Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Dear Nigel Askey - Your Article about me is WRONG
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 сер 2020
- In 2017, historian Nigel Askey wrote an article "refuting" me and two of my videos. So, here is my rebuttal of his article. Because of the views expressed in his article, many have concluded that I "deliberately" "distort history" and am just plain "wrong" since a "published" historian said so. Apparently, they ALL believe the propaganda that the German Wehrmacht soldiers of WW2 were super-human-wonder-warriors FROM SPACE. Well, I hope those who practice r/BadHistory are watching this and are learning that their Wehraboo and Tankie/Socialist narrative doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
This video was edited by Terri Young! Need a Graphic Designer? Check out her website here: www.terriyoung...
- - - - -
📚 BIBLIOGRAPHY / SOURCES 📚
Nigel Askey's Article about me and my videos (PDF): www.operationb...
Another copy of the Article: drive.google.c...
Askey, N. "Why the presentation ‘The Numbers Say it All: The Myth of German Superiority on the WW2 Eastern Front’ is misleading." PDF Article 2017.
Dupuy, T. "Numbers, Predictions & War: Using History to Evaluate Combat Factors and Predict the Outcome of Battles." Bobbs-Merril Company, 1979.
Evans, R. “In Defence of History.” Granta Books, Kindle.
Glantz, D. & House, J. “When Titan’s Clashed.” University Press of Kansas, 2015.
Halder, F. “The Halder War Diary 1939-1942.” Presidio Press, 1988.
Liedtke, G. “Enduring the Whirlwind: The German Army and the Russo-German War 1941-1943.” Helion & Company LTD, 2016.
Lopukhovsky, L. & Kavalerchik, B. "The Price of Victory: The Red Army's Casualties in the Great Patriotic War." Pen & Sword Military, Kindle 2017.
Mises, L. "Theory and History: An Interpretation of Social and Economic Evolution." Liberty Fund, 2005. (Original 1957.)
Newton, S. "German Battle Tactics on the Russian Front 1941-1945." Schiffer Publishing Ltd, 1994.
TIK, “The Numbers Say it All | The Myth of German Superiority on the WW2 Eastern Front,” • The Numbers Say it All...
Shostak, F. “Forecasting: The Model Solution,” mises.org/libr...
Full list of all my sources docs.google.co...
- - - - -
📽️ RELATED VIDEO LINKS 📽️
National Socialism was Socialism | Destroying the Denialist Counter Arguments • Hitler's Socialism | D...
Your Perception of the WW2 Eastern Front is Wrong • Your Perception of the...
The Numbers Say it All | The Myth of German Superiority on the WW2 Eastern Front • The Numbers Say it All...
BATTLESTORM STALINGRAD S1/E1 - The 6th Army Strikes! • BATTLESTORM STALINGRAD...
History Theory 101 • [Out of Date, see desc...
- - - - -
⭐ SUPPORT TIK ⭐
Want to ask a question? Please consider supporting me on either Patreon or SubscribeStar and help make more videos like this possible. For $5 or more you can ask questions which I will answer in future Q&A videos. Thank you to my current Patrons! You're AWESOME! / tikhistory or www.subscribes...
🔔 Subscribe for more History content: / @theimperatorknight
⏲️ Videos EVERY Monday at 5pm GMT (depending on season, check for British Summer Time).
- - - - -
ABOUT TIK 📝
History isn’t as boring as some people think, and my goal is to get people talking about it. I also want to dispel the myths and distortions that ruin our perception of the past by asking a simple question - “But is this really the case?”. I have a 2:1 Degree in History and a passion for early 20th Century conflicts (mainly WW2). I’m therefore approaching this like I would an academic essay. Lots of sources, quotes, references and so on. Only the truth will do.
This video is discussing events or concepts that are academic, educational and historical in nature. This video is for informational purposes and was created so we may better understand the past and learn from the mistakes others have made.
Now I understand - Russia defeated Germany because they had better Mathematicians
Russian mathematicians were so good, the highly educated German soldiers dropped their guns and gladly surrendered to the Russians so they can be educated.
And really cold weather.
@@thomastroxel2267 Yes, they calculated, that they need thick warm underpants.
Igor Shafarevich Moment
not only that but also defining factor was that russians barely ever defended. It was all attack attack attack slap the flag on the Reichstag
Damm, tik fought back harder than the people in my basement
I enjoy dark humour, have a heart
I hope you actually feed them.
He's a WW2 military historian, OFCOURSE he likes dark humour! xD
@@rune.theocracy dont worry they got food
@@toastytoast9800 once a week?
"The Lanchester square law" is awesome, according to Mr. Askey
Too bad for us Americans that the Vietcong was totally unaware of such law. And bad for the Soviets also that the Afghans were totally ignorant of such law. They both won both wars against superior manpower, armament, logistics, propaganda...
Wait a minute... probably the Lanchester square Law works backward!
No, they simply ignored the Lanchester Square Law, making them criminals in Lanchester.
So the Vietcong winning against a superior force disproves german winning against a superior force? What are you saying here?
@@donaldhysa4836 I think he just used them as example as to why the Lanchester square law is rubbish and Nigel Askey using it is dishonest at best and just plain stupid at worst...
@@NoFlu Its a better explenation than germans inflicted twice the amount of loses while being outnumbered 3 to 1 just because and didn't poses any superiority whatsoever
Apparently, you do not understand Lanchester's square law.
It says that the outcome of a particular type of battle is determined by the relative force effectiveness coefficients for each force by the square of their numbers.
This means that all other things being equal, the Afghans would win. Also the Viet Cong.
Of course, not all other things were equal. The US Actually defeated the Cong. And the Soviets militarily dominated the Afghans as long as the US was not involved.
However, Lanchester equations are not about guerilla warfare. They are conventional force-on-force models where both sides are in forward-moving battle. They do not model unconventional warfare.
With all due respect, someone being "pro-Soviet" or "pro-German" in this context expresses a weird sickness. Both regimes were odious. Anyway, many thanks to TIK for savaging this critic.
@@foto21 What are you saying "whatever" to? That both Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia were odious?
Also, in the physical/real world, as distinct from the UA-cam world run by tech billionaires, you need to support claims like "this guy is a right wing racist" with some evidence. Do you happen to have any? I've not watched a ton of "Tik", but I've never caught the stench of racism on him. Also, were he a racist, could we not fairly assume that UA-cam would shut him down? Or is "racism" just a meaningless stand in word for you to equal "what I don't happen to like?"
He does seem like an obsessed dude, and I think he reads this stuff aggressively/voraciously. I've heard him quote Kershaw at length, for instance. Where is he trying to "revise" the historiography here? Are you subtly calling him a holocaust denier or something?
Finally, and unrelated, is "right wing racism" more terrible than leftist "Jews are rootless cosmopolitans" racism? Just asking
Sorry to say that I've had to remove that guy you were replying to for harassment. He's been mass-flagging my videos and accusing me of Holocaust Denialism, despite the fact that I've done several videos on the Holocaust that counter Holocaust Denialism. I don't like banning people from the channel (he is the 4th person ever), but when he's trying to get the videos and channel banned via false and baseless accusations, I think he's crossed the line.
@@TheImperatorKnight Hey no skin off my nose, brother. Keep up the great work.
This "foto" psycho raises an interesting quandary for content producers, I think. It's not obvious when you shut people down, as even "beacons of bullshit" offer value in a perverse way. Do you let them continue to vent nonsense, safe in the knowledge that the vast majority of people recognise idiocy when they see it, or shut it down? It's a continuum between "free speech absolutism" and "intolerance of any small deviation from the orthodoxy."
Given that psychos are small in number, but make a huge splash, you've probably placed your flag in a reasonable spot on that continuum. Four people banned for a channel of this size sounds about right.
Anyway, Happy New Year (I don't know when we're supposed to stop wishing that...July?) and keep it up.
PD
@@TheImperatorKnight oh so that's why I try to open some comments and they don't show up. It all comes together. (on general youtube content, not just yours)
But buttt……we fought wrong enemy😔
As a History buff I am super excited to find this channel. It was recommended on a gaming stream. UA-cam's algorithm tried its best to hide this channel, but they failed. Fuck UA-cam censorship.
Glad to have you on board! Yes, UA-cam really doesn't like this channel for some reason... I think it's because I'm covering some topics that they don't want on the platform, even though they don't outright say that they don't want them on the platform.
@@TheImperatorKnight UA-cam does not want anything on it that has any kind of violence associated with it. But they can't come right out and say history is violent and so can't be on it.
By the way TIK I have been following you form the get go. you have put out so much that I can't keep up with it all. I loved the ones on the war in No Africa. I got into WW2 while stationed in Germany in the barracks Rommel's troops used for training before and during the war. Tried to find out who lived in the room I did but those records were gone. Had room mate into war board games. We played a lot of them the winter of 69. it is fuckin; cold in Baumholder and I come from outside Syr NY. Still love to play those old board games. Ya the computers are nice but I have a 16' x 4' gaming table and play with 254 to 1 replicas. Have at least 10 of every tank, assault gun, tank destroyer, car, truck, trans, arty and even over 3000 men with every weapon used. It as taken me 50 yrs to collect all these and I still add to them every now and then. Have a few other old men who like to play. when we all get together we can get a command structure down to sgts. going.
I have even taken the time to paint them right down to unit # and cymbiles. What else do you do when you live in upstate NY and don't like playing in snow in the winter.
@@TheImperatorKnight Tik you have made a mistake at 10:24 in this video.. Correction: The British were able to hold their ground at Battle of Rorke's Drift and won. . The battle you are thinking of is the Battle of isandlwana in 22 January 1879 were 1,300 british troops were killed by the ZULUS
FascistTube
@@TheImperatorKnight they demonitorise and hide most history channels for some reason
Media:TIK is bad
Us: But is this really the case?
LMAO -- This case for me is gonna need to be divided up into 20minute sections throught out the week, just noticed an hour n half long lol
@@MarkVrem A small price to pay for salvation
Sometimes. But aren't we all.
Media? Oh, yeah, I remember watching news and reading newspapers on TIK being accused for bias. As a matter of fact, Putin and Trump don't speak anymore because of their disagreement on TIK's videos.
“Consooom Nazi propaganda. Reject modern historical analysis.”
I had a very short conversation with Askey. He was arrogant and very assuming. In his mind, he is the only one who has ever read a book on the Eastern Front and has any knowledge of anything to with the EF. Then he blocked me, of which I could care less, but it does go to show more of his character.
But, but.. he's published! Lol, I can't wait for the "publish or perish" types to... well, perish.
Sorry for your loss. I hear your not missing much. The other day,...someone asked me what an Ass Key was. It took me by surprise. I'm pretty sure I still have no answer. ...God bless.
couldn't-care-less*
Its becoming clear that these people are not historians, they are activists. Thank you TIK!
It's probably a combination of different factors. A reliance on outdated information, a possible political bias against Marxism, a possible political preference towards National Socialism, and/or most likely a romanticized view of the war as so many people have come to adopt.
@@mrmcscrub9753 a good ole fashion genocide to warm ones heart...
Activist few fight for real stuff and rest of them only for money
historians can be stupid fcktarded as others is well ha. critical none biased thinkers is correct term
And tik isnt? So much wrong in this vid I cant even be bothered lmfao (historian btw)
The title of the video should've been: "DEMOLITION", but that may have been too on the nose :)
Why dont you have a tick???? Great channel btw
Nice to see that the UA-cam historical community is so friendly with each other
@@ivanvoronov3871 When someone is wrong, they are wrong. Nothing wrong with saying it.
@@bamaretiredgruntscottb.6533 Exactly. I enjoyed every bit of it too.
Nice to see you here
For people who supposedly hate Nazis these “experts” hold them in very high regard.
It's strange that, isn't it :)
Let's try "democratic socialism", because socialism has always been implemented wrongly. Image someone suggesting to try fascism again...
Who said German soldiers were supermen? Troops were liberally given amphetamines etc. So , I'm sure they FELT like supermen, and many of them fought better because of that. Really simple historical facts, which any idiot can find out within a couple of minutes!
@@TheImperatorKnight Also posted elsewhere here but just in case: The World War Two channel hosted by Indy Neidell for some reason called Your video about how A.H. was a socialist in the comment section quote:"abomination of a video, full of nonsensical anti-epistemological drivel" although they did not prove any of Your arguments wrong. Perhaps they are marxist leaning. The video that they did on the same subject was very sketchy to say the least.
@Demo Graphics >kills Socialists and leftists
>privatizes the companies
Rightards: "OMG NAZI GERMANY WAS SOCIALIST"
After looking into this Nigal Asky character, you have pretty much pissed all over his life's work
Sounds like he deserves it.
I noticed you didn't say "Inappropriately" pissed all over his life's work. So, you simply noticed something,.....which isn't specifically bad enough to really care about. ...right?
Absolutely
Perhaps his life's work was a suitable urinal
"The Germans were, superhuman wonder-warriors, FROM SPACE!"
-TIK, 2020
The German soldiers were also 12 feet tall, 5 times stronger than normal humans. They could knock out a tank with their bare fist.
Really? I would have thought that to include "Longer Lifespans". ....guess not. Oh well, it's still "Something".
With echo. Remember the echo.
Everyone gangsta until german soldier starts smashing tank with his fists
I'm thinking that we were in Vietnam from like 1962-1975. And we didn't win. Possibly the little Vietnamese are Super Humans from Outer Space???
The idea that the almost infinite number of variables in any battle or war can be boiled down to an equation is crazy. Strange how many supposedly clever people seem to have taken it seriously.
The Prussian theoreticians included a number of random and semi random factors which they called 'friction'
I wonder if Askey has ever wondered why wargamers roll dice
@@JosephAvenetti You describe me perfectly.
"The defender is at a disadvantage"
says Nigel Askey after failing to defend outdated German sources.
By outdated German sources I hope you mean memoirs aswell as Kurowski-type literature and not primary German sources(like casualty reports)...
@@33z6i6 if you realy take primary german source at face value i have a bridge to sell you... because guess what, even those are often falsified, forged, played up, played down etc. You cant even figure out China's REAL economic size TODAY either for this very reason - you can take the official statistics at face value if you want, but everyone know to those are nothing more than a bold faced lie (and im sure even the Chinese government only have a rogue idea about the real numbers, not hard numbers). Same goes for the USSR, in fact historians (well, not western ones, but the ones who come from post-socialist countries) generally agree to the USSR's gross mismanagedment was partly because everyone was overreported the quantity, quality and waste produced in the factories/farms etc., just for the sake of not getting a visit from the NKVD at night for failing to meet the 5 year plan quota.
Where there is two men and there is a hierarchy between them there will be an incentive to falsify records. No exception. An actual proper historian always have to take this into consideration (thats why TIK is so high on the "but is this really the chase" phrase). No simple source is ironclad, because all sources (primary or secondary, or in this chase casualty reports for example) made by humans. The only unquestionable source in this regard is material evidences (if something say a battler took place here and you find a ton of artilery shell in the ground, you can safely conclute to a battle indeed took place there). Or a time machine, so we can check the historical events personally, which im not aware of existing as of yet...
LOL :-D Ahahaha
i just love his cool calm logical reasoning as he dismantles these people
Raaampaaage!!!!
He's literally a Keynesian historian, they exist now.
I feel kinda sorry for Mr. Nigel Askey.
It's hard to recover from such a destruction.
Except Nigel first slandered and then went on to spew non stop conflicting arguments, of his own. His understanding of basic conflict is questionable. He essentially, asked for it...
@wakenbaker-uk if you grab a tiger by the tail, you better had a plan to deal with its teeth.
Some of Tik's political opinions are well debatable opinions, but his documentary style videos are some of the most solidly researched videos on ww2 ever created. He's a brilliant historical presenter, and the people who ignore the facts are idiots.
I think the point of this video is that you can counter argument everyone, but should approch It in a nice & correct manner, you can't simple go and say you are wrong and you serve an agenda, etc etc
True, but his political opinions are excellent.
This, I think that his economic opinions are incorrect but I think it's clear that they are just opinions, so they can and should be disregarded.
His history works seem solid and logical, not opinion but observations, they aren't contaminated by his economic opinions (only a little bit, like him thinking that a free market would have been better for Austria-Hungary during WWI) so I'll continue to watch him until his quality declines or he stops putting out content.
@@ScamallDorcha The Austrian economic views which TIK favours, including the works of Menger, von Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard are the only serious and consistent economic views that are supported by logic and evidence. Marx is evil rubbish, Keynes is foolish nonsense, and the socialists of the Chicago school are tedious. But you do make a fair point that TIK provides detailed and thorough historical videos without being overbearing on how idiotic Hitler's flawed 'scarce markets' and Stalin's murderous economic programmes really were. That hundreds of millions were killed in genocides and tens of millions in combat in support of flawed economic views is the great misfortune of the 20th Centiry.
I agree. He badly misunderstood Franco, and he has a very "american" view of economics. Even so his views on these topics are absolute worth considering. His research vidoes on WW2 outweight all of this though. He has done an excellent job on those.
I dunno man he makes a good point, i have been binge watching your videos and you haven't once worn a tweed jacket with patches on the elbows like all real historians do.
Had me in the first half. Not gonna lie
Fact Check: True!
There isn't a better historian on UA-cam. No flashiness, no pointless rambling, just clear and concise doses of sourced education. Fantastic work you do
Especially the lack of bias and calling out of ideology!
Yuss!
You forgot biting sarcasm.
What on Earth.. people believe that defense in war isn't an valuable strategy?
Technically they just think the attacker always has the advantage. But logically that then implies that the defender always has a disadvantage, which then means that, yes, defending isn't a valuable strategy. The "math" "proves" this "correct", of course...
@@TheImperatorKnight if this was the case, then the term "Pyrrhic victory" wouldn't exist because the attacker could always keep on snowballing.
@@TheImperatorKnight they clearly haven't been playing any strategy game which clearly shows a defender forcing a battle on their terms.
@@domagoj905 good point. Or why should pretty much EVERY SINGLE anchient/medieval army take defensive positions on hills, behind swamps/rivers and so on....
Toooo nullify their disadavantage? But if defensive positioning is bad, why should better defensive positioning nullify your malus?
Welcome to idiocracy.
@@TheImperatorKnight the flaw is in the grammar.
There is no such thing as "the advantage" when it comes to fighting.
Oversimplifying is another term for getting it wrong.
“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
― Mark Twain
Keep up the good work Tik ! :-)
American quotes are some of the most commonly quoted (because "murica") - but are some of the poorest. Please stop.
@@tommeakin1732 the fuck are you talking about? lmao
@@eeeertoo2597 You'd think people would just repeat good quotes, but people just quote people they like - and Americans love Americans
@@tommeakin1732 Mark Twain is globally recognized as a brilliant author. You’re delusional.
Proverbs 26:4 "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him."
Proverbs 26:5 "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."
‘The myth that the defender still holds an advantage in modern war’
that’s interesting because I was just reading the personal account of the Japanese General who commanded the defence of Okinawa a few months ago and he believed strongly that the attacker needed a roughly 3x larger force in order to overcome defence in depth and fortified positions.
The 3 to 1 ratio is still the "standard" when planning.
Do you think they had a change of heart after Ukrainian held up?
I can easily prove the defender holds the advantage in two ways. First: the attacker MUST conquer the defender or the operation is a failure while the defender only has to survive the assault without breaking (so the defenders have the option of hunkering down and expending less resources to get the job done). Second: a well-defensible position can be manned by a substantially smaller force and remain combat effective for the defense. A good example of point two shows up in basic tactics for home defense: get everyone to one location which forces the intruders into an area that offer little or no cover/concealment (such as a hallway or stairwell), arm yourself, and make it so the intruders have to come to you if they wish to harm you. It's called "the fatal funnel" for a reason, after all.
"Attacking force has the advantage" - Laughs in Finnish*
Also German allied troops only had a 1:1 kill ratio... *cough* Simo Häyhä *cough*
Ah those Finnish myths again. The Soviets didn't have more than 1.5 to 1 advantage when they attacked in 1939. Only when they really concentrated forces they broke the Mannerheim line in a few days.
And the Finns didn't laugh at that time at all, after they had to give 11% of their most economically valuable territory.
And the shame is, they could avoid all that trouble and very probably stay out of the WWII like Sweden.
I would like that TIK go more deeper into it but I doubt he will, because all English sources are mostly crap.
@@simplicius11 I don't think anyone disputes that in the end the Winter War was a total Soviet victory. The only thing anyone argues is that the winter war was a bloody war for the Soviets, that they clearly were not expecting. Even if you take the lowest estimated casualties for the Soviets, and the highest for the Finns, it is clear that the Finns were very effective against the Soviets. Also I'm not sure if you got it, but this was a direct attack on Askey's argument that for some random reason we should assume that all the German allies had a 1:1 kill ratio and that the Germans were super humans. The Winter War shows that 1 - this assumption is baseless, as we know other Axis aligned powers did have better combat results than 1:1, and 2 - Simo Hayha (aka "the white death") laughs in the face of German superiority, as he was the most effective axis sniper against the Soviets, and he wasn't even German
@@styleroler5816 Agreed with everything except that part about Hayha. That's just another overblown myth. I'm not saying that he wasn't very good but these numbers are inflated multiple times.
Just to mention that his 'successes' were not mentioned in any documents of the units that were standing there, his 2nd battalion nor the Soviet units.
well i can say the same thing with afganistan since i was there when i was deploy there in 2008. we basically fighting a ghost army.
Using your degree in a field doesnt mean that you are an expert. Those who attack you for allegedly not having one try to undermine your effort. This clearly shows their hypocrisy.
Exactly!
@@TheImperatorKnight Also when are you coming to Finland to wander along the Salpa-line and enjoy some local finnish smoke sauna. Greetings from Lappeenranta!
It's really horrible how the whole culture fetishizing papers over knowledge. Keep up the good work.
Nowadays you could study history for longer than anyone with a degree has but because you don’t have that magic piece of paper and tens of thousands in debt you are less credible and less knowledgeable
The good Ole boys club. I guess they're not talking any new members.
Idk who would ever think a mathematical equation can predict the outcome of a battle. Doesn’t the famous saying go that no plan survives contact with the enemy?
@@felixknight2278 "Everybody had a plan until they got punched in the mouth". But yeah. He was paraphrasing
Eventually they will be able to predict everything.
@@squamish4244 yeah, with algorythms on super computers, not with these kinds of maths
@@dodojesus4529 Well of course. We're talking quantum computers combined with digital in 10 years. Not computer wargaming.
@@squamish4244 exactly, these laws/formulas are really only useable in a theoretical background not as an argument for why something was or was not the case.
What f-ing fool would think an force attacking, a dug in defender, has the upper hand!
Askey is not a "PUBLISHED" author, neither is he a professional historian. He is a former Physics specialist who self published 3 books so far and an amateur wargamer.
even wargamers know that warfare can involve more than one weapon, and that forces don't usually engage simultaneously
This is really a question in the form of a statement, but I imagine that war games generally are deterministic, that is, the outcome can be traced through the formulas in the code. Real life by contrast has a great deal of randomness, e.g. the message to attack was not delivered because the messenger’s horse slipped on a rock. Only after the fact is it deterministic (“the wave function collapses.”), not beforehand. If war games were like real life they would have a random number generator and sometimes the unlikely would happen. You would say ‘I can’t believe I lost that game when my force was superior in every way!’ But “randomness rules our lives.” (Nate Silver)
No bloody wonder why his "math" sounds like an RTS auto resolve.
@@rpaulcelso Wargaming involves a great deal of randomness, sometimes debatably too much so. The trick in wargaming is to set situations up so as to stack the odds in your favour as much as you can. Very few wargames use no random factor whatsoever, and some do model the "courier slipped on a rock so no orders for you" occurrence.
Credentials don't equal authority that is the true innovation of the internet.
This reminds me of Paul Harrell's classic "Rebuttal".
That was a very good video
That's the first thing that came to mind
@Demo Graphics Don't worry. Others always project, it's just what THEY do. It's THEM doing THEIR thing. Poor fools.
All types of people not just socialists project
I wonder how much subscriber overlap there is.
Now he thinks I'M an idiot! Now I'm offended.
Get him Mustaf!
😠 now hes done it he pissed off mustaf😡😡😡
I know, right? Those are obviously two seperate issues, both of which may be true or false at the same time. What do you expect when a "historian" who pretends to psychoanalysis?
i emailed him this simple equation
2(your ultimate historian knowledge) (142 000 haters * $0) = sucker
"The defender is at a disadvantage". Tell that to the marines in the Pacific.
You mean those marines in the pacific who absolutely crushed and obliterated the IJA in every single battle they fought from summer 1942 onwards?
@@daniels_0399 My bad, Okinawa and Iwo were a cake walk. The troops were excited to invade Japan cos they knew they could just crush and obliterate their opposition cos the defender has a disadvantage.
since the marines won and the Japaneses lost what is your point?
actually as a defender you have to split your troups and forces on every single island under your control where as an attacker you will concentrate all your strength on one unique point at the time
@@SDOne-or6vm Strategically speaking, sure. Tell me how much that strategic advantage matters when you're stuck on a coral beach getting shelled to hell from positions you can't see.
I dont know where the hell nigel gets this insane idea. The defender almost always has the advantage."oh no im at such a disadvantage in my castle, trench, prepared location, or even the tree i get to hide behind while you try to move me from it"
« The Attackers always have the advantage »
The 9 French defenders who pushed back 3 000 Italians attackers :
*We are a joke to you ?*
Laughs in Sparta. Chuckles in Finland. Dies in the whole point of castles/walls/anydefensivestructureeverusedinhistory
TIK, I disagree with many views you have, most notably on economical ideology. However, as an historian, I look with high regards your work. It is not flawless, no work is and yourself admit that, but it is honest, and this is the furthermost importance: you admit your affiliation, you notify your public on which areas you may come with biais, and don't try to hide any political agenda (not saying you have one). Many historians try to hide their agenda, with false pretention of objectivity. Yourself admited you are not objective, but only try to be, and never hide your political or ideological affiliation. This mean what you seek is the truth, through knowing you won't certainly uncover it all (for none can), at least, your intentions are sincere, your work serious. I regularly promote your channel, often with a warning to say "this guy have this ideology, but his videos are worth being watched". Your stuff is sourced, your video have a very rare quality in doing so for a youtuber (and I see a lot of "historian youtubers" who say a lot of crap, and very few who have a trully worked content), we can argue on many things, but for the most, your interpretation of the war is for me correct.
Beyond that, as a military historian, I can say it fit well many patterns on military history to some point: neither germans nor soviets were perfect war genius, and in fact were full of flaws both. This is a regular thing. Amateurs in history tend to search for "military genius" or "tactical superiority", for example speaking of the romans legions or Gustave Adolphus army or Napoleonic armies. They first forget that soldiers in war are not standardised units on a video games with "stats". They are people, and the fight they do is a unic event in history, and history never repeat itself unlike what many says. You have only one battle of Austerlitz in all history, it appear the french did won that fight, less because their plan was "masterfull" than they were actually a bit braver than their enemy that day. The next day at waterloo, they were more scarried. The better veteran troops can be shattered in fear by the most new recuits of an untrained army. Surprising things happen all the time, and sometime, even if you can explain many things, you can't explain it all. Its like looking at a car crash accident: you can have some elements of answer as to why it happen that way, but you cannot have it all.
Keep on your work, you are doing great.
@snowy the snowman you forget the british empire :D
Well, i'm not here to judge Gustavus Adolphus, nor Napoleon, nor Staline, not even Hitler, other people can do this job instead of me. I don't know what I would have done in their place, worse or better, if those qualitative words means anything. I'm an historian, my job is try to figure out what happen, and sometime for this reason it can usefull to question what could have happen, but not what should have happen.
There is no common thread in history, my all point was to say that there is no law in history, no stantard, no lesson, nothing. Just events and memories.
@snowy the snowman I think he meant Gustav II. He certainly influenced on the extent of Protestantism to this day.
Sigmen you are respectable, and I, though a fan of tik, approve of your conduct. I am no historian, but a psychology student, and even without that, I’d like to say thanks for being that way. I hope TIK reads your message for him and thanks you as well. Take care.
"neither germans nor soviets were perfect war genius, and in fact were full of flaws both." You could also say that none army of none nation were a perfect war genious - there were a lot of flaws in every army
@@LazyPictures Bulgaria acted wisely by going into Cold War mode right from the start, and then switched sides.
Lanchester's square law works on Europa Universalis 4. Nigel Askey must have mixed eu4 and real life. Maybe you should tell him that your videos are about real world, not games.
But when you have numerical superiority, your army deals more ticks of damage to the enemy! And you also have more hitpoints!
@@BossOfThisGym1337 Until you reach combat width LOL.
Maybe hoi4. Where divisions smaller than 40 width are basically worthless.
@@BossOfThisGym1337 Quality + economic = 5 plus discipline
Not really. Combat width and super disciplined space marines btfo the uncivilized hordes.
Scientific researches do the exact same thing: Hand pick information that supports, not their conclusion, but their presupposition.
Anyone who plays total war knows defending is superior
TIK your a legend that changed many views and perpectives on WW2, keep putting the facts out there.
I really don't enjoy the snotty emotinal tone tbh.
Even though I agree with all your arguments it makes you seem really unprofessional...
ESPECIALLY when you read out your opponents' arguments with that silly voice like some aggrieved teenager.
Better steelman your detractors' argguments and then dismantle them... especially since you clearly have the winning arguments in this regard.
At least to me it makes you seem more insecure in your position.
But then I guess outrage gets more views - so maybe you know what you are doing.
@@oelergodt are you OK mate? You seem I dont know youtube upset/triggered/safe space searching....chin up buttercup he can say anyway he feels!
@@oelergodt I agree with you, sometimes the attitude makes me wince a little; but sometimes there is also a lol.
@@thepredator9002 u beat me to the punch.
@@thepredator9002 🤣🤣🤣
The humans aren't doing what the math says. The humans must be broken.
You joke, but this is exactly what Socialists/Marxists/Nazis/Keynesians think
Fuck me this is accurate 😂😂😂
@@TheImperatorKnight Too true...
your faith in capitalism sounds strangely familiar to religious faith. We can't climb that mountain, it must be god. We can't touch the moon, it must be god. We can't touch the heart, it must be god. We can't know the stars, it must be god. We can't know the beginning, it must be god. Eventually we will have the math to manage a society, a war, a human. This may not be good, but much progress is destructive.
@@orclover2353 Socialism is even more like a religion considering how many times it has failed.
Capitalism is not perfect but it naturally adjusts to supply/demand ground truth - that is its strength. Without checks and balances the robber barons can make it ugly - it becomes Socialism in practice with the ruling class being the monopolists.
Socialism/communism is top down directed economy - which is why it tends to fail the test of time.
Repackaged Master/Slave Compact at its base - Tyranny.
Sparta was National Socialist in all but name - 85% Slaves, 10% Artisans, and 5% warier/Ruling class.
Feudalism was mostly Socialism with Lords owning everything and the peasants/serfs doing the work.
Socialism is very old - renamed to protect the guilty.
General Robert E. Lee won numerous battles where he was defending, such as at Fredricksburg, where Union soldiers sent wave after wave of soldiers against a strong line of defense, and they were slaughtered. It can be said that Lee's two biggest defeats were results of the Confederate forces attempting to engage in offensive campaigns in the North, that being Antietam Creek (or Sharpsburg) and Gettysburg.
That said, Antietam was a battle where Lee was outnumbered at least 2-to-1 and had to defend an area where his back was against a river. The Union forces should have defeated the Confederates completely, had they engaged in coordinated attacks of McClellan's Corp commanders at different locations, rather than them attacking Lee's left, center, and right in a piecemeal fashion. Had they forced Lee to commit more and more of his men to defend more of the line he would have been overwhelmed, but Lee was able to send units to support those being attacked, and the Union assaults all failed. This was clearly a case of Union command incompetence; however, Lee had entered Union territory, his plans had fallen into the hands of the enemy, and his army was nearly destroyed as a result. Up to that time he had been very successful DEFENDING Confederate territory.
So, to say that being the defenders on the battlefield is disadvantageous is pretty stupid. Defending armies win battles all the time. Waterloo was won by defending British forces, which were later reinforced by Prussians. The battle of Cannae had the Cartheginians lined up in a defensive line at the start, but ended with them nearly massacring an enormous Roman army. All in all, it's a rather problematic and silly assumption that playing defense cannot have a winning strategy against supposed "overwhelming" opposing forces.
Nigel Askey is to history, what Liz Truss is to leadership.
"you don't have a degree in history"
So? lmao
According to Nigel Askey's website, he doesn't have a degree in history either.
@@Treblaine He certainly hasn't got one in mathematics
That's actually a plus in these times. Too many Marxist indoctrinated students.
@@Uglydisease Yeah, he has one in physics, but ask any mathematician and they'll tell you how much they appreciate the average physicist's grasp of mathematics.
As someone with a degree in history I can tell you with certainty that you don't need one to be a historian. Credentials without critical thinking is just another armor for ignorance.
Tik you hurt me when you upload and is not the Stalingrad Series
Yeah, and sadly, I was aiming for Stalingrad to be out next week, but I think it may be rolled back to the week after now :(
Hurting Nigel Askey‘s feelings is more necessary for now
@@hahayouredead1039 bru... lol
@@TheImperatorKnight well hopefully you made him choke on his croissant this time.
As I recall, the Germans are 0 for 2 at world conquest. With that said I would think they're anything but super soldiers!
I must have been asleep for those in history class.
Well, for what it's worth I've never heard of Nigel Askey.
Well done TIK, I almost died laughing at the “let the light of Halder shine on you” part.
TIK is like Credible Hulk, when angry back his rage with facts and documented sources
TIK,take it from a 31 year Special Forces soldier, your reports are War College caliber! Ive been reading about WW2 for 50 years, your in depth studies have turned upside down so many falsehoods about the war. Keep up the Great work! SFC R N SOUCY (USSF)Ret.
I figured that Wehraboos were ever so impressed with the Wehrmacht because their information sources about the Russian Front in WWII were mostly German generals. When books based on the Soviet Archives were released, the Wehraboos had substantial cognitive dissonance, and it took rather a lot for them to change, because it is a sad human trait that early information tends to be weighted heavier than new information. Love your channel. Any statistician would agree that a good unbiased sample is nearly always better than bad aggregate information.
The Nigel Askey guy's point is easily confounded. Speaks much about men but has yet to mention the role of observers in commanding positions and fire bases. Simple force multipliers that make his numbers meaningless.
Yes ----
This, there are too many factors that go into play to create an effective fighting force.
I knew Nigel Askey's article was so full of shit when he said he didn't believe about the advantage of the defender.
Prinz Heinz Ketchup the defender is not always at an advantage, all else being equal the attacker can attack anywhere while the defender must defend everywhere this can and often has lead to numerical match ups that greatly favored the attacker. When taking about a castle sure the defender has an advantage when covering 1100 miles of frontier it is a liability.
Even point defense can favor the attacker, the defender must hold that point, they are tied to it, the attacker knows where they can found, and can choose exactly where, when, and how to attack, as a result the defender must always be vigilant, where as the attacker can take their time, watch, observe and plan striking only when it suits them. Or they can bypass the defender forcing them to displace or risk being surrounded or cut off from supplies.
Equipment also factors into whether defense or offense is an advantage. Take the panzer 5/6. A panther on defense with its excellent standoff gun and thick sloping frontal armor excelled in blasting advancing tanks before they could advance to a range that could endanger the panther. A tiger with its shorter range gun, weaker frontal armor, but stronger side armor was much better in attack than defense. An even better example is towed vs self propelled artillery and anti-tank guns.
So no there is no defenders advantage, but there is a situational advantage sometimes in not being the attacker.
@@beefy1212 The "defender" has all of the advantage if he's an ambusher.
If that law is indeed a law it should be able to be applied to any war. It wouldn't tell you anything about Vietnam or any of the Arab/Israeli wars.
John Collins an ambusher is the attacker tactically even if they are the defender strategically
I did not say I agreed with that silly law that doesn’t take training logistics equipment tactics, and communication into consideration at all. I stated there is no specific defenders advantage in modern war. In an era that smart bombs can be dropped into specific windows of buildings and satellites can track in real time the movement of individual soldiers, and mobility means an enemy can strike from seeming anywhere at any time posting up in a static defense no matter how fortified is not an advantage.
As I said before there is no defenders advantage, but situationally it can be to your advantage to not be attacking.
Nigel Askey: "Even in Kursk in mid 1943, incredibly, they were mounted a serious offensive when the 'overall force ratio' was well over 2 to 1 in the Red rmy's favour."
First of all, the 'overall force ratio' in the battle of Kursk was not well over 2 to 1, it was theoretically 1.7 to 1 in the Soviets favour (780,000 vs. 1,338,000 in total) but the 1,3 million Soviets were garrisoning all around the Kursk salient extension and all of its depths and lines, and the Germans didn't attack the whole Kursk salient, they attacked only two points hoping to achieve a breakthrough... So in the places where the Germans attacked they had a massive local numerical superiority because not all (not even a half) of the Soviet troops at the salient were involved in the battle since they were located at the front's section between the two German pincers or at the front's section outside them or in the last lines of defence which the Germans didn't reach
Remember when you said something about to "concentrate at two or more locations simultaneously on a long front, they can attack with massive local superiority, achieve a breakthrough and encircle the section of the front between the two breakthrough points." in order to diminish Soviet victories? This actually describes German strategy and can be applied here in the battle of Kursk more than any other in any other battle
Yeah when he said that it seemed like he's saying "Well ANYONE can focus their forces locally, so the soviet victories arnt actually that good!", that undermines the tactical brilliance shown by the _germans_ in the first half of the war, their most famous successes on either front were achieved using their so-called "bewegungskrieg" where they would focus their forces into a local "schwerpunkt" and achieve a breakthrough..
THat's exactly why the whermacht is so famous, they had figured out how to best use their tanks before anyone else, the british and french were using their tanks as mainly infantry support in the beginning.
'So in the places where the Germans attacked they had a massive local numerical superiority because not all (not even a half) of the Soviet troops at the salient were involved in the battle since they were located at the front's section between the two German pincers.'
You claim that, but you don't offer proof. Do you have a map of the Kursk campaign, showing the locations of all the Soviet and German divisions? Do you have archived documents stating what proportion of Soviet and German forces were deployed to each sector?
@@TheJamesrocket The Germans at Kursk were not dumb, nor were the Soviets. Is that not enough proof?
@@caelestigladii It's not enugh proof - because questioning person is dumb himself)
@Charles Yuditsky Lets put the situation into perspective. According to David Glantz (in his book, The Battle of Kursk), the Germans deployed 780,900 men, while the Soviets deployed 1,910,361 men. The Red Army outnumbered the Wehrmacht by a factor of 2.44 (or 144%) on the ground. And more importantly, they were on the defensive, fighting from densely fortified positions. The Soviets also knew precisely when and where the Germans would be attacking from, which gave them a massive advantage.
And yet despite all that, Mansteins troops still managed to penetrate 35 km into the southern positions, while Models troops managed to penetrate 8-12 km into the northern positions. Moreover, the Germans had to fight off numerous counter-attacks during this time, and still managed to inflict grossly disproportionate casualtys on the Soviets. This is an unbelievable achievement, and a testament to the combat prowess of the Wehrmacht.
From an infantry sergeant: attackers generally need a 3 to 1 numerically superiority to be successful. So you need a platoon to attack a group, a company to attack platoon, a battalion to attack a company, etc. Having said that, a lot of other aspects influence the outcome.
Yeah like the enemy being superior in training and tactics for example? Could that be one of the factors in question?
@@donaldhysa4836 the number of factors is endless. Luck, weather, supplies, morale, air support, intel.....
@@juliantheapostate8295 Right right right and right. But also better training and better doctrine played a role.
"From Space," ah my coffee !
He made you spit out your coffee?
Who is Nigel Askey ?
He's a historian who's published a few books on Barbarossa. The link to his article is in the description
@@TheImperatorKnight Well , first glace impression about him as a historian is not too high..Also , i get impression he is a leftist.
I wondered that too :)
@@murderouskitten2577 well, he is a historian, what can he be but a leftist?
@@reggiebuffat well , i am a historian ( worked as teacher for 6 years ) , and i am as conservative as it gets . As is most of my friends from University. :)
Typical, the article writer seems to have an agenda to push or a reputation to attempt to build, after all writing outright lies is justified... despite the fact that actual sources are constantly mentioned in your videos for us to look up ourselves if we have doubts. (Or at least, the commentators using him as a source anyway...)
The issue with my early videos is that I didn't put the references directly in the video, which invited many people to assume I either didn't use any sources, or everything was just my unbacked opinion. Now that I (usually) back up what I'm saying with references, critics can't do that.
But I still get a lot of people ignoring what I've said, or assuming I'm wrong without having listened to anything, accuse me of saying things I didn't say, or insult me or my viewers for having such views. The other common one is to dismiss EVERY source I use as being "biased" - which is ridiculous anyway, especially in videos like the Hitler's Socialism one where I used over 100 sources.
@@TheImperatorKnight Thanks for the reply.
As far as the biased criticism goes, once or twice is possible, but with that much consensus, it becomes a bit much to discredit _everything_ as horribly biased.
In the case of the references in your videos, I started watching around the Stalingrad Rations video, so I didn't know that. Still the name David Glantz has been forever etched into my mind from how many times he was mentioned as a source.
@@TheImperatorKnight Even if you quote the references they do a Golumn, ua-cam.com/video/V0ai_TKlFBY/v-deo.html
As Lanchestercaster Square Law predicted, the Finnish Winter War was a few day's effort by the Soviet Union.
I actually think it's awesome that you're responding to them 3 years later, that's a boss move right there.
Heh, in army we had exercises of attacking and defending entrenched positions. Even with small automatic arms fire it's obvious that it's impossible to charge well defended positions no matter what ratios.
But but but - the math says so! ;)
I think that is why the USSR loved Artillery more than tanks. Most of their major offensives started with massive artillery onslaughts and for good reason. Anything to soften or eliminate defences before even a single Soldier advances to a point that the Soviets put the WWI west front to shame. Even then I think the Germans started countering it by lightly defended first lines late in the war.
@@Alte.Kameraden There was a strong correlation in ww2 where the side with the most HE power (arty, bombers) tended to win. This is because the majority of casualties in ww2 were caused by high explosives.
@@Sputnikcosmonot I read most combat causlties came from gun fire?
Proven time and time again since Battle of Omburdman, Rorkes Drift etc. ...
Those pedants on Reddit, are going to have a meltdown.
Hopefully! I have no patience for them after the garbage they write about me
The retards on Reddit are Marxist socialists, and thus support anything that makes the Soviet Union look good.
As a former Loss Adjustor for an International Transport Insurance group, we always said to "Only trust the statistics that you personally falsified !". So much to statistics then.
>Shits on karl marx
> Shits on wehraboos
Patrick meme: "I LOVE YOU"
To be fair, Gustav Schwartzenegger did fight on the Eastern Front so it might have all been him.
Now i cant help but imagine of a tall mustached man in lederhosen, dual wielding MG42s, and marching down on the soviet positions while sputing one liners in german with a strong austrian accent.
@@benedeknagy8497 it exists .it is called wolfenstein the old blood.
Omg is that real. Now I could believe the myth
@@benedeknagy8497 its sort of off topic but is there really such thing as a distinctive Austrian accent? I've always just assumed it was just a German accent. I've been to Germany and Austria a lot and never heard a difference, but then again I don't speak German so I probably wouldn't be able to tell
@@styleroler5816 there are quite a few different german dialects depending on geography, much like American English and English English have (Think California and Texas or Devon and Essex). Best example from modern gaming I can provide is that Bubi dude from Wolfenstein: Germans and Austrians said that his speech is perfect Metropolitan Vienna, and it's notiecable compares to other german speakers in the game.
Note to self: don't take jabs at Mr TIK unless I am sitting in a well stocked up H-bomb shelter.
Damn right!
If the Germans were such super soldiers how come they took so long to capture Tobruk?
And why did most of their best ones die in Russia in 1941?
People who say that the attacker always has the advantage have never played Airsoft and it shows
I would say - anyone who has ever served in the military knows that the advantage usually resides with the defender.
Nigel would be a Halder TIK, self serving narcissist
Dan I have the complete collection of the US Army in WWII. The books edited and contributed by Halder are being revised as he did not want to sully the name of his precious honorable command. He was not objective in his memory and “tagbook” during WWII. Makes TIK even more valuable with the latest statistics and maneuvers, battles, morale.
NA seems to be a bit of a tit.
But is this really the case?
Seems like it. :-)
So according to Nigel askay, If a make an army of a million men fight an opposing force of only one. It doesn't matter what type of weaponry or tactic was used. If the one man wins, he is worth a million men.
So when the planes dropped the two atoms bomb on Japan, the crews are each worth dozen of thousands of men, even the ones that just sat there doing nothing. Amazing
Hmm...yeah thats exactly what that means! If a smaller force defeats a larger ones it clearly used better tactics or weapons or training( nuclear bombers). It's just as simple as that.
Eve of the Operation Barbarossa - number of Russians in the USSR circa 100 million. Number of Germans in Germany 65-70 million. If Russians managed to produce 10-1 ratio against Germans, they must have had some cloning program.
You're an outstanding and dedicated pioneer of aggressive, in-depth modern history and historiography - never afraid to grasp a nettle or three and engage all of these armchair warriors. The quality of your documentaries speaks for itself. Stuff these hot-air blowing naysayers TIK, you are the nuts
Christ TIK. He's already dead. You can stop kicking him now
Experienced and published author with a demonstrated history of working in the writing and editing industry. Skilled in control systems design, integrated and open-system IT solutions, Microsoft products, marketing, book writing and publishing, and article writing and publishing. Strong research professional with a Bachelor of Science (BSc Hons) in Physics from Sussex University.
Thomas Linton so not a Historian then
Just because someone has PHD in Quantum Physics and invented a time machine and faster than light travel, doesn’t mean they are a good historian.
Julian, I believe you are displaying the wrong symbol for your namesake!
Thomas Linton huh
Getting published doesn’t mean anything joe rogan proves that on his podcast with those 2 guys who published a bunch of mock sjw material and it got published so ya think of that.
The fat bodybuilding article was based on quality research. 🤣
Can you tell me the guests of that particular podcast, please?
@@MrFleshcutter Hey, let's not forget Mein Kampf (against Patriarchy) :)
@@ShiftJay08 James Lindsay
So a combat soldier who has actually experienced being greatly outnumbered ( I led a patrol of 13 soldiers through an ambush of 300-500 enemy combatants over 4 km, to which the road was blockaded by burning oil tankers, forcing us to turn around and fight our way again through the same 4Kms again) has no chance of understanding what it’s like to be outnumbered when put up against the Lanchester Square Law Application. Well, then I’ll just shut up and sit back down in the designated Dunce chair and continue to watch the video so that Nigel can explain to me the principles of being outnumbered using the Lanchester Square Law system.
By the way sir, I watched your videos every day, their absolutely brilliant, informative, and you present the material in such way an old broken down Army First Sergeant can even understand. Since I’ve retired from the military and becoming disabled veteran, I now really have the time to continue pursuing my hobbies of military miniatures war gaming and studying military history. I’m currently researching and building huge Stalingrad tables in which gamers will literally get to play all the major battles in order (as they actually happened) of the Battle of Stalingrad. It will probably take a year to play. Since I have madly delved into the history of the battle of Stalingrad, your videos have been such a tremendous help and answered so many questions I’ve been try to find the answers too. I not only use these Wargames just for fun, but to introduce correctly and historically to lots of people the stories of the soldiers who fought and died in Stalingrad. I feel I owe it to all those who fought in that horrific battle ( especially for the soldiers who died there) that I do it as accurately as possible. And I am very confident I am doing just that thanx to your outstanding videos. So please Sir just keep doing what your doing , ignore all those naysayers, your all over it!!!!
(Note: Thank you for quoting many of your sources. You’ve pointed me to many great authors and books on Stalingrad which has also been a great help to my research/project. Though it has upset the Household Commander due to the large amount of money spent on my now vastly growing Stalingrad library)
Thank You for your service.
Big. What game was that ambush you played / starred in ?
How in the world could you ever think you could boil down a massive battle to literally one variable. This doesn't begin to make sense to me
Askley is like the ultimate "stat-Wermacht-circlejerker". Breaking down all equipment into a combined stat to reflect combat usability is an asinine exercise in futility.
Mr Askey has obviously never heard of the Battle of Saraghari when 21 British Indian Sikh Troops faced 10,000 Afghan Tribesmen and though given the option to retreat did not do so, they held their position and fought to the death thus ensuring the safety of 2 British forts that were awaiting reinforcements.
"Effectively, the defender does not have to engage his enemy simultaneously..."
But the attacker does? That's basically what that moronic statement implies. And if anyone is stupid enough to think this, they would never be given charge of even a four-man fire team in any respectable military unit in the world.
The defender is at the disadvantage? That is the stupidest statement concerning combat. preparation, variables such as skills, weapons, and tactical position are key, not to mention the overall strategy of the force (and not just that isolated area of conflict). Time and again, unless there is an overwhelming difference of numbers, those who out-think the enemy usually are victorious.
The painful truth is that individual excellence is a frighteningly small factor in victory/defeat. Consider the following:
Italian soldiers in Ethiopia v Italian soldiers in Libya.
Japanese in Singapore/Hong Kong/Philippines 1941 v Japanese in Guadalcanal 1942.
Germans in N Africa 1943 v Germans in Italy 1943 v Germans in Russia 1943.
Americans in Kasserine Pass v Americans in France.
In every case, the individual excellence or numerical superiority of the troops was the least factor - training, equipment, logistical supply, strategy, tactics, intelligence, morale, disease, etc. all played into the results. As TIK says, 1941/2 Germans had huge advantages in most of the above, while the Russians turned it around and had the advantage in 1943-5. To try to simplify Germany v Russia to individual soldier excellence v. overwhelming numerical superiority must be an oversimplification, no?
Soldier excellence is mostly determined by training, equipment, doctrine and morale. What else is there?
@@pablolongobardi7240 Experience. The difference in performance when one has no combat experience and some combat experience is drastic, while the difference between having some combat experience and a lot of combat experience is small.
@@pablolongobardi7240 I'd imagine combat exhaustion and veterancy/experience would be important factors for individual excellence as well. A well rested and supplied veteran trooper with fanatic morale is likely to have some advantages over say a sad and exhausted conscript with little to no real combat experience, poor training and perhaps second rate or inadequate equipment.
Scale of combat is a big factor tho. Especially early days/weeks on Guadalcanal, when both sides were rather small, outstanding action of several individuals in key postions could have had an important impact on the battle. While if you are fighting in battle like Kursk with milion soldiers around, even heroic undertaking of entire platoon can have minimal impact on the battle at large.
It would appear that Mr Askey has two main issues with you.
1. That you made a mistake on one slide and;
2. That you used newer resources than he did for his book and your video is showing up all his errors in his book.
I enjoy your content, appreciate the care you take in providing references and trying to be as unbiased as possible. Mr Askey should have acknowledged your use of newer versions of the reference books but instead decided you were wrong because your reference didn't match his, even though they were the SAME reference, just several years apart.
I had to look up Lanchesters Law and even though I am only an arm chair general, could see immediate flaws in it. It reminded me of the scene from Dead Poets Society described the method of determining how great a poem was.
I’m not sure if I’ve ever heard a more thorough and concise dissection and annihilation of an argument.
Nigel should be embarrassed.
I started as a bit of a germanophile at a young age thanks to overly romantic(unrealistic) portrayals on the History Channel (back in the 90s) of a “technologically superior”, “elite trained”, “genius led” German armed forces. As I was presented with updated combat statistics, economic statistics, reading books on the process of German rearmament, and getting more diverse portrayals of German leadership and their decisions I simply accepted the new, well researched information to aid in crafting a better understanding of the truth. It didn’t change my interest in German history and culture, if anything the nuanced truth was even more interesting than the bland history taught on the history channel. I didn’t cling to notions of “German superiority”. They are interesting, not because they were just “the best at every thing”(they weren’t and no one is) but because their successes and failures are very complex. Ranging from sheer genius, to luck or lack thereof, to absolutely ridiculous levels of incompetence. When learning history you always need to remember you are always the student. “Teaching” is merely relaying that which the sources have revealed to you.
Well, I hope that you know German history isn't just the two world wars...
@@33z6i6 yes, I Segwayed from my primary interest in the world wars to the equally interesting period between Napoleons fall up to the end of Bismarck’s chancellorship. It’s extremely fascinating how so much history in that period is tied to the massive American population that is of German descent. Immigrants that came here to escape the chaos of European politics and perhaps pursue opportunities they felt were more limited in Europe at the time. I get really deep into reading so I find myself stuck in these limited geographic and timeline areas for years delving in. I don’t spend nearly as much time a tik does and I’m not particularly an expert on anything, I just find history and sociology very fascinating. It of course all started with an interest in military History but has gradually broadened as I’ve aged.
At around 20min the best advice someone can give regarding history.
You don't deserve any TROLLS harassing you TIK. These few haters don't represent the masses that support your hard work. I appreciate you TIK. Your doing an incredible job. THANK YOU. No troll will ever stop you.
So it's a popularity contest over any established knowledge?
The attacking side usually take 3 time more casualties than the defending one .
The high casualties of the Soviet Red Army include many factors .
1.Their commander in chief was purged just a few years ago .
2.They lack the awareness of the incoming attack .
3.Confusion from Stalin and other commanders .
4.They was destroy by blitzkrieg tactics .
5. It's hard to deny that the Germans was better equip and overall better organized .
Note: Sorry if my English is bad , I just want to point out how stupid it is to think that the Germans soldiers are superior to the Russians , command structure itself plays a major role in any conflict .
If the attackers have the advantage if they have numerical superiority why dont just use all their frontline troops and punch through The Maginot line with fewer troops and poorly trained
French second rated infantry divisions .
They weren't super saiyans only because Heinrich Himmler couldn't find the DragonBalls in time.
Man you one of the most passionate openminded historian I meet. This channel is gold. :)
I know of NOBODY - who has done more to clear the purposely muddied waters in the deep Well of History
than the TIK ! - Thank You and keep up the good work.
TIK reccommends Glanz. He did a lot.
@@yochaiwyss3843 - Yes ! - & I would NOT have ever gotten to Glanz but for the TIK
I thought basic military theory stated that an attacker needed at least a 3 to 1 advantage to have a good chance of success (assuming equal quality). This isn't just numbers of troops but also force multipliers like artillery support, etc.
It does.
As an American I find it disconcerting to be discussing WWII and having "America" referred to as "America" rather than "The Yanks".
I feel bad for older historians who had to rely on people like Halder for their information and did not have anything else to go on. But, hate Halder not Tik.
Frank Bumstead they were certainly in a difficult position, but one could also argue that when you know you only have one side's post-conflict self-justifying memoirs, and little from the other side, you might at least not take everything at face value. It feels like the sort of situation where you might heavily caveat any conclusions.
But a simple basic question is "is my source biased". A loosing Nazi General who thinks his enemy are "sub-human" is bound to be biased!!
If the older historian was fortunate they might have been able to talk to people who were actually there.
I think each source can have pros and cons. A good historian can sort it out.
The core of Nigel’s argument is that the data TIK is using is as flawed as the data Halder presented, as the all of the research that created that data was politically driven. It’s ironic that TIK is falling for same thing he rails against, politically motivated research. Had TIK viewed the sources he cited through the same critical lens he would apply to all the works of German generals he wouldn’t have had to make this video.
"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single ... argument left." - sorry for a Thatcher quote, but it's a good one
Quoting Thatcher! n Find a corner to sit in and think about where your life is heading. :) (There is a Thatcher Quote in Civ.6. I cringe each time I hear it because I think it is quite cleaver.)
Let's assume that the Lancaster Square Law works, so what? A defensive position could easily give you a 9-1 casualty infliction rate of you are defending. Try walking forward and firing at someone under cover. They will easily hit you 10 times before you hit them.
"Fiction might suit you better than history" that was pretty brutal. This is a great video, makes you really stop and think about all the "history" channels out there. Are they presenting facts from both sides, or just spinning the same crap, over and over again. Love your work, Thanks,
One thing I have to point out, its some what irrelevant, but as some one who has been in military for a while I think I can say this:
The premise that defender IS always in disadvantage is correct, or i would say 95% of times. But not for reasons stated by what ever guy.
Defender can choose where to fight (battle of their terms), but initive is always with attacker. And the one with initive is stradegically considered to be the one with andvantage. Its not about numerial superiority like some old school historians can depate. Its about initive. But, that can be blown away IF defender truly has picked a place and conditions that nullify attackers initive. Also atacker Has to know, somewhat where the defender is going to be. But in classic scenario, defender is passive side, he Can by pre estimation block movement of enemy and deny some methods from him, by use of selecting position for himself, mostly terrain of the battlefield. But even unbreakable defensive fortifications, clever tactics can be beaten by skilled commander of the atacker IF he uses his initive right.
But, back to video itself. I have to admit. There is times when I want to disagree with You Tik regarding this or that in topics that you have chosen, but your use of sources, logic and evidence is just too good to left anythingto be arguedabout. But I'm a grown up man, and i stand gladly corrected by your conclusions and i hope you keep the content coming! I apriciate it.
Ps. Sorry for bad'ish english, writing this after 42hrs without sleep, but just wanted to do it.
"There are no laws in history" - German philosopher Hegel turning at lightspeed in his grave =)
Marx rose from Hegel ans Socialism not works so who cares about some russian propaganda.//sarcasm
I agree. TIK should never ignore Hari Seldon and his psychohistory...
@@gmaacentralfounder Well Azimov also had russian inheritance, it probably its influence in his wild fantacies, not, some scientific approach.
I though about spitting out my coffee when he said defenders don’t have an advantage. Of course I didn’t. It’s Nespresso. Priorities, man.
With the logic of Nigel, wherein he sidelines every other country in the Axis I could argue Italian soldiers were several times better than German ones. And the Spanish were literally one man Nukes.
Alternate title: TIK roasts mister Nigel Askey for 0ne and a half hours straight
Extra crispy.
This is sad, because Askey's work - the multi-volume Operation Barbarossa statistical analysis - is really ground-breaking. But when he takes issue with someone, the criticism just goes over the top. Calling an author or work, 'misleading' or 'distorted' immediately assumes intent. He does this in the footnotes in various volumes, regarding both Stahel and David Glantz. (Even while then citing Glantz, when agreeing with him (as you point out!), repeatedly). History has room for improvement, which is why we can keep researching, writing, re-visiting issues, etc. The multiple volumes, and assessment of known sources, comparing them to each other and pointing out flaws, are a huge achievement. I find the near-name calling both unnecessary and childish, and an unfortunate distraction from discussion of the issues.
I know I'm 3 years late to this party, but I just found you recently. I have to say.... you are absolutely spot on about everything I've ever heard you say. Keep up the Lord's work, sir!😊
The "published" argument is a logical fallacy known as, ad verecundiam or argument from authority,