Comments by "Hyok Kim" (@hyokkim7726) on "Why Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union failed | John Mearsheimer and Lex Fridman" video.

  1.  @danushairan  Just read the book; it explains in great detail why the Soviets would have collapsed. The author is an objective USMC strategist/tactician. No bs, unlike many USMCs. Moscow wasn't a just a capitol. It was the railroad hub of the Western Russia, and main manufacturing center of the Red Army tank production. All the Red Army units in Western Russia depended on the railroad, for the supply/logistics, and reinforcement, retreat. Once the German had taken Moscow, all the Red Army units in Western Russia would have been cut off from supplies/reinforcement/retreat/escape. Sitting Duck, waiting to die/disintegrate/captured. Also, no more tanks for the Red Army in Western Russia; only other manufacturing center being Chelyabinsk, in Urals, too far away for help.
    4
  2.  @danushairan  '' They DID invade Poland.'' ......but not alone. I meant they would have invaded Poland alone to get to Germany.'' ''But that was beside the point. My argument is basically that NSDAP due to its policies, bankrupted the nation and forced its government to take land to fund their policies.'' Germany had to take land to get raw materials and the market to sell the goods they would have manufactured; that's how the world was back then. What about U.S. and the West? Didn't U.S. take the land from the Native Hawaiians and the Native Americans? Didn't the Euro colonials take the land from other continents? ''Central planning of government creates a cycle that always leads to famine or death in the form of war.'' You're being didactic. So how do you explain Park's success in ROK? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Chung_Hee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ha-Joon_Chang
    3
  3.  @danushairan  You should read, 'Hitler's Panzers East', written by USMC strategist. He argues otherwise. Germany could have won the war by a knock out, had she concentrated on Moscow.
    2
  4.  @danushairan  Had Germany not invaded Poland, the Soviets would have.
    2
  5.  @el-vado  You should read, 'Hitler's Panzers East', written by USMC strategist. He argues otherwise. Germany could have won the war by a knock out, had she concentrated on Moscow.
    1
  6.  @1wun1  ''How could taking Moscow alone make them win? Didn't Napoleon do the same and still lose?'' You're engaging in false analogy; there was no railroad in Napoleonic times. Just read the book, 'Hitler's Panzers East' ; it explains in great detail why the Soviets would have collapsed. The author is an objective USMC strategist/tactician. No bs, unlike many USMCs. Moscow wasn't a just a capitol. It was the railroad hub of the Western Russia, and main manufacturing center of the Red Army tank production. All the Red Army units in Western Russia depended on the railroad, for the supply/logistics, and reinforcement, retreat. Once the German had taken Moscow, all the Red Army units in Western Russia would have been cut off from supplies/reinforcement/retreat/escape. Sitting Duck, waiting to die/disintegrate/captured. Also, no more tanks for the Red Army in Western Russia; only other manufacturing center being Chelyabinsk, in Urals, too far away for help.
    1
  7.  @liammiskell3522  ''What would taking Moscow have actually achieved?'' Foremost, taking over the railroad hub of the Western Russia, preventing the Soviet field armies, means of reinforcement/supplies/retreat. Second, robbing the Soviets the major production area for T-34s, the only other major production area being in Chelyabinsk, Urals, too far away to send them in enough numbers to the Western Russia. These two would have been more than enough for the total collapse of the Red Army, ending the war by a knockout FAST. ''This is actually something maybe people don't realise about the eastern front. German generals went against the wishes of Hitler and focused large numbers of the Wehrmacht on Moscow wasting time and resources, when they were ordered to concentrate on the Caucasus oil fields.'' This is where people like you don't get what really mattered. Caucasus oil field wouldn't have mattered, because the entire Red Army would have collapsed in Western Russia, the Axis still would have had enough oil to drive toward Caucasus oil fields; the Red Army defending the oil fields might as well have surrendered without a fight, when the entire Red Army had collapsed in Western Russia. ''By the time Operation Barbarossa begins the Axis forces are already struggling in terms of logistics and supplies.'' Of course, that was to be expected, other than Rumania, the Axis had no means of oil production. But it wouldn't have mattered because the Soviet Union would have collapsed in Western Russia. ''This is why Stalingrad is such an important battle because if the campaign had started earlier with more forces and supplies it's possible that the Germans might have took control of the Volga which would have made it very difficult for the Red army to launch the counter attacks which cut off the 6th army and put the Germans into retreat.'' No, Stalingrad was a fool's gold; with Moscow taken, the Soviets would have had no means of advancing/retreating/reinforcing/supplying field armies at the operational level; Moscow was the railroad hub of Western Russia!
    1
  8. You should read, 'Hitler's Panzers East', written by USMC strategist. He argues otherwise. Germany could have won the war by a knock out, had she concentrated on Moscow.
    1