Comments by "CaptainVanisher" (@captainvanisher988) on "HistoryLegends" channel.

  1. Idk where you found the 3rd one from. Ukraine had the 2nd worst GDP per capita in Europe behind Albania in 1990. Other countries within the Soviet sphere followed like Romania and Poland. Ukraine's population in 2019 was 45 million that's a 7 million decrease from the latest Soviet era population size however that's what'll happen to a country that suddenly opens up to immigration. Soviet citizens had hardly any ability or right to immigrate out of the USSR. That's the case even in puppet states like Poland and East Germany. So obviously people will leave an impoverished region fast when they have the ability to do so. Debt cannot be counted for Ukraine alone under the USSR but we know for a fact that the USSR had debt. It's just small compared to the GDP. Having said that "no debt" doesn't mean "good economy". The USSR despite having low debt collapsed due to the unsustainability of their economic system. Developed social sphere is also highly debatable since the USSR only artificially boosted their results in science and education and even then came nowhere near the West. The last three points are also asinine since the Ukrainian economy was pretty bad compared to Europe. If you want to make the point that Ukraine was highly mismanaged after the end of the USSR then I am with you. But trying to suggest that Ukraine was this amazing nation under the USSR is just a blatant lie. Was it better? Perhaps. But so was Belarus. So was Kazakhstan. Most former USSR states felt the collapse and never recovered from it. In the contrary USSR puppet states flourished after the USSR fell. Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia are all doing much much better than they did anytime under the USSR. Ukrainians haven't been "held" hostage by their government. They voted and created said government. Instead of overthrowing bad leaders like Zelensky, they allow them to take full control. You can sympathize with Ukrainians all you want but they created many of their problems themselves.
    19
  2. 16
  3. 9
  4. 7
  5. 6
  6. 6
  7. 5
  8. 5
  9. 4
  10. 3
  11. 2
  12. 2
  13. 2
  14. 2
  15. 2
  16. 2
  17. 2
  18. 2
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. 1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39. 1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49. 1
  50. 1
  51. 1
  52. Absolute bullsh*t. The PLA only managed to keep North Korea due to their sheer numbers. They didn't win. In fact they push all the way to Seoul and then were defeated back to the line that now divides South and North Korea. Nato didn't lose to the Taliban. Again you seem to be confusing political losses and military losses. The taliban were absolutely destroyed by Nato when it comes to the military aspect of the war. Luckily for them they had vast mountains and caves to hide and continue fighting. At the end the Taliban took over due to the incompetency of the Biden administration and didn't win a single battle against Us or allied troops. Pakistan and India have nothing to do with Nato so why did you even include that? France didn't lose to the Vietnamese who had Russian equipment. Israel didn't lose to Hezbollah fighters with Russian equipment. In fact Israel has won every single war against Russian/Iranian backed arab attackers besides a single stalement in Lebanon. Spoiler alert, stalement doesn't equals loss. The Houthis didn't defeat anyone. Yemen is still divided between Saudi backed and Iranian backed groups. The Us and the allies have a by far better military than any country or alliance in the world. They can anihilate their opponents swiftly and effectively if they so wish for. The issue is that the Us government and the military industrial complex profits if the wars continue. Why do you think Trump destroyed the Chaliphate very swiftly even though Obama "struggled" for years. Trump wanted to end the war, and the Nato forces had the power to do so. They just didn't because of special interests.
    1
  53. 1
  54. 1
  55. 1
  56. 1
  57. 1
  58. 1
  59. 1
  60. 1
  61. 1
  62. 1
  63. 1
  64. 1
  65. 1
  66. 1
  67. 1
  68. 1
  69. 1
  70. 1
  71. 1
  72. 1
  73. 1
  74.  @Jaguar-hs4fo  Again I never said the USSR achievements weren't "real". You clearly don't get my point. My point was that the government put all their resources into the top people and sciences to artificially boost their results and they still lost. Western scientific achievements happened naturally through the competition that the free market created. The USSR achievements happened artificially. The government spent copious amounts of resources to create the results whilst most of the population was below the poverty line. It's also ridiculous trying to attempt to say that the moon landing was fake, when it happened multiple times. The reason why it hasn't happened again is simple. There is no point in doing so. It costs a lot and it gives no profit. You literally cannot compare the Poland, Baltic countries, Romania, Hungary etc now and under the USSR. That's a ridiculous thing you're trying to attempt. They are a thousand times better now than under the USSR hence why they're so anti communist. Of they'll still be poorer than the Western countries. The Western countries had decades of head start on them. Yet all of the countries you mentioned have had some of the fastest growths in Europe the past 2 decades. The destruction that communism brought upon them still has its effects though. The Us has lost much of its power due to corruption after corruption. Trump was the only non-corrupt Us president in the last 3 decades. On the contrary Russia now has a president that actually cares about the country and is not a communist. The Us now has the most corrupt and incompetent president in history. And no the Us still boasts the strongest military in the world as much as you don't want it to be true. Of course it's far weaker after the scam wars that Obama, Bush, Clinton and Biden have started and after they introduced progressive LGBTQ ideology to the army but it's still strong.
    1
  75.  @ledlight1487  So Turkmenistan with 5% debt to gdp ratio has a strong economy? Yes having lower debt is indeed a lot better for the economy. But the idea that nodebt=good economy is just economically untrue. It's like saying that me as a homeless guy with 0 debt am in a better financial situation than the guy who has taken a mortgage equal to 60% of his yearly salary. Again all of the ocuntries you mentioned are not only better. BUT FAR BETTER than the socialist times. I have family in Romania and I know for a fact that now it is 1000 times better unironically. Poland, the Baltics, Hungary, Bulgaria, Slovakia are all the same. You claim the people there are nostalgic of the communist times yet the communist parties in these countries barely pass 5%. In Bulgaria the furthest left party is a social democratic one (which is not socialism btw). In Poland the furthest left party is also a social democratic one. Slovakia and the Baltics are the same. The biggest parties in those countries have anti communist sentiments. If they were nostalgic about the communist times one would think that they'd vote for a communist party right? In Greece they do, even though there never was a communist Greece since they lost the civil war. Then you make other dubious claims like "life quality in the USSR was good". Really buddy? Is that why people in East Germany would travel hundreds of km by foot to go around the wall and end up in West Germany? Then you claim that the Western education system was and is bad. Which is also a ridiculous statement but has more merit as of now than before. Before the West absolutely dominated the scientific and academic world. Yes there is a good reason why the moment the USSR was dissolved and people under the USSR could move out, people actually moved out. Wow it seems like when you don't force people to stay in poverty they will leave. :hand-orange-covering-eyes: See how the large migrant waves from those countries started mainly after 1991? Isn't that a little weird? And as those countries advanced less and less people left? It seems like if the USSR allowed their subjects to immigrate out, that on top of the 30 million killed by Stalin, they'd be another 30 million that left the USSR.
    1
  76. 1
  77. 1
  78. 1