Comments by "seneca983" (@seneca983) on "The Armchair Historian" channel.

  1.  @Hdusiekwbshsjs  <ahem> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon%27s_planned_invasion_of_the_United_Kingdom
    20
  2. 11:14 "The Russian army never really recovered from this defeat and the situation only worsened for the Tsar from then on." What about the Brusilov offensive?
    9
  3. 6:08 "The Iraqis lost fewer than 100 fighting vehicles." Nonetheless, the graphic says ">100 Tanks Lost", a clear contradiction.
    9
  4. But this is somewhat situational. Sometimes a more cautious stance is in order. Often there is no simple answer to how cautious or aggressive one should be.
    8
  5. The video said that it was an armored car, not a tank. The other warring countries did have those.
    7
  6.  @potatofuryy  He was elected, though back then Finland used a kind of an electoral college. However, his third term was also extended by a special law which is a bit undemocratic.
    6
  7.  @paulherzog9605  Should the US be split up then?
    5
  8. Though it would have been rather unlikely to succeed.
    4
  9. Mostly recapture territory lost in the Winter War.
    3
  10. @Mieliepit: Nazis were more competent on the operational level than on the grand strategic level.
    3
  11. "May those who did it and their descendants be cursed!" Descendants? With that kind of logic, pretty all of mankind would be cursed.
    3
  12. What? Are people saying that Italy would have been militarily more efficient if she had been more antisemitic?
    3
  13. Really?
    3
  14. @Obiwank Keb34: That's not really true for France. After the war had been declared there was 'Phony War' for quite some time giving time for preparations but France still fell. I don't think a declaration of war before the invasion would have changed the situation in Poland much.
    2
  15. A minor nitpick about the graphics. The Finnish Molotov cocktails weren't plugged with a soaked rag. Rather, the bottle was closed with a regular cap and the ignition was done by two storm matches taped to the side of the bottle.
    2
  16. I see all the options. Maybe some of them hadn't been generated when you watched this.
    2
  17. @Y0ddl3 Yeah. Wikipedia isn't always reliable but I think we can fairly certainly say invasion plans existed (though were later abandoned).
    2
  18. 2:44 "after their defeat in the Crimean war in 1856 against Britain, France, and the Ottomans" Let's be real. It was Sardinia that really defeated Russia. :)
    2
  19.  @generationclash5004  Actually, it was a bit under 6 h. However, even Luxembourg lasted longer, though not by much.
    2
  20.  @ThermicLight : At that point, they won the "Battle of Britain" which was just one part of the war.
    2
  21. Lol!
    2
  22. ​ @ЭнкерСидоров : None of that makes right for descendants to receive a punishment.
    2
  23.  @ЭнкерСидоров : I don't see how a punishment for descendants who have not themselves committed anything like this would help.
    2
  24. ​ @ЭнкерСидоров : "I repeat to you again so that they do not repeat! " If you think that e.g. Finland would do some kind of "repeat", i.e. a second Continuation War is not in the least bit likely. And any kind of "punishment" would not probably decrease the likelihood of it anyway. (This kind of logic would lead to also many Russians to be punished as well, e.g. the descendants of those who participated in the Katyn massacre. There would probably be many more examples.) "And I repeat once again for the Finns what their grandfathers did was “protection”" Many have differing opinions about that. You can't lump them together. And in any case they're not responsible for the acts themselves. Punishment for just an opinion and lineage (or just lineage) cannot be justified and saying that it would somehow make "repeats" less likely is ridiculous.
    2
  25.  @ЭнкерСидоров : "The Poles became a victim in that war, but they also contributed to the beginning of the war and they were not punished for it! And now they have again begun to incite everyone to war!" I do not see how any kind of "punishment" would improve things. By similar logic the former Soviet Union should be "punished" for e.g. the harsh occpupation in Poland (including the aforementioned Katyn massacre), for sending Germany grain and oil when Germany was already at war with the western Allies (until Germany attacked Soviet Union), for coups in the Baltic countries, for invading Finland, for sending political dissidents to gulags, for oppressing minorities, etc. One could probably come up with many more examples. Would it make sense to now wreak "punishment" on the descendants of the Soviets for these injustices? No. I say guilt isn't conferred to children but remain on the guilty individuals.
    2
  26.  @ЭнкерСидоров : "What Katyn massacre" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre
    2
  27. And didn't the Poles also destroy something like 25% of the Luftwaffe?
    2
  28.  @simohayho8622 : A little bit off-topic, but isn't your username misspelled?
    1
  29. I think the accent should have at least been lighter.
    1
  30.  @andrewrennie2352 : Nothing wrong? Really?
    1
  31. It's in the logo!
    1
  32.  @jaywiegs1712 : Wouldn't the Germans then have depleted their bombers instead?
    1
  33. I'm not entirely sure I agree. 1) It was 7000 at the Battle of Thermopylae, not just 300. 2) That battle wasn't decisive. The Persians still burned Athens (though they did eventually lose the war). 3) It's quite plausible that democracy would have emerged in some other place if it didn't happen in Athens. It's not very credible that there was only one chance for it to initially emerge.
    1
  34. What about the performance of the Italian co-belligerent forces?
    1
  35.  @Wezqu : Possibly he meant that the Finns didn't proceed past the pre-war borders on the Karelian Isthmus (or am I wrong?) which is the most relevant part for this siege.
    1
  36. It's all Mussolini's fault.
    1
  37. It means lightning.
    1
  38.  @shizzlemasizzle : "seing as it cost the Germans the war" I don't think the Germans could have won no matter what they did.
    1
  39.  @shizzlemasizzle : Let me clarify. I don't think Germany could have defeated the Soviet Union with a different strategy no matter what they did. (And Soviets did a larger part of the work in the European theater than the Western Allies.)
    1
  40. I think you should've also listed the Entente casualties so that we could compare them to the Ottoman casualties.
    1
  41. Weren't there some bombing raids on German soil already at that point, or do I misremember?
    1
  42. There's no reason accidentally killing civilians couldn't happen. There can also be reason's to avoid targetting the enemy's civilian population, namely avoiding a retaliation on your own population. This was the case for a while during the Battle of Britain.
    1
  43.  @justinspeaks.1652 : True but Russia (along with others) was fighting a coalition of Central Powers anyway so it shouldn't matter who it's against. It would seem to me that "the situation only worsened for the Tsar from then on" is not true though Brusilov's success was of course only a temporary respite.
    1
  44.  @justinspeaks.1652 : "the Tsar's popularity got lower and lower" Ah OK. I wasn't aware of that. Sounds reasonable.
    1
  45. Except for Zhukov.
    1
  46. Thank you for using IPA.
    1
  47. One reason was that they had actually learned something from Finland.
    1
  48. They aren't doing it to further any ideology but to avoid losing that sweet advertisement money.
    1
  49.  @theblackprince1346 : OK. I still wanted to comment that YouTube doesn't any censorious motives like the Nazis did, because one might read your comment claiming that they do. It's just monetary incentives which push them to do this.
    1
  50. "Where’s the recognition to squadron 303 from the polish people." It's at 6:34.
    1