Comments by "Андрей Борцов" (@Mentol_) on "TimeGhost History" channel.

  1. Was not this the aggression of Poland? This state violated the ethnic border of its people-the line of Curzon and invaded Ukraine, Byelorussia and Lithuania. The Soviet government recognized the independence of Poland in December 1917 and was concerned about the solution of its internal problems. Prior to Polish aggression, the Soviet government did not have the goal of "Sovietizing Poland" only after it. Lenin understood that peasants needed peace and they were tired of the war.
    19
  2. "The Curzon line was created after the Polish-Soviet war had started" - formally - yes, in fact - it was already created thanks to the action of objective factors. Poland violated this border, ignored the wishes of the West and committed aggression. "Another thing is that there was no such things as "the ethnic border" in eastern europe seeing how Poles made up a large group in urban areas in Lithuania, Ukraine" - The process of colonization occurs mainly through the population of cities. Thus, the inhabitants of the city - mostly colonists, rural residents - form the core of the ethnic border of the nation. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Nationalities_in_Second_Polish_Republic_ca._1931.png?uselang=ru "A worldwide revolution was the ultimate goal of Lenin/Trotsky goverment" - after the seizure of power in October 1917, Lenin said in his article that "now we are defensists" ie, defenders of the socialist revolution. The support of revolutionary movements in other countries does not mean "the conquest of Europe for Russia" because it contradicts the socialist principles of politics. "they used it as a casus belli to subjugate former imperial provinces in the Caucasus, Central Asia" - restoration of the territorial integrity of your state. The creation of national republics and the conclusion of an equal treaty with them. Why do you think that all these people were against cooperation? "and Poland alongside the Baltic states and Finland were amongst Soviet goals of conquest" - can you confirm this by documentary? I mean, why does the creation of Soviet socialist respubles mean to you - conquest? Conquest is imperialist policy within the framework of the capitalist model. Poland conquered part of Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania and restricted these people in rights - this is a policy of conquest and colonization. The USSR pursued a policy of creating equal treaties and did not restrict any nationality in its rights - it is a policy of cooperation. "but it is certain that the Soviets attacked first" - In 1919, after the departure of the German army, the Red Army came to the territory of Belarus and Lithuania. On January 10, 1919 Minsk was take and the Byelorussian SSR was proclaimed. On January 27, Lithuania was included, and the republic became the Lithuanian-Belarusian SSR. On February 3, the republic joined the federation with the RSFSR. On the other hand, Polish troops were came, with the aim of restoring Polish borders within the Rzecz Pospolita (imperialist policy). On February 9-14, 1919, the Polish units occupied the Kobrin-Pruzhany line. The Polish-Soviet front was formed. On February 28, the units of General Ivashkevich were attacked Soviet troops on the Shchara River and on March 1 they occupied Slonim.
    16
  3. You know that the work of a cheka is to destroy the enemies of the people and criminals? These people are repressed as criminals, and not as Russians... In addition, Felix's work was still included in the management of the railways of Russia and the correction of homeless children.
    12
  4. Well, you can read, for example, about the policy of Ukrainianization in the USSR. From the point of view of "imperial policy" this is unacceptable. Russian nationalists always criticize this. A similar practice was carried out in other national republics in the framework of the policy of Korenization. This policy was discontinued during the 1930s due to the fact that many republics had serious problems with knowledge of the Russian language, which created a problem within the framework of a single state. A moderate Russification was introduced. As for the late Soviet Union, even the Baltic republics (which today tell you that they were seriously oppressed) - their culture and language was protected by a soviet constitution. The pressing significance of the Russian language is explained by the practical necessity and influence of a more powerful culture.
    11
  5. What exactly am I denying? You did not mention a single fact.
    5
  6. What do you know about Stalin besides your propaganda?
    4
  7. Here are some data on military production for 1942. Germany produced 1.37 million rifles, 232.000 submachine guns, 117.000 machine guns, 40.500 artillery pieces, 9800 mortars, 6200 tanks, 11.600 aircraft, 241 ships. USSR produced 4 million rifles, 1.5 million submachine guns, 356.000 machine guns, 127.000 artillery pieces, 230.000 mortars, 24,400 tanks, 21,700 aircraft, 15 ships. So the USSR created more weapons in 1942 than Germany (excluding ships) despite the loss of territory after the occupation.
    4
  8. > while the number of communist victims range from 60-200 million dead. If you use propaganda literature such as the black book of communism. > Lenin, Stalin and Mao were directly responsible. Learn history For all the time in the USSR, about 800 thousand people were sentenced to death.
    4
  9. > It is well known that Stalin alone killed around 20 million. It's fake. Try categorizing this number. > The Holodomor alone killed over 6 million Ukrainians. The Holodomor is a major famine. At this time, famine (except for the USSR) was also in Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria. > Not to mention the Red Terror You cannot win a civil war without using terror. > the kulaks Representatives of the exploitation classes. The Soviet government stripped these people of social privileges (not murder). > the Gulag Archipelago. Soviet work camps. The mortality rate in the non-crisis years is 4%. > Mao killed 100 million I am sure that this is a propaganda number. Just look how rounded it is. > If thats not enough proof that Communism doesnt work, what is? If communism does not work, how do you explain the fact that the USSR destroyed Germany despite the fact that it had a stronger economy? Lend-lease did not give the USSR advantages in this matter. > How many millions needs to die before you say ”okey maybe I was wrong”? If you don't say that about capitalism after two world wars (cause of war = capitalism crisis = struggle for economic markets), then why should I? Socialism is an alternative to capitalism. If we deny socialism as an alternative, then we will have monopoly capitalism, and the lack of competition is objectively bad.
    4
  10. The Finns won the information war. This is the reason. While the USSR was a closed state, Finland used foreign correspondents to popularize Finnish successes. Therefore, the world was shocked to learn that Finland agreed to conclude a peace treaty with the USSR and give up 10% of its territory. If you read Western newspapers of that time, you would get the impression that Finland is winning this war. The moral in this story is the conclusion that if you want to get an objective picture, you must study the documents of both parties to the conflict.
    4
  11. You are talking about an imaginary Stalin (whose image your propaganda created), not about the real one. To find out the real Stalin - you need to study his books and practical policies.
    3
  12. 1. Lenin initially spoke of the futility of the bourgeois parliament because in this election only the one who has money and influence can win. For a person who knows the dialectic well, there is no need to win elections - you can first take power, then gain the loyalty of your people with the help of popular politics. 2. The task of any researcher is to understand how historical subjects saw the world. You do not need to project modern liberal morality onto the Bolsheviks — this is stupid. You need to understand how they saw the world. 3. Here is a brief list of the achievements of the two revolutions of 1917: - The peasants were given more land. - The working day is reduced from 10.5 hours to 8 hours. - Improvement of the health care system. - The policy of eliminating illiteracy of the population. - Equality of men and women is presented. - Elimination of class privileges. - Freedom of religion is introduced. - Cessation of economic exploitation of man by man.
    3
  13. > First of all you provide no references for your data. Official data from any source. I can give a screenshot, but the data is in Russian. > In fact they always lied about almost everything. Demonization is a form of propaganda. > If you did not tell Stalin good news (lied) then you were likely to be shot or sent to the gulag. No proof from you. Again demonisation. > Second based on the GDP numbers GDP is not a reliable criterion for the economy because it contains things that have nothing to do with the strength of the economy, such as the volume of securities. Secondly, GDP is not valid for socialism because it creates fewer papers and has a different structure. > Although for the year 1942 it shows the USSR GDP much lower than Germany’s that year, which makes your numbers highly suspicious. Because GDP is a bad criterion. > By definition this means that more of the USSR’s GDP had to go to basic survival stuff, leaving much less for building armaments. USSR used about 55% of its budget for war (like England). Data from official sources. > Hitler inherited a market economy with world leading industries and more importantly the talent to build these industries. Stalin inherited an agrarian economy without any of the talent to build war industries. By 1937, the USSR surpassed Germany in terms of gross industrial production. Official data. > It takes talent, including management talent to run these industries something the USSR had none The fact remains - Germany is destroyed. The effectiveness of the Soviet system at any level (military, economic, ideological) is confirmed. > high level generals in the USSR admitted how important lend lease was to their survival after the fall of the USSR. They recognized this during the de-Stalinization campaign. But it is important for us that union aid does not give the USSR economic advantage over Germany. The USSR had to do dirty work relying on its own forces. > Bottom line you are pushing communist propaganda hopefully unwittingly. The task of the investigation is the restoration of historical events at the time of their life. Your message hints that the Soviet system has no advantages and wins the war randomly. This is primitive propaganda. > The KGB had a name for people in the West that pushed their propaganda, they called them “useful idiots”. Only if you trust the words of some dissidents.
    3
  14. And now the same thing but concretly.
    3
  15. 1. During the winter war, Finland lost more people in percentage terms (26k from 3.7 mln population) than the USSR (95k from 167 mln). Thus, the finnish losses were more significant than the soviet ones. 2. The Germans did not know about the scale of the purge in the USSR. German intelligence also assessed the actions of the red army in the winter war normally (this is an old myth). The Germans had winter clothes, but they could not send them to the army due to the fact that they needed ammunition in the first place. Logistics did not allow them to have everything at once.
    3
  16. > Five Year Plans Reducing industrial lag from the West. > Soviet version of Blitzkrieg This is part of military progress, not an aggressive plan. > Paratroopers, strategic bombers (offensive weapons, not defensive) There is no offensive or defensive weapon. It can be used in any situation. Paratroopers were used in defense during the battle for Moscow. > Purges Preparation for the aggression of the imperialists against the USSR.
    3
  17. > And this bullshit explaination is why no fucking human being should ever judge actions on their final consequences, but also on the fucking trail of death that they leave on their wake. Two world wars occurred due to the crisis of the capitalist system (the struggle for economic markets). Do I have to say that "capitalism is evil, period?". This is how propaganda works. > if you think that you can JUSTIFY the death of 4 millions people in ANY way. Socialism is EVIL, and governemental intervention in the economy led to these deaths. Period. Helping the affected regions is also government intervention. In general, from September 1932 to December 1934, Kazakhstan received 5 million centners of grain as food aid. This is 31.2 million poods. In total, in 1932, Ukraine received 3.2 million centners in the order of food aid, and in 1933 - 5.3 million centners. This is 53.1 million poods in total. And on the basis of this assistance a large-scale network of canteens was organized. According to data as of May 1933, 8.8 million people ate in rural canteens in the European part of the USSR. In Ukraine, at the same time, there were 20.7 thousand canteens, to which 3 million people were attached. In total, in 1933, catering, including food during field work, reached 39 million people.
    3
  18. > When the Wehrmacht invaded Ukraine, they were at first welcomed as liberators by many sorry, but is nazi propaganda (die deutsche wochenschau). The Germans specially created such propaganda films using some nationalist marginals. Statistics show that only 250 thousand Ukrainians fought on the side of Germany against 6 million on the side of the USSR.
    2
  19. > no it isn’t just Nazi propaganda Sorry, but you are propagating the false concept that "ordinary people were simply caught in a fight between two tyrants." Do you consider these people to be the victims of totalitarian regimes, which is a modern liberal projection and have no relation to the period under discussion. > By the way i don't understand why you arguing with a neo-soviet liers? The official Soviet point of view is crucial for the discussed period. The point of view of nationalist marginals and the modern liberal projection is none.
    2
  20. What is your point of view? The proof for the fact that the Soviet military command uses its people in the quality of cannon fodder will be a quote from the Soviet military order. The interpretation of Western historians is not evidence. So you should quote any Soviet document that aims to send people like cannon fodder. Ps. Robert Conquest is an anti-communist propagandist, not a professional historian.
    2
  21. 1. If you do not have direct evidence for your thesis about cannon fodder, then you do not need to create assumptions based on your personal stereotypes. (The fact that documents are not available is your stereotype; in reality, they have been available since the 1980s since the time of glasnost'). Thus, you have no moral right to demonize Soviet politics until you have direct evidence. 2. For me there is no need to refute your primitive propaganda which says that the whole world is opposed to the USSR (the world is not unipolar). 3. You also said that the USSR was an ally of Germany. This is a false thesis. There are no such documents. You rely on the interpretation of Western historians who call the Molotov-Ribentrop Pact "the devil's alliance." I hope now you will see the difference between proof and interpretation.
    2
  22. 1. Perhaps you had in mind order No. 270. It is logical in the war of annihilation. This is not a liberal war with the defense of human rights, but the struggle of peoples for their existence. Another context. There is nothing in the text of these orders about the use of soldiers as cannon fodder (your thesis). 2. Order 227 .This order was a response to the German order that was created half a year earlier, during the crisis in the battle of Moscow. Again a war of annihilation, not a struggle for human rights. There is nothing in the text of the order about killing soldiers on the battlefield. The execution is carried out only in the rear and only after the decision of the military tribunal. The main task of the blocking units is to suppress panic and return soldiers to the front. 3. The opinion of modern politicians about the events of the 1930-1940s does not matter. They are based on the defeat of the USSR in the Cold War and the West gaining a monopoly in the information space. But the task of the study is the restoration of the situation at the time of the historical event.
    2
  23. Poland killed 17 thousand Wehrmacht soldiers in 36 days (472 people a day). France and allies killed 50,000 Axis soldiers in 43 days (1,163 people a day). The USSR killed 383 thousand Axis soldiers (1984 people per day) in 193 days (1941). The allies after the opening of the second front killed 340 thousand German soldiers in 216 days (1944), which gives 1,574 people a day. Moreover, the Allies had numerical, technical and material superiority over the enemy, in contrast to the Red Army in 1941.
    2
  24. The end result does not change - Germany is destroyed. You can make it logical and say that the USSR surpassed Germany in every aspect (military, industrial, moral) and therefore won. But you can also say that the Soviet victory was randomly achieved and only thanks to Western help. In my opinion, the second option is propaganda.
    2
  25. Such logic does not work. In the war between the USSR on the one hand and Germany with the allies on the other, there can be no third-party decisive factor. Foreign weapons and materials are still used by the Soviet army. Weapons do not fight on their own, only people. If you want to compare who helped someone more, then see how many divisions fought in the east and how many in other theaters. Up to 5 million Axis soldiers fought in the east. This was the decisive front of World War II. Since these forces were active in the east, Britain and the United States had a unique opportunity to fight against the minimum forces of Germany and Italy (this is how the strategy works). In this regard, Soviet resistance on the eastern front helped the Western Allies more than foreign materials for the USSR.
    2
  26. 1. The task of a great purge is to strengthen the state, and not weaken it. 2. Barbarossa was successful in the first stage for the same reason that Gelb's plan was completely successful. This has nothing to do with Stalin’s policies.
    2
  27. What do you disagree with?
    2
  28.    1. Can you answer a simple question: what was the Polish army doing on the territory of Belarus and Ukraine? This happened before the Red Army launched an offensive against Poland. 2. After the Cold War, Poland became part of Western civilization. This means that this state approved all anti-Soviet narratives and stereotypes that existed in the West. This channel is a product of Western culture, so you can see that most of the people in the comments support Poland, not Russia. When I came here, my goal was not to propagate the Soviet point of view, but to restore the disturbed balance when 90-100% of people support only one side in a conflict. In my opinion, this is more objective than when some people create an image of an evil empire for any of the states and after that they say that they are not victims of propaganda.
    2
  29. > you're either completely insane or study from the books from the 1940s. All right. The objective of the study is the restoration of the situation at the current time (1930-1940s). > who denies all historical facts known to everyone. You have not submitted any counterarguments. > How old are you? 27. > Stalin never made a deal with Hitler True. The pact was not part of the military alliance. > Baltic states joined USSR out of their own will The new government chose accession to the USSR. > and Poland invited the soviets to eastern Poland. Because it is not eastern Poland, but western Ukraine and Belarus. The Poles were in the minority here. As in the case of Bessarabia, the USSR simply returned the territories that had previously been stolen from him.
    2
  30. A person who studies history should never set goals to justify his ideological stereotypes.
    2
  31. 1. The Molotov-Ribentrop Pact does not contain the goal of creating a military alliance. USSR officially remained a neutral state and did not participate in the World War until June 1941. 2. The thesis that Stalin killed his best generals is based on initial failures during the start of Barbarossa. But these failures have objective reasons - the numerical, technical and qualitative superiority of the enemy. Therefore, I cited as an example the French campaign where there were no repressions, but they lost. The task of repression was to strengthen the state ideologically before the outbreak of war. There was never a goal to kill the best generals. Why? Repressions had an ideological goal, not a military one. To kill the best generals, you first need to find them, but another myth tells us that Stalin was military incompetent. Therefore, please use critical thinking.
    2
  32. Reply to an Inquiry of the Jewish News Agency in the United States. In answer to your inquiry : National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism, as an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of cannibalism. Anti-semitism is of advantage to the exploiters as a lightning conductor that deflects the blows aimed by the working people at capitalism. Anti-semitism is dangerous for the working people as being a false path that leads them off the right road and lands them in the jungle. Hence Communists, as consistent internationalists, cannot but be irreconcilable, sworn enemies of anti-semitism. In the U.S.S.R. anti-semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system. Under U.S.S.R. law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty. J. Stalin, January 12, 1931.
    2
  33. 1. You evaluate the Polish population in eastern Poland from the point of view of Polish historiography, but the USSR does not rely on this point of view - it relies on its own. For the Soviet point of view, it is characteristic that the land belongs to peasants, most of whom are Ukrainians and Belarusians, and the Polish majority in some cities such as Lviv was considered colonial influence. This is true not only for Poles, but also for Russians in eastern Ukraine. Thus, the Polish colonists were deported after annexation, which is logical. This is not revisionism because the USSR is based on its opinion, and not on the opinion of Polish historiography. 2. All I want to tell you is that you evaluate Soviet policy from the point of view of Soviet interests, and not from the point of view of the interests of other countries (this gives you false conclusions). 3. There is a documentary speech by Hitler in May 1939, when he said that war with Poland is inevitable. Germany does not need Soviet consent to invade Poland. Germany is between two fronts - Polish and French. The lack of military coordination between the two countries made the Polish defeat inevitable. Soviet intervention was not predetermined, and in the event of a large French offensive in the west of the USSR, may remain aloof. Soviet-Finnish negotiations on changing the border began in the spring of 1938 and were not related to the pact with Germany. The USSR annexed the Baltic states after Germany destroyed France. This was done to ensure their own security because military bases did not give good protection. The USSR did not want to make the mistake France made when it refused to invade the Benelux countries and this had negative consequences for it. Romania annexed Bessarabia in 1918. The USSR did not recognize this and returned it to the region in 1940. Plus Bukovina is where the Ukrainians lived. This is not a crime. Crime is inaction. Do you understand the difference?
    2
  34. > His purged almost cost him to lose the war. Poland killed 17 thousand Wehrmacht soldiers in 36 days (472 people a day). France and allies killed 50,000 Axis soldiers in 43 days (1,163 people a day). The USSR killed 383 thousand Axis soldiers (1984 people per day) in 193 days (1941). The allies after the opening of the second front killed 340 thousand German soldiers in 216 days (1944), which gives 1,574 people a day. Moreover, the Allies had numerical, technical and material superiority over the enemy, in contrast to the Red Army in 1941. > Hitler and others underestimated the Soviet Union The winter war did not affect the preparation of the Barbarossa operation. This was an attempt to deprive England of her last hope of victory in the war. Thus, Soviet policy was not influenced by Hitler’s decision to start a war in the east. > Soviets humiliating defeat by Finland. USSR won winter war. > But it really was the Russian winter that lost it. nice propaganda.
    2
  35. Poland killed 17 thousand Wehrmacht soldiers in 36 days (472 people a day). France and allies killed 50,000 Axis soldiers in 43 days (1,163 people a day). The USSR killed 383 thousand Axis soldiers (1984 people per day) in 193 days (1941). The allies after the opening of the second front killed 340 thousand German soldiers in 216 days (1944), which gives 1,574 people a day. Moreover, the Allies had numerical, technical and material superiority over the enemy, in contrast to the Red Army in 1941.
    2
  36. Firstly, Stalin was not incompetent in military matters (compared the non-professionals) - this is just a myth. Secondly, the leader of the nation (subjective factor) cannot have much influence on the course of the global war (objective).
    2
  37.  @Redmanticore  Stalin said that the failures of the Red Army are due to the fact that it relies on the outdated experience of the civil war.
    2
  38. Germany did not have a western front in June 1941. War on air and at sea is not a front. The war in Africa is a secondary peripheral theater.
    1
  39. > send waves and waves of soldiers into attacks without any care for the outcome. fake. > There are numerous accounts of Stalin and his generals sending their own men into certain death wave after wave for no reason other than his disregard for human life. You never read Soviet documents, right?
    1
  40. > There are accounts of Stalin and his general's disregard of human life FROM THIS VERY CHANNEL'S VIDEO CREATORS They did not name the source of this information. > What is your point, liar? Have you already proven that I'm a liar? No. My opinion is that demonization is a form of propaganda. "Neglect of human life" is demonization.
    1
  41. Ты о чем?
    1
  42. Какая связь между репрессиями и уровнем ВВП ? Какая связь между переименованием РККА и победой в войне?
    1
  43. Я в вами общаюсь, а не с интернетом. Не поленитесь предоставить конкретные данные.
    1
  44. Ты пишешь четвертое подряд сообщение в котором нет никакой конкретики. Это называется словоблудие. Более того, походу ты распространяешь мифы о неэффективности советской военно-экономической системы. Пытаешься заменить советский патриотизм на русский национализм. Это называется распространение дезинформации. И если я не потребую от тебя конкретики, то ты продолжишь распространять эту пропаганду уже в другом месте.
    1
  45. Ты пишешь уже пятое сообщение без конкретики. Не надоело словоблудие? Если есть что добавить - добавляй, если нечего - так и скажи. Не нужно писать пустые сообщения. То чем я занимаюсь в разных исторических видео это информационное противодействие. То есть борюсь с мифами, стереотипами, демонизацией и т.д.
    1
  46. > Read Mark Solonin He is propagandist, not professional historian.
    1
  47.  @soulrebel2531  Where did so many people die? According to what order? Can you prove it with statistics?
    1
  48.  @soulrebel2531  If you are talking about Russia, then maybe you should know the opinion of the citizens of this country first of all? Most people associate the Soviet government with the achievements of industry, the victory in WW2, the elimination of illiteracy of the population, and achievements in the space sector. Only a minority associate this government with repressions. And this is not surprising because, according to statistics, only about 2% of Soviet citizens were affected by the policy of terror. In any case, in a decent society, it is customary to first check information for reliability and only then use it as an argument. You took your number "50 million killed Russians" from a source unknown to me. But judging by the fact that this number is rounded and does not correspond to Soviet statistics, it is most likely a product of propaganda. Why don't you want to check this information for accuracy? Is it that difficult for you? Why can't you find information about the fact that the Bolsheviks were never liberals and therefore does not make any sense to evaluate their policies from a point of view that condemns terror? On the contrary, the Bolsheviks used terror as a way to defend their version of democracy.
    1
  49.  @soulrebel2531  This book was written by a nationalist who hated the soviet government. This book contains a large amount of false information and is a form of propaganda in terms of content. I don't see the point in saying any details because you haven't learned how to use critical thinking yet.
    1
  50. Solzhenitsyn anti-communist propagandist. Do not trust his numbers and conclusions.
    1