Comments by "Kora Na" (@korana6308) on "TIKhistory" channel.

Great point.
1
@grizwoldphantasia5005 By that logic Brazil should have been involved too etc. For it to be a "World War"... It's a "world war" not because the whole world was involved. But because it affected the whole world and because that's when the whole world started living under the new geopolitical reality i. e. The formation of the UN. That's the definition of a WW. The formation of the UN (which controls and coordinates the whole world), would happen regardless of the US involvement in it. (again it's extremely American centric) Stalin did not enable the Austrian painter. To some extent the formation of the Soviet Union with Lenin did, but that's a whole another topic (not willing to go there). Stalin itself was a good guy in this. And did not provoke anything... and yes I know that it says the opposite in your history books... that's deliberate framing, for obvious reasons , by design - justifications to begin the Cold War and pull up an iron curtain, without that justification , they would be seen as the aggressor. That's why they teach the exact opposite about Stalin. (And yes he wasn't perfect either, people have different opinions about him too, same as me, and everyone else... But most of the things that are taught about him in the w. are not true. i. e. he did not start, or provoke the WW the w. and Europe did. Not him. And he certainly didn't "enslave" anyone. He literally freed the Europe. And also gave independence to Poland and Finland. Outside of that, it was a conflict of Socialists (second world - the USSR) bloc vs the Democrats (first world the US) bloc, and everything else was happening in that frame of reference (with each side/bloc viewing their affiliated countries in their bloc as freed countries, it was mutual "freeing" from the "enslavements". Both parties viewed their regimes as "freeing of the people" when they joined their bloc. What's other conflicts have got to do with it? As much as I am willing to discuss them ( I know more about history and specifically Russian and European history than 99,9 % of people). I am not willing to go outsides of those bounds of discussion of the original video of the start of the WW2. As I would be typing like 10 times more than what I already do. And it would get extremely out of topic real fast, and everyone would get bored...
1
@robinharwood5044 People misunderstanding the concept of a WW. It's not when "the whole world was involved", it's when "the whole world was affected", that's a completely different thing. After it, the whole world started living in a new world - with the formation of the UN ( the United Nations), the world had divided into the first, second and third world. Everyone started living under the new geopolitical and geoeconomical rules. Same thing happened during WW1. And same thing is happening now ( with the formation of BRICS).
1
@Saeronor I've been answering the same thing many times over. You should respond there, in other of my comments under this video, it has all of the answers there.
1
I bet that Zelensky is a humanzee along with his beloved aZov batallion.
1
What's your definition of a primary source? Closest to the thing that happened in physical distance, or closest to the time of the even or closer to be written by some kind of an authority that you trust? like a professional historian etc? Regardless either of them can be biased too. And the source closest to the event is usually the most biased of them all. With an example of Khatyn , Germans claim one thing, Soviets claim the other. Who is right? the debate is still ongoing. But the west obviously blames Russians, and Russians blame Germans. Who is more right, and which source is "primier" (more prime)?
1
@lars9925 so if everything is biased i. e. subjective, (which is true) how do you identify the truth, that is the main question. Which in the end comes down to studying and analyzing as many of different sources and different types of sources, as you can get, that is the only way to get to the truth. Which comes back at my original point. You can't disregard or "ignore" any of the information which TIK is actively suggesting here, even from the "F" tier. That is just un scientific. You can obviously give them less of a value which is precisely what tiers are made for in the first place, and not include their contradictory positions on certain stance in a more reliable source, but you can't just "ignore" them, if not for anything, but that an alleged forgery may end up being wrongly labeled and might actually turn out to not be forged. A great example of which I can give you is the Book of Veles. There's is still an ongoing debate, and majority of the scholars agree that it's a forgery... but to many "alternative" historians like to cite it as a primary source. That is what I mean by not disregarding any sources. Even if you consider something less of a value like a forgery, you can't completely disregard it.
1
The Great Patriotic war was PART of the WW2. It's not the same thing.
1
Great point. 👍
1
The question of why is a really good question. I've often asked myself that too. Because I always end up going on a loop with communists... The thing that I've realized in my life is that - if people aren't willing to get educated or get an objective view on a certain point, then it's impossible to prove anything to them. It is literally impossible (same as a religious belief). Hence why this funny contradiction and a paradox exists - of communists refusing to get an educated or a scientific view of the reality, which by itself automatically creates classes, which they are "trying to fight"... As there are only 2 options for making a classless society for them. Either find someone who is "as arrogant" or "as in denial" as themselves, OR get everyone on the same level of willingness of learning and reassessments in the society... which they themselves are not willing to do ( reaffirming the existence of classes in the society)... In a sense, it would be easier to achieve communism without communists...😂
1
@AFGuidesHD Yep, so 1939 seems like the most reasonable date for it?
1
Great work. Thanks.
1
Russo Japanese war had nothing to do with it. You could argue that it started with the first WW in 1914 which had started the whole turmoil in the first place. But not before that.
1
@ArnoldTohtFan Thanks for answering. I got a reply from u. just now in my feed. Right after I wrote my comments on this TIK video, I went onto lib. m. channels and said things in support of the winning and the next inaugural president of the US. After which all of my comments were immediately slicened. And I was basically shadow b. and... Only after a week's time my comments finally returned. And your reply seems to indicate that they are once again visible.👍👍
1
@ArnoldTohtFan Yes, and I agree with you ,to my understanding. So I didn't feel the need to reiterate that agreement. 👍
1
@tktktkam947 ehh. The world exists on the basis of "might" that's called real politics. Everything else revolves around it. And if it didn't then the Roman Empire should have never fallen and we should have restored it long time ago. The Byzantine split was unlawful etc etc. The US also did lot's of things which were unsanctioned too (prohibited to say them on yt). "The international law" caters into the will of the hegemon. If the w. was more powerful, it would have prosecuted Putin a million years ago. Even creating decree by the supposed " int. court"😂 etc. All of this does not matter as it's not real politics, it's everything around it, which is the will of the hegemon which can not enforce it's will. And real politics happens and WILL ALWAYS happen on the ground and get bowed to the will of the hegemon or the hegemonic power of the world. Always has been, and always will be. That's real politics. Not an imaginary one.
1
Communism was more just. That's the point. Nazi wanted to fight other races/nations. Soviets wanted to fight those exclusive nationalists together.
1
@MrRogerogerio That's literally a lie. It was the exact opposite. They literally created folks which didn't exist before, all on the pretense of embracing internationality, disregarding it's own interests. Like for example Azerbaijanis... Kazakhs (which was originally named Kazak stan, as the land of Cossacks - Russian military type of cavalry). So it literally created folks out of thin air because of it's policies, which I am personally against. But can't do anything, because that what the Soviet's rulers did, thinking that it's a good thing. But none of the natives perished even in the Russian empire days. You can check it with an example of Crimea. There were Taurus living there ( a tribe of the Scythians which later merged into Russians). Then Greeks came and they were no more. Then Ottomans and the Tatars took control of it and everyone else perished again. And then when the Russian Empire came, even though it would be beneficial for it ( according to the history that followed after) to get rid of them, the Russian empire didn't do it. They let them live and thrive in Crimea. And right after Crimea returned back to Russia they got a brand new mosque too... Even though, they were used as the main driving force for ant - i Russian protests and people in both the WW2 and this not yet acknowledged but a WW3. Russia literally treats everyone with respect. Even it's enemies. Which is annoying for any Russian fan or supporter.
1