Comments by "AFGuidesHD" (@AFGuidesHD) on "Who were technologically superior? The Axis or Allies in WW2?" video.

  1. I don't think there's ever a real answer to such a debate. The allies pioneered certain technologies whilst the Germans pioneered others. Had Germany not been in a major land war, or defeated the USSR early on. Then they would have been able to spare the 100,000 men that scientific projects required to be mass produced and effective. Instead of just a handful of dodgy but impressive prototypes.
    11
  2. On one hand you have nukes but on the other you have modern warfare with SAMs, jet aircraft, space rockets, assault rifles, cruise missiles, electric submarines, helicopters and more.
    6
  3.  @asasas9146  Plus the Germans didn't have the manpower to allocate the 100,000 men that the scientists requested. The German war machine instead diverted these men to other areas. The Allies on the other hand had the luxury of not fighting a major land war and being able to allocate 100k+ men to these projects.
    5
  4.  @richardvernon317  You're wrong with the helicopter bit, the first helicopter was the Focke-Wulf Fw 61
    3
  5.  @richardvernon317  Sure but it seems to be a stretch to add more conditions on what qualifies as a first lol
    3
  6. I dunno, Churchill did seem to take the V2 program seriously. Had the war gone differently as he says "when all the preparations being made on the coasts of France and Holland could be examined in detail, in scientific detail, that we knew how grave had been the peril, not only from rockets and flying-bombs but from multiple long range artillery which was being prepared against London. Only just in time did the Allied armies blast the viper in his nest. Otherwise the autumn of 1944, to say nothing of 1945, might well have seen London as shattered as Berlin."
    1
  7. "you know your stuff but everything you said is wrong" huh.
    1
  8. Hitler didn't want war with Britain. After all the events of 1939 by late August he was resigned to war if the British chose to declare it, which they did. Had Hitler got his way there wouldn't have even been war with Poland. It was the British intervention in German-Polish negotiations and subsequent encirclement policy which led to war. If you don't blame Germany for attacking Belgium then you have even less reason to blame Germany for WW2. Even if we stick to ignorant opinions like "Germany only invaded Poland to get their territory back".
    1
  9.  @fizban5959  Hitler may have wanted a future war with Russia but that doesn't change how the war actually started IOTL. Not to mention war with Russia was probably a goal of Wilhelm at some point too. Drag Nach Osten was championed by numerous Germans.
    1
  10.  @fizban5959  I recommend these books to you on the political background of WW2: "March 1939: The British Guarantee to Poland" by Simon Newman "Britain, Poland and the Eastern Front" by Anita Prazmowska "The Dark Heart of Hitler's Europe" by Martin Winstone "German Diplomatic Relations 1871-1945: The Wilhelmstrasse And the Formulation Of Foreign Policy" by William Young "Eastern Europe and the Origins of the Second World War" by Anita Promowska "Germany, Poland, and the Danzig Question" by Rashid A Holloway They all go over roughly the same jist. Germany wanted to sort it's problems out with Poland (i.e. Danzig), but it was Britain that was greatly concerned about Germany becoming so powerful in Europe who needed to prevent Germany from becoming so powerful, and the only way they could do this was with war, a war that Germany did not need in order to becoming politically powerful in Europe.
    1
  11. They might not have been mass produced (I dunno, maybe because Germany was losing the war and being bombed into oblivion) yet they still produced the technology. Hence the argument being they were technologically superior. Weather or not they had the ability to mass produce or make these creations effective.
    1
  12.  @rankoorovic7904  I don't see how production numbers relate to technological advancement really. You can make the same arguments with contemporary tech. Are 10,000 Intel Celeron processors better than a Ryzen Threadripper 3990X ?
    1
  13. Yeah this seemed a poor video by TIK standards. He just dismisses SAMs, cruise missiles, space craft etc. as "just rockets". And not the futuristic pioneering technologies that are still used today.
    1
  14.  @collinwood6573  nah its like being 2nd in a race and saying "I was the first to use nike shoes"
    1
  15. Germany: Ahead in technology and research UK: Ahead in lies and deception. Yep, can confirm as a brit myself.
    1
  16. and how much of it is simply by not being bombed into oblivion, being in a major land war or not defeating the USSR in 1941/42 ?
    1
  17. To me it's about who invents the technology first, regardless of weather they were perfected and mass produced. In that case Germany wins. Alliedboos then talk about these technologies being perfected, which, when you're not fighting for survival like America in the 1940s. You can easily allocate 100,000+ men to the projects to develop technology fully. As I mention, had the USSR been defeated in 1941 then Germany too would have been able to allocate 100,000 men for the proper development of cruise missiles, space craft, Surface to Air missiles and so on.
    1
  18.  @jamessnee7171  No I know full well along with anyone who watches a TIK video that the German army wasn't fully equipped with jet aircraft and assault rifles (obviously). But the argument is that they had better technology. However I realize I mostly think in terms of the cutting edge futuristic technology without taking much into account of widely used technology such as Piston aircraft or tanks that were widely used.
    1