Comments by "Annoying B\x27stard" (@annoyingbstard9407) on "Military History Visualized" channel.

  1. I suppose losing two wars could be considered a success. If you were French.
    3
  2. So they weren’t effective then.
    2
  3. How was it disproportionate?
    2
  4. I think you misunderstand the lebensraum principle by taking its literal translation. It was about enslavement and theft of production in order to repay the industrialists who’d backed Hitler’s bond issues. This was seen in the conquered nations in the west by the simple installation of puppet governments and fixed exchange rates. It was nothing to do with “more space for the German people.”
    2
  5. I read your comment and would point out the rather obvious that it was quite standard for post war popular historians to ride the anti-communist bandwagon by suggesting the war was to be blamed on the Soviets. Secondly you seem to have missed one point in your selective quote mining. The phrase you chose to overlook was “in case of war” which in most people’s minds would simply mean when Germany attacked (as it did, as it always planned and as was inevitable) the Soviet response would be to strike with their own forces into Germany - a plan which palpably failed to materialise. The fact is the war was an ideological war secondly and an economic war firstly. Germany had issued bonds which were eagerly bought, not just inside Germany but around the world, despite the buyers knowing they were financing Hitler’s rearmament program. A program with no prospect of enabling those bonds to be honoured save by conquest providing cheap labour and plundered materials - as was proved to be the case. You may notice your theory of the origins of the war are somewhat speculative and based on a quote or two whereas mine is based on the facts of what actually happened as a result of Germany’s conquests. Lest you still choose to ignore the facts you could perhaps check out the legal threats still rumbling over Dawes Bonds and Young bonds which were the US issues.
    2
  6. No. 1 should be the fantasy that Germany was facing many belligerents alone. In fact the axis forces were Germany, Austria, Italy, Japan, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Croatia and Finland - with materiel and manpower support from all its occupied territories.
    2
  7. Do one on allied thoughts of German armour captured in Normandy! 😂
    2
  8. I suspect the “fearsome reputation” is largely in the minds of modern teutophiles. Allied tests on captured panthers in Normandy were very unflattering. Third rate armour that shattered and disassembled when hit by even smaller AT weapons - their conclusion was German armour was little better than hard rolled steel plate.
    2
  9. It's German. Of course it's the best. That's why they win so many wars. 🤔
    2
  10. Doesn't fit with the whole master race schtick.
    2
  11. The was no "pact" with Britain. There was with France.
    1
  12. More surrendered than fought to the end. Of course eventually they all surrendered.
    1
  13. Why would they? Two major wars - two losses. Some role model.
    1
  14. Not really. A total of 2800 people were killed by these rockets after years of effort, millions of reichmarks and tying up thousands of men. 25000 were killed in one raid by aircraft, dropping bombs on Dresden. I know which I think is the extremely effective weapon as did the German generals who complained about the effort put into it.
    1
  15. Maybe he could have waited forever?
    1
  16. So the German conclusion is that German tanks are better. A revelation.
    1
  17. That would have been a bit silly wouldnt it?
    1
  18.  @chadkarr7394  And Germany would have been left unscathed. It’s YouTube….I expect comments like this really.
    1
  19.  @Zorro9129  Errr…the Soviets were allies.
    1
  20.  @MilitaryHistoryVisualized  You can of course back your claims up by referencing a popular historian/author born twenty years after the end of the war. If you were more open minded instead of simply rehashing the invincible panther meme you could read the various reports from the US Ordnance Department following tests on assorted captured German armour carried out at the Aberdeen proving grounds. They’re now unclassified and can be found under “metallurgical examination of German armor” mostly published by P V Riffin. That would be a starting point…there are many reports of tests actually carried out on German armour in the field. It’s all out there if you want to look for it.
    1
  21. I thought he lost.
    1
  22. You forgot to mention the rockets fired inside Germany to destroy the Ludendorff Bridge after the Americans captured it. One landed outside Cologne 40 miles away, another on the outskirts of Bonn and one landed in Remagen - the bridge wasn’t hit or damaged.
    1
  23.  @MilitaryHistoryVisualized  Unsubbed.
    1
  24. Rommel spent a year trying to convince everyone the d day landings would be at Calais as the allies would need an operational port. After the landings in Normandie he then had the brainwave the allies would need to capture the nearest port. This is hardly highly intelligent leadership.
    1
  25. Statistics are largely made meaningless by German claims of both production figures and fighting success which are influenced by a propaganda ministry and a fear of execution for failure. It makes every single figure quoted doubtful.
    1
  26.  @Schwarzvogel1  You’re obviously unaware of two things; the corruption underlying everything in nazi Germany and the simple fact that if Goebbels admitted allied bombing was damaging production this would encourage further bombing and put a dent in their perceived superiority. By the way, who checks the checkers?
    1