Comments by "Horatio82" (@horatio8213) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
teslagod2003 Modern democracy is a political system where you have at least, free elections, separation of power and free speach. Nothing of that exist in USSR or Third Reich. If you still claim that USSR have elements of democracy you should check your historical knowledge. In USSR only members of communiost Party can be elected, Party was ultimate creator of laws and there was no free speach in USSR. Simple, but you still missing understanding of difference between democracy and sud-democrtic elements in other political systems.
Also I do not support anti-vaccination movment. You just use random slenders because youjust lack knowledge and arguments.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy
At it goes:
1)In USSR were no control by non-party members on governmemt, that is not rule of the people, that is Party dictatorship,
2) Only people from monoparty were elected, then members of the party were privliged in society
3)no separation of power, Party was highest ruler and could ignore the law
4)no free speach, critiziting state or Party end in prison or worse.
5)election in USSR were falsified and from start bolsheviks to keep power need mass terror.
How can you claim that in USSR exists forms of democracy when simple facts just don't agree with you?
1
-
@arismaiden6457 For first, Soviet Russia and later USSR never were democratic. They were some mock up build into political system, like workers counciles, but only real power was in communist party. And that party was ruled by communist leaders like Lenin, Trotsky, Bucharin, Zinovyev or Stalin. No other political parties exist or were tolerated. Just like in Third Reich or Mussolini's Italy. Other socialist parties were basicly destroyed in USSR in time of Civil War. Basicly war started by bolsheviks because they can't get to power, because they were one weakest and less influencial party in new political system of Russia after fall of Tsar. Miensheviks were more popular in this time, what push bolsheviks to military coup. Basicly they grab power by destroying democratic system that was been deweloping in that time in Russia. In reality 1917 was no revolution, just military coup done by bolseviks which in reality have no big backing in population. They win only tanks of terror and divide in enemy camp. Even attack on Winter Palace which is founding myth of revolution is a lie. And in reality Trotsky was in big part behind coup not Stalin. There is many propaganda lies hidden in official soviet history. History that contain in reality millions of soviet victimes. And most of them was nations of USSR.
Also comparision to Third Reich is valid. Because even with controversy to place Hitler regime on left or right side, both states were monoparthy system, with Regin of terror and with imperialistic goals.
And about USA political system, is not just two party system. In history of USA were many parties that came and go. Todays US parties are rather coalitions than classical party and probably Democratic Party will be split because of divide between establishment poloticans and hard left populisty like AOC.
And educate yourself about reasons of Bengal famine. One blame was on Japan invasion of Birma, second local british and Indian politician are fault for most problem. Also in this tragedy was no design or decision to stare that population. Tha insted was done by Stalin with intension to starve Ukraine ( Kazachstan also was treat like that).
About bombings you forgott two key things. Axis done this from start of war, targeting civilians by design. The same was done by Soviets in time of invasion on Poland in 1939 or Finland in the same year. Second thing Allied decided bomb German cities after prolog German terror campanig of targeting civilians. War is tragedy, but this was started by Germany and USSR.
I do not claim that US or UK do not commit war crimes or other crimes. Difference is that in case both countries history that was incidents, in case of USSR that was common practice.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Кремень-ц8ю 1) First Germany take Austria, later Czehoslovakia! You are sure your knowledge?
2) Nobody murdered Soviet POW from war of 1919-21. They were the same victimes of epidamies and faine that struck also polish civilians at the same time! Red Cross reports kill tah myth very easly:
https://www.msz.gov.pl/pl/ministerstwo/historia/wydarzenia/jency_radzieccy_w_polsce_archiwalia_miedzynarodowego_komitetu_czerwonego_krzyza_i_ligi_narodow
About soviet tanks in 1941. In whole Red Army were over 23 00 tanks. Over 14 00 were concetrated in western border befor 22nd June of 1941.
Bigger part were in units. Rest was put in repair stations, mobilisation storage, etc.
By Soviet reports from this time over 80% was fully operational and ready to fight. The how much is 80% from 23 00? 18 400!
In fights in half of the 1941 year Red Army lose 20 500 tanks. Loses were taken in combat and by mechanical failure or crew s just abandon them. Many causes, effect was the same.
For many years USSR claim tha Germans have more and better tanks.
Let see:
Germans attack with allies having around 4000 tanks. Also not all of them at front in the same time.
Best German tanks were Pz IV and Pz III. Early versions with thin armor and weak arrament. Short barrel 75 mm and 50 mm cannons. Around 1200 of German tanks were this models.
Rest of German tanks were tanks like Pz 38(t) or Pz II. First with 37 mm gun, second with 20 mm automatic gun. Or French H 35/39, R 35/40 or Souma S35.
At Soviet side 900 T-34 and 500 KV-1 nad KV-2. Modern and dangerous tanks. Armed with deadly 76 mm and 152 mm (!) guns and armored in that way that only few German guns could destroy them.
Rest of soviet tanks were good enough to compare with most German counterparts. Only light tanks like T-37/38/40 were light armed with 12.7 MG or 20 mm canon. Tanks like BT-5/7 or T-26 in most cases were armed in very good 45 mm canon.
Sources (just few of them)
1)N.P.Zolotov and S.I. Isayev, "Boyegotovy byli...", Voenno-Istorichesskiy Zhurnal, N° 11: 1993, p. 77
2)Nic dobrego na wojnie (Нет блага на войне) Mark Solonin 2011 (Rebis)
3)Pranie mózgu. Fałszywa historia Wielkiej Wojny (Мозгоимение. Фальшивая история Великой войны) Mark Solonin 2013 (Rebis)
4) https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/soviet/ww2_Soviet_Tanks.php
5)Zaloga, Steven J.; James Grandsen (1984). Soviet Tanks and Combat Vehicles of World War Two.
With more time I can bring you more examples and primary sources from my press and books colection. It would be hundreds of articules with bibliography that I read from 1990's to today.
Aslo you wrongly assume that i do not know russian history.
That I do not agree with you do not mean that i do not know facts.
1
-
@Кремень-ц8ю Multiply reporting, no physical evidence of execution. Red Cross, Leuage of Nations and other Third parties investigate Soviet accusation. Dear. "Commrad" even today Russian governmental historia send to sites of POW camps and Graves do not find any evidence supporting this lie.
You can check that only source of this accusations are based on "eye witness" without any material evidence.
I provide you link to reports and relations. But as I susspect any evidence do not convince you, because you are biased.
And where are your evidence?
Let talk about tanks.
For first not only Russian historians that work with documents prove that Red Army was well equiped in tanks. German relations were in the same way discribing soviet equipment of this type. Not mention German's shock when they meet T-34 and KV tanks.
And it is just funny because multiply sources do not confirm your staements. All Red Army staatistic lie? Then how I can belive in any soviet claim, how you can use them if in this case militarny statistic were proven be authentic. Falsification was done in later publications to make Red Army weaker than it was in reality. And to hide real reasons of disaster of first months.
Lets go with number. What mean that Red Army could operate 23 000 tanks?
That mean that is global number of this Type of equipment in Red Army. No army use 100% of own tanks. As mechanical device tanks also can breake but also repaired.
Second case some of this tanks were in units stationed in Far East and some of them stay there. But not all. Some of them were transfered and fought on front with Germans.
Next thing you claim that historians do not understand soviet system of statistic use to describe a state of army.
As a person trained in statistic I agree that you have to knoq how to read and understand them.
Then first thing. Red Army system use 4 category for describing combat readiness in 1941.
1. New produce models of tanks that were delivered, check and ready for combat. In 1941 that were T-34 and KV.
2. Older models that were ready to be used by units or were in storage, but can be transfer to combat units and in days send to fight.
3. Tanks in repair, not ready to service without check in factory or special repair service Army stations. But after repair and refurbishment ready to service.
4. Tanks with serious breakage, old units sent for evaluation or to be scrap for parts. Many of them were repair and use or post as a improvised strong points. In logistic maner most of them could be use to supply parts or be scraped for war material. Even tanks send to scrap could be combat usefull in many ways.
But in end how it looks at day 1st June of 1941? Because there is central report from Red Army command we. Know that in service, ready to useage were around 80% ( first two categories), third and fourth are contain around 20%.Then even not counting tanks in repair USSR could deploy against Axis forces 80% of own tanks. Including production from time of start of campaing and Battle of Moscow Red Army losses around 20 500 in fight with invaders.
Few things that undermine your narration.
1) more mechanical problems were observed in newer model than in old ones. Old T-26 fight in 1945 at East without an signifcant
malfunctions. Also BT tanks do not show problemsthat propaganda put on them.
2) With proper use tanks like KV or T-34 in single number stop for days German advance. Do I have to wrote examples?
3) Most captured by Germans tanks were in good shape, with simple to fix manfulctions or without fuel. Rest in majority of greate number were damaged by crews before were leaved or were destroyed in fight.
4) Most of disadvantage of soviet tank forces was lack of radio equipment, bad doctrin, weak command staff and low number combat expirence tankers. There is lot more of problems, but that is subject for a other discussion.
And I see that all critics of USSR are for you Solzenicinist. Cross checked documents, even straigh from Soviet sources are not enough for you.
I
1
-
@Кремень-ц8ю "@Horatio82
"no physical evidence"
I have never been interested in this topic, so I do not keep ready-made reliable links at hand. Maybe later. But you "didn't see"the main thesis. This level of mortality simply did not happen anywhere, except for the Nazi extermination camps, and these Polish camps. That in itself speaks of the deliberate destruction."
Again: Red Cross reports, Leauge of Nations (USSR was a member of Leauge) and foregin (independent from Poles) observers made clear that there were no planned extermination of POW in polish custody. High mortality rates never were on level that was stated by accusers.
There is lot of eye vitness relations that made this accusation false.
Number provide by accusers were in 80 000 to 165 000 dead. Problem is that number of POW was around 85-80 000 and sadly around 16-20 000 died in custody They died in epidemics and because of food shortage that were the same as that what hit polish civilians in the same time.
In comaprison only around 50% of 51 000 Polish POW back from bolsheviks custody. Which made mortality in Bolshevik camps twice bigger than in Polish. And Poland did not claim that was any extermination done by Bolsheviks.
Yekaterina Peshkova was even decorated for her help for Polish POW in Bolshevik's custody! I hope you know who she was. Because she help in transfer of POW from
I again give you link to reports of Red Cross and Leauge:
https://www.msz.gov.pl/pl/ministerstwo/historia/wydarzenia/jency_radzieccy_w_polsce_archiwalia_miedzynarodowego_komitetu_czerwonego_krzyza_i_ligi_narodow
About tanks:
"not only Russian historians that work with documents"
Name a couple of Western historians who work with documents! )) Especially Soviet documents. )) I'll laugh! Beevor, perhaps? )) Whose name has long been synonymous with a liar and an idiot? )) Waiting for examples!"
1) Canadian military historian Peter Samsonov, in last year he wrote greate book about development and test of T-34.
"Designing the T-34: Genesis of the Revolutionary Soviet Tank"
2) Robert Michulec, Mirosław Zientarzewski , Polish authors wrote series books on T-34, to harsh for this tank in my eyse but still valid positions.
3)Stephen Kotkin, historian and expert in Stalin and hist rule. Probably best Western biographer of Stalin.
4)Anne Applebaum "Gulag: A History"
5)Michał Fiszer. Polish officer and millitary specialist create publications about modern and historic weapons and military operations.
That is just 5 names that I operate from my memory. There is thousends historians that work with soviet documentation and have own opinion how much stronger in numbers and quality of them was Red Army against Wermacht.
You probaly have problem with translation, because simple comaprision of text you provide with mine show that basicly they arev the same.
Evidence:
You after original translation done by you:
"2nd category — former (located) in operation, completely serviceable and suitable for use for its intended purpose. This also includes property that requires military repairs (current repairs)."
Me: done by my on words from memory:
"2. Older models that were ready to be used by units or were in storage, but can be transfer to combat units and in days send to fight. " - that means tank in service of fronline units and mobilisation storage. Also tanks in repairs in units own workshops, not intended to send to stationary workshops at rears.
Then what is the difference? Because meaning is exacly the same, just in different words! That mean you do not understand English or your translation is bad!
Lets go further:
""Because there is central report from Red Army command we. Know that in service, ready to useage were around 80% "
Link to the report. ))) You will be looking for a non-existent document for a very long time. ))) Or it will turn out the same as with category 2. )))
Report of general head of the GABTU Lt. Gen. armored forces Yakov Fedorenko from June of 1941.
Report states that 9.3% tanks need meduim repairs and 9.9% capital repairs. That mean that from 23 000 tanks in Red Armies over 80% were operational.
“ O stanie zaopatrzenia Armii Czerwonej w sprzęt samochodowy i pancerny.” (About the supply of the Red Army with car and armored equipment.)
Centralne Archiwum Ministerstwa Obrony Fedreacji Rosyjskiej (Central Archives of the Russian Defence Ministry ) d. 38. r.11373, t. 67, kk. 97-116
Document mention in books and many articles.
Here you go that is the name of report with nr you need to apply to Russian MoD archives to get this documents. There is also bunch of other documents from other sources. I do not have time and will spend my time to waste to try to convince you. Because with other cases you just claim that authors lie or they do not understand documentation.
“Next thing you claim that historians do not understand soviet system of statistic use to describe a state of army." Once again, carefully re-read what I wrote. Historians know. Western historians - idiots (or demagogues) whose opinion you use-don't know. And ordinary people don't understand anything at all. “
Personal bias without arguments not make you right.Do you ever try to read this are you call tem “Western-historians idiots”?
“"bad doctrin" You don't know what you're talking about. "weak command staff and low number combat expirence tankers" and they will not be, with such a low engine life and a constant lack of fuel for training before the war. “
About “Bad doctrin”: Soviet tanks were conetrated in to oversized formations. That casue problems in commanding them as a organizated force. The same problem Germans had in first campanigs like in Poland and France. After consideration they scale back in numbers of tanks in own units and change their organisation and composition. Most of problems and loses in Soviet tank units was cause by wrong doctrin and problem with commanding staff. When they start fighting with German veterans they were in worst position because of this disandvantage. Similar to French and British in 1940. Bad organisation, lack in training and mistakes done by commanders were main reasons why Red Army tanks perform that badly. Problems with logistic just made that effort very hard against Germans which were more expirience and better commanded. Why is so hard to understand?
“And I see that all critics of USSR are for you Solzenicinist. Cross checked documents, even straigh from Soviet sources are not enough for you. " What documents can these solzhenitsyns have? )) Give an example. )) “
Ok, not the problem:
First two just from Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre#/media/File:Katyn_-_decision_of_massacre_p1.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge#/media/File:Great_Purge_Resolution_of_Central_Committee.jpg
Other sources with photocopies:
https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/intn.html#reps
http://www.ibiblio.org/pjones/russian/
https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/collection/52/mitrokhin-archive
I think you should study this documentation. There is much more in other sources, but I am pretty sure that you will claim that all of that are fake or we non-Russians can understand Russia and USSR. Whatever you claim is enough evidence to not belive in communist propaganda about USSR and WW2.
Crimes like Holomodor or Great Purge were reality and they take place. Everything what was done in USSR is today seen in Russia as a root cause of many russian problem of today and tommorow.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Кремень-ц8ю I provide you multiply sources that proof that in 1941 in tanks number and quality Red Army beat Germans many times. Number 23 000 is correct and it's used even by russian historians like Isayev. Manipulations starts later when for propaganda reasons people like you claim that there were broke, obselete or any reason that make this number in your eyes false. And lot of Russian historians do not agree with you. Any one can read what we wrote. I do not agree with you argumentation and assesment, because I use multiply sources and I am not biased like you to everything that was written outside USSR. Your claims are biased and created on position that Red Army was much weaker than in reality, just to prove that the Stalin didn't plan invading Hitler in 1941 or 1942. (which he start planing in the same moment he agree to cooperation with Hitler and was created R-M Pact.)
""Without american grain, meat and canned food, like famous Tushonka, population and Red Army would suffer devastating famine!"
1 million tons per year with its own production in many tens -a hundred million? ( for exact numbers, go to the statistical reference book )
Funny. ))"
You again use only number provide by Soviet side.
Two problems, even in Russia are historians that make claims about much gretaer role of LL in USSR war economy.
Few examples:
"In 1944, we received about one third of the ammunition powder from the Lend-lease. Almost half of TNT (the main explosive filler for most kinds of ammunition) or raw materials for its production came from abroad in 1942–44."
https://www.anews.com/p/67498308-krasnaya-armiya-zadavlivala-zhelezom-a-ne-zavalivala-trupami/
Other estimates make number over 50% soviet production of explosives dependent from US and UK supply.
300 000 to 400 00, depend of source. Grate ammount of locomotives that were produced in USSR in time of war in marginal numbers.
https://www.historians.org/about-aha-and-membership/aha-history-and-archives/gi-roundtable-series/pamphlets/em-13-how-shall-lend-lease-accounts-be-settled-(1945)/how-much-of-what-goods-have-we-sent-to-which-allies
Food was provided in over 4 000 000 tons, not 1 750 000 as you claim.
Problem with understanding this number to situation in USSR is deeper than you claim.
Soviet production of food never was enough to avoid food shortage in USSR in the time of communism. And loseing Ukraine and Bielarus in firts months of 1941 war with Germans made that problem much worse!
You want claim that without most productive agricultural area USSR stil produce enouh food, when even before USSR have problems with food production? Food rationing was standard in USSR.
And in comparision even in 1941, at the first day of Barbarossa Red Army in whole USSR could use over 200 000 trucks (there are even bigger estimations).
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=dcAgT_2uiYgC&pg=PA216&lpg=PA216&dq=trucks+in+red+army+1941&source=bl&ots=g2OZO4Z7XC&sig=ACfU3U1q-389SOVotfmxgSn2mf2uPAA8eQ&hl=pl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwizt7ahsvnnAhVUUBUIHVyoDpgQ6AEwEnoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=trucks%20in%20red%20army%201941&f=false
When Wehrmacht use smaller number.
Then again you use manipulation to made Red Army weaker and Wehrmacht stronger.
Wermacht use over 100 000 to 160 00 trucks in Barbarossa. (different sources, different estimations)
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UmwwBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA305&lpg=PA305&dq=trucks+used+in+wehrmacht+in+operation+barbarossa&source=bl&ots=2QxEFl8DDq&sig=ACfU3U1V_L0FDk-rucx_x-XK_iUR1t8b1g&hl=pl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjbx9bRtfnnAhVRqHEKHQhiAS4Q6AEwGHoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=trucks%20used%20in%20wehrmacht%20in%20operation%20barbarossa&f=false
And if UK did not fought Third Reich when Hitler invade USSR, german economy would use oil, steel and othe materials that was used to create UBoots fleet to build tanks, planes and trukcs. That dramaticly would change numbers of this equipment in Wehrmacht.
Do not mention lack of blockade provided by RN and trade done by Third Reich by sea.
"You still remember the idiotic myth about the lack of fuel, make me laugh even more. ))"
If you precise I can respond. Maybe you want say that Soviet produced fuel was much worse that that provided by USA and UK industry. It was observed in soviet airforce logistic. WWS was main taker of fuel part of LL program.
Basicly again you prove how in today's Russia Lend Lease is subjected to manipulation to make it less improtant to USSR war effort!
1
-
@Кремень-ц8ю You have problem with imagunation.
1) many soviet sources claim that after German invsasion food shortage was seen everywhere. You can claim whatever you want , problem is that 1941 and 1942 were hunger years in USSR.
2) You take source, manipulate number for your thesis:
800 000 or 600 000 claime by your missinterpretation never were used n whole Wehrmacht in all German controlled teritorries!
You can't understand numbers and context. That is your problem.
Isayev wrote simple and plain articule that show explenation of number of tanks in Red Army service in 1941 and you claim that he is to stiupid to understand what he is writing. The same with portion of LL help for USSR provide by UK and USA.
3) I try to undertsand you position, by reading your "facts" and numbers is really clear that you are not interested in critical look on USSR and reality of WW2.
""For whole war main field transport in Wehrmacht was provided by horse! On starategic level the same like in USSR by trains."
you're very stubborn donkey
But I have a question. Please respond. I'm really interested. Where did this idiotic statement come from? Source? I want to know."
Maybe you do not know but most German divisions were using horses to logistic and transport!
Wehrmacht never use more than 500 000 trucks in the same time at whole operations. Eastern front was only one of many fronts with German operations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3n0BpQj9jqc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBAoW0PWNUw
Both video give you multiply sources.
"Especially for idiots, I explain. If the Reich had won or agreed with its enemies, the USSR would have had no options but to strengthen the army.
In my very first comments, I said that children do not understand adult words like "mobilization readiness" and so on. And I was right, as always. You don't understand. I'll explain it some day. Not now. And you will understand what an idiot you were. Or will not understand, maybe so. :)
Well, it's funny to listen to idiotic statements from a person who knows nothing about the industry at all. )"
From 23rd August 1939 to 22nd June 1941 Stalin and Hitler were allies, they supply eachother with resources and technology. Provide military support and cooperation. If you do not see that you are blind or just lie.
Stalin was preparing Red Army to offensive war from at least 1935 and in 1941 he do not count that Hitler will attack him. Because that in any rational calucation was insane, but in this situation Hitler was insane! He ignore all logistic handicaps of Wermacht! He belive that Slavs are sub-humans and that cause that he underestimate strenght of USSR.
But that not mean that Stalin was interested in peace. And first mobilisation Red Army done in 1939 against Poland. After that there was few new waves of mobilization. There was no real reason why USSR can't prepare to repel Operation Barbarossa! Only mistakes made by Stalin and his generals.
And you can't understand there is no reason to talk to you? You act like you won but that is your opinion and I am not interested in insults from someone who can't read simple source.
" ( However, I do not rule out that there is a common schizophrenia or mental retardation )
These figures are no secret, they have long been known. Even for Western "historians", what's the funniest thing! ))
Why this idiotic donkey's insistence on denying reality? The number of vehicles is known from Western sources. )))"
You like offend even if you are wrong. That is sad and show how deep you are in you own bubble. Not all Western historians are idiots, the same not all Russian historians. But in funny way anyone who do not agree with you is idiot or propagandist.
In reality, I work for years in industry and trade. I understand importance of working economy and logistic. That is why I never buy this myth of communism superiority in economy. I live long enough to see last years of communism in Europe and USSR. And I see how positive was that change for people living there. Only former countries of USSR keeping party members at power and do not investing anything in reforms now still suffer problems in comaprition to countries like Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic or Slovakia. Even countries of former Yougoslavia after years of civil war are in better shape than Russia. One of the biggest country and military power with GDP of three combined small countries, Belgium Netherlands and Luxemburg.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mikefay5698 "Horatio82 Most books on the Spanish Civil War mention the submarine sinking,have a read. " That is just empty statment. I ask again, ships names, date and contex. Because I don't see reason why RN should sunk neutral ship in peace time! Even Germans after start of WW2 were very careful to attack only allied shiping. RN would just stop that ship using any of own warship in area, no need to sunk it!
" Another anti Soviet regime in Europe didn't please Stalin. Wihout Soviet help the Francoist Rebels would have quickly overcome the Spanish reformers all of Spain wanted out of Medieval backwardness. Stalin charged everyone he gave aid to. Every bullet was paid for. He kept the Gold allegedly as his price for materiel for the Spanish Government."
If Stalin "charged everyone he gave aid to" that was not help but just buisness. If Stalin want Republican to win, he can just send more "volunteers" like Hitler and Musssolini. Even France nad England can't stop him. And I will claim that USSR stole Spanish gold, because value of this asset was much more bigger than any "help" that USSR provide to Spain.
Stalin was Bolshevik, he don't prefer any one over his own puppets, just look how he create net of satelite states after WW2. That he order coup in Spain and killing of any one who was in opposition to Stalin's views and dictatorial power.
" The sinking of the Lusitania too was cooked up by the British to bring the US into ww1. You are naive Horatio!"
Neutral ship attacked and sunken by German submarine, without checking cargo for contaband (that is war crime under international laws!). And you claim that was a British provocation? I'm sure that not mean I am naive, rather proof that you are living in conspiracy theories world. False flag is nothing new, but to prove that you need more than buch of nonsens claims.
To be precise, I don't support Franco or Republicans views, because both sides use nice sounding propaganda, but still ends with death squads kiling thousends of innocent. And there is no way to claim that was accident, to many instances and process starts long before breaking the Civil War. Bot sides target opponents and kill them without mercy. Then spare me claims that Republicans want peace and love in Spain. Words can't change the reality of socialist , communist and nationalist terror.
1
-
@mikefay5698 Soviet Union was total faliure. Any one who claim otherwise is just stiupid or ignorant. I'll givie simple examples, in this worker paradise in Stalin's era, when you were late to work 3 times, whatever cause that, you were treat as a criminal and send to Gulag. You can't travel without permision or even change the job without communist party approval.
You assume I am uneducated and dumb. Let me response to that. I am from farmer and workers family. I am myself a blue collar by. choice. But in the same time I achive science degree in political science and I study history for my whole life. Especially militarny and politics history. I reject your conspiracy theories just because facts don't support them.
You can't provide any source to you claim about sunking this transport to Spain. If you give evidence I can assume that you are right. Now you just claim something what is not supported by any source.
About Lusitania, it is not a shock that were fuses there, because Lusitania was transporting war materials! Problem was that Germans just sunk it without controlling cargo, technicly they were right. But British used a fact that they broke rules of war and blame them for that, which also was true. And USA rather join because Zimmerman's Telegram, Lusitania was just one more argument.
About integrity, books also can be biased. Only work with multiply sources and real scientific methods can provide you right conclusion. And again your claim sound silly when you claim that USSR was example of future way. For me USSR is a one more example of ideology failing against reality. There is not even one sucessful example of communism country. All of them turn in poverty and terror.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1