Comments by "HaJo Os." (@hajoos.8360) on "The Battle of Samar - Odds? What are those?" video.

@celebrim1 you rate the US politicians more stupid as they were. Japan was confronted with a total oil embargo set by the US and the UK. At this time Japan had oil reserves for 90 days. When they decided to fight, they had only oil reserves for 70 days. So the first target were the oil reserves in the south of the Chinese sea, all, more or less, in allied hands. During the war the main part of the IJN was located where the oil is. Your Roosevelt knew already that Pearl Harbour will be attacked and he draw his precious carriers away and let sunk those useless old battleships and those poor US Seamen died. He needed this attack to wage war, with congress in his back. The Japanese hoped to prolongate the war and for a political change in the US instead to launch a direct attack against the US mainland. But WW2 weakened the US so much, that 7 years in Korea only a stalemate was achieveable. From this point US forces were and are still able to destroy a country, but unable to win any war again. So more than 800 military overseas US bases are expensive and useless. The US soldier should go home and .... ...
5
@robskalas brains are not the first priority in the US Army. An average IQ of 80 is slightly above other primates.
3
@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
@cyberherbalist TY for presenting your experience. This is a question of culture and availability. Usually US-ammunition-depots wrote down immediatly every delivery of ammunition in Nato-maneuvres. German tradition is, caused by usual historical shortage, to count ervery shot and shell/bullet. After trials and exercises, all remained shots must be reported and re-delivered, even in combat. Our passion here, maritime history explain the same. Royal Navy units could always rely on re-enforcement and re-fitting everywhere. Weaker navies not.
2
@jamesharris4695 For holodomor oil embargo
2
@Halinspark no, US tank commanders do only fight terrorists on donkeys. When they meet any resistance, they demand the airforce.
1
@txgunguy2766 that's the point. Germans count the bullets and book it, because resources are rare. US mercinaries always play the OK Corral shootout.
1
@richardauchinleck1234 idiot
1
@richardauchinleck1234 in science and history not the majority of idiots decides, but the best argument and evidence.
1
@richardauchinleck1234 are you not able to argue? Thanks a lot for your confirmation.
1
@TheSchultinator do you expose an alternative opinion?
1
@retromario96 no way, the Iraquis had no night sight devices and were shot by US clay pigeon shooting. Of course there are rumours about fascist Roosevelt's knowledge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_advance-knowledge_conspiracy_theory So you cowboy, fell out of non-culture, you are not even worth the shit in you.
1
@chemputer the US people remarked the first time in the Vietnam war, that they were not the good guys, so after Vietnam press release in the Army is regulated till now. In 240 year of US wars of aggression the question is, if the US guys were ever the good guys or not. I think GI's were always war criminals and should be treated as rogues fighting for a fascist power.
1
@chemputer Dear Ben, my views are so extreme, because history is so extreme. Check your own US history. It is war of aggression as a business-model, the entire existence of the States is war against everyone there. My viewpoint is a german viewpoint. I still pay reaparations with my taxes for WWII till 2030 and I payed for WWI till 2010. So, what you do pay, my friend?
1
@nahuelleandroarroyo No, the Marshall-Plan was kind of credit-loan. The Germans bought US products to support the US economy. And the Marshall-Plan was not accepted by Stalin for the Sovjet-Occupation-zone, later on GDR. After the war more Germans died in a holodomor than during the war. That's common British policy. The Royal Navy caused around 21 holodomors in 300 years with around 80 Mio. victims. In the famous battle of the glorious First of June, Admiral Villaret-Joyeuse lost 7 oder 8 ships of the line. But the holodomor in France, intended by the Brits, got avoided. Back to WW2, the entire war was a race to steal German technology, rockets, jet-engines, agricultural licenses. If the Alliies would pay it back with interest, 3 entire annual budgets would be necessary. The major point of the Marshall-Plan was Stalin. Some kind of support was eminent, because hungry Germans would change sides to the Sovjets.
1
@Nerezza1 .... for the Allies that's true, of course. But China was busy and weakened in a Civil War from 1927 to 1949. Insofar the economic situation in China under Mao was not pretty much successful. So during the Korean War from 1950 to 1953 the Chinese sent later on masses of soldiers. And the Sovjet Air-Force, with their MIG-15, cleaned the sky from US pilots in the MiG-Alley. The F-86 could equalize a bit the situation, but the tactical disadvantage of the US air-bases hindered sustainable success of the US led forces. During WWII the US had no real probs to activate their military complex in 2 years. So we see here an early power-shift from west to east already in the biggest agent's war during the ColdWar-period.
1
@prisonerofthehighway1059 of course. What the Germans did, establishing a no-shipping-zone, did the Brits during the Falkland-war. What the Brits never understood, is, that the US gained profit from inter-european wars. At this time, the WWI - era, the Europeans had the last chance to defeat the US and to destroy their military abilities. Germany was the wrong enemy. In WWII the Brits sold their empire for 53 old US-destroyers, ridiculous.
1
@prisonerofthehighway1059 You are right, in our days only a second Civil War could bring some danger to the US. I did not mention the destruction of the US itself, i mentioned the destruction of the US military abilities. During the US Civil War no one supported the Federates, a political separation would have been in favour of the Europeans. The decline of the British Empire, you mentioned, was not seen by the British upper classes. Any offered teamwork by the Kaiser oder Hitler was denied. (Hitler offered Wehrmacht-soldiers to defend British interests). 2 WWs weakened primarily Europe and the US took the benefit.
1
@bkjeong4302 The Brits shot more than 3.000 shells on the lame duck Bismarck, with more or less, 400 or 500 hits. In this case a poor performance. Only torpedo-action could sink the ship. Point-blank range is not always a solution.
1
@bkjeong4302 I beg your pardon.
1
@philperry4699 as non-native-English-"speaker", i reveived the term (Con-) "Federates" from Veterans today. The major impact of the Civil War in the US was the Union Navy, the Union bottled the Confederate States up. We see here a major difference to the War of Independence, when the French King sent Admiral de Grasse to support occasionally the "US" Rebels. There is a famous speech of General de Gaulle. " I love Germany, I love it so much that I am very happy that there are two of them". This counts, in the case of the US, for the Europeans and the rest of the planet, too. We love the US. We love them so much, that we would be happy, if there would be 2 or 3 of them.
1
@joelellis7035 you should remember France and Britain declared 2 times war over Germany in the 20th century. What do the Frenchies expect? The first time, they said the Kaiser invested too much in the High Seas Fleet. The second time, the Führer invested not so much, Maritime Germany was not worth the name Kriegsmarine, more or less a bad joke, but anyway they declared war.
1
@joelellis7035 most of the supplies come from East-Asia. Rumsfeld makes a lot of Big Pharma Business. Donald wanted to buy a german serum-corp. Check the numbers of average dead people in the US, the numbers are decreasing or increasing.
1
@joelellis7035 Poland was since 1926 a military dictatorship. Usually the US likes to export their democracy, but not in Poland.
1
@joelellis7035 Spanish-American-War 1898. WWI you had nothing to lose in Europe, except a JP Morgan bankruptcy due to their loans to Britain. Last war with your indigenes was 1903. During WWII you still sat on the Phillipnes, the Frenchies in Indochine and the Brits in China. You are so funny, Joel.
1
@joelellis7035 why the Frenchies and the Brits did not declared war over the Sovjetunion, the 2nd invader of Poland. Check your files correctly. Llyod George signed the Berlin-Treaty. Serbia and Russia broke this treaty. The Brits broke with the declaration of war this treaty, too. Still funny, Joel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Berlin_(1878)
1
@joelellis7035 As long as no one is publishing the total number of common dead people, lost their lifes by age, illness or accident, information will remain desinformation. Hope my chancellor to Kingdom come. You know in my country every day around 2.500 poeple die as per day, in summer less than in winter. At the moment less people die in Europe as in those 3 years before. Here the Link, which makes you smarter https://www.euromomo.eu/
1
@joelellis7035 Your Führer demanded from Poland less than his predecessors, exspecially the famous Stresemann. The military dictators in Poland broke the Versailles Treaty several times. It was the German question, German majorities in occupied areas as Danzig, the Memel-Land, and Western Prussia, similar to the Kosovo-question. It was a local conflict comparable to the Mexican-US-War, far away from your fashistoid Monroe-Doctrin. The Brits and the Frenchies ruined Europe in favour of the US, the profit-taker, interesting, isn't it? Ask the Brits why they still black those war-files.
1
@albertjoseph754 no Sir, my dear Orc, i misunderstood you. Lack of knowledge of the English language, i beg pardon.
1
@TheGuruStud yes, of course, WWII was a race for german patents. But in our days asymmetric wars are mostly non-profitable for the west.
1
@Steve Campbell Check how many military goods those Cowboys delivered to the Sovjetunion during WWII, it was more than the US Army had in use at the same era. No way for the US to defend the weakened Europe. And what would have been the result of any mud hole?
1
@Steve Campbell read Victor Suworow, he tells us quit different numbers. What do you think those Murmansk-Convois delivered. 7.000 vehicles. That would have been done with one oder two convois.
1
@amrak63 please, explain it.
1
@amrak63 ahh, that explains it. You are happy, because you got your brains lost.
1
@ajalvarez3111 Better stick to audio-fairy-tales
1
@GearGuardianGaming why your historical arguments are so convincing?
1
At this time the Japanese were enforced to expose their battleships without an existing carrier force. This made no sense at all, except a try of face-keeping. The strategic mistakes were already done at the beginning of the Pacific war by the Imperial Japanese navy. They hesitated to conquer the Hawaiian Islands and to attack the US West-coast, enforcing the US carriers to intervene and to launch an invasion force on US territory.
1