Comments by "HaJo Os." (@hajoos.8360) on "Drachinifel" channel.

  1.  @Deevo037  of course not. The whole war happened due to British stubborn incompetence.
    3
  2.  @rambysophistry1220  this is the propaganda-story for the British underdogs who had to die in battle. About British sea-dominance is to say, that Britain's situation was not the same as in the 19th century. The Germans built always ships with the intention not to use them. If the Japanese would had used the same approach Tsushima would not have happened. The strategic decision to wage war against Germany is to wage war against Europe, because Germany is Europe or Europe is nothing without Germany. And the result of both WWs is the sell-off of the British maritime overseas bases to the US for 53 old destroyers in WWII and Bretton Woods in 1944. The US is dominating now the 7 seas. The US replaced Britain. This is the major result of 2 WWs. And do you think this is coincidence? For Germany there is no big difference. Germany had no real counting colonies, now Germany is smaller and had to suffer 8 Mio. dead during the war and some more after the war by a holodomor. But globally nothing has changed for the Germans. So, you see, Britain had lost both WWs and an entire empire.
    3
  3.  @strixaluco7423  you should know the Germans were not prepared for war. Your a.m. Z-Plan was designed for 1944. In 1938 the French budget for military expenses was still bigger than the German budget. Beside the Sovjetunion (the Red army had more war-planes and tanks in 1939 than the rest of the planet, including the US), France was the major continental land-power and Britain the major sea-power. Study the German operation Weserübung to secure the iron-ore delivery in Narvik, it was totally improvised. Most of German losses were caused by the wrong decisions of the commanding officers, but strategically successful in total. This is the exitement of warfare at sea, technical datas are standing behind in my opinion.
    3
  4.  @alfredovilla8560  This is a question of the point of view. Of course, by unleashing 2 WWs Britain sent Europe into insignificance...
    3
  5.  @ScienceChap  Bismarck's fate was not caused by the RN. It was caused by the bad German leadership of her admiral and the miserable german admiralty, who placed the cowards into a commader-in-chief-position.
    3
  6.  @graceamerican3558  Drakes reputation not to kill prisoners & to treat them fair, led to the consequence that captured Spanish ships did not fight.
    3
  7.  @kuhluhOG  you are right. It is more an answer for other participants. The Germans made in this case the correct decision. Broadside-weight is overvalued, even by Drachinifel, too.
    3
  8.  @NashmanNash  The threat of the Ottoman Empire was enuogh to bind british ressources in the region. If there was no necessity, why the fool Churchill attacked Gallipoli? Of course the US went into war in 1917, but without US-supplies, the war would had been over in 16. And Britain could not refinance the war on it's own, as the Germans could, Britain received loans from JPMorgan. About von Spee you write nonsense. An admiral who does not know that battlecruisers are faster than armoured cruisers? Even an idiot as von Spee knew it. And the chances to sink or damage battlecruisers at anchor is a much better prospect than to be sunk on long range fire at open seas. About the Dreadnought is to say, that speed is a major factor, as we could see in the a.m. battle of the Falklands. Superiour speed was only possible with oil-firing or the ships became bigger and more heavy. And the additional oil for the Dreadnought came from Persia as i mentioned.
    3
  9. The main spanish problem was the useless king. The uncle of this admiral in the vid was admiral Álvaro de Bazán, who won the battle of Punta Delgada in 1582 outnumbered by european privateers, the first time in history only using artillery to defeat the enemy, which gave Britain the example how to organize the home-fleet in the future. Staying in Lisbon, when Drake attacked Cadiz in 1587, Álvaro de Bazán was not supported by the spanish king and died early, it is written. He would have been a more difficult task to crash him in the channel in 1588 for the lucky Brits. In Grenville's last battle the Spaniards had still not understand the inventions of their former brillant admiral. Grenville's raid to the Azores was badly organized. They knew that they had to wait for the spanish silver-transports, and did not managed a frequent supply-support from Portsmouth. As Drachinifel mentioned most historians are wrong, judging the 1588 spanish defeat in the channel as the major point of lost spanish sea-superiourity. This assumption is false. The Spaniards lost their domination in 1639 at the battle of the Downs when the dutch admiral Tromp defeated the Spaniards heavily and blockaded the neutral english fleet, which was present in english waters.
    3
  10. Drach, it is so cool....not a perfect superlative like Victory with hundred crew-members to scrub the deck during a watch. Looks like daily business & use in the age of sail. From the outside it looks like a 2-decker. The bow is not as flat like Cook's Endeavour, but looks more like a Dutch bow, not a British bow. I did not know, that the ship exists, it is really an unbelievable highly rated story. Thx for Your top-video.
    3
  11.  @mikecimerian6913  the Germans invented Afri Cola, best Coke ever.
    3
  12.  @johnshepherd8687  the swordfish were still to slow for Bismarcks AA-fire. And the cloth-wings did not animated the AA-shells to explode. Here you see the failure in PE's detachement. A AA-crossfire might had been more successful.
    3
  13.  @robskalas  brains are not the first priority in the US Army. An average IQ of 80 is slightly above other primates.
    3
  14.  @danielsummey4144  ... the ability of total destruction is still availabe, no doubts about that, but now only against weak countries like Vietnam or Iraq. As Jesse Ventura said, the US do not mess with Nuke-Powers. This is the reason, most countries like to get nukes. Regarding to General Clarks destablization of 7 countries in 5 years the short thinking of the US-admins only till the next quarter-year cash-level on the balance sheets, are responsable. The Russains spent in Syria only the 10th part of military investments im comparison to Nato-Powers, but gained a political success. The boneheaded Iraq-war resulted in the fact, that the Shiites have the oil. The US tax-payer and the exploited vasalls spent their money for nothing and no chicks for free. During the WWI, II, Korean-war-era the US Admins were ready to wipe all enemy-populations out. Today those genozides guarantee no economic results, which make those military investments useless. The bucaneering against Germany was the biggest loot ever in history. Already the value of stolen patents exceeds several US budgets. Russia rejected the US looting abilities, when Putin came into power. So the US-business-model of permanent war of aggression is over.
    3
  15.  @Tauriboss  your alcopoppi Winston
    3
  16. @Jurassic Aviator the difference to the past is, that now, US corps and admins buy simply the best brains on the planet for development and progress. There is no real technical and eminent advantage on the planet anywhere, so no war, genociding the inhabitants, makes sense. WWII was the biggest bucaneering raid ever in history. The Soviets and the US were involved in a speed-race to robb German technology. Rockets, jet-engines, nuclear progress, agriculture you name it. They did not cared about the killing of 7 Mio. German people during the war and several mio. after the war. After Yeltsin opened Soviet archives, Putin classified all soviet warfiles soon again. The Brits blacked their own since the war. Your current president Trump analysed or realized the major problem of US forces in general very well. The US are still able to lay an entire country into ashes, but they are not able to win a war anymore.
    3
  17. the world used the WWII fight to liberate itself from the Allied colonial powers. The Vietnamese had to fight another 30 years against France and the US to get freed of those allied devils.
    3
  18. @Shonono Yeetus most times in germanic languages the first syllable is emphasized, same here in the case of the name Tirpitz. No indigene German would understand a romanic spelling on the last/second syllable. In english it is mixed. The french word fiance is romanic, so emphazised on the last/third syllable. But the germanic/westphalic word "window", which means "Windeye"-Windoch-Windauge is emphazised on the first syllable. In spite of the Germanic use of the Brits the Germans use the latin word "Fenster", comes from "fenestra".
    3
  19.  @turbzjjc310  No, Nukes are for everyone on the planet. Better is the distribution of cudgels.
    3
  20.  Marry Christmas  Secession and Separation is no problem. The Chanal Islands in neighborhood, the Bretons should act and not talk.
    3
  21. Better than the Brits who cannot swim in warm waters.
    3
  22. This is concerned to the capacity in developments. The Japanese had not the capacity to develop better fighters than the vulnerable Zero. And if you remark, that the Zero is vulnerable, than you have lost already to many pilots. And it is not possible to train them in a short period. And as long as non one attacks the US mainland, the enemy can do it without any disturbances. If someone had invaded Texas, the entire us oil supply would have been broken. This is the warfare the Japanese hesitated to wage. Instead they wasted their troops on useless islands.
    3
  23.  @lordbrain8867  the policy in Russia under the last Tsar had certain aspects, mainly the stupidity of the Tsar. Even in Germany and Habsburg the nobles were degenerated. Drach's japanese strategy of Kentai Kessen was simply wrong. To enforce major battles at sea, you have to enforce the melee at your own conditions. In the conflict against Russia, it was no problem for the IJN, because Russia wanted to expand it's strategic position from Vladivostok to the south (Port Arthur). In the conflict against the US, this was not the case. The US and Britain enforced the war by an oil embargo, which would had brought the Empire of Japan on it's knees. So, to enforce a major battle at sea, the Japanese had to attack the US mainland. At this time the US west coast was difficult to defend and easy to attack, only a few strongholds. The strength of the US and Britain were the economic ressources, not the education of the soldiers and seamen. The political mistakes of the Axxis-powers were that they never intended the total annihilation of the enemy's forces. The Allies intended this target.
    3
  24.  @Dragon-Believer  yes of course, but not in 1941. Someone who can read, gains the advantage.
    3
  25. The Japanese mine-losses were caused by the always similar attack routes/courses to engage Port Arthur. The Russians remarked it and layed their mines. In the Battle of the Yellow Sea the Russian brake-out worked well. But admiral Vitgeft did not implement a command-chain in the case he himself would die in battle, what de facto had happened. The Russians missed the chance to sail to Vladivostok by wrong decisions and sailed back to Port Arthur to face desaster.
    3
  26. Maybe a communist sabotage action :-)
    3
  27.  @Pete-z6e  yes, you colonial sphincters lost your fascist empire. Watch in the mirror and you see your emperor.
    3
  28. Nelson was not worthy to clean the boots of Sidney-Smith and Cochrane.
    3
  29. Again a illustrious vid .... this leads to my proposal to produce a vid about the best british seaman ever, the Scotsman Lord Cochrane, who freed South-America with nearly nothing. Most south-american navies called a warship "Almirante Cochrane". Ok, i have to commit, that after the Spaniards were out, South-America is ruled by anglo-american corporates till our days, not so much difference to the Spaniards, but Cochrane's performance is still outstanding and let Nelson look like a dwarf.
    3
  30. You are the first guy here, who has understand the failure of Spee.
    3
  31. Beatty was maybe a coffeehouse baffoon, maybe not. His major incompetence was his lack of communication. As a seaman, he was obviously proper. Hipper's inclusion of Blücher at Doggerbank was a great failure.
    3
  32.  @jannegrey  the top-speed of German BCs was in reality, not on paper, faster than of the Brit BCs. Without Blücher and the comradeship to stay in line of battle to support the Armoured Cruiser we would not have seen the Battle of the Doggerbank. Blücher was, as you mentioned a fine ship, but not in a BC-action. In technical questions like the ammunition-handling the Germans had an easy task to use the experiences of this battle. But the Germans had, as always, difficulties to use the tactical experiences of major battles since the Battle at the Yellow River. Still at Jutland they included slow cows. German admiralty was still in WWII a big band of idiots.
    3
  33.  @peterblood50  seen over 3 centuries you are right. The Frenchies were always inflicted with unnecessary troubles on the continent which were useless, because France is relatively secured, if do you watch the map of Europe. So all continental engagements disturbed those guys who supported the colonial development. But, Peter, we find several historical points, where the Brits scratched the bottom. For example during the Independence War the Franco-Spanish Allies failed with a lack of political will to finish off the Brits forever and to wipe these pirates northeast of Ushant out. The Homefleet at this time had only around 35 ships of the line against 70 Franco-Spaniard manowars. The Brits would have had no chance to avoid an invasion and to lose everything.
    3
  34. There was a film of the Comradeship Gneisenau on YouTube, with interviews etcetec. But i cannot find it anymore.
    3
  35.  @taggartlawfirm  He ran off his own wife. But Sir Hamilton was always present, when Nelson visited them till his death. And Greville a former Lover visited her often, too. And Britain was never obliged about her, a housemaid. And Emma spent a lot of money, more than Hamilton or Nelson bequested. And Nelson's demand for public support was not noted. So she became a drunkard and died.
    3
  36.  @Nyctasia  the best admiral was WWII flag officer Wihelm Marschall. He was sent home, because he was a more British-style-sea-officer. Hipper was not bad, his worst mistake was, to implement the armoured cruiser Blücher into his sqaudron at the battle of the Doggerbank. It makes no sense to include slow ships into the line of battle, as we can see in the battle of Tsushima or the Jutland-clash.
    3
  37. Nice scene, in synchronized German the humor becomes still better. But Pontius Pilatus represented the empire and not those hebrew rascals and rebels. So, Bismarck represents this rascal on the floor in reality.
    3
  38.  @knutdergroe9757  the US exist since around 240 years and were involved 220 years of it in wars of aggression without being attacked. War is the main business-model.
    3
  39. Drachinifel's pure technical analytics are not adequate in this story. Gneisenau and Nürnberg were the scouting vessels. Several ship-commanders had doubts to attack Port Stanley. Why they came closer in the morning, not in the evening? An attack against the Brits in the harbour would have given the chance of torpedo hits with no possebility for the Brits to start an evasion manoeuvre. Even in the case, that all German ships would have been sunk, many crewmen have had the chance to reach the shores. Enter-attack in harbour could have been successful, too. An alternative would have been a course to Port Howard. The cover of Swanisland would have enforced Sturdee to a close combat.
    3
  40.  @benwilson6145  you should not quote this character sphincter .... here for you another fascist quote of him .... "You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, whether it is in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit priest! (Allegedly 1955, in Emrys Hughes, British Bulldog, 145.)".
    3
  41.  @micnorton9487  Rommel and Guderian were comrades in spirit and reality. They were soldiers and no politicians. And they acted to overcome the stubborn stupidity of their teachers in WWI. They did everything for success. Rommel's strength was based on his tactical and organizing talent. Rommel's weakness was his strategic understanding. It makes no sense to lead a desert-attack in North-Africa with supply-lines, which are not secured. 3 quarters of his supplies lay on the bottom of the meditterean. It would have been a better decision to get those useless italian soldiers lost in the desert and to strain with them the British supplies.
    3
  42.  @rambysophistry1220  Dear Ramby, historical research is helpful. The FED was founded in 1913 to enable the US financial system to give loans to the Brits. Wilson did everything to lead Europe into war. The Berlin-treaty from 1878 was broken by the Entente-Powers. An the Mittel-Powers did not realized the Entente-will of total destruction. Always it is helpfull to look for the profit-takers. If the stupid Habsburgs would have given Bosnia to Serbia, it would have generate a probability that the Russians would gain a port at the Adriatic-coast. This would have led to a Brit-Fanco-war against Russia. Better for the middle-powers.
    2
  43.  @rambysophistry1220  Till 1914 Deutsche Bank was the biggest bank on the planet. The Brits thought they could destroy German competition on the Global Markets with war. Instead to find a European way Britain declared war. Britain declared war in WWII. These are the facts.
    2
  44.  @CrusaderSports250  Britain declared war, that's the fact. About Bosnia is to say that the Berlin Treaty of 1878 (Lloyd George was present for the Brits) organized the international legal matter about it. The Entente broke this treaty, The assassination of Ferdinand was about the conflict with Serbia about Bosnia. Habsburg had already lost the so called "pigs-war" from 1906-1909/11 against Serbia. The High-Seas fleet is not an argument. In WWII the Germans had no fleet, but the Brits did not care. To use the route via Belgium was a strategic or tactical decision. But do you think the fascist empire of Britain, which occupied the half planet, should use moralised arguments? Czechoslovakia is an artificial state. Praque (contents the first German university) was for 300 years the German capital and much better than Berlin.
    2
  45.  @CrusaderSports250  Dear Roger, someone, who can read, gains the advantage. I did not wrote about Austria's wishes for ports outside the Adriatic Sea. I wrote about Russia. If the Habsburgs would have admitted Bosnia to Serbia, instead to fight the "Pig'sWar", the probability of an Adriatic port for Serbia, would had been plausible. And if Serbia has a port, Russia has it, too. A main target of western policy till our days is, not to allow Russia a southern port.
    2
  46.  @1controversial  most actions in wars are improvised....
    2
  47.  @davidwong825  Dear David, the Nazis had a small Reich, the Islandapes an empire, which they tortured for centuries. And the Islandapes joined forces with the commies. God shave the Queen^^
    2
  48. No, Sir, the US defences were poor. The USA is not to defend if an aggressor attacks, even today. Homeland security is a joke. US army is everywhere, but not in the US. Why there is no terror in the United States? Because there is no US embassy.
    2
  49.  @mikebronicki6978  Kennedy is not the only good source. But he is a fine one. Time to read is a luxury, but important to get more points of view.
    2
  50. The Brits did not respected the international law, as usual, they had signed in the case of SMS Dresden. A bunch of pirates.
    2