Comments by "AFGuidesHD" (@AFGuidesHD) on "Best German Generals? (feat. Alex Richie)" video.

For anyone saying "Rommel", he might have been good at a local level, however his decision to bumrush Egypt instead of supporting an invasion of Malta in July 1942, IMO single handily caused his downfall. Had Rommel understood the logistical and military importance of Malta then the Axis would have captured Egypt.
7
yeah nothing of history matters so why bother talking about it ?
3
@lukeueda-sarson6732 " There is no such thing as "purely military matters";" there is if the discussion is framed as "in military terms", which is usually the case when it comes to "best x of ww2". Whether a general supported the politics of a particular character, shouldn't detract from their military capabilities. Unless of course the debate is "who is the best general from a moralist perspective".
3
@lukeueda-sarson6732 you're a bit dense aren't you ? On a debate about "the best ww2 tank", do you take into considerations the political opinions of a tank designer in deciding on what tank was the best during the war ?
3
No, Al is right, Austria is part of Germany as much as Crimea is part of Ukraine.
3
@revanofkorriban1505 Malta was practically defenceless at that point and I would have thought that they would be able to invade Malta given that they invaded Egypt and then Crete in May 1941.
2
@lukeueda-sarson6732 "in defining what history is" I don't believe any debate about "what is the best [thing]" is a definitive investigative debate. It's mostly entertainment and discussion. "You are arguing historians are wrong" You seem to put "historians" in a very high regard, historians are not really any different to literally any other person in history who has read books and done a little bit of research. One "historian" might say x happened because Y, whilst another historian says x happened because Z, both historians can be correct, they just have different opinions.
2
Because in Britain, especially at such public events you are only ever going to hear the popular and obviously one sided version of history. You aren't going to get someone going on stage to talk about the criminality of the Allies, the Churchillian seizure of power or the appeasement myth and how actually the British wanted to stimulate tensions between Poland and Germany.
1
@lukeueda-sarson6732 this is what I mean by you being dense lol are you actually being serious? no fun allowed - ever ?
1
@lukeueda-sarson6732 Of course I'm ignorant of your personality, I don't know you do I ? "I don't publish history research for "entertainment" But you do watch YouTube videos don't you ? Thus, entertainment. After all why be a historian if you are not entertained by it ?
1
@lukeueda-sarson6732 "When you went to school, do you really believe your teachers were entertaining you?" No because you are forced to go to school. No one is forced to watch videos of history of which they find interesting and entertaining. I might add that the best teachers make their lessons entertaining or interesting.
1
@lukeueda-sarson6732 Yeah I remember watching something called "The Last Tommy" at school. That's the most educational one I can remember, everything else was just entertainment in the last week or so of the year (/grade) lol.
1
@lukeueda-sarson6732 Did I ever say videos can't be educational ?
1
@lukeueda-sarson6732 Yeah, the clear difference I also pointed out was that you chose to watch these YouTube videos, you weren't forced to do so.
1
@lukeueda-sarson6732 Dr. David Starkey made the point in one of his videos, that the reason he is a historian is because he is interested and entertained by history, after all why be a historian if you are not interested and entertained by it? I believe and know that things can be educational as well as entertaining. You obviously seem to believe that things can't possibly be entertaining and educational at the same time, it has to either be educational or entertaining. So let's just leave the discussion there, ok.
1