Comments by "Вячеслав Скопюк" (@user-yj8vj3sq6j) on "TIKhistory" channel.

  1. quality work, as always
    40
  2. that's a gem of a comment. Bit too late, though
    27
  3. I'd say that loosing quite a lot of Finnish man for nothing was a wrong doing
    22
  4.  @alganhar1  >But I guess that means you have to accept that your country was the aggressor in the Winter War. there is nothing to *accept*. USSR was the aggressor in the Winter War.
    20
  5. +Ixsalit I can assure you that Isayev forgot about German tactics more than you ever knew.
    11
  6.  @michealohaodha9351  for the Soviets it was a defensive war. So, they had no hand in that
    11
  7.  @michealohaodha9351  and somehow all those Finns who died without any meaning but greed of their government will be resurrected?
    11
  8. ​ @andreastiefenthaler3811  > the SU, as you stated, planned another war to annex or sovietize Finnland as a whole says who? >They had just waged an agressive war and annexed Finnish Karelia and deported tens of thousands of Finns/Karelians to Gulag or Siberia just? Year and a half has passed since then >probably Petrozavodsk etc., this area was heavily disputed during the Finnish war of independence and afterwards and only became russified after 1945 That's outright bullshit >The Karelian SSR was purposfully founded as a "Soviet Finnland" in 1923 to annex the rest later That's outright bullshit > I wager 99,9% of Karelians would have happily joined Finnland. That's outright bullshit >However I think the exact motivations will forever stay shrouded by post-war narratives. exact motivations were "gain some territories while big guys fighting each other"
    11
  9.  @horatio8213  strangely, 'neutral Finland' provided troops to attack Murmansk. Look 'Operation Silberfuchs'
    10
  10. ​ @seanmac1793  >do really think the the SU would just let Finland continue as an independent state. it happened in our reality. Couple of years after war Soviet Union even withdrew troops from military base inside Finland, before territory lease agreement was ended > But I don’t see how it’s any less justified than soviet aggression in the winter war Soviet aggression in Winter War isn't justified in any way. It was the thing that was necessary to do to secure the state borders. On the part of the Finland - I highly doubt that it was really necessary to fight a Hitler's war
    8
  11. >Try to stay out of the war with Germany vs Soviets? Sweden did that. Portugal and Spain did that. But Finland didn't want to stay neutral, Finland wanted these sweet sweet Karelian woods >There are always few that dreamed aboug "Big Finland terroritories" but that was vast minority, Yes, Finland government was a minority. Quite a influential minority, though
    8
  12.  @scosprey  so, saying things that contradicts your beliefs makes me a troll, huh?
    8
  13. +mitch verr please, stop spreading bullshit
    7
  14. "there is a qualitative moral difference between open and specific racism and exterminationist antisemitism on the one hand and a form of philosophical materialism which deprioritises human sentiment and the individual resulting in policies which waste lives through negligence and callousness" - well said
    7
  15. >I personally don't think the germans were different from the british or the americans or the soviets , it was war treating non-combatants(not mentioning Jews) in German manner was something new and fresh. All those fancy orders about hanging and shooting
    7
  16.  @michealohaodha9351  so, no resurrection for Finns, send to their deaths by their corrupt power-hungry government?
    7
  17.  @MrBigCookieCrumble  >why else would they have tried to invade finland in the first place? To get naval base at the entrance of Gulf of Finland and move border from Leningrad. Read wikipedia at least, for Christ's sake
    7
  18. Thing is, that the title of the book is chosen by the publisher, not by the author. So there was a title "The greatest tank battle"
    6
  19. Latvian SS Divisions partially consisted of Latvian Schutzmannschaft batallions(those guys, who actually killed Jews, Russians, Belorussians, Ukrainians, etc). So, I don't quite understand that part about ''only part of Victor Arajs unit committed crimes'. Also, looks like you didn't noticed what Glant's said about young man forced to choose between labor and military service. For me it doesn't look like they were forced to take arms
    6
  20. ​ @alganhar1  > I am sure Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia tried to stay Neutral... nope, they don't. > Invaded them didn't you? nope. Do you homework. >Portugal stayed Neutral basically because Britain asked them too, yes, seriously. so, nobody asked Finland? Somehow I doubt that. What about Spain and Sweden and Switzerland? >You talking about the Finnish Leadership haing dreams of Empire being a small but powerful minority is the pot calling the kettle black. what pot and kettle has to do with Finnish government wanting to capture Soviet Union territories?
    6
  21. >even Russian documentaries note how Finland was unwillingly to tighten the noose around Leningrad there were(and are) all kinds of weirdos in Russia, who believe in 'noble Mannerheim, who loved Sankt-Peterburg and didn't wished death to his people' >despite having the strength to but they didn't had the strength to >they more or less stopped at the prewar border they don't . Just look at the map. Finn didn't stop at the old border > and in turn, became a core reason why Stalin accepted the Finn's change of sides later nope. Stalin accepted Romania change of sides, and Romanians weren't good guys
    6
  22. +TIK >Is Putin is censoring history? nope. You could have some trouble, though, if your activity will be regarded as propagandizing Nazism or provoking interethnic discord >And what does Article 354.1 say? "You should not justify the crimes of Nazism, publicly disseminate false information about the activities of the USSR in World War II, publicly desecrate symbols of military glory or disseminate information about memorable dates associated with the defense of the Motherland expressing obvious disrespect for society"
    5
  23. >and also that "German tanks were so much better" you're lying. Official USSR propaganda NEVER could aasert than ANY foreign technology was better than Soviet. So, you pull that statement completely out of your ass
    5
  24. TIK Just for you to know - hypothesis about deliberate nature of 1932-1933 Famine originates in "theory" that 1932-1933 Famine was targeted against Ukrainians. Oleh Wolowyna says directly, that Ukrainians were targets, despite their place of living. To me, it looks like he had answer long before the research. You can't just go and trust a man, even if he has a prefix "Dr." in front of the name. To fill the picture, we should see the criticism of his works
    5
  25. >One wonders why the Russians lost almost 9 Million soldiers kiilled in WW2 would you call a soldier, who died from cold and hunger in prison camp a "killed soldier"?
    5
  26. +WolfschanzeArchiv Moreover, Germany was also winning because of numbers. So it goes
    5
  27. +Лев Кадик это доказательство того, что немцы могли на один наш снаряд отвечать тремя своими. Немецкие победы - они не от столько от того, что немцы такие крутые, сколько от того, что из промышленность позволяла им воевать на несколько фронтов сразу, при этом не выходя на чрезвычайные обороты. Как мы с немцами сравниваться начали, так и фронт на запад покатился
    5
  28. ​ @horatio8213  >Soviet Union keep bases on taken finish teritory, Hanko naval base forced by Mocov Treaty! yes. And how that makes Finland "neutral"? >What goverment of Finland have to do squeez between two totalitarian monsters! Sweden somehow managed being squeezed and staying neutral. > from start Soviets knew about german forces in Finland but protest when they realize that is not only small sentry forces but something more. So, you acknowledge that Finland wasn't neutral? > Finland was basicly pushed to war when both Germany and USSR preparationn to invade eachother. USSR prepared to invade Germany? From what planet you are? And how that makes Finland "neutral"? And for the last. You were saying, that "In the first days of Barbarossa Soviet air force attack still neutral Finland pushing it to war". Then you said that Finland placed German troops on its territory. Did you you forgot what you wrote earlier or there are two people writing under "​Horatio82"? > And Finland go to war when Soviet bombs civilian targets, not germans units or bases! bullshit. Placing German troop on Finland territory was act of war, thus becoming an enemy. And by "civilian targets" you mean cities, ports and railroads?
    5
  29. ​ @jaccexx7565  >The "sweet karealian woods" you are refering to where kind of attacked by your own country few months earlier nope. The "sweet karelian woods" I was referring belonged to Soviet Union since 1918. And Finland made a number of attempts to take them by armed force >. that might be an news to you but Finland is actually democratic country unlike Soviets those days Aaaaaaand... nothing changed. They waged aggressive war against USSR, they built concentration camps of their own. >As said your own coutnry leader Stalin forced the finns to choose with his imperialist and aggressive actions. As said, Finns could choose and stay neutral. Like Sweden. But they couldn't. Those sweet, sweet karelian woods....
    5
  30.  @day2148  >Keeping in mind that every documentary series coming out of Russia about the Great Patriotic War receives the stamp of approval from Ministry of Culture. AFAIK, no. You know otherwise? >Stalin didn't leave Romania with any independence though to your(and mine) surprise, Romania was quite independent. Just look at the history of diplomatic relationships between USSR and Romania after WW2
    5
  31. +mitch verr > the government says what is false, not historians Are you 10 years old or what? The government does not investigate the charges, for this there is a court and a prosecutor
    4
  32. +Kastor Hallavainio >just the amount of mostly Ukrainian bodies how they check nationality of the body? >the amount of deaths both Finland AND USSR reported pretty much back this "Mowing down hundreds of men". Can you be more precise? As far as i know, there were no such thing as "mowed down hundred of man". In particularly unfortunate cases, these were several dozen at a time. >About Leningrad: Finns did not try to intercept supplies to Leningrad over the lake ladoga which is the definition of "Siege" they simply could not do anything about supplies on Ladoga lake. But they(and Germans) tried to close the ring of encirclement on the Svir >neither did the Finns strike at Leningrad with aircraft or artillery And how exactly could they do this? Without the presence of long-range artillery and bomber aircraft in sufficient numbers? They had some things to do in the north, remember? >Next you're probably going to tell us that the shelling of Mainila really happened with Finnish artillery shooting way past their maximum range. I wonder why you remembered Mainila in the discussion about breakthrough of the Mannerheim Line and siege of Leningrad?
    4
  33. Describing the breakthrough of the Mannerheim Line, Trotter brings everything to the human wave that sweeps the defending Finns. I doubt that this happened at least once during the war. The lessons of the First World War were learned a long time ago. "Mow down hundreds of man " - a typical clishe. About "Mannerheim decided not to take part in the siege of Leningrad" - it wasn't so. Mannerheim decided not to help the Germans to attack Leningrad
    4
  34.  @seanmac1793  to help them do what - capture some of SU territory?
    4
  35.  @popsey72  Finnish occupation placed ethnic Russians in concentration camps. Children, sick and old. Try and ignore that fact
    4
  36.  @popsey72  >Russian army "evacuated" all livestock, all food and all adult in working age, leaving the sick, old and children left behind without food. so Finns helped them, placing them in concentration camps. Strangely, they escaped those camp(what was punishable by death) to find *some food*. Which, as you said, there was no >Many of the inhabitants of east Karelia where Russian, Belarus and Ukrainans that had been moved there by force and only lived there for a couple of years. facepalm. It is not like there were a major infrastructure projects, who required people from all of the country
    4
  37. D3adtrap > I've never heard anyone making the case, that we were the victims in continuation war I saw quite a lot of people in youtube comments, who were making exactly such case. I think, they were Finns, judging by their names
    4
  38.  @dobypilgrim6160  >With no Mannerheim Line, it would have been a cake walk facepalm. Finns held quite good when Mannerheim line was lost.
    4
  39.  @popsey72  >my grandfather never lied yes. All those guys 'never lied' >I have no interest to waste my time on some of Prigozins troll. looks like when you have no facts to put on the table, you have to refer to grandfather and trolls ;) >You don't know a shit I bet I know more than you on the topic >You are the sorry existent of what Russia has become. as far as you know, I can live in any place in the world. But you instantly remembered Russia, Prigozin etc. Were you brainwashed, by any chance?
    4
  40. Bulgaria didn't fight the USSR, AFAIR. Romania and Hungary had borders with USSR and now, in fact, they are trying to assimilate some parts of former USSR. Italy just supported ally, in exchange for Germany fighting their war in Mediterranean
    4
  41.  @jaccexx7565  so, no clear answer, just emotions. Got it
    4
  42.  @jaccexx7565  >It has been proven by many authors what "it" is? That Finland didn't aimed at SU territory? Or that there weren't countries who stayed neutral despite being close to Germany or SU? >Looked at this page and only thing noticed that you were trolling around without any substantial knowledge my knowledge is definitely more substantial than yours. After all, I know that Finland captured territories of Karelia that didn't belong to it. Fact you wasn't aware of until yesterday
    4
  43.  @jaccexx7565  >you are so deluded prove me wrong, please. Or you just have nothing except beliefs?
    4
  44. >not an ally curious. Finnish troops fighted alongside German troops. Finland provided bases for German fleet. Not an ally? >The difference is that allies are bound to fight for each other if either is attacked nope >Finland did not have to attack the USSR in 1941 as an ally would Japan, for example, didn't attacked USSR in 1941
    4
  45. because Finland had no means for active offensive operations?
    4
  46.  @MrBigCookieCrumble  >Finland's lands were considered valuable enough by the USSR nope. Look at what USSR got after Winter War >The Soviet Union conquered a ton of neighbouring countries who all had very low "points of interest" nope. You can't name any such country
    4
  47. +mitch verr he wasn't fined "for simply stating that Russia invaded Poland". You could read for yourself, what he really was fined for
    3
  48. +Jukka Kurola >it seems to be illegal in Russia to tell inconvenient facts about Russian military history. nope
    3
  49. Oh. yes. Suvorov. Of course. Great histroian with zero facts. Лабусы любят Суворова :D
    3
  50. Isaev's book was first published in 2004, maybe that's the point with the numbers of tanks etc. In any case, as far as the Eastern Front is concerned, I will put Isayev above Glantz. He has much more opportunities to use primary sources from the Soviet side
    3