Comments by "Mar" (@swunt10) on "TIKhistory" channel.

and today on things that never happened...
2
according to wikipedia the soviets mobilized 30mio men during ww2 in addition to the 5mio they started out with.(they probably had more, russians and statistics never go hand in hand) so your numbers seen mightily wrong.
2
not sure hitler started a world war. he and the soviet union started a war with poland to get germany and russia back to pre versailles treaty borders. that's not a world war. only when france and the british empire declared war on germany did it become a world war.
2
Frank C. Miller what you said makes no sense.
2
1945 the germans capitulated. why do you ask stupid questions about why the germans are not inflicting a higher ratio to the soviets? half the german army capitulate to the soviets. that's why, you moron. if you subtract that 1mio. you get a ratio of 1:1. keep in mind that at this time the soviets outnumber the germans on the eastern front by a factor of 5 to 10. a quick look into wikipedia shows the red army started the war with 5-7million and conscripted additional 30mio for a total of ca 35 million men. your numbers are simply wrong. if your enemy has 5-10 times as many men and material (tanks, artillery) as you and more equipment and you still kill as many of them as they kill from your side. that's pretty good. soviets probably had 2 or 3 times as many losses as they show in their statistics. as they say in russia. everything is political.
2
none of this is interesting or useful. most germans went into captivitiy at the very end of the war. so the war was basically over when most of them became pows. millions went into captivity when the war was over. things looked very differently for the pows who went into captivity during the war. 2 things are interesting about that fact. the western allies where good to german pows during the war and horrible at the end of the war when thousands of german pows died or where killed by neglect by the allies eg Rheinwiesen. the soviets where the other way around. germans who became pows during the war more likely then not died at the hands of the soviets eg. pows of the battle of stalingrad. but at the very end of the war the soviets stopped systematically killing german pows and most survived. so the 2 or 3 million german pows that went into soviet captivity at the very end of the war had a very different survival chance compared to german pows during the war. I would guess less than 20% of germans that became pows before 1943 survived soviet captivity.
1
I went to university and they never taught us that. what a waste of time that would be. the 30 million +5 million seems ok to me. probably even lower since it's a soviet statistic. so either your soviet casualty numbers are off by a factor of 2 or your numbers for the size of the soviet army is off by 5 million. it just doesn't make sense. but that is to be expected when you use russian books. thanks for telling your source but *Kavalerchik, B. The Price of Victory: The Red Army’s Casualties in the Great Patriotic War. is a book you might a well use as a paper weight. if you make snide remarks about wikipedia but use this book as a source I can't help you.
1
the book you based your statistic on is a russian propaganda book, do you realize that? it's a translation of a russian book that is essentially nothing more than some essays coupled together. all in line with the usual russian/soviet narrative that "russian/soviet soldiers are the best soldiers, germans only killed civilians and captured soldiers and the great patriotic war was glorious and not at all shameful. with that conclusion here are the numbers to match..." the problem is those numbers don't add up.
1
hey everyone. the statistic he used are largely from a russian propaganda book called *Kavalerchik, B. The Price of Victory: The Red Army’s Casualties in the Great Patriotic War. so keep that in mind. none of those numbers are correct. I bet you everything.
1
Frank C. Miller when germany and the soviet union attacked poland. poland only existed as a nation for 2 decades. also I didn't see the UK and france declare war on the soviet union. they only declared war on germany. funny right? almost as if they really wanted war with germany and didn't actually care about poland. also stop that bullshit of 'conquer the world', 'starve and kill entire populations'. do you morion even know what time we are talking about? did 1945 somehow happen before 1940 in your mind? I'm talking about 1939 when germany and the soviet union attacked poland to get back to their pre versailles treaty borders. people say that's the start of ww2 therefore hitler started ww2. but it's a simple fact of reasoning that a border conflict in eastern europe is in fact not a world war. it only turned into a world war when france and the UK decided they wanted war with germany and declared it. then it became a world war. strangely enough neither france nor the UK had the balls to declare war against the soviet union for attacking poland. why is that? if the reason for declaring war against germany was that poland needed to be protected then why did nobody declare war on the soviets? because it's bullshit. just like the UK declaring war against germany in ww1 was not because germany used some belgian roads to get to france. nobody in the UK gives two shits about belgium being used as a short cut and nobody in the UK gave a shit about poland (as demonstrated when the soviets occupied poland during the cold war and nobody cared).
1
you people sound like armchair generals. "if rommel had just destroyed the british armour he could have destroyed the rest of the infantry and armour". yes great. so you people are basically saying "if he had destroyed everyone, he would have destroyed everyone" but as you can see in what really happened every engagement is a fight on it's own. tanks against infantry is just as difficult as tanks against tanks. rommel started out with a numerical disadvantage (that he could locally turn in his favour sometimes), not nearly enough supplies, no reinforcements. sitting on your arse and fighting a 1 front war going head to head is hardly advisable in such a situation. also in warfare most casualties are caused by bringing the enemy to give up and surrender or head over heels retreat. fighting and killing everyone, men by men, just doesn't work. for what little chance he had with his resources and weak allies, he did amazingly well. if he had managed to bring the allies to a head over heels retreat by his drive to the wire he would have won, sitting at the choke point of the retreat, taking prisoners and materiel and leaving the slow italians to bring up the rear. it was a gamble and it nearly worked. but even after it failed it still doesn't look too bad for him and he can fight another day. not bad after all.
1
the nazi party did not seize the factories and businesses. maybe you should look that up first. nationalization of businesses in some rare cases is not an argument since even democratic modern nations do this. even the US nationalizes business if that is in the interest of the state, or the other way around if the business doesn't act in the national interest. case in point is the nationalization of banks during the banking crisis. privately owned businesses wanted to e.g. sell, them selling their toxic credits would have collapsed economic growth, the state didn't want that, so the banks were nationalized. does that make the US any less democratic or more nazi? no. also the state nationalizes private property all the time. everytime a new street is build or a big corporation wants to expand a factory and the owners of the land don't want to sell the state nationalizes their property. it's legal if it's done properly. does that make modern democratic nation more nazi? no. so don't use that flawed argument.
1
@TheImperatorKnight yes read the communist that had an agenda. great idea. why not read a nazi book about the soviet union as well. or read what a turkey writes about christmas.
1
@thearisen7301 did you miss the part where I explained that even democratic nations do this every once in a while? especially when it's about military interests. but it's not a rule and it doesn't mean that the nazis 'seized all factories' as he said in the video. almost all business in nazi germany where privately owned. unlike in e.g. east germany (1959-1989) where almost no business was privately owned. big difference.
1
+TIK but you rely only on one source. the soviets drafted 30 million men during ww2, in addition to the 5-6 million they started out with. your numbers don't add up to that number. no idea why you didn't even check such an obvious discrepancy.
1
well you are wrong. there are plenty examples where a capitalist country owns privately operated companies (as opposed to a public enterprise which is also an option) or forces a company to do what they want. still capitalism. the state is a legal person and can do business and the state can enforce and create laws to make companies do or stop doing certain things. a state can even legally nationalise companies as happened with banks during the 2008 financial crisis. also most all companies traded on the stock exchange are owned by a group not an individual. capitalism has nothing to do with individual or groups control.
1
that last sentence doesn't make much sense to me. germans don't outnumber germans?
1
eating two loafs of bread per day seems impossible to me.
1
the main problem with this video is that he makes up definitions or uses modern english definitions that didn't exist back then or even today in countries like germany and then criticizes a german guy that lived 70 years ago. socialism is, according to most definitions one of 3 political ideologies of the 19. century. the other two being conservatism and liberalism. socialism itself as a word is not defined and is generally excepted to contain all 3 of the social movements namely communism, social democracy and anarchism. none of this is dry cut and perfectly defined so you can't criticize someone for using language in a perfectly acceptable way just because your own understanding of what the definitions of words in your language should be. socialists and national socialists both used the word socialist but that doesn't mean they liked each other or tried to accomplish the same thing. so if a socialist said that national socialism is not socialism then he clearly means his version of socialism.
1