| The cricital pages: index » Commentary on Youtube videos and comments » Anti social personality shown by how a person reacts: Youtube: PzH2000 |
2022-5-2:
I made a comment with the video Panzerhaubitze 2000 for Ukraine - German Firepower.
After that followed a few more comments and then I decided to I publish it here with commentary as this exchange is interesting in the following:
- I never liked videos from this guy 'militaryhistoryvisualized', and thus only watched bits here and there. For one this is because of his extremely imprecise/vague/slurred pronunciation of English words, which is weird for a german speaker (as German is spoken/pronounced far more precisely than say Dutch and English).
- Then I realised after his comments, that his speaking can be explained by his personality (which in German will not show so much as that is ingrained from early youth on).
Note that he cannot counter my arguments, and thus resorts to insults and irrelevant questions that are not questions but criticism, such as: "In what army do you serve or served and at what rank?" which is irrelevant just as it is irrelevant to require an art critic to be an artist. This is someone who is not precise, even though it may look like he is from quoting reports etc.
He likely gets offended because I criticise the German decision, and this criticises him because in his video he tries to show, or comes to the conlcusion, why this German decision was made (and thus validates it) rather than offer different views and ways to look at the situation and thus criticise this decision. I explained very clearly that there is no need for any PzH2000 for Germany unless Russia is involved (as it will be about a land based attack), but that is exactly the land force that is being hammered by Ukraine and will be hammered even more if they get such weapons! China is not going to invade with tanks! The only threat on land is from Russia. Also considering the Russian losses (1/3 of usable tanks gone after 2 months) and their incompetence along with the fact of being in NATO, means that thinking that these howitsers are essential to the German defence is nothing more than inane.
Here are the comments with further explanations/comments, that show why he responds the way he responds and why his responses are invalid:
WHS reviews
0 seconds ago
The comment that Germany wouldn't have enough PzH2000 for themselves is a ridiculous argument. They have a 100 or so, so why not send 50? Sure, they might not be able to send such things as part of a NATO intervention force then, but there is an actual war going on close to them, in Europe! And the actual enemy for Germany in case where they would be needed to use for themselves, if or other NATO members were attacked, would be an attack by Russia, which is exactly who Ukraine is fighting! Then to having enough of them for training: you can't tell me you need 100 of these for defence while having 50 of them is not enough for training. Training is not the same as war, for the latter you need a lot more, so if 100 were considered enough, in this situation 50 should be enough at this time up to the coming years when more arrive, while ordering new ones now. Russia will be demilitarized by Ukraine in 4 months if it all continues, so no need to worry at all about Russia soon. The same goes for the Netherlands, they should have sent half their PzH2000, the number of 4-8 just seems stingy at best.Military History Visualized
15 hours ago
> They have a 100 or so, so why not send 50? Are you 14? You also assume that all those 100+ are operational, they are not. You also need them to train your own troops etc.
[
1. "Are you 14?" = anti-social comment
2. that the others are not all operational and that they need a certain number for training is already contained in my comment (he doesn't read properly), which I thus mention in my reply:
]
WHS reviews
15 hours ago
@Military History Visualized : I don't assume that at all. As I mentioned you don't need as many to train as for war, as I stated. Then as to being ready, send the ones being ready, prepare the ones that are not ready. This is also implicitly included in my comment in that the enemy to worry about, is being taken care of right now, by Ukraine.
[ So I was quite friendly, didn't explicitly criticise him, though of course I implicitly criticised him in that what he wrote in his reply was already taken care of in my original comment, which means 2 things: 1) He didn't read my comment properly, and 2) that he didn't realise the implications of analysing the situation as a whole, i.e. from whom you can be attacked and what to send and how to actually use them, time frames involved etc. which show that I'm right. ]
Military History Visualized
15 hours ago (edited)
> As I mentioned you don't need as many to train as for war, as I stated. In what army do you serve or served and at what rank? Or any other relevant experience, like analyst etc.
[
1. As he copies "As I mentioned you don't need as many to train as for war, as I stated" followed by a request for proof of authority, it seems he doesn't agree with that, which shows he is incompetent. Obviously you need more vehicles for a war than for just training! You need extra vehicles as some will get destroyed by the enemy (and you can't get instant replacements, so you need an extra buffer), and similarly you need extra for material that can't be maintained properly as you can do when not at war, because in a war these vehicles need to be used at any time so far more are needed to deal with breakdowns, again for this you need the extra buffer, and you can do a lot of training with simulators and other devices. Further, training involves proficiency, not "we need to go all out all the time to shoot" as you do need in a war at any point where it will be useful, and the more you ride and shoot, the more wear. Does this guy have a brain?
2. "In what army do you serve or served and at what rank?" is an anti-social comment, requiring proof of authority, which is, similar to stating a proof by authority, often invalid (not always but I will not get into that here). And it is invalid here from the reasoning in my original comment, as I make clear in my later comment.
3 . Note that "Or any other relevant experience, like analyst etc." was added, it came in the edited comment and that was after my next response, so for the reply below I had only seen and responded to the first part in the following reply. I replied to that addition in a later comment:
]
WHS reviews
15 hours ago
@Military History Visualized : If you are asking this to cast doubt on my assertions, while not giving a counter argument: Uncool.
Military History Visualized
15 hours ago
I am not gonna waste my time explaining the basics to someone who likely will just disagree anyway. The whole video noted several times that no force so far sent any materiel from the active service units. Good bye.
[
Another anti-social comment. All this guy's comments are anti-social! None give any information/reasoning! He only shows that he doesn't understand analysis!
So supposedly he doesn't want to explain the 'basics', yeah right. I've seen this a lot in behaviour of anti-social people, not wanting to give arguments for some BS reason but what really goes on is this:
1) 3 anti-social comments. So he is anti-social. [ This is typical for anti-social people ]
2) He gives no arguments, and that's because he is unable to do that. Unable to properly reason and argue.
3) He has not properly read my first comment (and he clearly didn't understand the implicit consequences of looking at the bigger picture, which also means he doesn't even understand normal reasoning).
4) This guy cannot counter my reasoning and thus resorts to not giving an argument but instead insults, which I don't consider insults as they only tell me something about him, not about me! ;-) And so in the end he also shows that I was right about my "If you are asking this": He was not enquiring about my knowledge/experience (which was of course really already clear by his first anti-social comment), but exactly as I thought he simply tried to "cast doubt on my assertions, while not giving a counter argument". It was interesting to see how with each comment he confirmed what I knew, and it means that this guy is a simple rule follower: "this is how it is done = this is how it is supposed to be done". This is similar to autists and psychopaths (anti-social personality) who are rule followers and rule abusers.
5) His comment "The whole video noted several times that no force so far sent any materiel from the active service units." is of course exactly "this is how it is done = this is how it is supposed to be done". Then a funny thing happened, just a few days after his video, actually around the time of his last inane comment, Slovakia donated their entire Mig29 fleet to Ukraine, while having talked with and made an agreement with Poland about taking care of the task of enforcing the Slovakian airspace. Already 2 weeks ago Slovakia discussed this option! How funny, so they discussed sending and then actually sent material from their active service! Slovakia did the right thing, exactly the type of response that I stated in my first comment, as is what makes sense. This guy doesn't even understand such thinking, absolutely pathetic!
Back to the start: He was likely offended at the start of my comment by me calling BS on the reason Germany couldn't spare PzH2000s, the supposed reason he 'explained' in his video but he 'explains' by going along with the thoughts of that military! (the 'standard mindset' that he considers is the only thing that is good, because that is how it is done, i.e. a rule follower/user/abuser which points to an autist or anti-social personality) That is not critical thinking! That is not analysis! And when I call the German reasoning BS, of course in his view that means his explanation is BS and thus that I criticise him. Well, I don't actually care about him nor his explanation, I simply criticised the German 'justification', but he almost certainly felt that I criticised him. Well, that's his problem. He feels offended, because he goes along with a nonsense reason by the German government, by following 'this is how it's done and this is how it needs to be done', and is not able to analyse properly. His anti-social personality comes out when you disagree with him and then he doesn't give proper reasons and explains nothing. This the typical way anti-social people behave when things are not going their way... ]
I wrote 2 further comments, not for him but to show others who watch his videos that he is a nutter:
WHS reviews
1 second ago
@Military History Visualized : About" In what army do you serve or served and at what rank? Or any other relevant experience, like analyst etc.". I responded to the first, you later added the 2nd sentence. The first is irrelevant, same as that an art critic doesn't need to be an artist. Your comment was thus anti-social, an irrelevant "requirement of having authority". The 2nd is also irrelevant as you can simply reason out options and scenarios. "no military does xyz" is no reason for something not being a good idea. You seem to consider good only that what is or fits in with standard practice. That is such a limited mindset.
WHS reviews
0 seconds ago
@Military History Visualized : You don't even understand basic reasoning. What militaries do, want to do, and what they should do are all different things but you clearly don't understand that. Further interesting, you are anti-social in all of your responses, which is logical in that that explains your ineptitude in reasoning.
The behaviour of this guy is that of a know-it-all. Such people do not actually know it all, but think they do. They are anti-social and have a lot of narcissistic tendencies. They want to be seen as the authority, and want praise, not criticism, not even in the form of discussions of alternate viewpoints. His mindset is extremely simple as it always is with anti-social people (and with autists too): Rules and 'commonly accepted ways to do things' are what they measure things by, not by what really should be done. Such people are extremely limited (uninteresting) thinkers.
What you see with militaries not sending stuff is similar to what people see when travelling, and what people give to charity. Travel to poor countries and people are far more hospitable, share food etc., whereas in rich countries that doesn't happen to that extent. People who are rich are also not the people who give the most to charity, and it gets even worse when you look at the value of their donations relative to how much they have. This is similar with the military forces: countries with relatively small armed forces are the ones who give more. Germany: No recent mateiral, only with hesitation some stuff they don't use such as Gepards. Netherlands with a very small army gives a small (but more than nothing) number of PzH2000, more than Germany who doesn't have any 'to spare'. Slovakia, a small country, with a small airforce, gives away their MIG29s...
Generally the following principle applies: If you have a lot (of material, money), you don't give away much because you feel you need to "keep what you have".
The exception is the USA but they don't give away what they want to use or might use, they have so much extra material that they can spare a lot and still have large reserves. There are also other considerations with the USA. They don't give just to someone, or some country, in need, they are trying to change the geopolitical situation, whereas in Europe countries have tried "let's hope it all works out" for far too long, and still to do some degree have this mindset.
| For email go to the email page |
Last modified: 2022-5-3