Comments by "Jim Taylor" (@jimtaylor294) on "HIRMS Imperator Nikolai I - Guide 198 (NB)" video.

"Democracy" means something a bit different to communists, which is why dictatorships like the DPRK use it in their title with what everyone else sees [quite reasonably] as blatant irony. The USA is a democracy, a flawed one, but one none the less. (even the greeks, whom coined the term, can't [posthumously] claim to have had a perfect democracy)
10
^ Spare us the distortionist propoganda leftie. The USSR brought nothing but indemic corruption, poverty, slave labour, starvation & death... and a posthumous legacy of "active measures". Any country where a car of the technical level below western bog standard, yet cost the equivilant of a lamborgini and had a waiting period of nearly a decade, is a failure; of almost comical proportions. Oh; and good job losing the argument immediately, with a cliched attempt at ad homenim.
6
To be fair; in the arctic seas and winter in the baltic, they would've done rather well, as - unlike the german opposition - they were designed for it. That; and the Kaiserlichemarine getting stymied by the comparatively small Slava, suggests a bigger and more heavily armed ship would've been even more of an obstacle.
3
Coal + Oil Spraying was first introduced by the RN for Capital Ships in 1904, with the Lord Nelson class. Was the beginning of the end of coal as a maritime fuel, though the transition to fully oil fueled did take several decades to come into general effect.
3
@bjorntorlarsson As I understand it it was the latter, with Oil being sprayed into the furnace. The Germans certainly had generally poorer quality coal than the British, with the latter having (for instance) the unusually good Welsh Steam Coal. German coal is apparently proportionately of the Brown Coal sort, which is dirtier, more acidic & produces less power. The latter is one factor in why the SMS Blucher was run down and sunk by the RN in WWI. Had the HSF been using the same coal type at Jutland, it might have been a wholly one-sided slaughter.
2
^x1 Hahaha, comically lame attempt at a rebuke, soap dodger. Socialism has a bodycount only comparable to Spanish Flu & the Black Death. Capitalism doesn't, and never will. (after all an economic system that create actual economic growth [capitalism], instead of one that steals it like a parasite [socialism], tends to not leave mounds of corpses and unpaid bills in its wake)
2
^ Keep telling yourself that, as no credible economist nor historian would agree XD. The Russians were ruled over by some of the worst despots in history during soviet times, were even poorer and less free in real terms than prior to the revolution, and - under Lenin & Stalin - most likely to die of famine. Small wonder that by the late-'80's they'd had enough, and increasingly resisted government attempts to roll back Gorbachev's reforms.
2
Same; only with sipping Tea :D .
1
@paulmanson253 Depends on one's definition of true democracy. By today's standards Athens's idea of democracy wouldn't appeal to most, because only free men whom owned property could vote... whereas all other men (free or slave) and all women couldn't. In my book all countries whom have an elected parliament with free elections is a democracy, though whether a given example thereof (UK, Taiwan, Chile, Japan, etc) is a good or bad one, is a matter of individual perspective.
1
^ Not sure what you were trying to state there, as there are no "pure capitalist" countries, because ideological purity isn't a thing for capitalists... because unlike socialism it isn't a cult.
1
^ Complete and utter distortionist hogwash XD. After all the fact that a free & fair election by definition allows multiple candidates and parties, torpedoes your claims completely; as the USSR niether allowed anyone but the communist party to run, nor more than one candidate to run as they didn't want the party to seem divided. The USSR also enforced their non-democratic system of "elections" upon most of the Warsaw Pact countries too / punished most of those who deviated. Also: one side of a Civil War asking for foriegn military aid (supplies & boots on the ground) and getting it isn't an ""invasion"" :P .
1
Aye "I think I'd rather have a Dreadnought for my money."
1
^ Ah yes the "5 year plans", the comically inept examples of "be better" programs that saw even larger numbers of people starve and worked to death, to erect great edifices in the permafrost, of monolithic stalinist folly. It took repeated imports of foriegn knowhow and material to get the USSR going post civil war, and keep it from collapsing during WWII, and post-1953 to 1991 [in food imports chiefly] to prevent mass starvation, as had been repeatedly transpiring since 1945. It took post-soviet Russia many years to bring down the foriegn debts from the bad old days, and the former soviet bloc, will likely remain poor, rabidly politically corrupt, and backward. (ask any Romanian, Albanian, Latvian or Pole; they certainly don't miss the periods when their countries were totalitarian prisons, nor like living in grinding poverty now as a knock-on result of those times)
1
^ Haha, no emperical refuting of anything I stated, just name-calling. Leftie bots are nothing if not formulaically predictable.
1