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

  1.  @22KaTsh  Yes, of course, but all of your events you mentioned, were results of the Versailles Treaty, with many German people losing their civil rights in artificial states as Poland or Czechoslovakia. The US government under Bill Clinton intervened (as Adolf Hitler) when 700.000 Albanians were expelled from the Kosovo. This happened to 1.500.000 Germans or more, after the Versailles Treaty. In Poland ruled a very aggressive military dictatorship from 1926 (1921) till the invasion. When Hitler and Stalin invaded Poland, the Allies, France and Britain, declared war over Germany, but not over the Sovjetunion, which means any moral standards in their decision-process were excluded. The most beloved Gustav Stresemann, a Nobel peace laureate, demanded much harder corrections of the Versailles Treaty than Adolf Hitler. I will not defend Mr. Hitler. But we have to decide, we talk about historical facts, as Drach usually do, or we talk about morals, which is most times a failed debate. How we could compare anyone (of the bad guys) in history with the greatest Rogue- and Pirate-State on the planet, the British Empire?
    2
  2. There was no need to do it. He could have established an own african empire. King Paul I.
    2
  3.  @jeffd1962  check your historical files. Who declared 2 times war in the last century? Then lol again.
    2
  4.  @bernardobiritiki  No, Sir, British wreckers stated that those German bulbs still were illuminating after 80 years in the waters of Scapa Flow.
    2
  5.  @shieldsluck1969  in 1815 the Brits were still able to burn White House....
    2
  6.  @shieldsluck1969  Wellington had checked Waterloo geographically a year before.
    2
  7.  @shieldsluck1969  He was obviously the best under the Anglo-Irish ever. And he left never the floor under his boots, as Boney did it.
    2
  8.  Ron Lewenberg  the political geo-strategic target of the US was to weaken Europe with internal wars. In our days the Europeans understood to fight Germany weakens themselves. Now the US are only able to provoke quarrels in the European periphery as Ukraine, Georgia and the Kosovo. US propaganda is the biggest on the planet to destablize overseas countries. We should not believe the historical and the current media bullshit.
    2
  9. Former colonies as the US and Austrialia suffered till today under the fact that they were settled by the social weak and uneducated of Europe. So the Aussies were fools to die for the British warmongers in their useless wars of fascistic aggression.
    2
  10. No, there are many publications of the history of the German overseas-squadron. The british are very good, but sometimes too polite with the German idiots in command.
    2
  11. It looks, indeed, like a swimming hotel-bar with guns mounted. This must be a reminiscence to the French revolution, for each of the crew-members a presidential suite on board. Drach, do you know what 1. class sailing-ship of the line we see at 06:07 min anchoring in the port?
    2
  12.  @turbzjjc310  Japan attacked (before the Pacific War) only those Chinese areas, where no Entente Powers were active. The Sovjets made an non-aggression-pact withe the Japanese after the Japanese lost the major battles of Khalkhin Gol against the Sovjets in 1939. This pact was needed by Stalin to throw his Siberian armies against the Germans. This was a major strategic failure by the Japanese. And by the way the Brits (with some allies) tortured China (with a minimum of 20 Mio. victims) several times during the 19th century. Now this is the result we have do deal with. Thanks Britain.
    2
  13. For Rodney it was a simple clay pigeons shooting. A midshipman could have commanded Rodney in the final battle of Bismarck without any danger of a failure. With a Bismarck at 28 knots, Rodney's and KGV's T would had been always crossed.
    2
  14.  @jimmiller6704  Fine, that Drachifinel was on the ship during the final battle of Bismarck. The rudder was jammed in one propeller, 7 knots and unsteerable. That Bismarck not survived is only the failure of the coward Lütjens. If you want, it was a construction failure. Already during the trials in the Baltics it was clear, that Bismarck was not steerable without both rudders.
    2
  15. You see the new British super-frigates/destroyers could not sail in warm waters. And they needed an expensive replacement with German diesel engines.
    2
  16. Iowa-class battleships were a failed investment at all, a lot of money for nothing, often happens still today in the industrial military complex. The Iowa-class were useless as battleships, only used to transport US presidents & as batteries without the chance to receive unfriendly fire. The Panama-canal limit of a 33 meter beam & the monstrous propulsion enforced the reponsable engineers to prolongate the long straight mid-section of the ships, which implies a worse artillery-platform during a battle led at full speed & made the hull very vulnerable against incoming fire. Compare Bismarck's hull. Only a short part of the mid-section reaches a beam of 36 meters, a much better shape to stabilise the hull during action & delivers much better streamlines. That's the reason the US navy never exposed the Iowas to unfriendly fire. The Iowas are crap, armed pesidental yachts. All the new US battleships had that wide mid-aft section. USS Washington was critized for her seakeeping qualities when she served with the Home Fleet. And Iowa could not keep up with HMS Vanguard during heavy weather in post war NATO exercise "Mariner" in 1953. Vanguard's rounded hull looks very German, with a length of 248 meters & a beam of 33, a ratio better than Hoods with 262 & 32. But Hood was still better than the Iowas with 270 & 33. In comparison the Scharnhorsts relatively good 235 & 30, but they received always sea-damages & were wet as Hood. Bismarck tops all with 250 & 36. PoW & Repulse sunk already after a ridiculous pounding. Scharnhorst took more poundings than the Yamatos before she sunk. The shape of the hull is a decisive factor. This diminishes the theory of the British torpedo sinking of Bismarck to 0. 4 torpedo-hits were, of course, not enough to sink Bismarck, when Scharnhorst sunk just after the 14th ship-to-ship-torpedo-hit.
    2
  17.  @whyus2000  by which sources pls?
    2
  18. Seydlitz became at the Doggerbank the world-record-holder in fast reloading, after both stern-turrets blew up.
    2
  19. The point is, Britain declared war and lost it, without being conquered.
    2
  20.  @lordbrain8867  how many Natives or Blacks were Officers in the US navy?
    2
  21.  @lordbrain8867  This might be a point of view. When Turkey denied to expand Nato-outposts on their territories in the 90s, the US army went to Romania. I saw the big transports coming in at Constanta airport in '98. The first thing the army established was a whorehouse as the Japanese did it, too. We should not rely on formal acts as the abolition. In fact slavery was not abandoned, only officially. For the Vietnamese was any difference with Chinese, French- or US superiority? I like Drach's work so much. It is much better than any german subsidised TV productions. But the political picture of colonialsm made no difference between any colonial masters. The Empress of India was not elected.
    2
  22.  @Smokey298  The Brits unleashed 2 WWs, destroying the Empire & Europe. From an imperial point of view the Europeans had to fight & finish the US & not themselves. Is this answer understandable?
    2
  23.  @misterjag  wrong, the Loyalists were thrown out without compensation and most of them fled to Canada.
    2
  24. The main disadvantage of Blücher was the low speed. With an adjusted speed, she could have led the squadron in the van and better protected by the 3 battle-cruisers, Hipper had under his command.
    2
  25. Again a lot of work, Drach made, to present us the well documented sea-history, exspecially Nelson, of this age more lively. 3 decisive points in this fine documentation are false, from my point of view. 1. Nelson was not that genius, he was a propaganda figure. Of course, he was a good officer, a fine seaman, but no gentleman (easy to realise, how he handled the fate of Admiral Carraciolo). He won only against the amateurs & idiots, he failed against the professionals, for example at Tenerife. Sidney Smith & Thomas Cochrane were much more talented than Nelson & Nelson knew it, followed them with his jealousy. In my personal view both guys were the best sea-officers of all time. 2. Nelson did not invented the frontal attack against the enemy-line with 2 columns. Another more genius scotsman did it before. Admiral Duncan, a very smart giant, able to do the job of every able seaman, invented it 8 years before Trafalgar at the Battle of Camperdown against the Dutch. Unfortunately for the Brits, Duncan died already in 1804. He obviously would have avoided all those wrong decisions made by Nelson following the idiot Villeneuve. 3. Villeneuve was brave. Of course not, he was a coward & never fit for command. It was Boney's failure not to know his admirals by character. At the Nile the Frogs had only amateurs in command. Brueys sent the half of his crews to land for fetching water, instead to demand soldiers from Alexandria for the job. He knew that Nelson was after him, so the Frogs fought only with a half crew. Brueys anchored only by bow anchors, too frenchie lazy to bring out a spring on stern anchors. During the battle Villeneuve, commanding the rear, had enough time to establsih a spring for 2 ships of the line, to hammer the british bows of their leading vessels, let's say Bellerophon and Orion. And of course Boney had a better admiral relegated as a governor in the Carribean, Villaret-Joyeuse. Villaret-Joyeuse was educated by the best French admiral ever, Suffren (more british than the Brits, always demanded close action on pistol range). Villaret-Joyeuse (before the war a post-captain) fought without educated crews (with merchant sailing-masters on board) against Howe at the Glorious First of June. He was defeated tactically and won strategically. With his miserable crews this was an outstanding performance. Villaret-Joyeuse would have sailed into the channel and you, guys, would have to listen now a Froggish docu.
    2
  26.  @kreol1q1q  in Italy the ship would have served as a Mafia-drug-transport-vehicle, in US hands as usual obviously as a whorehouse.
    2
  27. The Union knocked out many federal forts with Monitors, at this time a necessary performance, which otherwise would have cost many lifes of Union-soldiers storming those forts. Ironsides were limited, because there are not so many white oak-trees on the planet. Iron ore is available. And the Union-engineers invented the turret. The HMS Captain was an idea, which failed, so she had done her job. But no one needs an historian to get this conclusion. Round ships were again an idea, which failed, but for inventions failures are programmed, only the US heroes land on the moon with trials of those modules. The Russians suffered a lot at Kinburn under the bombardement by the French swimming batteries Lave, Tonnante und Dévastation. About the Russian battleships at Tsushima is to mention, their crews were not trained, the shells were miserable, and they had too many slow ships in the line, so the Japanse could always cross the T. And the Russian admiral was sleeping when Togo ordered the koop of his line. Oslyabya seems to be a failed construction with a too high main emphasis, so the ship capsized easily. And the british pre-Dreadnought Mikasa was even not looking so good after Tsushima. The Japanese had a better admiral and better trained crews. In WWII the Brits were enforced to buy 53 US destroyers and they paid with their main military overseas bases on the planet, this is defeat of Britain by the US. What Preston is talking about the quality of US destroyers? In the age of warships Mr. Preston is talking about, engineers had no computer-models, they had to try and error. If Mr. Preston would have been responsable for warschip-building we would still row galleys.
    2
  28.  Somarik Green  everyone ran BBs at this time. The Dutch, the French, the Brits, the Cowboys waged colonial wars after WWII. So we see who ran the real fascist empires. But we have to debate with and to educate those amateurs as @peter olson, the new emperor of India.
    2
  29.  @artrandy  You are funny, Sir. In Germany we have the so called Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz, a harsh law for radical censorship. The NGO, working on this in relation to Facebook, Google & so on, is called Amadeu-Antonio-Stiftung, led by a former agent of the Ministry of State Security of the GDR. One day, you might become mature enough to consider what is happening in Europe.
    2
  30.  @artrandy  No, Sir, you ignore the facts. The facts are that the Nationalsocialists had no colonies. The Alliied Powers had. In those colonies did not exist any kind of free speech and democracy. So what you are talking about? Insofar all Alliied powers were imperialistic, fascistic powers in the original sense. From the US-Point of view the Bolshevics were supported in the Russian Civil war. This US-stance changed the behaviour of the former Entente Powers France & Britain. Both stopped the support of the White Guards. Stalin was seen as an accident. So Hitler stayed accepted to counter-balance Stalin as long as the chance existed to implement a promoted successor for Stalin. After the Great Purge all possible successors of Stalin were eliminated, so Stalin must be accepted and the focus changed to Germany. Basicly seen WWII was no ideologic conflict. It was simply a race to collect German patents, which were necessary to become a superpower. Better to be quicker than the competitor. As Ismay said, keep the Sovjets out, the Americans in and the Germans down.
    2
  31.  @artrandy  now, missing the argument, you change to personal accusations. This is not worthy for this channel. This is typical uneducated behaviour for members of the greatest rogue-nation ever existed.
    2
  32.  @artrandy  What have bravery or not bravery to do with genocides? You are obviously in my case a character sphincter, because my family suffered in CCs and Gulags.
    2
  33.  @ravenkk4816  as ACED mentioned, Stalin was focussed on land-conquest, mainly for Germany. With Germany in his pocket, Britain and the US would have been done for. This is the strategic Stalinism the Brits never understood in their former imperial self-conception. Brits are/were the real fascists, they still believe in their British cultural superiority and live, as here clear to see, in the past.
    2
  34.  @rhedges9631  Nelson was obviously a good seaman & self-promoter. But be realistic. When he won something, St.Vincent, Nile & Trafalgar, he won against idiots. Most of his actions failed.
    2
  35.  @CaptCondor  Most maritime historians estimate von Spee's decision as the most worse one. Von Spee knew about the superiour speed of those battle-cruisers, even the German BCs were much faster than his armoured cruisers and it was 10 o' clock in the morning in good weather. It is a simple calculation, that even with a 2 hours delay instead of one, the Brits will outrun the German armoured cruisers. And in good tradition Craddock led the action out of the range of the German artillerie, something a big part of the worse german officers chorps never understood, a lack of tradition. Von Spee has had 2 better options, the first was to attack immediatly at close range, mainly with torpedos, the Brits could not dodge in the harbour, with the opportunity that German sailors could swim to the shore in case of sinking. The other option had been an escape through the Falkland Sund. This would have forced the Brits into close action, better chances than on open seas, as it happened, and during the night the Germans could have escaped indeed. The braveness of the German Crews was for nothing. Von Spee could be a famous seaman, if he would have attacked Port Stanley with the destruction or only damaging the battlecruisers. From the tactical point of view attacking the harbour would have given the best result. But von Spee panicked, and panic is never a good adviser.
    2
  36.  @robertbraconnier8466  SMS König, flag-ship of the III. Squadron of the Highseas-fleet at Jutland led the entire Highseas-fleet into the T of the entire homefleet in action. SMS König recieved "only" 10 heavy hits and 6 middle-sized hits, an evidence for worse British shooting-abilities. The Brits were never able to sink German big-ships with artillery, even not Bismarck or Scharnhorst in WWII (even Lützow was sunk by the Germans themselves). The only well performing British ship was DoY at the North-Cape, with a well developed radar-technique. But in 1943 the time of the RN was already over. Now the RN, as the Bundesmarine, are not even a shadow of their past.
    2
  37.  @OrdinaryEXP  Germans were able to sink British BB-ships by artillery, the Brits were never capable to do this, anyway they shot with 12 or 16 inch shells, what in my point of view made no difference. Higher caliber means lower fire-rate. Decisive hits are important, not the caliber.
    2
  38. The Habsburgs, determined by the Berlin-Treaty of 1878 (which was broken by the Entente-powers) to overtake Bosnia from the Ottoman Empire, invested too much money this "bottomless pit" Bosnia. The austro-hungarian mobilisation equipped all additional soldiers, beside the regulars, with a outdated guns of 1860. Russia produced 4x more ammunition than the Habsburgs. The Habsburgs were not prepared for war at all. And they had lost alredy the pigs-war in 1907 & following years against Serbia. It was stupid & boneheaded to wage war for the worthless region of Bosnia. And an adriatic access for the Russian navy would have caused a major conflict between Russia on one side and the Brits & Frenchies on the other.
    2
  39. Drach, did you ever visited the Gneisenau-turret in Norway? Looks much more roomy than this 16 inch gun turret.
    2
  40. Thanks a lot for the vid. Usually the view is more focussed on bigger ships and their glory. Destroyers are merely disregarded. My impression of your vid is, that destroyer design is, from beam to length, relatively slim. Why they did not constructed a small battle-cruiser design with a larger beam to get more stability in the case of firing a broad-side and in regard to seaworthiness?
    2
  41.  @JohnE9999  Of course, but i only answered to Drach's comments and concernings. All late battleships were much longer than their predecessors, to get more range, speed, ammunition-bunkers, necessary water-bunkers and supplies. In case of the Iowas the story is samesame, but different. Look at those vertical pictures of Iowas, the midship-section looks like cut, to reduce the beam to 33 meters, to be able to pass the Panama-Canal. Speed is one factor, a calm firing-platform for heavy artillery another.
    2
  42.  @RobJaskula  i am a freak, but not such a freak as Drach. Scheer hated the pre-dreadnoughts, but i have no insight in decision-making of the German Admiralty. If do you study the battle of Tsushima you will see not top-speed, but reduced speed of the line of battle by slow ships is really a major factor. The Russians were always outpaced by the Japanese. In the battle of the Yellow Sea, Russian speed was high enough to break out of Port Arthur, and admiral Tōgō's aim was to avoid severe damage. But admrial Vitgeft failed to implement a clear command-chain in the case he will die in battle, what then, indeed happened.
    2
  43.  @robertf3479  Britain can be happy that there was no german Bomber Harris.
    2
  44. Maybe the German engineers had a better feeling for female ship-shapes.
    2
  45.  @sawyerawr5783  concerning the Constitution (old ironsides) vid of Drach, the question occurs, whether Razee-constructed ships would have been the better ships of the line or not. 2 or 3 deckers had obviously more drift and slower speed. And stability enforced small calibers on the upper gun-decks.
    2
  46. This might be not the truth. With turbines producing more than 200.000 horsepowers, Iowa-class battleships were slow, means the hull is not well designed. And the armor (belt) did not match Scharnhorst-class lvl. So it is no wonder, that the US navy never exposed Iowa-class battle-ships in sea-battles. They served as a AA-platform in WWII.
    2
  47. we should notice that the Brits wiped the Tasmanians out between 1803 and 1865. And it was John Company who motivated the Brits to attack China in 2 Opium wars, the first from 1839 to 1842 and the 2nd from 1856 to 1860, a measure which made half of the chinese population to junkies with around 20 Mio. victims. Insofar the Opium wars were a consequense of the prevention of the slave trade, when Bristish merchants were searching for a new business model.
    2
  48.  @gregzeigler3850  No Sir, Donald Trump had to recognize, an US president is not the CEO of a major corp and he needs friends. So he still pumps a lot of money into the military complex. But he was the first guy in White House, who blamed the Army and the Navy for "not winning wars" since WWII. The only profit the US took in Iraq are the kurdish occupied oil wells around Kirkuk. And the support for Brits and Frenchies in Libya again let the Russians win, as happened in Syria, and the refugees weaken Europe, mainly all countries there are US vasalls. As you see in Vietnam the US has again a military overseas base, interesting isn't it? Indochine countries save the money for defense against China, and the US taxpayer pays it.
    2
  49. The Queen failed. She did not define the command structure.
    2
  50. The political focus on abolition of slavery as the main reason for the Civil War might be wrong. Abraham Lincoln himself possessed 2 slaves for serving in his household. The question of slavery was more a figleaf to cover the imminent political intention. On Independence Day the Union was set up voluntary. But in the Civil War the Union Government in D.C. set a warning example, what happens to the state, which would like to leave the Union. There will be no division in the future. So the term "United" states does not fit anymore already a long time, the US should be called American Republic or better Empire. The federate farmers were not so well educated. They had no ideas about engineering, which was based in the North. The time of slavery was anyway over, mashines became much cheaper than slaves. So the liberated slaves became slaves again in Chikago, where they had to work 12 hours a day, 6 days a week for 2 US$ in uncomfortable factories and Apartheid was not abolished till the 60s of the last century.
    2