Comments by "Adam Bainbridge" (@AdamMGTF) on "Drachinifel" channel.

  1. 10
  2. 10
  3. 10
  4. 9
  5. 9
  6. 9
  7. There were mistakes made. But your comments are very easy to make in hindsight. For example, the lack off AA. Where would you have taken guns and ammunition away from? To put on x or y ship? Remember, this isn't a computer game. You can't just churn out infinite numbers of weapons. There is a finite amount of everything that can be made. As a result I'm sure you would agree that you have to spread out your weapons and try and focus on where you hope the greatest threat is. The RAF failing the RN? I don't think so. The channel dash may have been a fiasco. But the RAF didn't fail the RN. They may have failed. But they weren't acting in support of the RN. They were in a defence of the nation role and of course were acting as recon against a sortee (which was expected to be into the Atlantic, not that it mattered on the night in question). Communication/coordination was actually a strong suit for the British Armed forces. Helped by the global empires communication links and by the streamlining of the 20s and the lead up to war. An obvious example of this on a local level would be the Dowding system. A theatre example would be that which Cunningham was so fortunate to have in the Mediterranean. Finally. It's important to remember that at this point. It wasn't a holy writ of war that ships had to have air cover. It is now. And it is now precisely [b]because[/b] things like the force z sinking happened. Had aircraft sunk ships? Yes of course. But it wasn't expected that capital ships would be live bait in open ocean without air cover. If anything the fighting in the med had proved that to be true. You may disagree. But I think that if you consider the situation as it happened. Your interpretation of the events is incorrect
    9
  8. 9
  9. 9
  10. 9
  11. 8
  12. 8
  13. 8
  14. 8
  15. 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
  16. 8
  17. 8
  18. 8
  19. 8
  20. 8
  21. 8
  22. 7
  23. 7
  24. 7
  25. 7
  26. 7
  27. 7
  28. 7
  29. 7
  30. 7
  31. 7
  32. 7
  33. 7
  34. 7
  35. 7
  36. 7
  37. 6
  38. 6
  39. 6
  40. 6
  41. 6
  42. 6
  43. 6
  44. 6
  45. 6
  46. Just a note. And I beg of you arm chair Admiral's: please! Remember to look back, and not forward. In a way all this makes sense as a stratagy for the Japanese to me. Consider their recent history. They fought the Russians. Won a major fleet action after winning a smaller fleet action/land skirmish (blockade) - they won the WAR They fought the Chinese and won a fleet action as well as battles of (relatively) limited scope. They won the WAR. How and why should fighting the USA be any different? We assume with the benefit of 2020 (literally!) Hindsight. That Japan knew this was a new type of total war. That America would fight until Japanese was a language spoken only in hell. That they would never give up. Never surrender. Whatever the case may be. From the Japanese POV, well why would America be any different? Their historical precident showed that once you beat a enemy on a decisive field. You win the war. America didn't invade Spain after taking the Philippines. They won some battles. Won the war. Moved on. Ww2 was very different. But nobody knew that in 1938! Though drachs video is (as ever) incredibly informative and I've enjoyed learning more (who doesn't!?). The temptation here is to use what resulted from the application of this doctrine to decide if the planners were wrong or not. That's fine... to a point. But we should not and must not use the historical end result to question whether or not the doctrine was a *sound concept for its time*. That's crucial. It made sense to the best thinkers of a nations generation. Just because they were proved to be wrong in certain circumstance later. Does not diminish the historical value of the entire area of study. The end of my point. Never judge with the benefit of hindsight. It may be "obvious" that xyz was silly to us, isnt it funny lol. But looking at history that way is a folly.
    6
  47. 6
  48. 6
  49. 6
  50. 6