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