Comments by "Nattygsbord" (@nattygsbord) on "Military History not Visualized" channel.

  1. And yet russia loses and loses and retreats and retreats... from Kyiv, from Chernihiv, from Sumy, from Charkiv Oblast, from Snake island, from Khersun... Not even wunderwaffen from the 1960s that are more modern and 15x times better than the best tanks from Germany and Britain can help russia win this war 🎻 * Epic sad face *
    3
  2. I think the most important developments was the machine gun and barbed wire. Armies began the war in 1914 with German troops marching in columns when the military band played "preussens gloria", and the french attacked with the red-blue uniforms. But soon would those old traditions be swept away with all mass death during failed attacks against the barbed wire in no mans land and a few machine guns that ate up entire formations in a short period of time. And it was no longer practical to dress colourful and march orderly. This trend had of course begun earlier, as in for example the Boer war. But now had the old way of war finally died out. The role of artillery was also perhaps a little bit smaller than in earlier wars. There existed no radios that was light enough to carry for frontline troops, so that fire support could be co-ordinated. So artillery was limited to the visual range of the eyes like in earlier wars. And the lack of mobilization for a war economy would make the frontline silent in the end of 1914 and early 1915 because all powers had used up their peacetime stockpiles of artillery shells, and more had to be produced before artillery bombardment could begin again. And Russia never succeded in building any war economy so their artillery was pretty much silent for the rest of the war. Western European countries was able to produce large numbers of grenades, but they were only effective against targets that had not digged in. And the lack of radio and mobility of the artillery made impossible to support attacking troops even if they would be able to punch deep into enemy territory. The only thing that was really effective against barbed wire was to bombard it with thousands of high-explosive artillery shells or to drive over it with tanks. Otherwise it was pretty much a hopeless task to get through.
    3
  3.  @pallen2980  Did the German soldat know that the Russians left German solidiers to die? If not, then why not surrender when the situation is hopeless and death is certain? Then you did at least have some chance of survival. If you surrendered instantly, then would the Russian troops at the spot not beat you up. That treatment would have to wait until you got to Siberia. And at the end of the war was the food shortage problem not so bad as it was in the past before lend lease and the liberation of Ukraine. Many Germans would survive the war in Russian captivity and return 10 years after the war ended, like Erich Hartmann.
    3
  4. To only side that escalates are the Russians. And moving away from Russian energy is the only long term substainable solution as Russia have proven itself to be both an unreliable trading partner and a very aggressive and volatile country in regards to diplomacy. The economic damages from a cut in the gas supply have been exaggerated according to newer economic estimates done by economists. Furthermore is Russia very dependent on getting cash for their war effort, so cutting off the gas to Germany would be to shoot itself in the foot.
    3
  5. I have heard that the USA threatened Finland to not treat them gently if the assisted the Germans too much and helping them take Leningrad. So as a small country, Finland needed to act carefully to not upset major powers. Finlands goal with this war was to retake the land it had lost in the winter war. Of course did most countries that sided with Hitler probably also dream about conquering land from Russia when Stalins armies had been defeated. But Finland was quite moderate in their demands compared to other axis nations. Finlands careful diplomatic attitude towards Russia in combination with its great little army saved the country from Soviet occupation in 1944. Stalin no longer saw them as threat. And getting peace with Finland would save many Russian lives, so Russia would be able to send more men towards Berlin. The war in 1944 was still a life and death struggle for both Germany and Russia, and losses had been heavy on both sides. So securing peace with the finns was important. Finland was the poorest country in Europe, but its army that consisted of poorly equipped finnish conscripts and Swedish volunteers still proved to be a formidble opponent that time and time again punched above its own weight. Russian tank losses were high despite the finns only had panzerfausts and 1 armour division consisting of a few stuGs and captured russian tanks (KV1, T34, T26 etc). Russia could probably have taken Finland in 1944. But the price would have been extremely high. Thousands and thousands of tanks and men would have died... and all what Russia would gain from its victory would have been the conquest of the poorest country in Europe filled with not much else than mosquitos, lakes and trees. The war was going into a critical end phase in july 1944, and operation Bagration had not happened yet. So German army group middle still posed a great threat to Russia, and removing that threat would be more important than conquering Finland. And if Stalin changed his mind, then he could just crush nazi-Germany first, and then instead take over Finland in the post-war period during the cold war.
    3
  6. Go home to Russia. If I cannot spam messages in Russia, then you shouldn't be allowed to spew pro-Russian nonsense in the west.
    3
  7. And the movie would have been much better if it had fighting bears.
    3
  8.  @mattilaiho7979  Good points. I also think that the famous video with a guy in Mariupol shooting a NLAW down on a T-72 also display that the Ukrainian troops are lacking some skill. This man firing this missile and filming it at the same time is undoubtably very brave, but he did waste one very expensive missile in a foolish way because he did not know that you cannot fire on targets at such a short range - because then will the missile not activate. So the enemy was too close, and the missile did not activate and did not explode on impact. Had this video clip been coming from some reservist troops in the Ukrainian army I would not have said anything. But this video was coming from the Azow troops - some of the best troops in the Ukrainian military with years of experience of fighting the Russians. So I have to say that I did expect more skill from them.
    3
  9. 1939-1940 I would say Bf-109 was better than most allied planes and equal to the rare spitfire. The Germans did however get more out of their machines since they made surprise attacks on other countries. They had experienced pilots. And they had better tactics and doctrines. In 1941 would those advantages make Germany able to destroy the worlds largest air force - the soviet one - in only 2 weeks. The Russians had some good planes, but bad pilots, logistics and the idea of lining up planes nicely on formation close to the border with Germany made them easy targets for German planes attacking the airfields. And in 1941 Germany finally brought the excellent FW190 into service which was probably the best plane in the world at that time. And Japan had the excellent Zero fighter as its naval based carrier, while USA had deployed mostly their outdated planes in the pacific while Japan attacked. In 1942 things began to change. America had the resources to produce more planes than anyone else and they also knew the art of mass production. America had access to aluminium while other countries were starved of it. And America also had high quality oil in large amounts so they didn't need to sacrifice the performance of their airplanes like the Germans because unlike them did they have excellent aviation fuel. But America also had many good aircraft designs early on in the war - P51, P47, P38. And P39, P40 and Wildcat was only slightly inferior to the axis planes and could still be quite competative. And by the mid-1942 - only half a year after the war between Japan and USA had begun, did USA start to dominate skies totally and completly after the battle of Midway. And Japan would never recover from her loss. Her best pilots were now dead. And many planes had been lost. And things would only become worse for Japan since American planes would only become better and better technologically. And Japan would also get less and less oil stolen from other countries transported to her homeland, so japanese pilot training would be very bad for the rest of the war. And while Japan would be able to compete with wildcats and hellcats... it would be very hard for them to take on later designs such as the Corsair and Bearcat and all landbased planes. In 1943 did Germany begin to lose the dominance over the skies in the east. And the Germans had given the american P38 pilots in North Africa some beatings in the first round. And the daylight bombing raids the Americans did during their early involvement in the war generated catastrophic losses for themselves. And the German airforce would be able to put up a good fight in italy even in mid-1943. But from here on would things go downhill. And better versions of earlier allied planes came into being and La5, La7 and Yak9 would become superior to the old German planes and equals to their better ones - as FW190. And the P51D became one of the best planes of the war along with her successors like the P51H version. And the P47 and spitfire also got improved and remained a force to be reckon with. The German He163 and me262 were for a short time the planes of the war. But not much with a wide margin, since since the American ace Chuck Yeger was able to shot down two such planes himself. And he was not alone in killing those rare birds. At this late stage of the war did USA have the best propeller planes, and Britain was using their meteor which was a worthy opponent of the German jets. So overall do I think that the Axis had better planes upto late 1941. And then the allies started to overtake the axis pretty quickly as America joined the war, the battle of Midway and Guadacanal meant the end of the japanese control over the skies. And Germany did suprisingly well in their airwar considering the numerical superiority the allies had and their access to resources... while the Germans needed to build aircraft components of suitable materials and lacked the same good fuel the americans had. They improved their Me109K so it could last to the end of the war. And old and failed planes like Bf110 found their role as nightfighters.
    3
  10. The historians say that Prussia defeated Austria and France thanks to its superior railway system and ability to do fast mobilization. The railway charts and planning before the Schlieffen plan was simply excellent. And had Germany won WW1, then would people instead call the allies fools for not understanding the importance of logictics as much as the Germans.
    3
  11. They had a good location. Not too close to English bombers. And not too close too Russia and their wrath. And it did not lay close to France. It was up in the mountains well protected from bombers and invasion armies. And it was also perhaps fair that the country got away cheaply after the catastrophy WW1 when it lost Bohemia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, and parts of land to Italy, Romania and Poland.
    3
  12. In one way can one say that the west have already won this war. The Russian military has been destroyed. Its mountain of Soviet gear has to a large degree been destroyed and its contractor army has been wiped out. This bloody nose the invader has gotten will make Russia and other barbaric fascist states to think twice before they try something similiar ever again. All Russias political capital of building trust and economic relationships with the west has been ruined. Thing build by 50 years of Ostpolitik are gone. It has also been clearly demonstrated to the world how overrated Russia is as a military power. And even the biggest coward in the west have now lost respect for the quality of Russian weapons, and realize how crappy and underperforming the Russians are on the battlefield. The Gulf wars, Israels wars, and now this shows that Russian weapons are not up to date for a modern war. So if you want to be a military power you will have to rely on something else than Russian. If not Natoish equipment, so then at least Turkish or South Korean military gear.
    3
  13. I believe that M-55S would at best be equal to a western MBT of the 1990's. Perhaps equal to a Leopard1 or Leopard2A4. While I believe that the un-upgraded T-55 tanks in Russian service would at best be roughly equal to a M48 Patton or a Centurion. The skills of the tank crews will however be very bad on the Russian side, and given the total incompetence regarding tactics will I not be surprised if the 800 or so Russian T-55 tanks gets eaten up very fast without accomplishing anything - just like how the Russians wasting their tanks attacking Vuhledar and getting destroyed by mines and artillery before they even came into direct contact with their enemy. And getting close to the enemy would not be fun for the russians as it would be extremely dangerous to them. The Ukrainians got large amounts of anti-tank weapons, and even old and relativly weak weapons like AT-4 and RPG-7 could easily wreck such machines. And the Russians are sending in their T55 tanks without explosive reactive armor, but even if they had ERA I don't think it would help them much given the enormous amounts of anti-tank weapons in Ukrainian hands... at least 20.000 AT4 from the Swedish army alone, plus all thousands of RPG7, and strange exotic weapons like PV1110, to more familiar names like TOW, Carl-Gustaf, Stugna-P, Panzerfaust-3, Matador, MILAN, NLAW, Javelin, and so on. So getting into close contact with enemy infantry will be dangerous. And given the long range of Javelin and Stugna-P that can reach 3000-4000 meters, I don't think that lobbing long range shots of direct fire would be risk free either. Just about any anti-tank weapon could kill that crap, and only long range between the tank and the enemy can prevent the enemy from using their RPGs and AT4s against it.
    3
  14.  @paulthiessen6444  Armies do normally go to war with a plan. Just an orchestra have a sheet of music. And even the most hardcore believers in improvisation such as the IDF and Wehrmacht still make up a plan before they go into battle. They set up a goal for their operation. And then they improvise to fulfill that goal.
    3
  15. Kamfgruppen is improvised warfare. And that is not a dumb idea. War is chaos. No plan survives the first encounter with the enemy as the saying goes. So therefore you need to be able to quickly change your plans a bit when the situation changes. And the German military was masters at this, and this is the most important reason why they were so succesful in world war 2. Their auftragstaktik allowed NCOs to change the plan instantly on the spot and use their own critical thinking if the situation turned out to be different from what had been previously planned. And scraping togheter an improvised force like a kampfgruppe gave the germans great flexibility on the battlefield which the allies lacked. The Germans were more swiftly reacting to new situations on the battlefield and could therefore always hold the iniative in the fighting and always choose where and when they wanted to fight. While the allies were always forced to make a much more ineffective way of fighting a war with their constant reactive approach to war. The German army was a highly professional force. The NCOs were well trained above their own rank. And they were used to and encouraged to lead and to take own personal iniatives. While the opposite is true for the Russian army today. It is a highly unprofessional force. Their NCOs are not allowed to do anything without permission from their superiors. And there are no feeling of personal responsability at all in Communist societies - "that's not my problem, someone else should deal with it" is the way people are reasoning instead.
    3
  16.  @JF-ee3nn  We all heard russians explain away the catastrophic failure in Iraq with "T-72 is still da best tank in the world, coz iraq used T-72M "Monkey version" that sucks and not the super duper russian version". Well it turns out that all T-72 variants including T-90 burns just as well as the Iraqi ones. Tank losses have been catastrophic for russia. And if their tanks was so good as they claimed then this war would have ended 2 years ago. But instead are russia struggling against an outnumbered opponent that uses older equipment than what russia use. The only conclusion I draw is that all russian tanks are crap. And not just the T-72M.
    3
  17. M4 Sherman was the best tank of the war
    3
  18. JU87B Stuka was good at hitting targets - especially big and slowly moving ones, but its bombload of firecrackers would on the other hand be ineffiecent against the armour of large warships. Furthermore had German pilots no training in dealing with naval targets.
    3
  19.  @RussianThunderrr  Its not an oxymoron. It was a good tank. The problem was that it was not the type of tank Germany needed for the war they were fighting in 1944-45. It was too expensive to build, which resulted in low production numbers, which in turn made the problem of maintance worse... I mean if your tank needs to go often to repairs it doesn't matter that much if you got many thousands of tanks in reserve like the allies. But if you like the Germans only have 500 tanks (or less) spread out on three fronts that are ready for combat. And then you will of course have huge problems when your small number of local tanks have to be inactive because of maintance. It was a good tank but in 1945 did Germany not have any fuel for them. And they did not have enough crews for them these machines that were too precious to be allowed to be lost. Nor could these tanks use their full potential because of the sad state of the army in 1945. They could not get air support because Luftwaffe had been trashed, they didn't have recon units that could warn them of enemy units and traps, their artillery was short on ammunition, the supporting infantry had been decimated and so on.. So of course could these tanks not be used properly most of the time. But when they was used properly they were invincable and not a single Tiger II was lost due to a frontal hit during the entire war. "Well, you kinda over-glorify those AFV(aka SPG) that have serious limitation, that is why tanks are preferred as AFV then SPG, it was true during war, its still true into present day" Not at all. The infantry loved the StuGs and they served Germany well throughout the war and produced a nice killratio. And their cost effectivess made them the most produced tank of the Wehrmacht. I bet that the Germans would have loved to have many more Ferdinand tanks as well since they had the best killratio of any Axis or Allied tank used during the war. Turretless tanks have their advantages in protection, firepower and production cost. The only reason why you would want a turret is if you do offensive combat and doesn't know which direction the enemy will come from, and then a turret gives you an advantage to fastly respond to the situation. But the Germans was from 1943 and onwards fighting mostly a defensive war, and they kind of knew what direction their enemies would come from so they could prepare their defensive positions and set up ambushes and use their superior optics and low silhouette and prepared defensive positions to their advantage. Also, remember that this was also a time before gyro-stabilizers and such, so a tank needed to stop before it would start firing. So not having a turret was not a big problem - the S-tank for example was one of the best tanks when it entered service. And should Germany have need a few medium tanks for launching counter-attacks then they could just have used old Panzer IV tanks instead of VK30D. From what I have read on the internet, did Guderian not want any new panther or VK30D line at all. He wanted as few production lines as possible, and thought it would be a better idea to give panzer IV a better gun and some sloped armour. Something akin to the Panzer IV Ausf. K
    2
  20. Rifles became cheaper and better - which were tipping the scale more in favour of the infantry. But the cavalry could still be useful... but then a set of technological breaktroughs made it obsolete from 1914 and onwards. The barbed wire and and the machine gun threw the classic cavalry charge into the garbage can of history. Cavalry could still be useful on the more mobile war on the Eastern Front, but soon cavalry would dissapear anyways. Recon missions could soon be made by cars and planes, and information could be transfered with telegraphs or radios. Armoured trooptransports and tanks had more surivability on the battlefield than horses. And in world war II, even more innovations came that made horses even more obsolete - such as landmines and indirect artillery fire on targets beyond viewrange for the artillerymen thanks to the introduction of the radio. German SS-units could still use cavalry succesful sometimes - but only as mobile infantry units on horse against lightly armed partisans in the balkans with its terrain that sometimes could be difficult to pass with wheeled vehicles.
    2
  21. Russia probably use this garbage because it is running out of tanks and artillery pieces and artillery ammunition. Otherwise it would make more sense to use a real artillery piece with real artillery ammunition instead, or more modern tank that is better instead of risking the lives of 4 crewmen. And Ukraines ammunition crisis is over. EU have already made a plan for 1 million artillery shells that its member countries have agreed to. That is more than enough to solve Ukraines ammunition hunger this year. And USA and the anglosphere, Korea, Pakistan and Norway are also providing. So ammunition is the least of my concerns. And I do not worry about running out of anti-tank weapons either since anything can kill this tank. An AT4 costs only 1500 dollars to make while a T55 costs much more than that + plus losing 4 crew members is painful for Russias dictator as it will harm the popularity of his imperialist war. So no, Ukraine will never run out of AT4's that can kill it. I hope that Russia sober up from their vodka and get real. The war is lost. Its time to go home.
    2
  22. Furthermore was most of those stories were written centuries after the existence of Jesus. Even the earliest texts are guessed to have been created 60 years after Jesus death. People normally lived for less 30 years back in those days, so if I would write a biography about a person who lived two generations back... then I highly doubt the precision of biography :D Not so strange then maybe that many of those Bible texts were written by people who did not live in the middle east and had no knowledge how geography of Israel looked (they were completely made up, and inaccurate to every person who been there today). Well I can go on and on... so I rather post 3 videos that are more entertaining: https://youtu.be/i2E570xiEB4 https://youtu.be/gpj1xr4Ebfw https://youtu.be/4G0sFMjpH0k
    2
  23.  @adrianungureanu7402  "the numbers don't lie, and I didn't provide pro russian estimates" 😂 Those numbers only exist in Russian accounts. No one. Literarly no one outside of Russia takes those numbers seriously. And if so many Ukrainians are dead and they are out of ammo, then should the Ukrainian army have been unable to take back Khersun and Charkov. You said that all of their own equipment has been destroyed. And since Nato only have provided 20% of their artillery it means that Russia is beaten with only a small number of western artillery pieces and have lost a territory as large as Scania in just a few months 😂😂 You make the current Ukrainian army look better than what it really is. 🤣 But lets for the sake of discussion say that the Russian numbers provided by Shoigu are 100% correct. Ukraine has then lost 100.000 men and Russia have lost only 6000. With that casuality ratio it seems strange that Russia needs to mobilize more troops as you clearly beats them with the troops you already have. And 6000 losses is a small number. Why then mobilize 300.000 more men like Putin has ordered? It doesn't make any sense to me. The Russia report smells bullsh*t. And you think I am dumb enough to believe that Ukriane have lost more tanks than it had when this war started. With lies like this and silly stories about neo-nazis ruling Ukraine, biolabs and mosquitos, satanists and cannibals do Russia hold zero credibility in my eyes in anything they say. To me it seems like Ukraine is winning - which is good. But even if they Ukraine would lose am I not sorry for supporting Ukraine. Because Russia have got a bloody nose and will have to think twice before trying something similiar again. Plus the more rapists and murderers that can dissapear from this planet and be sent to hell, the better. So I happily support Ukraine in their job in doing just that. A weakened Russia is good for the world.
    2
  24. Rommel had a tough situation on his hands. German generals was jellous of his fame, and had different opinions on how the war should be fought. The Italians also had their disagreements. The supply lines was not working well because of allied attacks on supply ships. The Afrika Korps was also competing with other fronts for reinforcements. The enigma code had been cracked so the allies could read Rommels communication. And he was facing superior enemies. So with all those troubles its not strange that he had to constantly improvise, and try to use stolen british tanks and trucks and make use of what he had. I do think he could have been more succesful if Malta had been taken and if he had prepared for a hard fight in Tunisia instead of hoping of a withdrawal of the Afrika Korps to Italy. Eventually he would have to retreat, but he could have pulled up more than a half-hearted fight.
    2
  25. They built the panther-line, and then they built "fortified cities" and created the flak towers at Berlin. But they proved themselves to not be enough to stop the Russians. The nazis made many incorrect priorities on where they should put their limited resources the last years of the war, and maybe a better handled defensive policy on the eastern front could have halted the Russians for some years. Many special interests wanted the same steel and concrete as the defensive projects in the east used... steel which could be used for tanks, guns, warships, and concrete which could be used for building factories, and bunkers on the western front. And manpower was needed to build all the fortification and dig all the tank ditches and trenches... but the industry also wanted workers, and the Hitlerjugend and volksturm units needed manpower, and all anti-aircraft guns in the German cities also needed manpower, so there was always this issue of limited resources. And giving MG42 and panzerfausts to untrained useless infantry in Volksturm and Luftwaffe felddivision units were perhaps not the smartest thing to do when veteran Wehrmacht units often lacked the most modern equipment. So could a great wall on the eastern front have been of a great use to the Germans? I say probably. The distances on the eastern front are huge, so a Russian offensive would quickly run into supply as the attacker overextended themselves. And then the Russian troops would become very vulnerable to German counter-attacks and entire armies would become encirled and destroyed- Landmines would inflict losses on the Russian troops without any sacrifice of German blood. And Russian offensives would be slowed down so Germany would have time to concentrate their forces and punch back the Russian attacks on one front after another. And soon would the Russian military have suffered so big losses that they realize that they could not keep on attacking the German, because if the war was kept going this way then they would run out of Russian men before the German army had been defeated. So the war in the east would then turn into a stalemate. And just like in ww1 would the economiesing of troops of one front enable to free up army units to fight on another front. When you have barbed wirse, trenches, minefields, and bunkers prepared then you will need less men to defend one front, so then you could afford to send your solidiers away to fight on another front. THe German army could send troops from the western front to fight on the east in 1914. And had the Wehrmacht done the same thing then they would have been able to do the same thing. And after the Russians had been tamed the Germans could have afforded to send more units away to fight on the western front.
    2
  26.  @jupprheinland4805  Well those Generals who disagreed with Hitler in 1941 was probably also men who took military honor seriously. During Stalins counter-offensive during the winter did things look catastrophic and the Generals wanted the over-extended German army to retreat. But Hitler refused and gave his "not a step back" order, and he fired every General who disobeyed that order. From the Generals perspective did they do the right thing. They retreated and saved their mens lives from dying in a hopeless situation. They made an orderly retreat so the army could fight another day when conditions were more favorable. And the fatherland would be best served this way. So I think the same should be true in 1944-45. Hitlers "no retreat" orders had been catastrophic at Stalingrad and Bagration. So if I would lose my job by order a retreat to save my men and also best serving my army that way then I would do it. I would lose my job. But so what? The war is soon over anyways and cannot be won.
    2
  27. The problem was that USA had the factories and knew how to massproduce millions of cars before the war. So they could just turn those factories into huge tank production facilities. But Germany on the other hand started the war without any experience in massproduction. So Germany had to make many noob mistakes in the early stages in the war before it could realize how they could make massproduction of tanks easier. So the cost of building tanks fell, and tank production became more effiecent. And the Panther tank began to be an excellent on the battlefield when its engine failure problems was solved. But all this was too little too late for Germany. 6000 panther tanks produced is quite a high number of tanks produced compared to other tanks the Germans built. But 6000 tanks were never close enough to suffiecent to deal with 49.000 Sherman tanks or 50.000 T-34's. Starting a modern industrial war without first taking a course in division of labour, fordism and Taylorism is never a good idea.
    2
  28. All tanks are good in their own ways
    2
  29. Feels like Russia have bought up much of our western politicians and media and tries to manipulate the public discussion in a pro-Russian way. Trump, Salvini, Le Pen, AfD, Orban, Tucker Carlson have all proven themselves to be Pro-Russian traitors. They all do the talk about patriotism, and the need for their countries to show muscles - including military muscles. Former rightwing US presidents like Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon were strongly against Soviet-Russian totalitarianism during the Cold war. But the todays so called right do not say a blip when Soviet-Russia tries to annex a free country. They even go as far as strongly vocally supporting Putins Russian dictatorship and his war. Had someone expressed such ideas during the cold war it would have been seen as treason, and especially so in rightwing Thatcherite, Reaganite circles. One can now say that the bought up fake populist right are basically just Putin-puppets that are anti-western, and anti its own people and always put Russian interest first before its own citizens. Also on the far left do we see people bought up Putin. Among pro-Russian traitors have we got names like Noam Chomsky, Jimmy Dore, Tulsi Gabbard, Bernie Sanders.... and Gudrun Schyman here in Sweden. Plus some "charitable organizations" such as Amnesty international and Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society Sometimes one can wonder if some people have been bought up by Putins oil money, or if they are just stupid and act as Putins useful idiots. Jason Unruhe (aka "Maoist rebel news") on youtube for example claims to be a maoist while he at the same time supports Putins rightwing fascism, imperialism and opression. Much of the social media and TV have also been infiltrated by anti-western pro Kremlin elements. Tucker Carlson is probably the most obvious example. But you also got news channels that spreads Kremlin propaganda on youtube, like for example "The Real News Network". Sargon of Akkad and his gang at the youtube channel "The Lotuseaters" have been pro-russian from the start of this war, and some of the staff of this channel has openly admitted that they been getting a paycheck from Russia Today (which is the Russian state media TV channel). Steve Turley is a rightwing talkinghead on Youtube which also have taken the very unlogical stance to support Putin, despite that would go against everything else he have said about rightwing ideas.. such as the right of a country to decide its own fate, democracy and nationalism. But that does strangely only apply when a country wants to be independent from the EU, but not when a country wants to be independent from Russia. Some people have also openly participated on Russia today. And later on also supported Putins aggression on Ukraine. Like for example economists such as the rightwinger Gonzalo Lira and the leftwing economist Michael Hudson. And then of course there are a few centrist pro-Russian traitors. Olaf Scholz, the socialdemocratic leader of Germany, and Macron the president of France The only solution to this problem as I see it is a total 100% boycot of everyone who have proven themselves to be a pro-Russian traitor. One should ignore their youtube channels and refuse to vote for them. The west should also make large arms shipments to Ukraine as soon as possible to crush Russian imperalism as a force in this world. The monster should lose its teeths so it cannot go from talk to action. And Russias economy should be drained so it cannot afford to waste tonnes of money to try to buy up influencers in the west and infect our societies with their poison. They also should be called out for what they are - traitors.
    2
  30. Russia has still not yet defeated Ukraine despite a year has passed. Yes Ukraine, the poorest most corrupt country in Europe runned by drug addicted comedian. And who cares about Nato? Their military is useless look what happened to US troops in Afghanistan. That Russia cannot even defeat such useless enemies from the homosexual west is embaressing. The Russian military must be totally useless
    2
  31. They were bought because they were cheap. After the Cold war was countries reducing their military budgets and getting rid of surplus equipment. And Germany had tonnes of East German junk it did not need and were happy to get rid of it for a cheap sum of money.
    2
  32. Enemy at the gates are just a bunch of separate facts mixed togheter into a movie scene which highlights the desperate situation USSR was in back then. This movie doesn't represent the normal circumstances on the eastern front throughout the war, but during this time period Russia had some units that lacked rifles for everyone, and other units had men who were completly untrained to use their weapons, and the NKVD (the predecessor of KGB) was using blocking detachments against "cowards". And the bar for getting called "coward", "traitor" or "German spy" was not very high set. If your unit was destroyed in a foolish frontal attack against the Germans you would be called a traitor or coward if you retreated back to your own lines to join the fight once again. And while it is reasonable to be suspicious of some solidier coming from enemy lines could be a spy, the Russians took this fear to an extreme level with their paranoia - which could be seen by the huge numbers of men that the NKVD put in their penal batallions or sent to Siberia. No other country (except perhaps China) would have been able to afford to waste manpower as much as Russia did during this war.
    2
  33.  @iteachyou1575  I agree with John Keegan and Marco Smedberg that the fighting morale was in extremely bad shape in 1917 and that a German offensive could have crushed the French army, if they had managed to assemble large amounts of troops at this critical period of time. After the "solidiers strike" would morale improve somewhat in the French army thanks to a combination of concessions and hard and cruel punishments for striking solidiers to set an example for their comrades that execution would await if they refused to follow orders. And more importantly did the French army agree to not making any more large offensives, and that was a message which the French solidiers wanted to hear. And now we should discuss the next talking point. The war in 1918. Personally I think Germany made a mistake. It could either have launched all its force on the British army and knocked it out of the war, and then when France stood alone they could focus all their men at kicking France out of the war and the end conflict with a German victory. Another solution of winning the war could have been to destroy the demoralized weak French army first, and the use all the last forces of Germany to throw Britain out of the continent. But Ludendorff got confused at the last moment before the great battle would take place which would decide the outcome of the war. He launched one offensive against the British and one offensive against the French and his troops got spread out and failed to knock out either nation out of the war. And then would more and more American troops come over the atlantic to fight the Germans. If America had not joined the war, then Germany would probably would have won it by this point. But now was Germany too exhausted to keep on fighting after having to do all the fighting for herself (since her allies Turkey and Austria were worthless and lost almost all their troops the first months of the war.) Germany had crushed Serbia, Russia, Romania, Italy and nearly also done so with Belgium, France and Britain... but in 1918 her power has been depleted and the 200,000 new American troops coming to Europe was too much for a country which had lost so many men and been under a blockade for 4 years. Ludendorffs offensive is a case what can happen if you do not concentrate your forces to reach on objective. As Sun Tzu warned us, "If he sends reinforcements everywhere, he will everywhere be weak". And that is what always happens when you spread out your troops everyware. You will become weak everyware. And then you will not accomplish anything against your opponents.
    2
  34. "1) Nazis forcing people working to death, rather than either keeping them well-fed or killing them directly." The nazis killed people with Zyklon-B gas that had been used to kill insects before the war. It was an extremely cruel and painful way to kill someone. But the nazis used this method of killing people even if they could have choosen to just starve people to death instead. But the nazi leadership ironically thought that it would be too cruel to just let people die from starvation, so therefore they rather used the poison gas method. It was also probably for this reason the nazis also always send mothers and children directly to the gas chambers after they arrived at one of the six death camps, because they deemed it to be too cruel to let women and children die slowly from overwork, starvation, and disease.
    2
  35.  @vihavoittamaton849  It is not up for you to decide. It is up to the Ukrainian people to decide if it is worth continue fighting - and most of them want to fight. And every bloodletting in this war is the fault of Russia, because they started this uprovoced war.
    2
  36. And this letter was later met with another letter written by an even longer list of pro-Ukrainian activists.
    2
  37. In what context? The German army did have winter clothes in 1941, but they reached the troops in the frontline later than needed because the railway transport system was overloaded in late 1941, and the German army had to make a tough choice between transporting food, fuel, ammunition and winter clothes. And the German army thought that ammunition seemed more important than clothes because there was heavy fighting going on and much ammo would be needed in the final struggle in Russia to take Moscow. But the priority was wrong in hindsight now when we know that 1941 would be one of the coldest Russian winters in history, and that many German troops therefore would freeze to death or get injured by the frost. And in 1942 did the German 6th army in Stalingrad not get their winter clothes because the Luftwaffe fucked up and packed their transport planes with useless shit instead of providing the troops with warm clothes.
    2
  38.  @stupidburp  The French army was considered the best in the world back then. And there was good reason for confidence. Germany was in a fragile shape even after the takeover of Norway and Poland and could not survive a long war with a naval blockade, and a fast attack was seen as doomed. The Maginot line was an even more formidable obstacle than the first world war trenches with its concrete turrets with howitzers and 47mm anti-tank guns that were considered the best in the world with their high velocity. And an attack through Belgium would only draw Britain into the war against Germany and an invasion would just mean crossing lots of rivers - that would be good defensive positions for the allies. Germany was outnumbered 2:1 by the allies in almost everything planes, tanks and men. So would I blame the French for not spending even more on the military? No. I think they made reasonable decisions. I mean countries cannot spend 80% of the GDP on their military in every year in peace time just in case someone wants to start a war. Money is also needed for the civilian sector and for investments in the long term economic development. France should have won this war if one simply look at the numbers and data.
    2
  39. History is after all just a simplyfication of real events so I think that the turning point can be a useful expression in that sense. Like saying Stalingrad was a turningpoint. And after the defeat, Germany would never get deeper into Russian territory than that and from this time and onwards would the war mainly be oriented as a defensive action. So if I was a teacher I would tell my students that, and not go into too much details. One could perhaps argue that there still was a small chance Germany still could have won somehow. But that is not relevant when you are talking about what happened in the real war, and skip all counter-factional debate nonsense.
    2
  40. And tracked vehicles the only ones that can move without getting stuck in the mud
    2
  41. I think the EU is also to blame for much of this third way nonsense. George W Bush was the worst president in US history and a warmonger and a war criminal. Many were rightfully pissed off with USA in the rest of the western world after its criminal war against Iraq, and the scandals at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, the CIA torture cells in Europe, the patriot act, the suspension of habeas corpus and the Geneva convention etc ect. And in Europhile countries such as Germany was this used as an argument for a stronger EU, that should replace USA and Nato. They wanted an EU army to replace NATO + USA. And the anti-Americanism wave that came with Trump's presidency increased this rethoric from the EU about the need for an EU army and to cut ties with USA, and to make a big EU that would stand on its own legs. And in Germany did anti-Americanism flourish. And combined with old nonsense ideas such as the Ostpolitik - which was Germany's flirt with Soviet Russia to build friendship through economic trade, did this silly idea of power bloc between USA and Russia flourish. And the EU would represent this third way. But all what this stupid anti-Americanism from EU and Germany have managed to do is to cause division in the western world. Germany and France are often at conflict with USA... over trade, over contributions to Nato, over North Stream, over Franco-German ass kissing of China's dictatorship that throws Uighurs into concentration camps, and over taxing Microsoft yada, yada... And all these conflicts are exploited by Putin. Putin sees that the west are busy fighting with each other so it cannot organize a unified front against Russian imperialism. When Canada and Sweden was bullied by China, did European countries dependent on Chinese trade not lift a finger to support their democratic allies in the west. So one can definatly say that Germany's double loyalties is a problem. It is throwing western countries under the bus because of its economic ties with China and Russia. And to some extent can France and Germany also be blamed for the war in Ukraine as those countries blocked Ukraine's membership into Nato. And without Nato protection, did Putin see Ukraine as an easy prey for Russian aggression.
    2
  42. I guess that guy must have misunderstood something. German uboats were supplied with fuel in the middle of the atlantic ocean by so called milk cow submarines
    2
  43.  @MaximKretsch  I think you mean NCOs rather than officers
    2
  44. No the only one with double standards are Russia. You say that Iraq and Libya was wrong, but it is right when we do it. That is your double standard. You does simply not know what the expression mean.
    2
  45.  @TheRomankopler  Have read over 200 books while you watched Kremlin garbage on tv
    2
  46. Sure Russia is so victorious that it retreats from Charkiv and Khersun and feels like it needs to mobilize 300.000 men 🙄🤡🤡
    2
  47. Tanks as great as they are cannot fight solo. They need infantry and artillery support. And they cannot travel across difficult terrain..or perhaps they can, but the supply trucks carrying fuel and ammo can surely not run into forests and stony bumpy terrain. And those supply trucks need protection. So when tanks conquer terrain, it will sooner or later run out of gas and have to wait for the infantry to catch up so they can protect the flanks so the enemy does not destroy the supply trucks and supply lines to the tanks. So in the end it is infantry that decide the speed of the advance.
    2
  48. Austriae est imperare orbi universo
    2
  49. I heard they built a McDonalds next to Dachau. And eating ice cream and candy and buying souvenirs next to Auschwitz -I think it was - also sounds distasteful. I don't wanna sound like an overly sensitive person like those green politicians in Austria. But I think many people simply are too insensitive or too stupid to self-reflect on their actions, as they come around and smile and take selfies on a place where some old visitors had their entire family murdered in the cruelest ways. There needs to be a balance I guess. At least do I think we should show respect for as long as the survivors are still alive.
    2
  50. Shitty topics for another video https://www.historynet.com/the-waste-of-war.htm
    2