Comments by "" (@Cloud_Seeker) on "TIKhistory" channel.

  1. Apart from that corporations are political. They do meddle in political affairs. It should be insane to say they are unbiased. We literally have a social credit system for corporation called ESG that make corporations political. There is no such thing as a corporation that isn't political. Have you never heard of office politics?
    1
  2.  @kingorange7739  You can not make such a exclusion. You can make any argument against anything you want if you are going to dismiss anything that goes against it as not something to care about. The world is flat if we are going to exclude all evidence that prove it isn't. What exactly do you think what politics is? Politics is about who has power and how to run things. Office politics about how to run a corporation is just as much politics as politics over a government is. The difference is scale. Also. Wow. Do you not know that many charities are political? Don't tell me you do not know that stuff like foreign aid is not about helping people but securing influence over another nation? Are you seriously telling me that when it comes to people giving away money, there is not going to be anyone there making sure that money reaches political caused the people agree with? That is extremely naïve. Next you are also going to tell me that the CEO's of charity do not get a massive salary just like in any other corporation.
    1
  3.  @kingorange7739  The problem is that you keep proving your whole point wrong. You can't say "charities aren't political" and then just dismiss all cases of when they are. That is literally just moving the goal post. Again. The world is flat is we are just going to ignore all evidence against it. You can not say corporations and charities are not political just because you remove all cases of where they are. Why exactly do you think a 5 member corporation can not be political? Just because the ideas and thoughts are homogeneous and everyone agree with each other does not mean it isn't political. Throw in someone else who does not share the same views and is aggressive in their beliefs and see just how political that 5 member corporation is. Take a 5 member hardcore Christian corporation and add a LGBT activist in there for example. Just because you do not notice the politics doesn't mean it isn't there. There also isn't much which isn't political if people are working together. You need politics because that is how arguments and power struggles are settled. Why do you assume politics is only on grand scales and is something remote from normal and average lives? Most things are political or have politics under it. Politics is also pretty mundane. I know this is difficult to here in this age of tribalism, but most politics is not some extreme takes on things.
    1
  4.  @kingorange7739  I am not undermining anything in your point. You did that yourself by excluding literally anything that didn't suit your point. A house? What do you mean with a house? A family has politics as well. What do you think is going on when the children become rebellious teens? If you have several families in a house. Politics is involved most certainly. "A family isn’t a state, a small business isn’t a state, even by TIK’s own admission. " - That is correct. But you are trying to say that there is no politics involved in any of those things. That is just not true. You do not need to be a state to have politics. "Trying to say anytime someone disagrees on anything makes it political changes the very context on what is being discussed." - That is also not what I have said. You are making a strawman here. "Is it political if me and my friend argue which car we should take to the movies? No." - Now you are just lying by making a strawman. What did I say politics is? I said politics is about who has control and how things should be ran. Can "who decide what movie you should be watching" be political. Yes it can. However you must be in a very toxic relationship for that to be a thing. For that to be a thing it is not about what to watch, but who decides what to watch and who subjugate themselves. You and your friend is not in a power struggle over who is in control. That is why you are dishonest by presenting this strawman as if it is my argument when it isn't.
    1
  5. It only means that people have garbage taste and don't know much about anything.
    1
  6.  @ozzy5146  You assume that you know what garbage taste is. Just because you like something, does not mean it is good taste. We also have to consider that part of why garbage things exist is because they get support from the government. There is no free market. It is often regulated and many things that don't work are bailed out or subsidized by the government using tax money.
    1
  7.  @ozzy5146  I see. You are not worth talking to. You clearly can not see the difference from supporting failing businesses and activities because no one wants it, and things produced because nature is f**ed up. Do you know that humans are still animals and many other animals are way worse then this? Trust me. What you just brought up, is something produced in any society. Do not matter if it is religious, not religious, capitalist or socialist. Nature is f**ed up and that is how it is. You do not want to know how otters behave if you think like this.
    1
  8.  @ozzy5146  Ofc there is problems with the idea "markets will solve everything". People are stupid. They will make choices that destroy themselves. People do not spend money in the best possible way. "You can say nature is effed up. I disagree. The nature of humans must be correctly understood to proceed." - It is. Do you know how animals behave? You have everything from Rap3, to cannibalism to watersport. Intelligence is actually the exception. Wild instinct is the norm. You can not know human nature to 100%. Just like you can not 100% predict the behavior of a wild animal. You might have raised a tiger since its birth. It will not stop it from killing you because it is a wild animal in the end. YOU CAN NOT CONTROL LIFE. That is why things like socialism and planned economies fail.
    1
  9.  @ozzy5146  Laws do not control behavior. If they did no one should be a criminal. You don't stop gun violence by banning guns. People that use guns (such as gangs) will get them illegally. Doesn't matter what the laws are.
    1
  10.  @cryostatis3018  Depends on what you look at. If they really wanted consevatism, they should had wanted a return to monarchy. In reality however, they only paid lipservice to the idea and rejected everything about it when not in public view. Fact is that they might have held some conservative views, but they did not advocate to return to what was since they wanted to reshape society from the ground up. There is nothing conservative about that stance. EDIT: I shouldn't have to say this, but just because they advocated for things the conservatives of today say, does not mean they are conservative of their time. You can not compare morals and views from the 1930's with the morals of the 2020's.
    1
  11.  @zyanego3170  Yeah really. It was WW1 that broke them. Who ruled over the British Empire? George V. Who ruled over Prussia? Wilhelm II. Who ruled over Austria and Hungary? Franz Joseph I and Charles I. Who ruled over Russia? Tsar Nicholas II. All of these were monarchs, and their actions caused WW1. Regular people didn't even have the right to vote. In the UK men were only allowed to vote in 1918. Democracy is in itself a pretty new thing. The USA was the first modern democracy in the world for a reason. Ofc it didn't stop the Conservatives from allying with the Nazis. Everyone did. The nazis gained support from all groups in the German society. If you wanted to vote for the communists you had to pick those that created the unpopular Weimar Republic. However it is completely ilogical to say "the conservatives voted for them so they are conservatives". It just doesn't work like that.
    1
  12.  @zyanego3170  Yet people did not have the right to vote to any widespread degree. As I said. Men were not allowed to vote in the British Empire until 1918. WW1 ended in 1918.
    1
  13.  @zyanego3170  Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_of_the_People_Act_1918
    1
  14.  @zyanego3170  So? We are talking about Europe here and not the Americas.
    1
  15.  @zyanego3170  Which is still true. The US founded the first modern democracy in 1776. Before then most of the world was ruled by kings and queens. Women's right to vote is not what dictate what a modern democracy is. Equal voting rights is not actually part of the definition. You have so far tried to claim that a constitutional monarchy is means democracy when it doesn't. It only means it is a country that has a monarchy and follows a constitution. Such a nation is not democratic unless the constitution demands it to be. In fact. Most constitution monarchies today have given away their power simply because they should have been thrown out if they did not. No one voted Wilhelm II into office, he was born into office. Why do you think his inactions allowed WW1 to escalate as it did if he wasn't in control?
    1
  16. So... How much will some random movement of an elementary particle actually affect anything? Also. The study of elementary particles is not nuclear physics. It is Particle Physics. I think you do not really know what a elementary particle is if you mix those two up. We are not talking about electrons, neutrons, gamma-, alpha- and beta-radiation with elementary particles. We are talking about stuff like Quarks, Photons and Higgs.
    1
  17.  @АлександрНевельский-л2з  Apart from that it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if it doesn't work at 100%. 99.999999% is enough to call is accurate. The decay of atoms is actually very accurate due to the scale they release radiation at. It is why atomic clocks are the most accurate clocks in the world. I know your point. The problem is that you are trying to be smart when you are not that smart. It doesn't matter we do not know the exact location of an electron at all times. It doesn't change the fact your hand will not teleport to the moon or a sword will not turn into cheese. The things you are talking about are so minuscule they are IRRELEVANT to the discussion.
    1
  18.  @TheImperatorKnight  ""My point is that inflation is not always counterfeiting money." Of course it is! That's literally what it is!" - Incorrect. The difference between a poison and medicine is the amount. You are not always poisoning your patient. Inflation isn't always bad. If you inscrease the amount of goods and services being traded you also have to increase the money supply. If you do not you will have a very valuable currency, but it is only valuable because there isn't enough of it to go around. Money in itself is a commodity. The point of money is the following: 1. Be a medium of exchange 2. Be seen as value by everyone using it, even if it doesn't have its own value. 3. Be readily avaliable to work as a medium of exchange. Massive inflation fails number 2 but fix number 3. Massive deflation solves 2 but fails 3. "Deflation isn't bad. In fact, it can be quite good,..." - ofc it isn't, but it can be. Money is worthless if you need so much of it that you can't use it. Money is also worthless if there isn't enough in circulation so people can use it. Deflation isn't good or bad, same thing goes for inflation. They are neutral terms that depend on the situation. If everyone is hoarding money the money in circulation will decrease. If people hoard to much you actually can't use the money because it is all hoarded. You need money to be able to trade. You can go around using IOU's all the time. Everyone can't have a bar tab. The problem you have TIK is that you have a childish understanding of the issue. A black and white thinking. Inflation isn't 100% bad and deflation isn't 100% good. I rather have 100 bucks that I can spend then the promise I have 10 bucks as soon as someone else gets paid.
    1
  19.  @mikegillihan4546  Apart from that you fail to understand what the point of money is. Money is a medium of exchange. You need to actually be able to have that medium in your hands to be able to use it. That is why you can't estimate how much money it cost to build a Ship Of The Line by just adjusting for inflation. If you do that you completely fail to understand what economy they had, and what you have.
    1
  20. No. I don't really buy that argument. If you advocate that you can create a state that will eventually just remove itself you are one or two things. 1. Completely clueless and naive about the world. 2. You are lying. Since Marx wanted to put himself and his ideology into power I don't believe for a second he didn't understand why people want to have power. I don't think he is that naive, ignorant or clueless to think people will just remove the state once they achieved power. To say he is just trying to make him look moronic, as someone without intellect. I don't think he is that stupid.
    1
  21.  @HuffleRuff  And believing someone is an idiot and not outright trying to manipulate people is also a very stupid thing to believe. Do you really think a politician shouldn't want to look like an idiot rather then someone trying to lie to people? If they had the choice, they just look like an idiot.
    1
  22. That is funny. How exactly do you spot a "nazi" when the term at this point only means "someone who disagree with me"? So do you spot a nazi by them saying Hitler actually believed in socialism, or that they disagree with you in general?
    1
  23.  @jasonsonic1667  ? What does Trump supporters have anything to do with anything here?
    1
  24. Socialism isn't Marxism. You are confusing them.
    1
  25. But why should you ever use him? You already good a good amount of Civs. The cost for them are: Civilian: 10800 (not affected by MEFO, 9720 with Hjalmar Schacht) Military: 7200 (4680 with MEFO bills and Walther Funk) For every Civ you build you can have built 2 Mil. If you build Civs to build Mils you have just lost a lot of time since a lot of the production have not picked up speed by the time you actually get the Mils. Since Hjalmar Schacht is no longer avaliable after the Czechoslovakia crisis you are just wasting your political power and can instead place someone else or do something else. You earn more by going for War Economy and taking over Czechoslovakia, Poland or even Yugoslavia. If you puppet Hungry and Romania you also get a great deal of stuff. Hjalmar Schacht sucks in Hoi4. He is a waste of the MEFO bill and just isn't worth having around.
    1
  26. TIK. I am sorry but you take on “animals” are just wrong. Humans are not the only animals with the ability to think. All animals apart from a few very primitive animals can think. Humans has the ability to thinking outside of our nature unlike other animals. But that in no way means that animals are without thought. You must never been around animals if you think that they can’t think. Humans 100% are animals. We are biological creatures that exist within this reality. Our ability to think and reason are extraordinary. But that doesn’t stop us from behaving like the animals we are. Rage, love, envy, longing, sadness, stubbornness and more are our animal behaviors. Our rationality is often the except to the rule and not the rule itself. When you look at the average human, they are not very smart at all. Give people a credit card and they will abuse it and get themselves into debt because they simply can’t not grasp the concept that they have to pay the debt back. We are animals that has the ability to recognize that we are animals. That is what makes us different.
    1
  27. Hi TIK. Do more Bank stuff. F the tanks.
    1
  28. I just noticed a thing. TIK - "The National Socialism is National Socialism argument is superior to the National Socialism is Capitalism argument" These guys - "But who is saying that" These guys - "The problem is that the National Socialists were a Capitalists" So. Are they not saying that National Socialism is Capitalism here?
    1
  29. What are you talking about? Do you think you must be a racist to be tyrannical?
    1
  30.  @zekeybeats2927  Because Marxism does not define socialism. Marxism and Communism were international, while Fascism was national. His socialism was socialism, just not Marxist socialism. We only see Marxist socialism today because there was this war called WW2 and after that all the other kinds have been removed. Just like with Christianity. You can have several different versions and interpretation of how to go about incorporating everything into society into the control of the state.
    1
  31.  @zekeybeats2927  "Is there absolutely any real socialist value held by Hitler?" - That depends on how you define "real socialist value". Since you are clearly biased and have defined socialism as Marxist socialism I am not suprised you don't find any value at all. I guess that is to be expected when I deal with someone that do not understand or accept other people can believe other things then themselves. Let me guess. Real socialism has never need tried. "No. Does he hit every nail on the head for facism? Yes." - Yes. Because National Socialism is a branch of Fascism. It is still a branch of Socialism since Facism, communism and Marxism comes from the same tree. "He had to name his party the socialist party at the time because the German revolution had just happened and the people would not accept any other party. It’s nuts to try and say he was a socialist." - He also have a lot of left wing social programs and workplace reforms. The right to breaks and lunch was put in place by the Nazis you know. "Socialism is a left wing concept that was a polar opposite of Hitler." - In what way exactly? Fascism is all about the incorporation of everything into the state. That is not the polar opposite of socialism, but exactly what socialism aim to achieve. A polar opposite view should be total privatization and a minimialist government. Something that shouldn't work with a dictator that wanted to control everything. I also want to remind you that the people that lived in East Germany after the war noticed that the Brown flags were replaced with Red flags without almost no leadership style change when the communists took over. The citizens of East Germany lived the same way they lived under the Nazis. It means both the Nazis and Communists opperated in the same way. That isn't "polar opposite".
    1
  32.  @zekeybeats2927  Your comment was deleted but I still saw it. Yes. It was Socialism and Fascism because Fascism is just a different take on Socialism. Just like Marxism and Communism was a different take on Socialism. Socialism isn't define by Karl Marx. Socialism predates Karl Marx.
    1
  33.  @zekeybeats2927  " the only value of socialism held was control over the economy....which is also a part of facism." - I am sorry but what do you even mean with value at this point. You are clearly not talking about a ideological value since socialism isn't only about the control of the economy. Socialism also wants control of all property, which means your property. This causes socialism to always want control over society as a whole. "I really don’t understand why someone calls them self aligned with x or y ideology and then they are automatically that." - I don't think you understand what socialism is. "Every single value of facism held by him. One socialist value that is vague in the level it is applied. Calls himself socialist." - No. Socialists are not vague. To say that is like saying Christianity is vague without understanding that it has many denominations. Fascism is another denomination of Socialism. Just like Eastern Orthodox is another denomination of Christianity. Just because a lot of Christians are Catholics doesn't mean protestants are not Christians. Hitler was a Socialist. He just wasn't a Marxist socialist. Fascism is another form of Socialism. "Isn’t a facist. I understand that the whole point of this video was to slam the left wing and try and drag marxs name in shit, but it’s just silly reasoning." - I don't see you showing why it isn't. If you want to say fascism isn't socialism you are going to have to prove that. Can you actually present anything that proves your claim? You also don't understand the video. This isn't and attack on the left wing. This is a response to socialist saying Hitler wasn't a socialist. A response video to someone like TheFinnishBolshevik. The video also isn't an attack to the left wing at all. It is only an attack if you have defined left wing in such a way that it can not tolerate that horrible people belong to the left wing of politics. "It’s like saying Mussolini was a socialist" - But he was. His father was a blacksmith and socialist. Mussolini was a political journalist and wrote for Italian Socialist Party newspaper Avanti! He was a member of the Italian Socialist Party before he was thrown out because of different opinions following WW1. Mussolini was a socialist since childhood because of his father and he was one until the end. Until he made his own party, he was a card carrying member of a socialist party. Didn't you do the most basic amount of research? Everyone know Mussolini was a socialist. It is also why Fascism is named the way it is. It means a bundle of sticks in Italian. The concept of everyone is strong if we work together. "mao or Stalin were marxists instead of facists" - Wow. I don't know how you can get this much wrong. I don't know about Mao, but Stalin actually tried to implement Marxism after Lenins death. Stalin was for sure a Marxist and not a fascist. Leninism and Stalinists is two different attempts to make Marxism into reality. Did you just write this wrong or do you not know anything about history?
    1
  34.  @zekeybeats2927  "socialism does not require ownership of property. It is not required." - It actually does. A private corporation and everything in that corporation is privately owned. A factory owner owns his factory, that is private property. If you want to socialize the factory and take control of the means of production you must take that privately owned factory away from its owner. To take the means of production require you to take peoples property away from them. "It’s not even required to completely kill capitalism." - That is a oxymoron. Socialism require that things belongs to the state while capitalism require people to own their stuff. If you don't own and control your property, you don't own them. "Do you think the current system exists with no government control?" - We also do not live in a true Capitalistic society. The Covid pandemic proved that. "Hitler was a facist. Mao was a facist. Stalin was a facist." - You have no idea what you are talking about. No. Mao and Stalin were communists. You don't know what the fascism word even means and you show that here. I also noticed how you changed Benito Mussolini to Hitler. How dishonest of you. Are you not even going to address you labeled a true blooded socialist as not a socialist. At least own up to your mistakes. "It does not matter what you call yourself if you fit the bill on every point as a facist." - Can you point out those bills I wonder? What do a fascist believe. Can you name the ideological tenents? "If in pursuit of your political ideology, you murder tons of people, generally one specific group, and control the state with totalitarian ideology, you’re a facist! It’s really that easy." - That isn't what fascism is. Maybe you should actually read some fascist literature and learn what they actually stand for. You are just saying nonsense here. "Socialism is originally built on...." - Socialism originate from ancient times. Plato is among the first people that has expressed the ideals of socialism. Just want to point this out. "on the concept that there will be enough government intervention to implement an economy built by the workers" - Nope. That is Marxism. You are just talking about Marxism here. Just so you know. The book Utopia describe a socialist world and it was publish in 1516. It predates Karl Marx with 302 years. This "worker liberation" is distinctly Marxism. So no. You are not talking about Socialism. You are talking about Marxism.
    1
  35.  @zekeybeats2927  And the fascist party is still a socialisic party. The reason they split up was because his old party went down the international route, while he wanted to go down the nationalism route. Feels like I am talking to a brick wall that can't see the forest for all the trees. You are just arguing that the Fascist party isn't named Socialistic party right now. But in the same breath ignore that is what the Nazis call themselves.
    1
  36.  @zekeybeats2927  "have you ever heard of a cooperative company? Private ownership is not required." - No one also owns property here. You are only proving my point. Socialism will take your property away from you so you can not own anything. Yes. Socialism requires and strive for the removal of privately owned property.
    1
  37.  @zekeybeats2927  Well. You also believe Stalin was a fascist so your opinion doesn't really match reality much. You are just impossible to talk to.
    1
  38. Yes.
    1
  39. He also literally called himself a socialist in an interview to an american magazine. He was and called himself a socialist. Just not a Marxist socialist.
    1
  40. "The defender is always at a disadvantage" - Wait what? What the hell was WW1 about then? In WW1 it was clear the shovel was a better weapon then the rifle. Defense with heavy Machine guns caused a stalemate which the weapon of the time simply wasn't able to break. Defense might not be as strong as in WW1 but there clearly is an advantage in being in a prepared position then being attacked out in the open. There is a reason only 10% of the men survive an ambush.
    1
  41.  @piotrd.4850  I do not actually agree with that. I am by no means a military expert but there is a few problems that are fairly easy to spot. 1. It is hardly conservatism which keeps small arms fire in the military. You can not liberate a city by pounding it by artillery fire. Not even in WW1 artillery was able to win any combat. The mass shelling of a enemy did not help win the battle. You can not liberate a city with tanks. Tanks do not fight urban conflicts. Also. Tanks without infantry support is vulnerable. They are not unbeatable death machines. You can not liberate a city with Aircraft because at some point you must put people on the ground and occupy the city. The Navy can not get to a city because a battleship doesn't have any wheels. Urban combat and rooting out enemy resistance (such as ISIS) have to be done with infantry. 2. The kind of combat that we see today is mostly small scale fights without clear frontlines. This means that you fight convoys, defend convoys and fight skirmishes in and outside of cities. Often with the enemy repetitively close. To be able to unload a large volume of fire is indeed important but it must be done on the target in a accurate way. Ammo is very expensive when we talk about guns that can fire 50-70 rounds per second (Such as the A-10 Thunderbolt II made for close air support). If you just spray and pray you will have wasted thousands of dollars of ammo on not hitting the target. Wasting your ability to continue fighting a war, laying heavy pressures on the political establishment and your ability to actually fight the enemy. If you have to go back to base every 10 seconds your use very useful. Spray and pray without accuracy will also have the problem that you are just as likely to hit your own allies as your enemy. The people on the ground you are supposed to help do not want to die from the bullets of their own support. You need a large volume of fire for sure. But that volume of fire is worthless without accuracy. So as a conclusion. I do not buy the argument that infantry with rifles are not needed. Tanks, aircraft and artillery do not win wars. At someone point you do need infantry with regular small arms. Volume of fire is important but you can not do it without accuracy as you actually need to hit the target. I want to end by pointing out that the USA lost in Vietnam to a bunch of rebels with limited resources when they had total air and naval superiority. Dispute total air and naval superiority the USA failed defend several major cities in South Vietnam from attacks in zones considered safe from the Viet Cong. The Vietnam war should show you that any claim that a modern military will just roll over any inferior infantry army is not true and you should never consider any possibility impossible. The Viet Cong defeated the USA army in their airforce and Tank force without having any of their own.
    1
  42. No one went out and voted for the conservatives. That is how. They won because people didn't vote for the other side.
    1
  43. If you think that you have no idea what fascism even is. There is nothing capitalistic about Fascism. Fascisms is when the corporation merge into the state, so the state can control all of the corporation. In Marxism this is called "collectivization". That you think this is "privatization" is just silly.
    1
  44. LOL. No you don't.
    1
  45. ​ @loarmistead  I did. You are just being stupid and make a completely incorrect reading of it.
    1
  46. "Just because Hitler didn't embrace "free-market" capitalism doesn't mean he didn't embrace state capitalism." - State Capitalism is an oxymoronic term made up by Socialists. It means Public ownership of Private ownership. It can't be public if the ownership is private, and it can't be private if the ownership is public. "LMAO what is definition of capitalism??? - Capitalism, also called free market economy or free enterprise economy. An economic system in which most means of production are privately owned and production is guided and income distributed largely through the operation of markets (which means supply and demand). Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/capitalism "a capitalist society would grant these things to its wealthy capitalist class friends and strip those at the bottom of the hierarchy of being able to make any/very limited decisions when it comes to these" - Then why do North Korea fail to even produce electricity to the common people but give plenty of electricity to their dear leader? Why do South Korea that is a Capitalistic country live a much better life the North Korea and is the 10th strongest economy in the world? The people in South Korea live better lives then those in North Korea. So clearly something isn't adding up. Do you know what China was before they opened themselves up to the west? It was a shithole. I know because my parents went there shortly after it opened itself up to the west. "Anarchism is when capitalism, communism is when state control." - Not at all. Anarchism is a cluster of doctrines and attitudes centred on the belief that government is both harmful and unnecessary. Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/anarchism Communism is political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production and the natural resources of a society. And thus, Socialism. Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/communism Capitalism does not advocate for the removal of governments. It is in fact required as there need to be some neutral party that set the rules and protect peoples property rights. Do not think Anarcho-Capitalism is the same as Capitalism. They do not share the same values. "At this point he's just giving into the joke of "socialism is when the government does stuff"" - Where is the joke? It is not exactly wrong because the government is the state, it is the representation of the people which makes it the public. If the government owns a factory it is publicly owned by everyone who the government represent, which makes it socialism. If that factory produce anything, it is the government that does stuff. I just don't think you understand what Socialism means.
    1
  47.  @pavlovsdog2551  I think you forgot what the question was. The question was not that you can't learn something. The question was how REALISTIC a wargame is. If you shoot skeets with a shotgun, you are practicing to shoot bird and stuff as they fly away. Sure. You can learn how to shoot well with a shotgun that way, but only a fool will say skeet shooing is a realistic simulation of shooting birds in the wild. The same logic applies here. You will never ever have a wargame so well-designed it becomes realistic. The fact you create rules based on what you think will happen does not actually mean those rules apply in reality. A skeet might follow a predictable pattern, but a bird might not. I want to give you an example. The mark 14 torpedo the USA used in WW2. On paper this torpedo worked just as it should. The Navy’s Bureau of Ordnance thought the weapon should work 98% of the time. In the field however it didn't preform that well. In recorded extreme case a submarine commander used 15 out of 16 torpedoes and only 1 actually exploded. This means the weapon only worked 6.7% of the time and not 98%. I want you, as the Navy’s Bureau of Ordnance, to create a wargame based on your testing and this torpedoed without the knowledge of how it preforms in the fields as this is before the USA joins the war. If you say the torpedo is anything less then 98% reliable you are being dishonest as that is what they actually thought. The Mk. 14 torpedo is a good example that shows a wargame is not a realistic portrayal of reality. You can not before the event have full knowledge of how the future will be. Wargames are not worthless, but they are not realistic. And as I said at the start. Plans Are Useless But Planning Is Indispensable. To use a wargame to make plans is useless. It will not survive contact with the enemy.
    1
  48. Now that is a impressive unreadable wall of text you have there. Do you think anyone will even try to read that with no kind of formatting at all? I am just going to respond to a few things: "Was that army attacking the oil fields that were desperately needed?" - To take the oil fields they need to hold off the Soviet army. Stalingrad is literally the heartbeat of the Caucasus region. It was situated right at the Volga River that should have been a massively important river to hold as it present a MASSIVE natural defensive barrier. You can't hold the Caucasus region if you can't defend the Volga as you need to be in control from Stalingrad to Astrakhan. Stalingrad was also the railway hub of that region. If the Germans moved into the Caucasus without disabling the railways from Stalingrad, the Soviets and just supply and threaten the whole Caucasus region by pushing towards Ukraine and encircle them. You can't defend and supply the Caucasus through Crimea or by Sea as Germany had no navy in the Black Sea. It makes 100% that the army should not have its main focus on the oil fields as their job was to secure it through positioning. "The pride of the Wehrmacht was the 6th army" - First of. Can you prove that? Even if you can. Why shouldn't the "pride" of the army take the most important job and secure the frontline at the Volga river? Shouldn't that job literally be for the best troops as that is the point of the army? "Seriously, tactically speaking where would the 6th turn to attack after Stalingrad?" - Tactically. You secure the front using strong natural barriers, like using a river that is between 520 yards and 2 miles wide, and hold the area you captured. If you can secure the front and the oil fields in the south. You have won strategic positions that allow you to push back against the British in the north and in the south in Africa. You can also switch your forces for a northern attack. Just because they should have taken Stalingrad does not mean they have to push from that point. Stalingrad is a STRATEGIC LOCATION. It is key to that whole region for a reason. You are also acting as if everyone had a perfect understanding of everything that was going on at all times. You are acting like the Germans knew that Operation Uranus was going to happen. You are working under the assumption everyone knew what should have happened just because you know what will happen. In other words you are looking at history with the benefit on hindsight and blame the Germans for not having the knowledge you do. Also. Obama is actually one of the worst presidents the US have ever had. He completely failed in his foreign policies to the point he has allowed slavery to return in Libya. It was under his watch ISIS was founded. He has bombed more countries that the US is not in war with than any other president in US history. He is the president that has deported the most people in the US history to the point he started to be called the "deporter-In-Chief" by his own staff. Black Lives Matters even started under his terms.
    1
  49. That isn't true at all.
    1
  50. Actually. Athenian democracy failed when they were conquered by Sparta. It was abolished, but restored (with modifications) after a civil war. Then it was later suppressed by Macedonians, and only revived much later. But how democratic it was is debatable.
    1