General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Stephen Hill
Imperial War Museums
comments

Comments by "Stephen Hill" (@stephenhill545) on "Imperial War Museums" channel.

 @TeaParty1776 they fought to keep the deathcamps working and their sick ideology alive, but mostly they fought for their lives.
11
Nothing is greater than the dignity of man. They fought for the right of us all to live in dignity.
6
 @Shimospeher yes, true, the germans failed to exploit the hatred of bolshevism in ukraine in particular.
2
 @bogdanvojnovic989 the force sizes were equal at borodino, around 125,000 each. The losses were terrible, 40k on ghe russian side znd 40k on the French side, a phyrric victory for france..
2
 @PRATEEKsirji at the critical meeting he said that Britain would only give up if the soviet union was defeated, but he actually hated bolshevism, so he gambled he could win quickly in the east.
2
Napoleon lost 50% of his army by August 1812, mainly to typhus, as the combination of the hot dry summer and the presence of carriers,lice, caused a typhoid epidemic jn his army.
1
@MarshallJukov what percentage of the 1000 tanks defending Moscow were sent by the western allies?
1
 @Prince-jc6wc they lost because their coalition had fewer resources than the coalition they fought.
1
 @MarshallJukov 440 of the 1,000 tanks defending Moscow in 1941 were supplied by the western allies. Feel free to fact check.
1
 @MarshallJukov bolshevism and nazism were both evil ideologies which caused millions of innocent citizens their lives. The bolsheviks killed more of their own citizens ghan the nazis did.
1
 @theodoresmith5272 yes. Typhoid. I learnt that too, plus that the land could only support 250k troops max, causing the grande army huge logistical challenges.
1
 @abhilash9918 the tight control thereof, russian society disintegrated in 1917.
1
@MarshallJukov no, there was widespread hatred of bolshevism in ukraine for 3 reasons 1) the bolsheviks crushed the newly independent ukranian state in 1921 2) the holodomor, a manmade famine causing the death of 4 Mill ukranians, 3) the bolsheviks had promised ukraines peasant farmers the land, but took it instead.
1
@MarshallJukov to reassert his authority because Russia broke the continental blockade in contravention of the terms of Tilsit. Russians of today do not seem to know that russia has always been a second tier power except for the time between 1945 and 1989. Thd great powers at that time were France and Britain, the usa and China of today, putin is trying to recreate a country which has never existed, which is why russia is now a junior partner of China.
1
 @kabirumusa1350 napoleon was not greedy. He was in a life and death struggle with reactionary Europe. His defeat delayed european modernisation by a hundred years.
1
@MarshallJukov Finland did not attack the USSR in 1939. Hitler and stalin divided Central and Eastern Europe up into spheres of influence in the secret protocol of the molotov robbentropp pact, Sept. 1940, which i recommend you read. The agreement allowed stalin to invade and annex eadtern poland, the baltic states, Finland, and moldova, all of which he did. Thd Finnish invasion was only partially successful though. Finlandwas a poor country of 2.5 million in 1939, ghd USSR had an army of 5 million troops. Who on earth taught you that Finland invaded the ussr? They obviously never read any historical documents.
1
 @rockyonesti8020 he did, typhus epidemic in the army it was.
1
@MarshallJukov Finland won thd peace of course. It is now a developed country which refused yeltsins offer to buy back karelia because of thd cost involved in modernising it, so far behind had karelia fallen under soviet rule.
1
 @JC19676 please don't forget us. 440 of thd 1000 tanks defending Moscow in autumn 41 were built in Manchesters tank factories.
1
 @ВааВап sorry to be a spoiler. But of the 1000 tanks defending Moscow after the loss at vyazma, 440 were supplied by the west, and delivered via murmansk.
1
 @MarshallJukov thdcproblem is that you live in country where history is controlled by the state, not thd best place to study history. Read kotkin if you're interested in soviet history.
1
@chrisrautmann8936 stalin pressed hard for overlord at yalta in Dec. 1943. It forced germany to leave a million troops in the west, forcing her to weaken army group centre with devastating consequences for the eastern divisions.
1
@russtorque2993 nato relies on massive air superiority, and long fires, not large infantry formations. If it did ever fight russia, it would rely on its massive naval superiority and control of the baltic and black sea exits to cripple the russian economy. Like in the crimean war.
1
@kaptenhiu5623 I'm not awarecthst nato has any plans to invade russia. It there wer a military confrontation, I imagine it would play to its strengths and block the baltic and black sea, denying russia the ability to export oil.
1
@carlgreisheimer8701 western military aid kept the ussr in the fight after losing most of its heavy equipment in summer 41. 440 of the 1000 tanks guarding Moscow in 41 arrived via murmansk in October 1941, for example.
1
@carlgreisheimer8701 it wasn't a small amount. In early Oct. 1941 a shipment of 440 tanks arrived in murmansk, which were immediately deployed to defend Moscow, to join yhe 600 tanks the Soviets had there. Along with 24 hawker hurricane fighter aircraft, and millions of rounds of ammo. The tanks were vital for Moscow defense. Before lendlease Britain supplied the ussr with 3,000 tanks in total, 1.5 million shells and 70,000,000 rounds of small ammunition.
1
 @kishanchali8752 they did indeed, but refusing to give battle in the summer months was smarter. Bagrations idea I read.
1
@MrAmhara they won the first, they had less jnfluencecjn the second, although grey did send ghd ussr vital military supplies in autumn 1941, which gets forgotten, due to lendlease, which came in 42.
1
@Bernard_Gui but it was smart, as tsarist russia couldn't compete militarily with France in 1812. It only had 250k troops compared to 600k, and the French cavalry and artillery was the best in the world. A great success for russia in fact.
1
 @JohnEglick-oz6cd it was correct to keep him.alive. he was an amateur general, much as we are all hoping gerasimov is alive and well, as he is equally incompetent.
1
 @ramkumar-lc1st russia was supplied by Britain in 1812. Russia did not have the industrial base to keep 250k soldiers in the field. She was an agrarian economy.
1
 @mrh7758 wear and tear too. Beaver wrote about the problems with trucks getting dirt in the engines from the dirt roads of Russia.
1
 @konstantinbush295 biden? Do they teach you that in your schools?
1
 @b4c9g8m3 typhoid killed 270,000 of them. Lice.
1
 @jackthegamer4019 the ussr and the usa and the british empire remember.
1
 @oldi184 rundstedt wrote trey would lose in summer 41, after closing the uman pocket. He did not believe it was possible to supply a modern army over such large distances.
1
@MarshallJukov sure no problem. some 40% of the tanks defending Moscow in December 1941 were British, after the RKKA had contrived to lose some 30,000 tanks (from a starting strength of 25,000) in a few short months; see, for instance, Alexander Hill (2006), “British “Lend-Lease” ...Jan 10, 2023
1
 @MarshallJukov source, the journal for slavic military studies 19,2.
1
 @MarshallJukov come back at me on Finland too. I never heard anywhere that Finland invaded the ussr.
1
Typhoid sir, typhoid carrying lice decimated napoleon's forces in July and August 1812. As soon as the French had to forage, they were damned.
1
 @tonyb9735 he left the army after crossing the berazina River. He left Moscow in October.
1
 @carteirle napoleon. had twice as many troops as Alexander in June 1812.
1
 @ryantravis242 thecgermzn army had high morale.
1
@thomasaquinas2600 napoleon's army was artillery heavy, denying it its usual advantage of high mobility. Napoleon needed to catch the russian armies, but his armies were slowed down by the artillery. A fatal error.
1
@mesfingmail4326 it wouldn't be, because in 1941 it was a huge empire with the most powerful navy in the world and aircraft production which was double Germanys. By the way, nobody here in Europe denies the bravery and importance of thd USSR in defeating the axis. However. Having visited russia, I am rather surprised that Russians think ww2 started in 1941 not 1939, and Russians do not seem to realise that it was a world war, involving many nations, including imperial Japan, a powerful ally of Germany, which had to be defeated too. And Russians forget the terrible losses of Poland, which lost 17% of its population. the highest in ww2. Russia lost 12% BTW. Terrible, but poland didn't start ww2, and the ussr did, she was the real victim of that war. People forget that.
1
@rickytorres229 russian troops slso entered Paris in 1815, but they don't teach you that at school because in 1815 it was a combined prussian, Dutch, British army which defeated napoleon. The Russians and Austrians were too late for the battle, but were fresh, so the british and prussians suggested they enter Paris instead. Napoleons final defeat.
1
@rickytorres229 oh dear. Stalin and zhukov both said on the record that without usa support, that ghe ussr would have been defeated by germany. Hubris is bad, ignorance is bad, together they cause stuff like invading ukraine.
1
@rickytorres229 we fought the Japanese in the Pacific theatre, the Italians and germans in North Africa, italy and europe. Dong you know anything? Thd Chinese fought too. Gary lost more civilians than you did, the Poles too.
1
 @rickytorres229 dont forget logistics, the us supplied 90% of the trucks and rail, the british supplied 60% of the rail wagons. No.logistics, no victory parades. Read kid.
1
 @kadenvolan3557 October friend. Too late of course.
1
 @AndyB677Aegyptus he didnt have enough invasion barges, and the british had 800 motor boats. Small but deadly against incoming invasion forces.
1
 @kolyxix mud was a bigger problem, and dust too. It blocked the engines.
1
@MarshallJukov probably not, because there was cooperation between the ussr and Germany. Looking at todays propaganda on russian TV, countries which have positive relations are presented in a positive way, North Korea, for example.
1
 @angeleyes2c it wasn't a success. It encouraged Austria and prussia to leave the alliance with France russia contined to teade with britain,. It was a disaster in fact.
1
 @leonidastsouris2557 Greece, I guess.
1
 @sebastienleblanc2708 successfully, yes, Poland Lithuania did in 1630ish. And repelled a Russian invasion by Ivan the terrible too.
1
 @kv3382 well. Yes. Otherwise the germans would have known the british had broken the codes, and changed them. Did you learn critical thinking at school? Its not hard to figure out
1
 @utubeballbag bolshevism was actually evil. Stalin killed more soviet citizens than Hitler did.
1
 @pupusaslordking5617 ukranian summers are hot.
1
@ВааВап I dont think uou know more than zhukov and stalin. They both said on the record that without the support of the west, the ussr would have been defeated by germany. How did this knowledge get lost in today's russia? No wonder putin can tell all his lies about the west now.
1
 @MarshallJukov did the ukranians give the russian soldiers flowers on russian TV too? Or did they give them molotov cocktails as an invasion gift instead?
1
 @richardrichardhaleysguitar8810 hubris, ignorance, as dictators usually fail.
1
The Germans did. And the heights at NJ controlled the land between NJ and Arnhem. Nijmegen was lighgly defended on 17th September and it was not attacked except by one company. Browning prioritised the heights to the east.
1
 @angloaust1575 Poland did not exist. It was divided between Austro Hungary, Russia and Germany.
1