There are plenty of school and workplace networks that block video due to bandwidth issues.
You have been warned not to use videos in place of actual discussion. That is the notice.
Germany could not win ww2?
- Thread starter Luciano7477
- Start date
You have been warned not to use videos in place of actual discussion. That is the notice.
Barry Bull
Donor
It is not alternate history channels by default do not have quality, it is that we here in Ah.com expect higher level of discussion quality and ability to do research, preferably from peer reviewed/ academic sources.
Barry Bull
Donor
http://www.combinedfleet.com/pearlops.htm
This the kind of detailed AH discussion we look up to in AH.com
Barry Bull
Donor
Yes, look at how much we riducule all "Sealion" scenarios that indicated the OP failed to do even the most basic research.
CalBear I have no conditions to continue this thread if I can not put my sources
I want to talk about operation downfall and you are forbidding me to use videos as a source
I'm a academic, I don't create information from nothing, I need to put sources about what I'm talking about
Barry Bull
Donor
Pardon me for having strong reversation as to how many training on making academic reference and/or citation your good self received, given that the youtube channels you referred hardly has any reference value, just like Wikipedia.
If you are interested in a good military history channel which discuss AH occassionally, Military History Visualized is recommend. The operatoe of the said channel was academically trained in history and his videos are fully laden with reference to primary sources and good academic texts/ journal articles.
https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCK09g6gYGMvU-0x1VCF1hgA
"...given that the youtube channels you referred hardly has any reference value, just like Wikipedia..."
What channels did I refer to? Did you see the video? Wikipedia is reliable because it has references to everything it claims.
I'm already subscribed in this channel you sended me, in fact I was intending to use it as a source for my next comment about the campaing in Stalingrad
CalBear told me that I can't use YouTube videos, he didn't mention specific channels.
Barry Bull
Donor
Wikipedia is not reliable given that everyone can edit it.
The problem with wikipedia is that the reader won't know whether editor/author used the reference correctly or just put the reference there as bait.
https://libguides.canisius.edu/wikipedia/accuracy
There have incidents that people with agendas edited wiki entries in a fraudulent or malicious manner for propagandastic proposes.
The most infamous example often discussed on AH.com is the Armenian genocide related entries which were often target of edit wars.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/wiki/doku.php?id=offtopic:wikipedia
https://www.alternatehistory.com/wiki/doku.php?id=offtopic:armenian_genocide
The same argument is for youtube channels.
What determines the validity of a video or article are the verifiable sources, so you can only talk about youtube individually, analyzing whether the video passed any valid information or not.
In the wikipedia you can check, because all the information has its bibliographic references.
He said precisely that "You have been warned not to use videos in place of actual discussion" , but I use the videos as a source or to complement the discussion, since the thread is not about the video in question, it only contains information that could aggregate.
Honestly, I read the forum rules, and it is very common for staff to give warnings about things that are not even mentioned in the rules, this warning I recieved is a example.
So, is impossible to me know what I can do or not.
I'm want to CalBear explain to me if I can use youtube videos has a source or not, I wanna to proceed answering the comments in this thread.
There is a lot of good channels with reliable information like Mark Felton Productions, the World War 2 channel with Indy Neidell, or the Military History Visualized
Last edited:
There are oceans of resources out there. Well researched, respected writers who provide massive amount of source material. A video has none of that. It has nothing, quite literally, to back it up.
Frankly if Youtube videos form the basis of a research project I'd be honestly frightened to submit the end product in either an academic or professional business environment.
In this case it is just an alternative history video, there is no way to have a source of something that did not happen. In the video the author discusses how Germany could have developed a nuclear weapon, and how it could have influenced the war.
As the thread is about whether the Axis could have won the war or not, I found it interesting to send this video where this issue is debated, in order to add to the debate.
I will comment on the downfall operation shortly, as one member mentioned Japan's surrender if there were no nuclear weapons. This time it is verifiable information, since the plan did exist, and there are projections of casualties, etc., and I have multiple sources.
If you judge the source to be unreliable, you can alert me again, so I remove.
Board policy is designed to not have everything as a written requirement. A properly created all inclusive set of Board policies to cover all evenualities would run several hundred, if not thousands of pages. Even then every action would get bogged down in minutia related to whether the presence of a comma vs. a semi-colon in a particular subsection of a subsection changed the meaning (I have a bit of a background in union contract enforcement Seen too much of Article 28.D.3.c.2.a type arguments , ya' know?).
If you can not be bothered to write responses, but instead expect READERS to stop what they are doing and watch a series of videos,shepherding a T/L on a text based discussion board seems to be contra-indicated. We limit images to a max of three per thread per day, and in non image threads require substantial written content to accompany every image (happily you will find this specifically addressed in Rule # 9). There are undoubtedly sites where this would not be the case, perhaps these sorts of threads couple be posted there. This is, however, an old school text based Board, and it requires posters to communicate using the written word.
Last edited:
If the "sources" are Youtube or other videos, you have already know the answer. And the possible consequences.
I keep my own personal opinion that Germany never wanted to win THE WAR. Okay, may be enough civilians and soldiers did, or at least they wanted the war to end at some point and finally enjoy all the promises their leaders made them to get them to accept their current hardships. The political and military leaders however only wanted to win battles, or campaigns. After all, winning battles is glorious, ruling the occupied countries, may be even rebuilding them is tedious, dirty work. And the home front will question your every move I results do not come in fast enough. No, rather push on, start another campaign and leave the cleaning up for your successor.
And so they did, until they won themselves into oblivion
And so they did, until they won themselves into oblivion
Last edited:
I (reluctantly) watched the first 4:40, then I stopped, because his reasoning is crap. For no apparant reason the UK government locates to Canada the 4th of june. Then he starts talking about Geremany launching Sealion, surprising the British by ignoring the peace treaty (and he shows the barges the Germans were planning to use it).
Well, that is just crap. Even after a total failure at Dunkirk, there's no reason at all for the British to relocate their government to Canada at the 4th of june 1940. Any PM who would suggest it, would be out of office very soon. There is literally no way that the Germans can surprise the British with Sealion. The barges needed to be shipped to the ports at the Channel. You can literally see that happening standing at the cliffs of Dover. This shipping takes time. The German forces need time to reorganize after the battle of France, this takes time too.
So after the fall of France, the Germans need some time (I guess several weeks at minimum, but a month or two is more likely), to make their preparations. All this time the British can see a part of these preparations with their own eyes. And even if they ignore what they're seeing, it still doesn't lead to a succesful Sealion, because if the Germans don't destroy the RAF first, and gain airsupremcay (airsuperiority won't cut it), they're still screwed. Because even if they get some divisions across, which is highly doubtful, they'd be cut off by the RN then, and will only last a few days, a week at most.
So yeah, his reasoning is crap. The video might be entertaining to watch for you, but it is very poorly researched.
Garrison
Donor
Would also add out that as of 4th June France had not fallen and in OTL British troops were still fighting in France south of the corridor created by Sickle cut and Churchill was proposing to send more, it took the stubborn resistance of General Alan Brooke to get him to change his mind. As to evacuation to Canada, well if the King wouldn't go then the government sure as hell wouldn't and as Queen Elizabeth said at the time, "The children will not go without me, I will not leave the King, and the King will never leave."
Despite the impression of the Wehrmacht sweeping all before them in six weeks with barely a scratch the Luftwaffe had taken alarming losses when they had to engage in air-to-air combat and their transport planes especially had been hammered. And while Britain does owe a vast debt to 'the few' the BoB was never as close as some propagandists liked to imply.
TDM
Kicked
I think the point is not "no videos under any circumstances" ,
It's if you are going to post videos at least set them in the discussion by drawing out things within them and discussing them. I.e. don't use it as a post in it's entirety either as an argument or a rejoinder to an argument.
So you say this is a source for your argument well OK. But as an academic you'll know a source is never just plonked down in the middle of a page, a source is generally used to support a point you are trying to make and you generally explain how a source does that and how it was an appropriate and authoritative source to do that.
So with that in mind:
1). most YouTube videos are crap, now yes some aren't but most are. Especially in something as trope ridden as WW2 alt history.
2). "watch this video" with no added context is a pretty naff way to discuss things. It's like having a discussion were you just say "read this Book" and sit back as if that has added to the discussion.
3). it risks turning an online forum discussion threads into just answering one anothers video links posted without discussion with other video links posted without discussion. That's not a discussion, it people flexing their library, or in this case their ability to google YouTube videos
Last edited: