeches and propaganda are overrated. Sure Riefenstahl was talented but everyone else wasn't. The movies about Frederick are boring and not historically correct. The speeches of Hitler are not intellectual. The movie comparing jews with rats was boring and will not convince anyone to become a nazi or begin hating jews. Both Goebbels and Hitler are overrated speakers.
    3
  14.  @jarehelt  You are right. A mistake happened. I don't know why my comment ended up here. Because I was going to respond to another persons claim and not yours.
    3
  15. To answer your original question. Did he know? I answer yes he did. But I don't remember the source here and now. And as you could see from all other parts of the puzzle it does seem likely that he didn't mind the mass murder policy.
    3
  16.  @susanmaggiora4800  I am sorry that I got long-winded. But I hope you will now understand why I think the western world has declined since year 2000. I love my country, but I hate the traitor politicians and I think they should be sent to Hague for crimes against humanity and being shot as traitors for violating our constitution.
    3
  17. Have you never heard about bowing and curtsy?
    3
  18. Hyperinflations happen to countries in war and communist regimes and not to modern industrialized countries. The common definition of inflation is "too much money is chasing too few goods". In a normal healthy economy will money printing not cause higher prices because we pump out more and more stuff from factories and thereby get more and more goods - which puts a downward pressure on prices. Governments also takes out money from circulation in the economy - which makes less money chase those goods and causing inflation.
    3
  19. Russia won the war but at a great cost. Half their economy had been destroyed in the war. Cities had been turned into rubble. Villages had been burned. Bridges and factories had been blown up by retreating armies. Germany destroyed railway tracks as they retreated. So you can say that the western half of Russia's economy had stopped existing because of the war. Now everything left of Russia's industrial base laid east of the zone that Germany had occupied. Particular in the Ural mountains did you have much factories - because as you perhaps already know, did Russia take down many of their factories and industrial plants and transported them by rail to the east so they would not fall into German hands. So this changed the entire structure of the Soviet economy. Now the industrial base had moved from west to east. Instead of small factories, did Russia put up all big factories in a few cities. And instead of making civilian products did those factories now specialize in making military equipment - rifles, tanks and such. Now would all parts of the production process happen in one and the same town when all factories were concentrated into one place. You dug up the metals from the ground, you processed it into steel, then you turned that steel into tanks. Every part of the production process now could be done in the same town. So you could say that the cities in the Ural turned into huge military towns. The war changed Russia. The military industrial complex got a firmer grip of power in the country, because it represented a higher proportion of the economy than before. And it had won much status and prestige in the war. And people were afraid of another world war would happen again, so Russians therefore wanted a strong military. So Russia remained a militaristic society decades after the war. But this led to the civilian economy to be neglected. And the standard of living did not improve. The war had destroyed much, and Russia had much money it had to spend on repair on reparing bridges and railroads so it did not have much money over to offer everyday luxuries that we take for granted in the west. Stalin hoped that plundering east Germany and stealing all large amounts of industrial equipment in Silesia would help the Russian economy to flourish again. But this did not happen. And all he accomplished was to destroy Germany's industrial base. Russia had won the war. Its military status was great after the victory over Germany. And Russia took control over eastern Europe. But its economy remained weak. It had outproduced Germany during the war despite being a poor country, and Germany occupied all of Europe. But in all other areas was the Russian economy weak. And that is also the case today. The Russian economy today is mostly just strong in military equipment, avionics, nuclear power, space, and selling raw materials such as coal, natural gas, timber and metals. Half of Russia's GDP comes from oil production. So it is not a very diverse economy that is fragile because it depends too much on a few sectors - and particulary the price of oil.
    3
  20. The Conservatives are wrong about economics. But sadly can I not say that the left are correct about economics either since it push for nonsense like UBI, The Green leap forward (aka Climate Communism). And when people glorify the 1950s, I think that people do that because there was a strong sense of community (people were proud patriots and the country was not divided like today). Real wages were high. Unemployment was low. People had a positive belief in the future with all technological progress and miracle medicine. And it was a time of strong families. And technological progress helped women to have more free time - you no longer needed a person to stay home to wash clothes, make food and do the dishes as washing machines, microwaves and rapidly prepared meals entered peoples homes. So many positive things in my view. I there are many things we have to learn from the 1950's. I want modern America to be more like the 1950's. But we do not of course have to go back and do everything exactly as it was back then. We could keep our internet. And skip all bigotry against atheists and have a more pragmatic view upon marriage and divorces. People should not stay in bad relationships, and cheating on their partner or take pills against depression. Its better to break up and move on. And if women wants to work and have their own income and be less dependent on a man, then I see no problem in it. But nor do I see any problem with women want to become housewives.
    3
  21.  LighTWArriorYT Official  No one says Poland created and runned those death camps. What they mean with Polish death camps is that those camps were the German camps located in Poland. And as we know, did the Germans have concentration camps and forced labour camps spread out here and there all over occupied Europe. But all the death camps laid in Poland. So I will continue to say Polish death camps.
    3
  22. Respect to the Serbian troops for that. And their opponents deserve to be called a noobteam.
    2
  23. "every political factor and military engagement came to an advantage for one side" France had better rifles and the battle of Gravelotte st.Private was fought against French numerical superiority. Strategically could France have just massed troops along the short Franco-German border and made it hard for German troops to win the war, as they would have been forced to fight a strong enemy with well prepared defensive positions. Prussia did however have better tactics, better logistics, better overall prepardness for war - and of course von Moltke's genius. "Sadly for the german history his sucessors Schlieffen and his nephew Moltke the younger did not want to realize this" Schlieffens plan was a master work. Had not Austria failed so badly at the eastern front and forced Germany to move troops to the east to stop a Russian invasion - then would France have fallen and the war would have been over in 1914 with German easy win in the west. And there after would Russia have fallen in the east, and probably also before 1917. The Schlieffen plan had to be improved in ways its father never originally intended, and it is surprising how well the plan did work despite its many changes. The schlieffen plan was created when the French army was much weaker. But then a few years before WW1 did France introduce 6 years conscription for all males and it grew its army. This changed the power-balance so much that Germany had to put hundreds of thousands more men into the fight in France in order to win this fast victory in the west. But such a growth in size of the German invasion army did create new problems this plan was not really suited for. You could only walk so many men over a bridge at once, over otherwise it will collapse. A thin road will create ques and road blocs if you try to march too many men, horses and guns over it all at once... So growing an army and maintaining the speed for a fast invasion of France was two things which did go against each other. Russia would also begin to mobilize its army faster than this plan anticipated - which meant that a German victory over France must happen even faster than planned, before Russia could field a large enough army to become a deadly threat to Germany. All those factors made it seem nearly impossible for Germany to win in 1914. But Germany nearly won the war in 1914 despite all those problems - and that says a lot about the high quality this plan originally had. Had this plans originals been badly made to begin with, I think it would have been very unlikely that a fast invasion of France and Belgium would have been possible. Paris would never be under threat, since French forces would have gotten more time to plan their counter-moves to stop the German offensives. Troops could get the time to dig in and put up barbed wire on every kilometer before the Germans came. But that did not happen. Because Germany kept all the initiative in their hands on the west front battlefield in 1914.
    2
  24. Well they could have politely asked for independence instead of bombarding fort Sumter. I think that could have defused the explosive situation and thereby avoided a war. And from the slave owning souths perspective would letting the north keeping its tiny amounts of military gear been a small price to pay for southern independence and for avoiding big bloodshed and an ending to the southern way of life.
    2
  25. If Sweden had such a big army at Poltava it would probably have won the Northern war. Charles only had about 40.000 men during his Russian campaign. Sweden is not a country like Russia that can sacrifice 200.000 men per year and still win a war at the end. Charles army was the biggest and most well equiped - and trained army in Swedish history. But even with all efforts of absolutist monarch and a military state and the most effiecent buraucracy in Europe it would be able to field an army even half the size of other great powers like France, Austria, Russia or the Ottoman empire. It is rather surprising how big and might the Swedish empire could become despite its limited resources (for example did Charles enemies did have 40 times more manpower than he did). And it nearly won at Poltava - and that could have perhaps have encouraged Ukrainian cossacks and Ottomans to join Charles in his war against Russia, while a big military defeat at Poltava could have created further dissatisfaction with Peter unpopular rule. Peters western reforms was unpopular. And blodshed and war taxes would just encouraged revolts even further to de-throne Peter, and who knows what Russia then would looklike today? None the less do I think that Swedens imperial glory would have been fading away even with a victory in the Great Northern war. Even with all conquered lands and huge Polish puppet state do I think that Sweden didn't have enough silver and blood to defend this huge empire that many wanted a piece of. Prussia, and Austria was still powerful enemies. Russia and Denmark was not so serious threats in their own right, but these countries was by no means small compared to Sweden and were therefore threats that couldn't be ignored. They were latent enemies that would join military alliances with Swedens enemies and attack Sweden whenever they saw a weak monarch on the Swedish throne. Nor did Sweden have much of an overseas empire besides a few plots of land in Africa, west indies and North America. And the GDP per capita was one of the lowest in western Europe. And the Swedish navy was not necessarily bad, but it was always out of luck and would never produce a single great maritime victory before the battle of Svensksund in 1790. The only major strenghts of this empire was its good buraucracy, modern army and tactics, its mines (Russia and Sweden did togheter produce more than 90% of all iron in Europe) so Sweden had some military advantages thanks to its iron industry. And it had some diplomatic and propagandistic strengts too, as the home of Gustavus - the defender and saint of all protestant nations and the formidable Swedish army. Sweden was a poor country. It never built any Versaille palaces like France, produced music like Vienna or was a commercial hub with Dutch paintings like Amsterdam. Sweden was a poor country made up of peasants, and the country was only good at two things: melting iron and making Cannons.
    2
  26. Hitler also outmaneuvered the creator of his socialist party and took it over. And in 1934 he killed the leftwing flank of the party as he back-stabbed Röhm and Strasser.
    2
  27. "Shitty research, dude" How many books have you read on this topic? I bet it is zero. "How can you say Germans invested their whole economy towards war in the 30's when in fact it didn't fully mobilised until the last year of the war" Both Mark Harrison and Adam Tooze says that Germany started its economic mobilization for war already in 1934. When the last steps in cutting rationing and mobilizing for total war in 1943, had Germany already been in a semi-mobilization for wars for many years before then. Much of the old views on Speers economic miracle has been re-visioned. A part of the explanation to the increased production numbers of tanks can be found in the idea of cutting production in spare parts and only focusing on building new tanks - which turned out to be a bad decision for the German army which could not fix all thanks that needed repairs. Another reason why German war production increased in 1942/43 and afterwards was because the building programme of new factories started in 1938 finally began to pay off. And when those new industrial plants could be put into use, then Germany could dramatically increase its output in weapons production. So as you see did Nazi-Germany always plan for war. But in 1936-38 was much investments done into building new factories, while after 1943 was all efforts only spent into building more weapons instead. One thing remained true for the period 1934-45 however, and that was that military production always came before civilian production.
    2
  28. Germany had the best railway system in the world. But Germany was also a country where Germans was much poorer than Americans and could therefore not afford to buy their own cars. So Germany had no T-Ford, so instead they used the railways. They used railways for everything.. transporting yourself to work, transporting people to work, and transporting people to camps.
    2
  29. Germany and EU are the parts of Europe becoming most like nazi-Germany today.
    2
  30. Germany got most of the blame because they needed to justify stealing money from it somehow. Many countries economies laid in ruins and stealing money from Germany they hoped could fix their problems. Another reason was that Germany was the only country that did hard fighting and caused heavy losses on the allies. While the Ottoman empire and the Austro-Hungrian empire turned out to be pretty much useless in this war. Of course many thousands of allied soldiers did fighting the Ottomans at Galliopoli and such... but if we look at the bigger picture, was it without doubt the German army which had to do most of the fighting in this war. And since it was the Germans which had to invade places like Belgium, Romania, Serbia, France and Italy because the Turks and Austrians were too weak to do so, then it was obvious that it was Germany who would become seen as an invader. Lastly did the Germans become demonized in the war. Mostly thanks to allied propaganda posters that depicted them as monsters. And Germany was also a country very eager to use new weapons which people of the old tradition considered barbaric - such as sinking ships with uboats, bombing cities with zepplins, using flame throwers and poison gas. So many people therefore had a negative view on the Germans. But on the other hand can one say that Germany did not have much choice. The clock was not ticking in its favor, and if the war was going to be long then it would likely be lost. So Germany had to win the war fast. So it hoped that new weapon technologies could help it get a fast victory. The allies did not feel the same hurry to come up with new weapons since they knew that they had more food and resources than their enemy and much more millions of men they could call upon to fight the war if losses were high. Germany did also create a few war crimes in Belgium and killed civilians and took some people to do forced labor in Germany. And eastern Europe was plundered of food to feed Germany which was starving. So Germany's reputation got slightly tarnished from that as well. But the allies committed war crimes as well. The Russian troops did commit multiple mass murders on jews in Eastern Europe.
    2
  31. No one wanted this war. Except maybe Russia. Even those young boys who murdered the Duke probably not know what huge disaster they had created. Serbia realized it would doom their independence to an end as the Austrians invaded. Austria had to go to war to save face. It was enraged on Serbia but did not dare to go to war alone in case Russia attacked. Germany did not want a big war either, and the German King wrote to his cousins who were Kings in the other countries in Europe and kindly telling them to calm down so a great war could be avoided. But Germany could on the other hand no lose face by backing down if other countries acted aggressively and she had to keep her promise of helping Austria if a war happened. Britain did not want a war since she had no interest in it. Belgium just wanted to be neutral. The Ottomans joined the central powers later on. France was allied with Russia and could not display weakness or break promises just as little as Germany could. So if Russia wanted to go to war with any country that attacked Serbia - then France had to go to war on the same side.
    2
  32. Dixie's Land
    2
  33. military music from the Great Northern war Swedish: No. 8, Grenadieur Tropp https://youtu.be/2rdxAU7JHj0 No. 10, Revaille https://youtu.be/U--rH8OJ3GE No. 6, General March https://youtu.be/mqfTlPkhiP4 No. 11, March https://youtu.be/eDkCgRH1gt8 Tappto https://youtu.be/xomZ377waWg Svea Livgardes Gamla Marsch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiCw0PduV9E Danish Den gamle danske march https://youtu.be/nmtx-luZ_cs Russian March of the Preobrazhensky Regiment https://youtu.be/7FY1NV1pBL0
    2
  34. Austria was good at producing waltz music and famous composers. But fighting wars was not one of its talents. It had huge resources but still it failed to defeat Sweden in the 30 years war, and after the battle of Breitenfeld was all of modern day Germany lost to Swedish hands. The war dragged on, for some years thanks to help from Spain, some diplomacy and large economic wealth... but in the end did Austria lose the war anyways. Austria also lost all 3 wars over Silesia with Frederick the Great. And it lost the war against Napoleon. And it lost against Prussia in 1866. And in WW1 it managed to wipe out over 60% of its 2 million men strong army in just 4 months. It could not even beat Serbia - a 3rd world country - despite numerical superiority, better weapons, and good access to fresh troops and logistics. Just as with Habsburg Spain, was Habsburg Austria good at royal marriages diplomacy. So it too did create an empire with totally artificial borders, thanks to monarchs gaining land through marriages. So aside from royal blood was there very little that tied this empire together. And solidarity was never good between the different peoples and provinces. The Hungarians were excellent horsemen and light infantry during the 1700's, but despite making up a third of the empire it only paid 10% of all taxes in the Kingdom. And its barbarian population was a very proud one, so of course did its soldiers not accept being led by German officers. The Italian provinces were rich highly culturally developed, and the same was true for Belgium. Croatia provided excellent steppe troops, but their discipline was awful and the line between criminal gangs of murders and plunderers and soldiers were non-existent as with the other light troops in the Austrian army. And the Austrian army itself was very tiny, and the population in Tyrol was very unwarlike, but Austria could still get large army thanks to contributions of troops of all different German states within the Holy Roman empire. And this army was commanded by Austrian officers. But as with the tax system, was there also nearly no standardization within the Austrian army on how units should be trained, equipped, the size of regiments and so on. So just like Spain and France did this empire punch below its own weight, despite being a huge empire with millions of people.
    2
  35. Maria Theresia wanted to take back Silesia from Prussia. This province used to pay 25% of all the tax money that the Austria empire got, so it was a big loss to lose that place. And she was also very angry in the aggressive way that Prussia under Frederick the Great had taken it - he took it in a war he had started while Austria was mourning their dead King and Maria Theresia was a young new unexperienced ruler on the throne. Maria hated Frederick and wanted revenge. And also the ladies ruling Russia and France didn't like Prussia either. France had fought on Prussias side against Austria in the earlier war. But Frederick had made a secret peace deal with Austria as soon as the Austrians agreed to give away Silesia to him. And the French became very angry on how Prussia just abandoned their alliance partner and allowed the Austrians to hammer the French will their full might of their armies. So they had no desire to fight on Frederick the Greats side anymore, and they wanted revenge. And the French were also involved in the global rivalry against England for the dominance over North America, the west indies, and India. And Sweden did not have any strong feelings in this war like Austria or France that wanted revenge, but insted it just wanted a piece of the cake as Prussia was about to be carved up and destroyed by a gigantic military overmight. Sweden wanted to take back some land in Pommerania that it had lost to Prussia in the Great Northern war, and if Sweden was lucky it was hoped that Sweden perhaps could get a little more than that. But in all honesty could Sweden just as well have sided with England and Prussia side instead if they had not been so outnumbered and weak. In the earlier Silesian war did Sweden fight against Russia for example. And the Swedish King was also married to one of Frederick the Great's sisters. Frederick the Great saw that Austria and Russia had formed a military alliance and he thought they had begun making preparations for a war with Prussia so decided to act quickly before his enemies would be fully prepared. So he invaded Saxony to steal some money to pay for his war and to get the Saxon army into his side against his enemies. And as soon as Prussian troops crossed the Saxon border was the next big war in full swing.
    2
  36. Stalin came from Georgia and he hated the Union and liked forced labor. So he went to the Soviet Union and implemented his ideas there and fought against Yankee imperialism and North American bankers and industrialists.
    2
  37.  @zanezanezane1606  Romania and Italy got tempted to go into the war on the enemy side only because of A-Hs weakness, so Germany was forced to do even more work in rescue them. As more countries joined the list of Germany's enemies only because of A-H weakness - which is a proof that AH was a burden to this alliance. And A-H could not fight off Russia alone, but needed much German support to stay afloat. And those German troops could have been used on the western front to deal the final death blow to the French army, but because of the problems in the east could Germany not use so many troops on the western front. Had Austria just been able to do the bare minimum and somewhat hold their ground and not die so fast, then war could have been won by Germany already in 1914
    2
  38. I never really did. In 1924 came the hyperinflation. In 1929 did the great depression start in USA and soon spread to Europe and wrecked the weak German economy that still not had recovered from the war and the hyperinflation. And while Hitler did much investments and military spending that cut unemployment, did he do very little to improve standards of living.
    2
  39. But this Adolf actully won his world war and took Moscow.
    1
  40. Serbia, Slavic nationalists, Russia, Austria, and France were responsible for this war. And in this order.
    1
  41.  @wolfy8006  The goal was to prepare the country in the case it got to war with western powers again. But Hitlers overall goal was to conquer Poland and Russia and settle it after he had gotten rid of all slavs living there.
    1
  42. @blue lives dont matter , our teachers matter please say "people of color" instead
    1
  43. why not call it persia again? its so much easier
    1
  44.  @TheAustrianAnimations87  Those pieces were useful for crushing the big fortresses, but aside from that did they not play any important role in the war since only 24 guns were built. And the naval supremacy of the allies was total with or without the Austrian navy assisting the German fleet. Britain alone got more ships and better ships than the German navy - which forced them to let their ships sit in a harbor for the entire war since they know that a naval battle with Britain would most likely only end in a loss. The British navy was even so large and powerful that it could afford to waste a huge reserve fleet of old ships during the battle of Galliopoli and the attempt to reach Russia though the black sea.
    1
  45. He was a gambler who could have turned the country either into a great power or into a pile of burning ruins and have all lands taken over by foreign powers. I could admire his boldness and courage, but at the same time I do think that he was reckless and irresponsible with the country that he inherited by chance.
    1
  46. No loss. It stopped Austria from occupying Germany and pooling all Germanys resources togheter in the hands of a catholic emperor - which would have become the most powerful man in Europe. Not even France would have been strong enough to beat the German empire if that thing would have happened. And to a protestant empire with limited resources this was seen as a horrible threat - especially since the German empire was allies with Poland which was a great empire back then that had recently fought many wars against Sweden. The king of Poland was Sigismund Wasa who had Swedish royal blood in his veins and thus lawful claims to the Swedish throne, while Gustavus Adolphus was just a king who got his crown from his father who had made a rebellion against Sigismund and kicked him out of the country. So Gustavus Adolphus was therefore paranoid about the polish threat. Some say that the reason why he joined the 30 years war was because of the Austro-polish alliance, and Gustavus invasion of Russia was mostly due to his fear that Poland might take more baltic sea provinces and put a polish king on the Russian throne and then form an alliance against Sweden. So to counter this threat he invaded Russia and took Moscow and installed a Swedish king on the Russian throne and fought some battles against the Poles inside Russia. He could have kept his war going, but he ended his half-hearted war with a peace treaty that gave him multiple provinces, and most importantly of all Ingria which gave him a landbridge between Finland and Estonia to counter any potential Polish invasions. So I would say that Swedens military was quite succesful for most of the 1600s. It was seen as the best army in the world. But the empire lacked the population and the economic muscles to become this global world power in the same rank as Spain, France, the Netherlands and England.
    1
  47. This war were mostly defensive in nature for Swedens part. No one wanted to fight the mighty Austrian empire, but everyone realized that if they did do nothing and let the emperor take over all of Germany then he would become too powerful to defeat. So there was no other choice than to fighting him now instead of later - because in the future he would be too strong to beat. And Sweden was far from alone in feeling threatened. Denmark also joined the war against the emperor. And so did even the mighty France, despite being a catholic country with the largest population in Europe. A united Germany was a nightmare to the protestants in Europe. And a world war was fought to stop this from happening. The Spanish and the Austrian Habsburg dynasty tried to take over the world and they faced resistance in Italy, the Netherland and Northern Germany... and then would all those separate conflicts get tied into one big - just as World war1 could trace its roots back to old conflicts on the balkans and colonial rivalry between France and Germany and multiple separate conflicts. World warII is another example with the Spanish civil war and Japans wars in Asia tied into it, even if Japan officially only really joined the Axis in late 1941. I think Sweden did well in the 30 years war. And founding a north German federation of states under Swedish control was more just a dream of Gustavus than hard set military goal of his campaign. His goal was stop the emperor from Annexing Northern Germany and in that goal he was very successful. Sadly he died way too early to crush his enemy so the war dragged on for another decade. He was an irreplaceable leader with multiple talents as a statesman, general, politician, diplomat and economist. He was the best king Sweden ever had and he was one of those rare kings like Frederick the Great with a great mind.
    1
  48. It seems like people started to fact check things quite recently. And this makes me wonder, how many other myths do people believe in? how many myths do I myself believe in?
    1
  49. The country was not going to be stuck with a hyperinflation and the great depression forever, so even if Hitler had been killed before he came to power would Germany's economy have recovered. It would have probably fared better if Germany had used their resources for improving standard of living instead of military spending. A more moderate leader would not get Germany into conflict with other countries and thus suffering from trade embargos. And instead of chasing away jewish scientists could the country have benefited from their service. It is true that military spending stimulated the economy, but you could on the other hand let the government stimulate an economy by other things, like building electric power plants, constructing roads, spending more money on research, hospitals, doctors and nurses. The only thing I do thing was a good thing the nazis did, happened during the war. And that was the building of new factories and the large training programmes of hundreds of thousands of German men and women who turned into skilled industrial workers during the war. So when the war was over did Germany have big factories and lots of skilled workers to create its post-war economic boom by building Volkswagens instead of tanks. I doubt that a peace time democratic government would have been able to force people to cut their standard of living so much, that the country would be able to make these huge investments in the manufacturing industry that Germany did. The Communists also tried to do this trick to help their stagnating economies in Eastern Europe after the 1970's. And that became very unpopular and contributed to the fall of the Berlin wall.
    1
  50. The biggest difference between movies and reality is that war is usally about sitting and waiting and being bored 99% of the time. You dig your trench and prepare your position and then you sit and wait.. and wait, and smoke a cigarette and wait until the enemy come and all the fighting will begin.
    1
  51. Company A pays Company B. Company B pays Company C. Company C pays Company A. No more German money needs to be printed so German companies can pay each other Instead they use their own secret currency to pay each other, so that the allies cannot see that inflation is going up in Germany because they are spending money like crazy on their military.
    1
  52. Most experts say that the Austro-Hungarian empire was a relic of the past and that it would have fallen apart sooner or later even if no war would have happened. This empire was after all only bound together by the monarchy and a little bit by Catholicism. But both those things were a bit outdated by the early 1900's. This Habsburg empire had been built out of royal marriages, so that is why its borders looked so strange. Many tiny pieces of land did also accept their Austrian overlords in the 1500s and 1600s only because they feared the muslim Ottomans otherwise would conquer them and take away all their independence. But since the late 1600's had the Ottoman empire been stagnating and the threat and fear of an Ottoman invasion faded away. So could the German minority keep this empire together? Probably not. Some richer parts of the empire had no interest in sharing their wealth with other more primitive peoples. While other parts would be economically hurt by independence. So perhaps a loose union between all ex-Austro-Hungrian states would have been possible. Something like an EU only for Balkan states, where they could share economic costs for railway construction and military spending and a military pact of all countries to protect against Russia and the Ottomans. At best could the Austro-Hungrian empire perhaps have hoped for becoming like the USA, where states like California, Texas, North Dakota, Carolina and so on could determine most matters by themselves, and letting the Federal government handle the printing of money and military expenditure. But personally I think the most likely fate for Austria would have been a complete break up of the empire sooner or later anyways. The Austro-Hungrian empire was after all just a relic from the medieval feudal era. Nationalism, democracy, liberalism, pan-slavism, and such forces was too strong for an old empire that could not modernize itself. If it choose democracy - then it would lose the monarchy which was the only thing tying the country together - so it had to be an oppressive monarchy in order to survive. And democracy would also mean that the German speakers would lose their dominant position within this empire. So the empire was doomed to be dysfunctional and ineffective in handle economic funds and as a military fighting force. This was already clear in the mid-1700s when the country got their ass kicked by Prussia under Frederick the Great with a country that was much smaller.
    1
  53. Poland is in eastern Europe. Especially with the pre-1945 borders.
    1
  54. The battle was just a propaganda victory. Otherwise it was a totally unimportant battle. But talking about Somme, Ypres, Verdun and such battles was perhaps not as fun for any country even if they won, since victory usually came with such a huge cost that it doesn't seem worth it. And victors usually suffered nearly as bad as the other side. So Tannenberg was a battle that felt better to talk about - it was a victory which it was easy to see which side that won and which side that lost. But personally I think that this battle is one of the most hyped unimportant battles in history. Millions of men died in this war. And here do people talk about tiny battle that inflicted 80.000 dead on the Russian side. And Hindenburg and Ludendorff would make a career out of this tiny battle and become national heroes.
    1
  55. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpiaXnyvWZI
    1
  56. It have never been a super power since WW2
    1
  57. Not really. The large scale killings only began in 1942. Strangely enough did this regime start experimenting with killing people until 1939 when the war begun. And with all secrecy under the war did the nazis try to use the situation to kill people they disliked, and all protests against this could be called enemy propaganda. The final solutions was probably not beneficial for Germany if you look how many experienced workers they killed which could have helped Germany win the war. All doctors, engineers and scientists that were lost. The nazis never cared about the economic gains of doing all this. Getting rid of undesirables was more important to them. But sometimes did economic motives play a minor role. They probably made it more interesting to speed up the murders to solve problems of housing shortages in Germany after many had become homeless after allied bombings of German cities. And stealing clothes from people who had been killed, could be used by the German government to win popularity by the German people as it could give away clothes to people in Hamburg who had lost everything after allied bombers had turned that city into ruins. And collecting coins, jewelry and gold teeths could enrich nazi officials and the gold could be used to pay for foreign imports.
    1
  58. Just like rightwing parties love to take money from the poor and give to the rich
    1
  59. France and Belgium wanted some economic compensation for all buildings destroyed. France and Britain had also borrowed money from USA to win the war, so now USA wanted to get its money back - but since they had no money they wanted Germany to pay instead. Then the negotiations started and France started with a super high demand for economic compensation. France really did not hope to get all that money - they just said that they demanded all that money as a negotiation trick. I mean you do not start a wage negotiation with your boss and demand a minimum salary that he is offering, but instead you try to get as much paid as possible. And France got a little bit horrified, when it realized that no other allied power was trying to hold them back and soften their demands for compensation. And the end result became this silly Versaille treaty peace with so much war demands that even British patriots like John Maynard Keynes opposed it because it was too unfair.
    1
  60.  @hooderik8699  "compared to the economic disability and physical disasters the other 3 nations had they have less speed bumps." Bullshit. Korea is the country which had been invaded most in history (more than 1500 times). And South Korea was devastated by World war 2 and its population was enslaved by Japan. Then came the Korean war and harmed the country even more. So by the early 1950's it was one of the poorest countries on the planet - Ghana was twice as rich back then. The country had 3 main exports: fish, tungsten ore, and handcrafted whigs made by collecting human hair. And in just 30 years (if not even less) did South Korea go from being one of the poorest into becoming one of the richest countries on the planet. They outclassed Sweden in Shipbuilding (which were the largest country in shipbuilding). And the Korean state owned steel company POSCO headed by a Korean Army General became the largest steel producer in the world only 6 years after the company was started. And today Korea is known for companies like LG, Hyundai, and Samsung. It makes everything from smartphones, to cars to tanks like K2 black panther. Not bad for a country with 50 million people and no natural resources to out compete rich countries in their own game. USA did have the natural resources to make their own steel. But South Korea didn't so it had to import both coal and iron from far away (because China was Communist back then). So all iron and coal had to be imported from Australia, USA and South America before South Korea could start making its own steel.
    1
  61. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kI1O7HX2TKk
    1
  62. Despite all bombs dropped over Germany did German industrial capacity grow with 15% during the war. Many unemployed Germans had also been put to work in the factories and become skilled workers during the war years. So Germany did have a highly productive workforce and new machinery. People today often talk about idiocy like "the post-industrial society" - which is nonsense, since the industrial sector is just as important today as in the past. The manufacturing industry is the sector where productivity levels are the highest. While productivity gains in agriculture and the service sector is very small at best. And the high improvements in productivity does create a larger economic surplus (aka "profit"). And the higher profits you make, the higher wages can you also afford to pay your workers so they get a high standard of living and can afford to pay much money in taxes so you could have good schools and healthcare.
    1
  63. Machine guns, barbed wire and better artillery ended the old style of warfare. Walking in a line formation with flags and drum beats was no longer practical. A machine gun could kill 100 men in a minute if you would try that. So now you had to get uniforms that made it difficult for enemy machine gunners to see and aim at you. So the British that had been fighting in Africa had abandoned their red white uniforms and began using khaki colored uniforms that blended in with the terrain in South Africa. And the Germans had been abandoning their old blue Prussian uniforms (and turquoise Bavarian uniforms and green Saxon) and starting to use grey uniforms which blended in excellent with European forests and were by some American observers considered the best "camouflage" uniform in the world in 1914. Some countries did however not abandon their old national colors, because they felt too much national pride to do so. France did keep their red-blue uniforms and their red caps. And the result was of course a bloodbath when the war started. France suffered gigantic losses of hundreds of thousands of men in 1914. An entire generation of young males died. The uniform was soon abandoned for another uniform that was less colorful, but much damage had already been done by then. Northern France had also fallen into German hands with its textile and dye industry, so France had to satisfy itself with a crappy blue low quality uniform of for the rest of the war, because there was simply no other colors available. Soon it was also realized that the old hats were outdated. The Germans quickly learned to cover up their pickelhaube with cloth to not have shining bling-bling giving away their soldiers position to enemy gunners. And the French replaced their caps with helmets that at least gave their soldiers heads some protection from stones and shrapnel that German howitzers and field guns threw at them. Thousands of lives were saved this way and losses from artillery fire was quickly cut in half.
    1
  64. Swedish royal anthem https://youtu.be/YcctnSMvyYk?t=36s https://youtu.be/y5_26jjDa2I
    1
  65. Germany had to beat Serbia for them. It had to beat Romania for them. It had to beat Russia for them. And it had to kick back the Italian invasion into Austria. So yes, the Austrians sucked and did not carrying their own weight in this war.
    1
  66. You solve one problem and create a new one. That's what would happen. The problem with the Balkans is that populations are spread out and you got large minority groups inside every country. Sudeten Germans inside Czechia. Serbic enclaves in neighboring countries. Hungarians living inside today's Romania owned Transylvania and so on. And each ethnic group puts their own interest before the interests of the other groups - and then you get lots of angry fighting. No wonder that Yugoslavia did become a battlefield in the 1990s. No wonder that the Romanian and Hungrian troops hated each other that they would start firing upon each other if the Germans could not keep them apart.. and this despite the fact that both Romania and Hungry was supposed to fight on the same team for the Axis on the eastern front in World 2 and help each other killing Russian communists. And to add further complications to the situation have demographic trends also changed the ethnic composition of provinces over time. Birthrates of Christians have been low, while muslim albanians have been breeding like rabbits and just within a few decades gone from being a minority to becoming a majority in some areas. So if a land was christian in the past - like Lebanon in the middle east. It is no longer so today. To just take one example. So this game of etno-nationalism makes things complicated and I don't think a Danube federation could have worked.
    1
  67. The introduced a new type of money backed by gold
    1
  68. Stalin came from Georgia and was a south boy 100%. He was red, just like the south votes red. The flags of Dixieland and Novorussia stands united against Yankee imperialism and for mother russia. Stalin was based and approved the right to own forced labor. Something that the libtards gets triggered about lol. Trump and Russia stands united.
    1
  69. And people have always said that judgement day is near. But people tend to forget all the 2000 years that doomsday prophets have been wrong. Those who think we are living in the 1930's again are looking at history in a superficial way. They use the same line of reasoning as people who say "Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore all vegetarians are nazis" or "Hitler also drank coffee just like you, you nazi!". Trump is Hitler. "Everything with four legs must be a dog".
    1
  70. Well you are an ignorant dumbass. It managed to win wars both against Polish Lithuanian commonwealth, Russia and Austria. And Finland was taken by military conquests during the crusades against Novgorod. And Denmark was great power during the middle ages, and later on continued to be a regional great power until 1814 when Sweden took Norway from it. The Hanseatic league was also once a respectable foe to fight against. And it managed to defeat small countries as well, like Saxony which was the richest country in Europe by the early 1700s. It also managed to take Moscow - while neighter the Kaiser or Hitler managed to do that thing. So it managed its fights with her mighty neighbours. And fighting Spain and France would be pointless since they were countries far away with not much conflicting interests. France was also a Swedish ally, while the Habsburgers in Spain and Austria failed to take over the world thanks to resistance from France and the Swedish army. The Swedish army had 200.000 men during the 30 years war - which made it the most powerful military force in Europe. And according to your own logic you contradict yourself, since Germany empire shouldn't be called an empire since unlike Swedens territory in Finland, all Austrian lands were taken by royal marriages or other peaceful means - like the Netherlands, Bohemia, and Hungary.
    1
  71.  @APFS-DS  Define the word "wehraboo". Is everyone who doesn´t think every M4 Sherman killed 20 tigers a Wehraboo? To me does the wehraboo slur seem to be over-used by people who are as big idiots as the neo-nazis on the other side that holds an equally unuanced view.
    1
  72. antifa thugs or gun crazy tea party activists They were fat losers and men who dreamt childish fantasies about military glory, but they were too young to join WW1 and too old to fight WW2.... so they had to let other generations of german men die wars because of their childish wishes
    1
  73. Silesia
    1
  74. Mein Schlesierland
    1
  75. Nope.
    1
  76. AfD are basically just the old CDU (before the CDU turned left under Merkel). In any other country would AfD be seen as a normal Conservative party rather than a nazi party. But since Germany is a insane shithole, are everyone with different opinions than the consensus considered a nazi. This says more about the German people than it does about Germany. I don't even like the AfD, but I can say that they are the only sane people in Germany while the rest of the German population are retards in eyes of the world. Ironically does the normal German loves fascism and censorship in order to fight fascism. But I guess that Germany just cannot help itself from going from one dictatorship to another... the kaiser reich, the 3rd reich, DDR, and now this. Germans simply do not understand the concept of democracy. And nor do they like democracy.
    1
  77. Combine Wehrmacht with American Vietnam uniform and you get a Chilean uniform :^)
    1
  78. That is why it needs to be broken up again
    1
  79. Seems like Youtube constantly side with the bad guys in history
    1
  80. Why? Many persons romanticise the maffia. People romanticise the crusades. They glorify war. They paint a rosy view of drugs. So why are no one romanticising slavery?
    1
  81. They rather won a lot in the beginning, but not even some of the most impressive victories in military history was able to turn around the difficult situation for Frederick in 1757. His great victories did however prevent his Kingdom from falling into enemy hands and allowed him to continue the war. Then did he suffer a few setbacks and Britain abandoned the Westminister convention and left Frederick to his own fate. All sides in the war starting to feel war exhaustion, but the alliance of Maria Theresia felt optimistic about winning the war so they did not try to hurry to get an end of the war and made hastenly made bad mistakes, and instead did they deliebratly let things draw out upon time to exhaust Prussia's limited resources. But then suddenly everything changed in a single day when Russia got a new ruler. And Prussia's perhaps most dangerous enemy left the war. And Sweden which was in a bad shape when it joined the war and had accomplished nothing in it also felt it was time to leave, because all the hope it had in regaining Pommerania laid with the promises made by her ally France. And the Austrian army was unable to bring Prussia to her knees despite much more manpower and bigger economic resources. Frederick's political decision to start the Silesian war had been foolish and nearly brought his Kingdom and the Hohenzollern monarchy to its end. But as a military leader had Frederick shown brilliance and his troops had proven themselves to excellent. The Prussian army had trained its conscripts with such an intensity that they were able to fire 3-4 shots per minute while other armies only could do 2 or 3. And their ability to keep their formation intact when making complex manouvers outshined every other army in Europe, and if they tried to do they same would a caos be created and the troops would get caught in knots and the formation would be broken. But the Prussians had no such problem and they could therefore manouver with superior speed on the battlefield. The Seven years war won nothing for Prussia. But it prevented Austria from taking back one of her richest provinces.
    1
  82. Sorry but this video was not one of your better. The German doctrine was better auftragstaktik gave the Germans superior flexibility to adopt to new situations on the battlefield. The Germans were masters of this, and this is also the reason why the war lasted so long despite overwhelming odds. The German NCOs professionalism was the biggest reason to Germany's military victories and it was the strongest card the Germans had on their hands. Many NCOs died during the war, and because of German tactics were their losses disproportionally high within the German army compared to other armies. The German army could show surprising levels of skill even into the end in 1945 despite shortages of everything and a high proportion of badly trained teenagers within its ranks. A few of the men were combat veterans and/or highly trained and skilled men who were able to lead their newbie recruits through the hard times - and sometimes did their hard resistance cause huge problems to the allies despite they being heavily outnumbered and underequiped. The fighting around Normandy and Seelöwe heights are a proof of this. Germany were the master of tactics throughout the war. Their sniper tactics training videos are still very usable for modern snipers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNHeGrojUjg&t=1585s Their auftragstaktik have inspired the Israeli army, and led to victories against overwhelming odds against far superior Arab army coalitions time and time again. The use of radios in communication between tanks, and the use of radios to coordinate air support with the army did revolutionize warfare in the 1940's. The German air force positioning of airbases close to the frontline did allow them to fly more missions per day than the allies, and thus also allowed them to get local air superiority as they could have more planes in the sky over the battlefield at any given time, while allied planes had to fly long distances from their base to the frontline and then waste an equal amount of hours flying back home to their well protected base far behind the frontline... This might have helped the allies from getting their planes destroyed in ground attacks from German planes, but on the other hand did the allies lose air superiority over the battlefield and troops at the frontline were left to the mercy of the Luftwaffe which could hammer them relentlessly. German planes needed only about 20 minutes to get to the frontline so they could therefore fly many bombing missions in a single day. While allied planes would need 3 or 4 hours to get to their targets. So the ground troops saw many German planes and rarely any allied planes to help them... which was indeed demoralizing in 1940 during the fighting in France and the Benelux countries. The Luftwaffe were also experts at other tricks. Their finger four formation they learned in the Spanish civil war gave them an upper hand against the British fighter wings with 3 planes, or even against a larger formation of 5 British planes. https://youtu.be/52YOKT_O10U?t=3887 And in North Africa did the Luftwaffe planes also get the upper hand by using the cover of the sun behind them as they did dive down upon allied planes which failed to spot their enemy in the strong desert sun during the day. And time and time again would German aces use this tactic with deadly effect on their enemy, and when the allied pilots discovered a German plane diving down upon them, then it was usually already too late to start defend themselves. The allies did usually have weapons equal or superior to the German ones. But superior German tactics did for a long time allow the Germans to compensate for their inferior numbers or weapons. The American troops were typically better equipped than the German ones, but the US Army was amateurs compared to the Germans in 1942. USA learned lots of lessons from its mistakes, but it would never come close of showing the same brilliance as the German army had when it was at its best. The US military did have many serious flaws even after the war, and they would also later on contribute to the loss of the war in Vietnam, as the stupid body count doctrine were the result of shitty thinking. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFvcuuS5eUI
    1
  83. Every jackass can get low unemployment for a short period of time if you just borrow and spend and waste all currency reserves. It is however an unsustainable way to run an economy.
    1
  84. I think of an old joke here... "But why do Austria have a navy when it got coastline along the ocean?" -"Well, why do Greece have a finance minister?"
    1
  85. Unemployment went down thanks to military spending. Military contractors did have a nice time building weapons for the Fuhrer. And people in general was happy to have a job after years of economic hardship. The wages was bad, but so what? After a depression and a hyperinflation were people not so picky like they normally would be, and most people were happy to have any income at all even if it was low. So the economy was not impressive. Every shitty government red, blue, brown, green - can get economic growth by spending money on the credit card and using up all years of saved foreign currency reserves to import things from abroad. But most of us realize that this is not a sustainable model of running an economy in the long run. One day you will run out of dollars and rubles to buy imports. Wasting money on the military does not improve quality of life that much, and it doesn't make investments for the future. I am not against borrowing money for investments, but I am against the idea of borrowing money for pointless luxury consumption. Buying a flat screen TV with borrowed money because you cannot afford it otherwise is a stupid idea. But if you borrowing money to invest in the future so your country will become richer in the long run and get a better economy to pay off old loans easily, then I support the idea. A good government should invest in research, education, infrastructure.harbors, a better energy grid and so on. While tanks and battleships only begin to rust over time and does not improve the long term strenght of a countrys economy.
    1
  86. It had lots of military tradition from before the Weimar republic to built upon, as they expanded their army. And Germany had secretly been researching tanks and planes even before Hitler took power and also made preparations on how they could enlarge the army in times of war.
    1
  87. Nope. The economy only collapsed after Russia took the Romanian oil fields which were Germany's most important source of oil, and when allied troops took Lorraine and western Germany which produced most of Germany's iron.
    1
  88. It was a Great power already in the mid-1800s. But it became a super-power only at the end of World War 2
    1
  89. Merkel do of course in her daddy Adolf's footsteps
    1
  90. Poland should have stayed behind their rivers and waited until the Germans got deep into Poland and far away from their railway lines that provided them with supplies, and then they could have counter-attacked the Germans and tried to encircle them and cause some serious losses to them while pushing them back. Hopefully would that have bought some time for France and Britain. And USSR would hesitated and waited with joining the war against Poland. And meanwhile would the Polish army get more time to mobilize. And then would the winter make the fighting to become less intense because of the weather. And the Germans would be forced to send more troops to the west to secure their western border, while losses in the east have been pilling up, and Germany would have less forces to thrust into Poland. And then it would be clear that the German invasion had failed.
    1
  91. Romania did kick Austria in her balls and the war was going great. But then did the Germans become fed up, and sent troops to the south-east to fix the Romanian mess once and for all. And the German army crushed the Romanian army in just 2 months. And this speedy victory says a lot, what a shitty army the Austrian army had become after the end of 1914. And what a superb fighting force the German army was throughout the war. The Romanian army was good, but the political leadership nearly dragged Romania into ruin. The country became an occupied province of Germany. And it was harshly plundered. And should have been so even more if the Germans been more successful on the western front and prolonged the war. An Austro-German victory could have meant the end of this little country after its stupid military adventure. Hundreds of thousands of men had already died for nothing, and the country was about to lose its independence. Fortunately for Romania would the German summer offensive in 1918 fail and the allied blockade also helped to bring the central powers to their knees. And in the peace deal would Romania steal the province of Transylvania from the Austro-Hungrian empire. And to this day are there many Hungarians who are unhappy of belonging to Romania.
    1
  92. ethnic diversity is a strenght
    1
  93. Aside from the slippery slope I see no problem with it. Neigther do I have any problems with thermobaric bombs since being killed by explosions is already fair game when it comes to other weapons. I think those weapons are much less disgusting than napalm or depleted uranium.
    1
  94. It had been more glorious if he died on a horse though
    1
  95. They did not fail to notice it. France was more worried than Britain and wanted to go into Germany and stopping them from breaking the many agreements in the Versaille treaty. But Britain had a half-assed attitude towards Germany, and many Brits sympatized with the Germans and thought that the Versaille treaty had been too harsh. And France felt that it was too weak to act on its own, and such an act would not be much popular with public opinion in France either, since the country had suffered gigantic losses in ww1 and therefore had a strong anti-war movement. And the rise of fascism in France didn't help either. When Hitler occupied the Rhineland in 1936 did the allies also overestimate the strength of Germany so they feared that a war would become very costly if they would punish Germany for such a minor thing. So the allies overestimated the effect of Hitlers rearmament, since the German army was still pretty weak. Germany did what it could to scare people into thinking their army was stronger than it really was. During military parades did troops often march twice down the same street, and stretched out military formations made the on the column of vehicles and men longer, and thus if gave the impression that Germany had more men than it had. The allies had reacted to all this. The French had already built their Maginot line so they were safe. But as an extra insurance did they also build as many panzer divisions as Germany, and they did also have so many tanks over that they could also give the infantry many hundreds of tanks. And the French tanks were not only more, but they were also better than the German ones. And Britain had also started to re-arm, but they were doing it at a slower phase than Germany. But on the other hand did both Britain and France have bigger armies than Germany to begin with. Britain did reintroduce conscription in 1939 (four years after Germany). But that didn't matter if it was little late - the allies still outnumbered Hitler by 2:1 in 1940 and had twice as much tanks and planes. So the allies were hardly any fools. Many French generals had also predicted the route Germany would take during their sweep into western Europe in 1940. So much of the failure of the allies in 1940 had more to do with politics, and better tactics of the German air force and auftragstaktik than it had to do with bad preparations on behalf of the allies. As I said earlier - France did have just as many tank divisions as Germany plus a Maginot line. Had I been a German General in 1939 I would had advised Hitler to not start the war, because Germany lacked oil and rubber for wheels on trucks and tank tracks, and silk for parachutes. And much of the soldiers in the German army divisions only had 2 months of training. Germany would also be outnumbered by the allies and have a weaker navy, and France would have strong prepared defensive positions in the Maginot line. The armaments industry was getting priority over the rest of the German economy, but still it was unable to produce enough tanks to replace all tanks lost in Poland before the invasion of France in may 1940. The German army also relied much on horses, while the British army (BEF) was one of the most motorized armies in the world, while the French army was consider the best army in the world by that time. Even if I like boldness in warfare and know that a weaker force often beats a larger one if it have better leadership and training, I would have felt very uneasy with Hitlers proposal to start a new world war. All the odds were stacked against Germany.
    1
  96. The entire war on terror was a scam
    1
  97. I guess there a just a few people spamming. And they need to do attention whoring on channels like this because nobody cares to watch their own junk videos.
    1
  98. He rebuilt his army with the credit card.
    1
  99. The road building had not come anywhere until the end of the war, and when it finally entered the war, it offered the allies a speedy road into Germany
    1
  100. "Recovery" is a relative term. When did the American economy recover from the Great Depression? Was it when production was back at pre-crisis levels? Or was it the year when unemployment levels were back up in normal pre-crisis levels again? Or was it after World War II when he stock market had recovered from the crash? Or was it when price-levels had recovered after the deflationary crash that the Great Depression was? So in what year did the American economy recover? - I guess that depends on what perspective you have. Unemployment levels was a problem that the nazis solved. And the country became more self-sufficient - which I consider to be a good thing. But their economy was also filled with many unsolved problems. Their insane military spending created lots of jobs, but it also wasted money. And inefficient companies were able to survive when the government spent money left and right. While in USA had this crisis forced such companies to go bankrupt or being bought up by competitors - and this led to only the best producers surviving the crash. So American companies were therefore much more efficient at producing stuff than German ones when the war started. And Germany became outclassed in production of trucks, tanks, rifles and much everything else. Structural rationalization is never a funny thing to do - but it makes your economy stronger afterwards.
    1
  101. America did not believe in free trade for most of its history. It was the most protectionist country in the world by the 1800s. And it was also the fastest growing economy in the world in the 1800s. So protectionism is good. America have however switched over to free trade from the 1980s til today. And that is also a time period with outsourcing, falling real wages, the worst economic crash since the great depression, massive bailouts, over-indebted households, growing wealth inequality, and growing political division.
    1
  102. "A-H managed to survive the Brusilov Offensive" The Brusilov offensive was a success for Russia, but the plowing into enemy territory was slowed down by lack of transports and reserves. And then the Germans was forced to transport 16 Divisions from the western front to finally halt this offensive. So no I'm not impressed by A-H performance during the war. "and hold-on the italian front very weel considering that the empire was in collapse" A-Hs only success in the war was to stop the Italian advance into Austria. The Austrian army was just a skeleton of its former self at this point, and the tiny amounts of quality troops it had left was already fighting on the Russian front. So the defense of the Italian alps had to be done by militia units. The defensive terrain was good, but I don't think anyone expected a few junk quality units could halt a surprise attack by the entire Italian army. But they did. And that is impressive. However, this was only a temporary solution. A temporary bandage on a wound. As with everything else, had Germany to take over the job to deal with the Italians because the Austrians were not strong enough to do anything by themselves after 1914.
    1
  103.  @zanezanezane1606  A-H survived for some time only thanks to Germany. "the brusilov ofensive was a sucess for the Entente" Russia had gigantic manpower reserves while Austria did not. Had the allies been successful with their Gallipoli offensive and paved the road open to Russia by sea, then the war could have ended differently. With British and French guns and ammunition could Russia have been able to arm its huge manpower reserve of 26 million men, and the Russian would have gotten so big that would have no hope of ever defeating it.
    1
  104. 1. Steal food from farmers in Ukraine so millions starve to death. 2. Export that food to other countries so you get lots of foreign currency 3. Use those dollars to import modern machinery from USA and create an industrial revolution in Russia.
    1
  105. The hyperinflation in 1923-24 is what people associate this time period with.
    1
  106. Germany was only fighting on another countrys behalf but got punished most harshly by the allies and had to pay more war reparations money than any of the central powers.
    1
  107. You got the government. And you got the private sector (citizens, corporations, banks, etc). Every government borrows money from the private sector. And there is nothing wrong with that. Every country does that. And if you didn't do that, then you would not have any money in your country - because all money is debt. And without debt you do not have any money. So when your government goes more into debt, then do the private sector get richer. But when the government gets richer, then private sector gets poorer. It is not hard to get why. If the government increases taxes, then the people will become poorer while the government will become richer. And when the government spends more money and going into debt (and thereby getting poorer) then the private sector will get more money, and the economy will be going well, peoples wages goes up, unemployment goes down and everyone is happy. So it doesn't really matter how this happens. As long as the government spends more money than it takes, then private sector will get richer while the government will get poorer. You can do this by increasing welfare spending, wasting more money on the military or cutting taxes or doing everything at once. The government have an unlimited ability to pay for everything it wants to have. Just like you would be able to buy everything you would see in a store if you had your own printing press. The only limitation you would have would be inflation. What we now see here is that Germany did not borrow much money. The German government borrowed money from the German people. But building bombs and then blow them up is perhaps not the best way of creating valueable things to repay all loans.
    1
  108. It was a sad fate for Serbia. Any country losing that many people at once sees it as a national trauma. But on the other hand did Serbia bring this war upon itself with years of state-sponsored terrorism. And the country knew that it would get away with it, because Orthodox Russia protected their Orthodox slavic brother Serbia. So Serbia saw no reason to stop supporting murder, terrorism and criminality. It was for this reason why every country in Europe except Russia considered Serbia to be a rouge state in the early 1910s. Some Serbian teenagers took their political radicalism and youth idealism too far when they murdered Duke Ferdinand, and a war which nobody wanted started. Serbia did to their credit try to act as an adult and avoid the war, some slavic nationalists had started... but at that point things had gone too far and it was too late to avoid the war. Austria was a shitty empire, and my sympathies are with the slavs and their lust for independence. However, Austria had no choice. Letting this event of Duke Ferdinand go unpunished would make the empire look weak and thereby encourage more aggressive terrorist attacks. The empire was already rotten from within, and losing more prestige would be devastating and could quickly cause the empire to collapse. So for its survival it was necessary to act strongly and punish Serbia with brute force. But Russia would not just want to sit down and let that happen, so it would go to war with Austria if it attacked Serbia. And then would Germany be forced to attack Russia and France as well. And a little war on the Balkans turned into a huge conflict. I don't think anyone would have been upset if Austria attacked Serbia the day after the Duke was killed. Russia would be pissed off, but would not have any troops mobilized to act and the worlds public opinion was not in favor of Serbia or Russia at that time. So a big war could have been avoided if Austria just acted alone and quickly. But now it waited two months instead... and we all know how that went... Best would have been if the rotten Austrian empire would have dissolved itself peacefully. The new heir to the throne was a slavophile. And the clock was not ticking in favor of the old German order on the Balkans. So personally I think this empire would have died pretty soon anyways without a war.
    1
  109. For the vikings it is the opposite
    1
  110. The German army was more than 3 million men strong in 1914. So 800.000 still seem like a small and moderate number.
    1