General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About
Seven Proxies
Military History Visualized
comments
Comments by "Seven Proxies" (@sevenproxies4255) on "Stalingrad: Chances for a Breakout?" video.
A fighting chance with the risk of death is always preferable to certain death.
616
Who needs high defensive walls, when your cities and factories are surrounded by huge stretches of muddy land for an invasion force to exhaust themselves on the road to their objectives? All you need to do is set up artillery and keep the QRF on stand-by.
81
transylvanian : What a load of crap. The soviets even worked their own citizens to death in gulags. Why on earth would they treat enemy troops any better?
78
transylvanian : Sounds to me like you're thw victim of pro-soviet propaganda. It's obvious youre pining back for the days of "the glory of the soviet union" more than anything. A pinko commie in other words.
47
@ignacejespers8201 : I would argue that capturing and securing the Caucasus oil fields was not only NOT pointless, but absolutely necessary for the german war effort to continue the war. So saying that all of Operation Barbarossa was meaningless isn't entirely true. That said, too much emphasis was placed by Hitler and the german high command on capturing strategically irrelevant cities like Stalingrad. All that manpower and resources would've been better used in capturing the oil fields and get them running to serve the german war effort rather than the soviet war effort.
43
transylvanian In western penal labour systems, convicts were not purposefully worked to death or put through starvation on purpose like the barbaric soviets did. People also weren't sent to penal labour for the mere act of disagreeing with the ruling communist party, like the vile, disugsting soviets did. What's next? Are you gonna tell me that the Holodomor was just "an accident"?
39
transylvanian : Ever heard about the Katyn Massacre? The victims in that were not nazi germans, but polish officers and soldiers. Are you gonna claim that poles would defend or buy into a nazi narrative just because they hate the soviet union?
35
Aye. But like Napoleon, Hitler seemed to believe that taking an enemy capital was somehow important. But unless the capital is also a main producer of oil, tanks and planes, taking it is meaningless.
20
@redbaron2829 : At that time it was pointless. Railway hubs and supply lines are only really useful if you've got something to transport. If the germans had first captured and held the oil fields, the clock would be ticking for the Soviets because they would be faced with a prospect of severe fuel shortage, while the germans in turn would've secured a fuel source for themselves. It would've been logical to capture the caucasus oil fields first and THEN go after railway hubs and port cities slong the volga river.
12
ManilaJohn01: I disagree. Capturing and holding oil fields is a more simple task than capturing and holding an entire city. The germans were actually in the process of capturing them during Operation Edelweiß (so they had already arrived in the region, in opposite to your conclusion that the germans didn't have the strength to get there). But the effort had to be abandoned since the soviet Operation Little Saturn threatened to cut the german forces off from the rest of their forces. So we have here two situations of germans getting or risking getting cut off and surrounded: Stalingrad and the Caucasus. One of the objectives would've denied soviets of oil, which they desperately needed while also supplying the german war effort with much needed oil. The other objective would, at best, serve as a railway and transport hub. One was significantly easier to capture and hold (since the germans had already made an initial success in the region). The other was far too difficult to capture and hold, and also lead to the german forces getting surrounded and cut off. If the germans had instead allocated the resources and logistics that were sent to capture Stalingrad to fortify the Caucasus oil fields (both the fields themselves, and the supply routes in and out of the region) the germans would probably have been in a much more favorable position than they would have trying and failing to capture a city of much lesser strategic importance at that point in time compared to the oil fields.
6
@jmbpaz Tell me, how much of their private property and "comparative advantage" were the kulaks entitled to in the Soviet Union? ;)
4
@jmbpaz Imagine thinkig free trade can ever be a reality in a society where private property is banned...
3
@thedave8097 : Interesting. At other times it seemed that Hitler often overruled the military high command and their decisions, but not this time.
3
@jmbpaz If communism could actually succeed, why would they be concerned with an embargo? Why is the "anti-capitalist" and "anti-free trade" dependant on commerce and trade with other nations?
2
@jmbpaz Yes I do. And I also understand that Marx predictions of how societies would develop were utterly wrong. Yet idiot commies like you still take his word as gospel. While pathetically dismissing every example of practical communism (leading to mass deaths, starvation, suppression of civil liberties etc.) with "But that wasn't REAL communism".
2
David Uivarosi: Well with such a humiliating defeat in Stalingrad at the hands of one of the generals acting on their own, in opposition to Hitlers demands, I can see why he would lose trust in them.
1
But then again, wasn't it Halders initiative to march towards Stalingrad in the first place?
1