Comments by "Adam Bainbridge" (@AdamMGTF) on "Drachinifel"
channel.
-
239
-
103
-
74
-
59
-
59
-
58
-
51
-
46
-
45
-
41
-
40
-
30
-
28
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
24
-
23
-
22
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
Sadly this comment doesn't shock me. The more I engage with history online, the more and more I've become frustrated. I'm not frustrated by Americans (having visited many countries. It's one of the few where literally everyone was happy to see you, talk to you and just generally 'be nice'). But I am frustrated A: By the general very poor understanding Americans have about the rest of the world and it's history. B: the general assumption (if not core belief) that all world history is American history. C: the increasing trend upwards which suggests history is learnt from computer games and films and D: most worryingly. That when anyone from an expert, to a well red amateur tries to help educate, or to try and explain a point of view from the rest of the world, or point out inaccuracy. The response is not "thanks, I didn't know that. I'd like to learn more", it's an immediate defensive response or just a fall back on core beliefs (wether true or not).
Interestingly. The op mentioned that world history classes weren't very good. If I said that regarding my education* then my friends who were into history would A: generally launch into a tirade against Westminster. Because we are English. But B: we would talk about things we wish we knew. Where as the posters below, are instantly focused on the political aspect of what's right to teach about the history of America.
The heavy irony being. If history was taught in the USA the way it is here. You'd realise that as sad as some aspects of Americas history is. It's nothing new in human history.
*The fact that world history and American history is taught as separate subjects, kind of proves my point. I was taught history at school. My nieces and nephews are taught history. Not 'english history' and. 'world history'. Of course there is a bias towards teaching from the English point of view. I mean the nepolionic wars are taught from the point of view of the French. But it's still taught as a whole. Even areas where the uk wasn't involved.
P.s. a good example of the sort of US centralised view of the world, is seen in this video. The chap drach is talking to is fantastic. I'm going to find more of his videos now. But. And this is a small thing, but something I've noticed before. He keeps on calling the American civil war. 'The civil war'. Why?!
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Bk Jeong again, thatās all hindsight.
The RN had the same attitude all militaryās tend to have in war at the time. Hope for the best. Plan for and expect the worse. The war had hardly gone well for the allies at the start.
As for big gun ships being obsolete. No, they were not. Iām not a ābattle ships are cool so they ruleā person.
But there was no indication in the early war that the big gun battle ship and its 700 year reign was over. There had been successes of air power. And of submarines just like at the start of ww1 when the Germans sank 3 armoured cruisers. But in ww1 the threats to big gun ships had been acknowledged, designed around and beaten, more so in the interbellum as the belief was that asdic was more capable than it was.
Your not thinking like a person whoās on the spot at the time.
Itās 1939-42. You know that for 700 years the surface, gun warship has been king. You have seen the disruption that surface raiders have caused. Youāve seen the attempts to bomb capital ships which are in dock, with high level and other land based bombers fail. You have multiple theatres to worry about and the RN capital fleet is stretched thin, especially in the med.
The horror of a tirpiz plus a couple of sharnhorsts being able to base from France and hit a convoy thatās escorted by a couple of town class and some destroyers keeps you up at night. Itād be like pq17 but x1000. But you know you can remove such a forced base of operations and repair with a special forces strike. You know with no dock to support such ships, they are basically a mission kill. Your battleships can go where needed most. Like the med where they are needed, to support landing operations in Sicily, torch etc. Itās a no brained.......... your not thinking āwell them there airoplanes have done rather well in torpedoing a few ships in Italy and one hit the Bismarck with an lucky shot. Seems we best scrap the surface fleet chaps. Just build destroyers and subs and aircraft carriers..... such a person would be locked up. Even though it seems rather reasonable from a 2020 perspective....... there is one lesson I have tried to teach my history students time and again. Stop looking at what happened and consider the mind of their person who made the decision. What happened after is a result only of that person(or persons) knowledge and experience. The great minds of the time weāre drawing on centuries of history. Decades of experience and using the latest theory........ but none coupe see the āfutureā as we can. Because it is our past....... if you canāt get your mind in such a mindset BK. I wish I could explain what I mean better (internet and typing isnāt good for such things)
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Ā @robertf3479Ā I agree that in war you have to consider the side of caution. Especially when friendly lives can be spared by using material might*.
However your falling into a way of thinking that seems common in the modern world of computer games and internet information. The reality of the time we are studying was not one of ship Vs ship or keeping your forces ready in nearly controlled packs to be moved like chess pieces.
To counter the yamato and musashi, the USA didn't need an Iowa. They already had huge numbers of capital ships. Plus by the time the Iowa's were worked up, the war in Europe was basically over as far as battle units was concerned. Ok the RN had run its ships ragged to keep up with the demands of 4-5 years of war. But even still, the RN had Nelson, Rodney, Warspite, Queen Elizabeth, Malaya, valliant, revenge, royal sovereign, ramillies, resolution, KG the fifth, Anson, Howe and Duke of York.
I know some would be in refit and the Russians did a number on royal sovereign.... But...
Ontop of that you could include the littorios and the Richelieus.
Plus of course,
North Dakota, Washington, south Dakota, Indiana, Massachusetts, Alabama, and a dozen (more?) Standard types.
If all that couldn't stop 2 battleships, which had no air support worthy of the name and not enough fuel for a return trip from a sortie. Then the bloody things must have Shields taken straight from startrek and cannons that fire sharks with feikken Lazar beams on their heads.
The allies had over kill in the bag.
They had shore bombardment tuned to the point that it probably scared Odin. They had air supremacy.
And ask BKJ points out. If all the Iowa's were good for was shooting down kamakasi. The resources used on the Iowa's could have done so much more effectively and much less cost.
*Yet oddly, contemporary American staff officers critisied the British general staff for being too cautious and not risking men to win. Not a accusation made against the admiralty as far as I know (except by Adm. King). But it is an interesting juxtaposition.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ā @RedRocket4000Ā not sure I can agree there. Forced labour was used by the Nazi government before the war even started. It was used for general labour and indeed specialised work as well. The most common uses were in mining and heavy construction but also in factories, on assembly lines.
Some examples include: russian pows used in mining, most notably salt mines and coal. French pows were used in arms factory's (in contravention of the Geneva convention). Organisation Todt used impressed labour from occupied countries (including France, The Netherlands and especially Poland and Czechoslovakia). These workers built factories, submarine pens and the Atlantic wall. The chemical industry (IG Faban being the most famous) used concentration camp labour. The arms industry (notably Krupp, Thyssen and Henshel) also used concentration camp slave labour on production lines for guns, ammunition and vehicles. Slave labour was used to build huge numbers of rolling stock. Locomotives always were in demand and again OT provided impressed labour.
Guns, ammunition, torpedoes, engines, air filtration systems and the refining of fuels were all done with the help of slave labour. All things the Kriegsmarine used.
Shindlers list is a very good movie. But the comment about O.S. being disappointed if the factory ever made a shell that could be fired is the exception rather than the rule.
Inmates and slave labourers consistently came up with very clever ways to sabotage whatever they were making. They did so to make sure they could pass inspections (and this was done at huge risk. The pentalty for sabotage was summery execution not just for the person responsible, but often entire work details).
The KM used slave labour just like the Heer and the Luftwaffe.
I would highly recommend "The volunteer" by J.Fairweather. and "The saboteur of Auschwitz" by C Rushton for some very good insights into ways the slaves worked against their captors :).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Ā @Voron_AggravĀ which is exactly what KW2 was an utter fool to do what he did. It's one of the few stereotypes of 20th century history that is actually factually sound.
He did what he did because he had the power to do what he wanted. And he wanted to be able to urinate in the same stream as his cousins who looked after the English, Scottish crowns, rulers of the United Kingdom of GB and Ireland, the isles of man, channel Islands, possessions in the med, Egypt, the middle East, Persia, wider india and the Hindu and Muslim lands, the Pacific Islands (numerous), the continent of Australia and it's attachments NZ etc. Oh, Rohdizia (can't spell it but SA), carrabian possessions. Plus other African "possessions" and Canada etc etc.
Yes most were governed with various levels of independence. And many were nations of their own.
But the point is.
Willie wanted to play so far beyond what Germany could do it was a joke. And that's not. Flippent remark. I've seen what's left of the English and Scottish ship yards that Are vaguely close to me. In the last 30 years I've seen much disappear but I've taked to/ heard stories ofmy grand and great grandfathers
I respect All history.
Buy I've also seen all kinds of evidence of the west coast yards. Not to mention Bristol way, the Belfast yards, the themes (yeh that London place) and Southampton and Portsmouth.
Compare all that to what Germany had to offer and only keyboard 'hisorians' would even discuss the idea of Germany keeping up with the GBE. The idea is (respectively) laughable.
And that's one of the (overly simplistic) reasons why ww1 was such a waste and basically a gang fight in a playground that went global
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1