Comments by "Kora Na" (@korana6308) on "TIKhistory" channel.

  1. That's precisely what TIK is doing here... And the reason is quite simple and brilliant. Everyone views it from their own bias. TIK is from Britain, and hence why he whitewashes the whole thing for Britain. There's no other reason. That's why he had to do all of that mental gymnastics in this video...
    19
  2. The thing that they apparently don't understand is that if they are the angels living in human form on earth... that literally means that's they've been exiled from the heaven for their sins.
    18
  3. That's exactly why is is juggling them. Mental gymnastics in this video in order as an attempt to whitewash Britain was on another level in this video LOL
    13
  4. Thanks, great video TIK.
    9
  5. Great point.
    8
  6. I mean what can of lies. Can you be a little bit specific.
    7
  7. Why are we bringing politics into this? The easiest way to divide people is to talk about the modern politics...
    6
  8. What do you mean by bot comments? I'm being accused almost daily on being a bot. Apparently being a bot means that you have an opposite opinion.
    6
  9. TIK I respect you and your videos, thank for them👍. But mental gymnastics in this one was on another level... 2:55 Britain declared WAR which meant that Germany had to militarize MORE now. And that it's trade routs were blocked now... It's a WAR. Britain did it not Germany!!! 1:23 "March 1939"... Except that it had signed an alliance pact ONLY on August 25 1939 after which there were a few attempts at negotiations and later Germany requested ambassadors from England and Poland on 29 August 1939 which both countries refused to do (why?), ONLY AFTER, Brits refused to negotiate. The next day Germany invaded Poland!!! Question: why was it so eager to defend it in the first place? No matter how you frame it, it wanted to start the war ... And I perfectly understand that it's a hard pillow to s. 😂 Example with the bully doesn't make sense... Because who defines who is a bully and who is not. It's a third person's perspective, which decides who is a bully and who is not... "Morally they are right to do so" who defines the morality? And why were Brits supporting Poles who wanted independence and didn't support Poles who didn't want it... BINGO!!! because it was doing it in it's own interests (destroying Russian Empire). That's where those supposed "morals" came in the first place... and if we dig deep enough... it was because they WANTED to start the war, to destroy remnants of the Russian Empire... and they did. TIK, by that logic, I have a question. What would you do, if Scots gained independence, and Russia signed a treaty of mutual defense with them vs England. How would that feel to you😂? And who is morally right here. Is Russia in the moral right to defend Scotland and their independence? Or those pro British Scots are right??? See how that works? In reality it would suit Russian interest to support pro independence Scots. That's the only reason why it would do it... AND THAT'S "morals" in politics 101...🤗 p. s. Poland as well as Finland were ex Russian Empire territories, which from Russian perspective was defending it's status quo... But thank you for your videos anyway, I love your work. 👍
    5
  10. You are correct, except that USSR didn't invade it. It was merely taking on the territories. It's a bit different, because. Germany had entered 1 of September (together with Slovaks). Russia had entered 17 of September. Which is a huge difference. As by that time Polish government had fled the country. And Germany had broken Poland completely. A simple fact (which nobody is talking about... for obvious reasons). 95% of the resistance and losses were met from the German side, only around 5% from the Russian side ( because with a few exceptions, Russians didn't met any resistance).
    5
  11. Many also forget that Poland was it's sovereign Russian Empire territory 20 years prior to that as it was essentially a civil war (both Finland and Poland were part of the Russian Empire) Russia had never stepped out of it's status quo territories. It didn't invade, it entered the assigned territory AFTER the Poland and it's Polish government had already fled the country.
    5
  12. Wow, I feel so honoured. That's my comment at 8:00 . Just to clarify something. I agree with 95% of what you are saying in your videos TIK. More so, your videos were like a breath of fresh air for me. So I appreciate your work and your response and I agree with your tier list. The only part I was not agreeing with is that something "should be ignored" (namely the "F tier"). And you seem to interpret it as it should have been TAKEN as a source with great relevance... NO. I haven't said or implied that. The tier list is important, but you shouldn't "ignore" anything, that is just WRONG and non scientific. I've already started writing a really long response comment to your objections, and it took me like an hour already, and I haven't even gotten past like the 10% mark of what I wanted to say, so to properly answer your comment with due amount of respect that I want to give it, it would take me a really long time... And youtube wouldn't allow such a long comment anyway, and nobody would probably even read it anyway... So if you or anyone else has some specific questions to my original comment that require my clarification, I would gladly elaborate on it in this comment section... Or if there's any interest on my full response to the TIK document, I could do a proper response comment too but that would be a long read... I will only do it if I know there's any interest to it in the first place... And just to reiterate I have a huge amount of respect for you and your work TIK, and I agree with 95% of it, doesn't mean that I'm not going to criticize the other 5%. Cheers, your Kora Na / Max.
    5
  13. That neodefinition is too vague imo.
    5
  14. Lol my exact thoughts.
    4
  15. haha the the epicTTD my childhood
    4
  16. The WW2 was started by Britain when Germany had stepped on the ex. Russian territories - Poland in 1939 1st of September, together with Slovaks.
    4
  17. Yes. And just a little trivia: a little known fact, both of those wars were called "a Patriotic war" in Russia. vs Napoleon - Patriotic War vs Austrian P. - Great Patriotic War. there was technically a third one, when a notion of Patriotic War had started itself with Peter the Great vs Charles XII at Poltava. That was the first time, to my knowledge when Russian leaders spoke of a "Patriotic war" in particular. But it was never officially recognized as a patriotic war in itself.
    3
  18.  @AFGuidesHD  Britain did start it, by declaring a War. Why did it do it? Literally the Austrian painter was pinned at that point. So he had to militarize more. Which'd justified everything that he did after. And it was enabled by Britain declaring a war on him, which is why Britain started the WW2.
    3
  19.  @3aToi4u  Ukranian is an artificially created nation, out of Russians. My surname is Omelchenko which ends with - ko. However dad never considered himself as Ukranian but rather as Russian. Basically Russian people were forced to name themselves as "Ukranians" after the bolshevik revolution. Whatever you've heard about the last names is completely false since all of the names and heritages have been mixed long time ago many times over. So it's practically and literally is the same people Russians and Ukranians - of the same blood and history. Last name ending is not an indication of someones nationality (in case of Russians and Ukranians) ,at least for me, it's the same.
    3
  20. There was no reason to. But ofcourse we would never know. As stated in one of his previous videos. Austrian painter had outlined himself that they would be in crisis by 1943 - 1945. So they had to do something about it. The Soviet Union on the other hand was quite content with it's borders and didn't really need any expansions. So it was on the Austrian painter to do the move... which he did. There was no reason and nothing to suggest that the Soviet Union would have invaded,
    3
  21. Thank you. That was my comment that TIK was replying to at 8:00 and I got completely misinterpreted. That was my whole point and I agree with you. TIK is saying that something could just be "ignored". My point is that it has less relevance. but NOTHING can be "ignored" everything has something worth of value to it. Since everything!!! is information. Even if you forge something, that forging is relevant, though it still is in the lowest of tiers of relevancy. However it can't just be disregarded. The more I live, the more I understand it.
    3
  22. The scary part in all of this is that the absolute majority of the people who talk about Marxism and advocate for communism under Marxists views have never read his book. So it pretty much follows on as a religion at this point. Where you advocate for something yet they haven't actually read the book itself.
    3
  23. 👍👍
    3
  24.  @agrameroldoctane_66  Nope. Soviets didn't do it. Soviet Union was acting within it's Russian Empire borders, defending it's status quo. Russia had only entered Poland (which was it's own sovereign territory 20 years prior to that) after it had fallen to the Germans and it's government had fled the country. Like 2 or 3 weeks AFTER Poland had essentially surrendered to the Germans. BUT, it was still OK, and from Stalin's point of view he wanted to freeze the borders there and live happily ever after. But Brits declared a War on Germany in 3 September 1939. Starting the whole thing, as Germany now had to officially militarize more to fight the Brits... Yes, it was Brits all along.💩
    3
  25.  @agrameroldoctane_66  I went to the history school called common sense and independent thinking. I am free and open to debates and counter points, as a free and independent thinker... But not that many people are willing to part ways with their ingrinded and indoctrinated opinions by the you know who and what....
    3
  26. It's not bogus, it's 100% legit. He was just doing mental gymnastics. I wrote a huge response in the comments, and explained it all. But I'm 99% sure he won't answer to it, because it puts his arguments to shame. Though I love TIK and his videos.
    3
  27. 10:41 Russia was not "backwards compare to the west". TIK I respect you and you work, so don't take it personally please, but this is literally parroting communist propaganda. Russian Empire was fine prior to the communist times, after which they obviously ceased the power, and told everyone for 100 years that Russia was backwards during Tsarists times in order to legitimize their communist regime in Russia. That's the whole point and where this whole myth lies with regards to "backwards Russian Empire days" where in fact it was the exact opposite. Thanks TIK.
    3
  28. As someone who was born in one of those socialist countries. I find your video very useful, thank you TIK.
    2
  29. Germany and Slovaks invaded it. Not Russia. But it started when Brits declared a war on Germany in 1939 3rd September with it's ultimatum beginning 1939 1st of September (with Brits and Poles refusing to cooperate with him 30 August, on their mutual cooperation talks of 25th of August). That's when it was started.
    2
  30. I was on board with the video right up until the 27:37 ... didn't you say that you can't ignore certain sources just because you didn't like them??? which is the opposite of what you are suggesting in this chart. For objective truth you can't just ignore a certain source. You can definitely consider them less reliable and give them the least amount of attention, even giving the tiers to the sources is fine. But you can't outright ignore them by the very definition. I can even go over every single point: Forgeries - how do you know it's a forgery? if it's a forgery what was the reason for the forgery? perhaps the author wanted to actually instate the actual truth into the text or a doctrine? why not? on top of that, I've been recently hooked into some medieval book restoration videos here on youtube, and it turns out that it's a common practice, to "fill in the missing gaps" in texts that are missing something (to the best of their ability)... So they are in a sense are forging something... And if you'd discovered that book after a 100 years time and not know about the supposed restoration, and you would discover that the actual paint on that book is only 100 years old and is not 500 years old as you were lead to believe... therefore you would come to the conclusion that it has been forged or manipulated... The forging is also an information in itself so it is by itself is relevant. Who had forged it and why? Perhaps he was recreating the ACTUAL document. How would you know? Beliefs - beliefs or religious beliefs in particular are usually formed on the basis of the actual events and the actual truths, they can be misinterpreted, yet they always take something factual at it's core. Zero evidence - how do you know there's 0 evidence? Sometimes people might even forget to include their evidence or sources, it doesn't mean that their account is invalid, or that evidence doesn't exist. Cartesian Doubt - since when being skeptical is wrong? Slanderers - I agree with this to a certain degree, though usually slanderers have some evidence to back up their claims, though I agree that most of the time it's usually irrelevant to the topic. Smearers - If I understand it correctly those are the people who go on a tangent about irrelevant points? How do you know they are irrelevant? ( if I understood it correctly). Proven liars - again, a proven liar or "someone who is wrong for an attempted gain of his personal benefit", does not necessarily lies all of the time. Or at least not in the area that it would be irrelevant for them to lie in for their benefit. There's a case of pathological liars... (however I'd still argue that their opinion could still be relevant to a certain degree). Whataboutism - comparative analysis is actually the best thing we have to get to the truth. Dialectics - again gaining different subjective perspectives, how could that be bad? Subjectivism - bias is bad but bias has it's ground too, just like with someone who is not being honest, if you know why that it , you can potentially sieve out the nuggets of truths from it. Postmodernists - you obviously can't take it as your primary source, but it still worth to consider. Magic - ? to me that sounds like no explanation and the person is trying to cope out of an answer. Spirits - same thing. Thank you for your videos and your work.
    2
  31. The funny part about this is that if it was "the chosen race" it wouldn't need to be proven about on some internet forums. It would just be obvious to begin with to everyone around it.
    2
  32.  @AndreLuis-gw5ox  Stuff that's connected to his country, not international modern politics.
    2
  33. Great and informative video. Thanks TIK
    2
  34.  @ChaptermasterPedroKantor-kv5yw  to some degree yes, as was shown by the luck of resistance. And that is the exact point. Russia didn't intervene at the same time. So that can't be counted as "invading" at the same time that's just the objective reality. And I love the objective reality and the truth. The government had already fled and the majority of Poland was ALREADY TAKEN, including the territories which was agreed to be Russian. What should have Russia done? Waited for Germany to come to their borders? Tell me? That would be dangerous and irrational. The only reason Russia had entered at all, is because Poland had essentially fallen already. That was the only reason. But it wasn't "invading at the same time". That's the reality. Germany was invading TOGETHER with SLOVAKS at the same time. Not with Russia.
    2
  35.  @Jayare175  the problem is that your opinion is subjective. Because I've only used Cartesian Doubt because you've thought that I did, and you'd classified it as such. Where in fact I did not. And it is only your misinterpretation of my comment. I actually for some reason see alot of the times people misinterpreting things, and my comments in particular, and then getting punished for it... I will give you an example from my personal experience... there was this SC2 streamer like 10 years ago or so, the rule on his stream was "Don't give me any advice or you will get banned". He was busy inside his game and got to the comment section for like 15 seconds... And is reading the comment which came down from me, where I was discussing with another guy what I was doing in that exact situation(there were only like 2 of us there). And he misinterpreted my comment and thought that that comment was addressed at him, and that I was trying to give him an advice... of how he should have done things better in his game... Which was not my intention at all, and I wasn't even addressing him, I was speaking to someone else in the comment section. He misinterpreted my comment, because of his personal b. fallacy, and I got punished for it. Now why did he misinterpret it? Because his mind chose to interpret it the way he wanted it to for one or the other reason. I've had no control over and, and couldn't react or have a last word... I got "ignored". I was forced by him and his mind into his f. interpretation of events of things that I've said. That he interpreted a certain way... which were purely his wrong interpretation of my words and it wasn't the actual meaning that was implied by those words... but rather his interpretation... So you are effectively forcing your mind to an interpretation of reality which is always subjective. The difference is the amount and deepness of a thought you are willing to give or allocate for an interpretation of anything in life. Which is right back to my point... You can't disregard or "IGNORE" any source even in the "F tier". Because your view on anything in this life is always subjective. And your subjection changes throughout your life.
    2
  36. ​ @Jayare175  That is again, only your misinterpretation of my words. Objectivity is relative and is in a sense subjective. Because in order to get objective truths you have to subject them to your views and interpret them. Your subjection or interpretation of things may change over time, but not the fact of the objective truth or reality. Which could be subjected from infinite amount of views and interpretations, keeping only the relevant ones for the moment... As in subjection is just a testimony to the reality of an "objective entity or a thing". And it's relevancy get's looped back into it's personal subjection' , so you can only know certain things with relevant enough certainty only. And that relevant enough certainty comes from your values which comes from your culture, and that is your objective reality that you know subjectively which makes you certain in knowing things from your subjective point of view... So your subjective point of view is real and is certain but only for you. So saying that you can't know anything for certain is misinterpreting and twisting my words. I am afraid to say more, because half of my comments get censored by wonderful youtube. And I'm not sure at this point what words I am allowed to say...
    2
  37.  @Jayare175  And my comment got censored, right as I expected. So I can't even answer you . great.
    2
  38.  @ChaptermasterPedroKantor-kv5yw  Again it is an entirely separate topic of what it wanted or not and it's history of Poland and Russian relations, I know more about it than 99,9% of people( literally could be going on for hours). So this topic should be set aside and spoken directly from the WW1 to WW2 perspective. Poland was part of the Russian Empire. That's a fact. Yes it wasn't part of the Soviet Union (or Soviet Russia) precisely because it was in the middle of the civil war, which had started in 1917 and ended in 1945. And ended with Poland gaining it's independence by the will of Russia and Stalin himeslf. He had granted them independence ( but took them not as a Soviet State, but as a Soviet Bloc with Rokossovsky, which was Russian Polish ( he had a thick Polish accent but was Russian)). That " waiting supplies" is 100% not true (to put it lightly). There's a video of WW2 every day on yt. It shows with a great details of how the advancements was going ( I recommend everyone watch it). Then all of the questions would disappear. Poland was defeated in 2 weeks. Russia did the last thing it could do in that situation. At least take some of the territories (which again, it had given back after by the will of Stalin... And it would not be given back by the Austrian Painter, I hope everyone understand it). That's the reality.
    2
  39. Lol I kinda agree. With more control it is easier to forge the truth. Even stuff that lies on your hard drive can be manipulated... Let alone videos or photos or documents in the cloud...
    2
  40.  @AFGuidesHD  Well put, though it is expected that TIK being British would obviously never admit to it for political reasons. But I'm glad that he doesn't ban the alternative point of view. So that other people can actually spill the beans on how it really was and who had actually started the whole thing. (Brits).
    2
  41. You mean Zelensky right? He is sending his humanzees obediently into a meat grinder.
    2
  42.  @bjorntorlarsson  Soviet Union IS and WAS the Russian state, with a Socialist Ideology. It didn't change it's borders!!! It was literally the same territory as the Russian Empire except for Poland and Finland. Also Lenin came through warring Germany to Finland with one of his first decrees granting independence to Finland all in the year 1917. ( it's a deep history and I don't know if I should be going in all of this crucial details, which many people don't know). Also Russia (the Soviet Union) was fighting against the Russian General Mannerheim as it was a well trained Russian Empire's General which had lived and studied in Saint Petersburg, but had joined Finland in the winter war of 1939. So it was literally a civil war as the civil war goes for Russia.
    2
  43. Thats an American centric point of view. Which is not true to what was actually happening on the ground.
    2
  44.  @grizwoldphantasia5005  Again. That's an American centric point of view. By December 1941, I don't know the precise figure, but Germany took somewhere between 1 to 2 million square kilometers of the Russian territories. For our American friends, that's roughly 1 million square miles of territories, like 3 states, say TX, Cali and NJ. With millions of lives lost at that point. With Wermacht already standing next to Moscow. Nothing of sorts had happened in history before, let alone taken as much territory. It is quite obvious, that it had started long time ago by that point AND!!! it is extremely disrespectful to the millions of lost Russians in that war and 1 million square miles of lost territories to the Germans... to say that "the war hasn't started yet" 😡. That's why it's an American centric point of view.🤗
    2
  45. Nope. Germany and Slovaks did. Not Russia. That's a historical fact.
    2
  46. Thank you TIK. You've misinterpreted some of my comments unfortunately thinking that I was criticizing you when I wasn't . But I almost 100% agree with you. Thank you again for your work.👍👍
    2
  47.  @tktktkam947  People are calling it and can be calling it in any sort of ways, the facts themselves don't changed just their names (opinionated names) of the matter. Just like the "prosecution of Christ" was considered "a just prosecution of a disturbing rebel" by the Roman state. It doesn't mean that it was just and that he was a rebel. The political views and agendas changed throughout time based on the political affiliations and views(which cater into the states agenda of the time). We have a historical fact: Germany with Slovaks entering Poland 1st of September. Russia entering 17 and 18th of September with their troops standing and chilling at the border. It had been ready, and could have invaded on the same day 1st of September or thereabouts, but didn't do it. Not invading was done by choice. And that's a historical fact. On top of that historical facts people are creating their meanings and opinions of the events based on their political affiliations and agendas. But it doesn't change the fact that it didn't "invade together". Germany (with Slovaks) did it, not the Soviet Union.
    2
  48.  @tktktkam947  It's called real politics. Not an imaginary one for a reason. Could Russia have asked Poland whether it could or could not enter? Since it already fled the country And Poland had pretty much already fallen to Germans? It was impossible. As the situation was unfolding on the ground, Germany was to reach the Soviet border within a few days. Did you expect Russia to just stand still and letting Germany get to it's border... meeting Germans "on the internationally recognized Polish borders" 😂😂Get real. Real politics. Not an imaginary one. Russia could have invaded 1st of September but it did not!!! it was waiting at the border!!! The whole time. Troops were just standing and waiting at the border. That's called NOT AN INVASION... When the hyenas are already eating on the fallen elephant, joining in as a lion and bordering them out to your part, is not called invading or downing of the elephant. The hyenas did it , Lion just took it's part after the fact, after of what the hyenas had already did to it.
    2
  49.  @signorasforza354  give an example?
    2
  50.  @signorasforza354  thanks, but it's literally a myth.
    2