Comments by "Horatio82" (@horatio8213) on "TIKhistory" channel.

  1.  @bakters  "@Horatio82 Oh, I forgot the "You didn't show me the sources, I never asked for!" accusation..." No, just simple fact, you claim that you have source, but not show it before. Then using simple logic iI ask about it. "Reassessing the Standard of Living in the Soviet Union: An Analysis Using Archival and Anthropometric Data Elizabeth Brainerd "Four different measures of population health show a consistent and large improvement between approximately 1940 and 1969: child height, birth weight, adult height and infant mortality all improved significantly during this period. These four biological measures of the standard of living also corroborate the evidence of some deterioration in living conditions beginning around 1970, when infant and adult mortality was rising and child height and birth weight stopped increasing and in some regions began to decline." And that is your capital evidence that TIK mIssunderstand economics and policy in USSR? You understand that in the same time whole industrialized world came with great jump in medicine and standard of medical care. In comparision USSR wasn't any way behind in this proces. Plus great role in rebuilding of USSR economy was done by using war Lend Lease program and United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration to 1947. Exploitation of satelite states by USSR also give aditional resources to USSR. There is so many other elements that shape this field that are not connected directly with rebuilding of economy of USSR. But in your view this single part of data make TIK thesis false. Also data itself as usual in USSR could be altered for many reasons. Soviets just love data manipulation to prove that they are on the right side of history. Somewhere in my home is a economical book from 1956 that was basicly bunch of nonsense about whole spectrum of standars that made communist economy better than capitalism. But in reality data was altered and manipulated for propaganda reasons. That is why you need be very carefull in atacking TIK thesis on this field when data could be problematic. TIK himself many times argue that soviet data are not completeor contradicts itself. Next problem is population crisis that struck USSR after WW2. Whit great lose of men in reproduction age numbers of birth was much lower than in other countries. Whit less childrens even with less resources you can uplift their state. Basicly to 1980's diffeence between sexes in USSR were dramatic and even today demographics are still big problem of Russia. You mix two set of data and try that way made TIK thesis wrong. I rather see proper work on TIK side with multiply sources and crosschecking that in use of one set of data and building your claim on it. Your argumentation do not look like well analised.
    1
  2.  @bakters  " bakters Wyróżniona odpowiedź bakters 2 godziny temu @Horatio82 TIK wrote: "One, your tanks need to be able to fight enemy tanks, because they may run into them and there's no guarantee there will be a friendly AT gun around to help. [emphasis mine] " Basically, "Idunno, just in case." He truly believed, at least back then, that AT guns are for fighting tanks, while tanks should just act as mobile artillery. There are people who think that tanks mostly shoot other tanks, TIK recognized them to be wrong, so the opposite is obviously true, isn't it?" You still miss the point. Example was Matilda II in North Africa. Tank with 2pdr gun (40 mm) which was good in AT role, but was weak in killing targets like German AT guns or infantry. For that you need more that 40 mm shell. That is why there was a need for bigger gun that could destroy targets like that and be good as a AT because "there's no guarantee there will be a friendly AT gun around to help". It is so simple. Tank need a gun to kill infantry and other soft targets. AT gun is usless in this without proper ammunitiuon, great example is KwK 42 from Panther tank. Great in killing tanks but very weak in killing infantry. And in WW2 AT guns were one of the bigger tank killers, at Kursk soviet AT guns were more effective than tanks. "There are people who think that tanks mostly shoot other tanks, TIK recognized them to be wrong, so the opposite is obviously true, isn't it?" No at all, TIK said that you need both this atributes but in balance shifted to support role, but with AT making killing enemy tanks possiable. You wrongly think that he underestimated AT values in tank gun, but he don't. He recognize this and place this role as important, but second in tank arrament. Whole this is pointeless because you missunderstand TIK. And he stated that clear as it could be possiable. You basicly do not understand of context of usage of Matilda II and this tank as a example. And tanks mostly shoot to other targets than enemy tanks. Armored warfare is much more complex that only tank vs tank. "Actually, Chieftain claims that you mostly fire your MG, but whatever." No he is not. Nicolas Moran said about MG as a suppersion (not killing) tanker tool. Main gun with proper ammo is main weapon to kill targets om battlefield! Great fabular example is in scene from movie Fury when M4 tanks suppress with MG's German infantry and open way for infantry. Main targets are killed by gun, just like enemy AT guns and infantry in fox holes. MG just keep them suppressed. The same is with air force. As a killer of tanks is not that effective. But it destroying logistic, suppres movment of tanks. Because if you do not hide your tank in case of air attack, in the end air attack will destroy your tank. But when you are hiding you can't move. Role of air strike was rather slow down moving enemy, tanks, AT guns and even artillery were much more effectie in eliminating enemy tanks. Here is video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t2cRZTv14o That is evidence that rather you made wrong assumption even with presented data.
    1
  3.  @bakters  "That is total nonsense! The population was doing better with every year even during the war. Think about it. The war was less of a problem than Stalin's purges, holodomor, kulak purges and lysenkoism." USSR lose main food provider, Ukraine and Soviets made it better than in 1940? You are serious? There is so many accounts of starvation and food shortage in war time and in the first years after war that soviet offical data are fake. Not mention devastation to live stock and farming populations. You need men workin as farmers to produce food! Men which were mostly killed in war! In 1946-47 struck famine, there were no "less of a problem" as you claim! "He did say that the Soviets were simply faking it all, while the food production went down and didn't reach 1940 level even by 1953. " And there are reason to argue that they even get to levels from 1913 in food production!
    1
  4.  @bakters  Dude even Putin is claiming that there was no Holodomor! You really do not know what you writing.
    1
  5.  @bakters  "@Horatio82 "Putin is claiming that there was no Holodomor!" Yet the data you have contested clearly show it very much was real." Dude ....sarcasm.... That is problem with Soviet and Russian sources, they still claim wild things about USSR. Like this myth that USSR was able produce more food than before German invasion and keep high standards for civilian population! Be serious and think for 5 minutes. How country that most industrial and agrarian centers from pre-war time was relockated or occiupied by Germans. How when Germans capture Ukraine USSR could increse output of food? That is supreme bullshit! The same is in post war years with reeduced men population, destroyed infrastrucure and extreminated live stock. Countries less destroyed by war suffer famine in this time. But USSR magicly overcome all that? Time to check sources and read some first hand realtions!
    1
  6.  @bakters  Poland didn't create colective farming system in that years. They did it much later. Which mean that prodcution was on quite good level of quality, but still they need years to rebuild agriculture. And I know how was reality in Poland, because I am from Poland. Then do not try to sell me praise for communism. ""How when Germans capture Ukraine USSR could increse output of food?" Holodomor is an Ukrainian word, not Russian. It was them who starved to death. Among the most fertile lands in all of Europe.." Starved by Stalin and Ukraine was main provider of grain to USSR. Then lose of Ukraine have to strike soviet grain production! Even Kazachstan with its production was not enough to replace lose of Ukraine! How Soviets could replace that lose? The couldn't..... And that is problem with your claim about war rise production of grain! "So the loss of Ukraine very well could mean that per capita food consumption didn't go down, or even improved over time." Ukraine was and still is food basket that could feed whole Europe, then do not make me laught to compare food production to food consumption in Ukraine! Without Ukraine grain production in USSR couldn't rise to replace lose of Ukraine! Nohing you claim do not conect with colectivization damages for food production. War and post war difficulties in soviet economy. I do not know what propaganda you read, but that is just not make sence.
    1
  7.  @bakters  Chłopie w latach wojny i do 1950 ZSRR zmagało się z wojennymi zniszczeniami. Kolektywizacja zniszczyła społecznie i ekonomicznie rolnictwo. Nawet kolonialna polityka ZSRR wobec satelitów nie dawała tak dużych efektów by ratować radzieckie społeczeństwo przed głodem. Do śmierci Stalin forsował inwestycje w przemysł ciężki i zbrojeniowy. Odbiło to się czkawką w całym bloku w latach 1953-56. Dopiero po śmierci Wodza sytuacja powoli się normowała. Tylko że to nie znaczy że ZSRR się odbudował po wojnie. Ani ekonomia, ani społeczeństwo w ZSRR nawet po 1956 roku nie zdołało odrobić wojennych strat. Problem jest taki że pomiędzy 1940 a 1965 masz praktycznie nowe pokolenie żyjące na gruzach powojennej ekonomii. Może i w latach 1960tych sytuacja się poprawiła. Jednak ine bez powodu lata od wojny do 1956 roku nie należały do szczególnie produktywnych w ZSRR. Odbudowa trwała, ale jako całość demogrrafia i ekonomia ZSRR nigdy nie odrobiły strat otrzymanych w drugiej wojnie. To nie jest także standard się nie poprawiał, tylko że ten standard w innych krajach wzrastał szybciej.
    1
  8.  @bakters  Dane szacunkowe CIA z okresu zimnej wojny względem wielkości gospodarki ZSRR okazały się mocno przeszcowane w górę. Gospodarka ZSRR była znacznie mniejszą niż nawet szacowało CIA. W kwestii odbudowy ekonomii to nie tylko kwestia odbudowy do poziomu poprzedzającego wojnę. Ale także to jak ten czas zachamowal rozwój potencjału. Dla porównani zobacz jak Japonia podniosła się z klęski po wojnie i jak stała się ekonomicznym gigantem. To jest właśnie różnica, ZSRR nie tylko ledwie odbudował swoją gospodarkę po latach. Ale nie był w stanie dalej jej rozwijać. Stąd późniejsze zalamanie i krach lat 80tych. Popatrz też jak ZSRR zerowal na demoludach.
    1
  9. In Poland is lot of disscussion about that "allaince". But there in no real evidence that Hitler was honest in his propositions. He need buffor state against USSR when he would go to war with France and UK. After that Poland would become his next victime. Poles were one of the most hated nations by Hitler, as Slavs thery were just little bit higher in Hitler views than Jews. How he saw Poles was seen from first day of war when Germans with proscription list were killing Poles in mass. By Hitler Wielkopolska (Greater Poland), Slask (Silesia) and Pomorze (Pomerania) were "historic German lands" what was one big lie. Hitler would never left that lands in Polish hands. Nobody who know Hitler views can belive that "allaince" can be possiable. Not mention that even Italy or Japan were never real allies for Hitler. Just look like Hitler treat Mussolini, even when Italy were much more essential for Germany than Poland.
    1
  10. Take a brake. If you need it, just take it. That is a point for beeing independent :) See you soon TIK.
    1
  11.  @bcamp6088  This "formely German territory" was Polish ethnic lands from 10th century occiupied by Germansfrom end of 18th century. In 1939 no one belive in Hitler's assurances that he will stop only on that! Giving up Poland basicly give up last chance to stop Germans from dominating Europe without one shot. And what is justificaton of German aggression? That independent countries didn't wan't to be a satelite states for Berlin? I see really didn't read Mein Kampf or lissent what Hitler talk about Slavs.
    1
  12.  @bcamp6088  " The modern interpretation of WW2 is little more than allied propaganda (the victors write the history books), Germany was aggressive but by contrast the British,French,Americans,Italians, etc were all pretty aggressive as well" That is totally missrepresentation of modern WW2 historography and spin o take blame for WW2 from Germans.
    1
  13.  @bcamp6088  That give Germans exccuse to be worse? Many things done by British was harsh and cruel, but Germans were beter because the want do the same? Strange logic. You should read what Germans did in their colonies before WW1. And stop whitewashing them.
    1
  14.  @bcamp6088  Befor WW2? Americans were involved in trade competition with other nations like UK, Japan, France and Germany. In political sence they were more involved in South America and Philipines, no continental Asia. In any way they were "aggressive" like that two states. You should read less propaganda mor real historic books. American were in stage of political isolationism if you don't remeber.
    1
  15.  @bcamp6088  I don't claim that colonial powers were good or evil. But you try to spin Hitler aggression and attrocieties as a normal actions. It is nothing like moral superiority it is just simple comparision. In terms of strategy UK have less options than in WW1. War with Third Reich was an natural response for German aggression. Hitler didn't stop at Austria, Chehoslovakia. He always want more. And remember Hitler start war attacking Poland, UK nad France go to war after Germans didn't agree to stop attacking Poland.
    1
  16.  @bcamp6088  About warfare and morality. Allied powers didn't bomb German cities before late 1940, which happens in response of bombing London. Only military targets. UK nad France treat with all regard to their rights German civilians that they find on own teritories. When in the same time Germans commited genocide in Poland kiling Polish civilians in mass executions from 1st September. German with unessesery cruelty bomb civilians on roads in Poland from day one as a operational practice. Attack civilians targets, as a military which they weren't. Practice common in all actions in German campaings in 1939-1945. Terrorist attacks was German main tactic not accident. Many POW was killed by Germans without any real reason in Polish, Norvay and French Campaings. That is just little sample of Germans war crimes. Yes Allies do many bad things in war with Germans, but war was caused by unprovoced German invasion of Poland. And Germans with any regards comitt many war crimes before any Allied power did the same. Scale and goal was totaly different on both sides. I don't see how you can try spin that to exccuse Germans for everything they planed and done. Morality exist in war in conventions and treaties. Germans didn't respect any of them if they feel that they can avoide retribusion.
    1
  17. As a comaprition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Polish_Non-Aggression_Pact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Polish_Non-Aggression_Pact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact Any one can see a difference. Propaganda starts when Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact is named as a "Non-agression Pact".
    1
  18. From soviet perspective after winter 1941/42 Wermacht was depleted and powerfull offensive willl destroy it. In reality Soviets belived in own propaganda and overestimented German casualities. Zukhov and other generals create false picture of weakness of Wermacht and that Red Army is in better shape than Wermacht. Stalin belive that Red Army could win in offensive in winter of 1942. But that was wrong decision based on wrong assumption. That always was problem with flow of information in totalitarian state. Stalin caused that by his terror in 1930's, any defet was hide as log as possiable in fear of accusation and death . Lot of top soviet generals died in 1941 because they can't realise orders from Moscow and they were send to death because they "failed".
    1
  19.  @lukebruce5234 They did fight with bigger portion of land armies of Reich. But if you take material and infrastrucure put to fight with western allies this is not that simple. In case of numbers of equipment like tanks, artillery or planes in relation to infantry, wester front take more than Soviets want to agree. Most numbers of German planes was use on West (witch forces also used in North Africa and Italy). No one take the what Red Army done against big portion of Wermacht, but in reality most devastation to german industrial power was done by Western Allies. Battle of Atlantic keep big portion of oil outside Eastern Front. Steel , manpower and other resources used to build Kriegsmarine could be used in war with USSR. Lend Lease is a big problem for official soviet propaganda view of WW2. The same problem is that form 23.09.1939. to 22.06.1941. Soviets activly help Hitler in his conquests as allies. Provide everything that Germany need to wage war. And scale of loses in 1941-42 were caused by incompetence of leaders of USSR. Only last year of war show how Red Army could operate if was proper commanded and trained. Operation Bagration was case when soviet loses were low in comparition to heavy losses of Germans. About how effective was Red Arny, that is big disscusion. Number we got from USSR and Third Reich documents are very problematic. Sometimes they even on first look like garbage. TIK show that many times. In many cases Russia still do not want to open documentation to studies. In reality soviet losses were much bigger than numbers given by official statements. And in Soviet and Russian interest is keep myth that USSR was responssiable for most German loses. And keep myth of heroic succsess only with insignificant help of West. In my view Red Army loses in 1941 show how uneffective it was against Wermacht. Soviets lose millions of soldiers and thounsends in numbers of tank, planes and other key equipment. To rebuild loses and create forces ready to win war USSR need 2 years of bloody war and huge economical and military help from USA and UK. And still to the end USSR lose much of this rebuild potetial. Manpower in USSR in 1945 wer depeted. Economy was in ruins and USSR need years to rebuild and use captured german and western technolgies. Look on soviet atomic weapons porogram, it was years behind Manhattan Project even with stolen from it secrets. Stalin new that he can't win war against USA nad UK in 1945. Because if he belive he can, he would start it.
    1
  20.  @lukebruce5234  There are good books that shows how many official stands in soviet history of WW2 are basicly lies. At start you should read Mark Solonin. He put coherent view on soivet part of WW2. Specially in air. http://www.solonin.org/en/books
    1
  21.  @lukebruce5234  For simple example. Biggest tank battle was not at Kursk 1943, but at Dubno in 1941. And Germans won tat battle, destroying or take nearly 1000 soviet tanks.
    1
  22.  @lukebruce5234  "Wasn't the German navy like "1%" of their entire military? If anything it's the Western narrative which seems to be very misleading. Destroying the navy when 99% of the war isn't even at the seas doesn't seem like much of an accomplishment." Take manpower, industry used in building fleet of Uboots and surface ships. This resources and manpower could give Germans few more tank and mechanizated division in Operation Barbarossa. In this case you also sholud remember that this 1% could block Murmansk. Do you ever know how much steel is need to build one type VII Uboot? This "1%" of German forces put Red Navy in corner for how much? Basicly to 1944 Red Navy was hidding from Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe in bases. The same is in the case of destroying Luftwaffe. It was done in bombing campaings over Germany. Red Army benefits from attricion of Luftwaffe done on Western Front. "The same problem is that form 23.09.1939. to 22.06.1941. Soviets activly help Hitler in his conquests as allies. The USSR tried forming an anti-Hitler alliance. Only after the West rejected the deals and helped Hitler occupy Czechoslovakia by betraying its ally and even letting another ally (Poland) occupy it the USSR struck a deal with Germany:" Yeah he was so consistent he form allaince with Hitler and divide Europe in half. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact Not mention military cooperation that USSR provide for Germany before Hitler rise to power. What you call sitiuation when two powers divide spoils sell eachother resources and technology? Hitler never would invade Poland if Stalin just stay neutral. Even little chance that Stalin will attack Germans in Poland after thier invasion make Hitler uncertain about his plan. But then Stalin propose him treaty and count that long war in West will bring revolution like WW1. UK nad France do not betray Poland in 1939, evryone know that Poland will lose to Germany, but war wil be contniued in West. But Stalin was one who propose this alliance. "And scale of loses in 1941-42 were caused by incompetence of leaders of USSR. Only last year of war show how Red Army could operate if was proper commanded and trained The Soviets didn't fight very well but practically everyone was getting wrecked by Germany." But noone lose that much that quick. Whole 1930's prepartion to lead world revolution died in 6 months in 1941. Millions of soldiers and tons of equipment was lost. This is still greatest military defeat in history of Russia nad world. By whole french campaing of 1940 Germans lose more planes than for time from 22.06.1941. to battle of Moscov and that say something about effectivness of Red Army. Years 1941-43 were meatgrinder for economy and population of USSR. "Stalin new that he can't win war against USA nad UK in 1945. Because if he belive he can, he would start it. The USSR wasn't really trying to start a WW3, if anything it was a British plan to start it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable" But thing you do not wrote that this plan was developed in case if USSR will breake agreemenst about cooperation after WW2 and try to suppress democrtaic election (what Stalin did) in middle and east Europeans countries that landed under soviet occiupation. Plan was just study of worst case scenario. Do not play a dumb who belive that Stalin wasn't calculating his chances againts USA and UK. He done that and he knew about A-Bomb, thats why he wait for his atomic program sucsess. Thats why he want peace, because he need time to absorb his conquest and rebuild USSR.
    1
  23.  @bakters  I will dissagree. Soviet airforces can't stop Luftwaffe in 1945 from ground support missions. They even didn't try attack German airfields! Sowiet aitforce was vwry ineffective.
    1
  24.  @dimakapeev3156  Yeah but noone didn't beat in that nazist and communist. Not even close.
    1
  25.  @robcampbell6700  If people read Marx with understanding. Marx was convince that to achive communism, first step is revolution in industral country and creation of ploretariat dictatorsip. First mistake of Marx, revolution starts in agrarian Russia (less industrialised country of Europe), second mistake ploretariat can't organise his goverment, insted that create monoparty capatured by tyrants like Lenin and Stalin! Yes, Lenin was the same monster like Stalin! He build concetration camps, create secret police and destroy democracy in Soviet Russia. And you are wrong when you claim that USSR wasn't socialist, all means of production was state own, there were even time when Lenin force abandonment of any currency, but that with other socialist reforms nearly destroyed USSSR. Marxist theory need totalitarian state that create new men by state education. Family will be repleced by state. All that is in Marx works. Socialism can't work with democracy, because free people never will resign from privat property nad other freedoms. You should check others communs in history. In small scale they can work, but in bigger scale socialism is imposiable. Capitalism is jsut much more effective and even with his faults is much more better then utopian socialism. Colony in Jamestown starts like a commune and end with mass starvation. To many people want use other people work as a way to benefit themselve. By the way Marx is only one of socialist theorist. But today incorectlly everybody claim that Marx create socialism. Marxist theory is utopian with no cover in science.
    1
  26.  @robcampbell6700  There is big difference. I live in country thats try socialism and fail. You will claim that was not real marxist socialism. Then how many times you will try? Everytime when some try use Marx's teachings is always ends with starvation and dicatorship. Socialism by Marx can exist only with violent means and represion. You can live in commune under capitalism, but that is not enough efficent to survive on free market. That is reality.
    1
  27.  @fuzzydunlop7928  He directly wrote. about violent overthrone the structure of power. He he was convince that only revolution of ploretariat will create new society, but that is his biggiest mistake. French revolution like bokshevik one not only bring terror but also create dictators like Napoleon, Lenin and Stalin. Even Paris Commune were going this way.
    1
  28.  @robcampbell6700  In his works Maex an d Engels wrote that they are sure that ploretariat will rebel. They both were convince that capitalism will fail much faster than anyone predicted before them. They were sure thay will happen because of industralisation and social failings of capitalism. The failinhs that never happen. No revolution happen because of capitalism in Europe. Tsar Russia was much more feudal than capitalist.
    1
  29.  @robcampbell6700  In real that wasn't revolution, but coup madeby bolsheviks. They start civil war to grab power. If you look how they grab power in 1917 you can see that they don't have that much support. Terror and chaos of civil war give Lenin real dictatorship. That was not in any way mass revolution. In 1930' some thinkers n USSR start even questioning communism after great depression. They saw how in USA and in GB workers were livingin much better conditions than citizens of USSR. But communist cenzorship supress that opinions. Still lie about bolshevik's paradise was spread by soviet propaganda and usefull isiots on West.
    1
  30.  @robcampbell6700  That was communist coup. Lenin use terror against his enemies. Even other socialists, look on fate of other socialist parties after October coup. Lenin try implementation of Marx ideas. But after few years that bring catastrophic results.Commune didn't work, they need party controlled biurocracy. I think that was source of leninst and stalinst version of marxism. They try orthodox way withTrotsky's and they fail. Because marxist theory faild they create new model, still socialist but more centralised and supported by mass terror. Stalins rule was logical step in realization of Marx model.
    1
  31.  @robcampbell6700  I agree to dissagree. And noone show me any real example of socialism that work longer than only few years. For many years people claim that USSR is that place. Later Sweden, today Venezuela. And USSR now is not real socialism by some, Swedes claim that they are not socialist country and Venezuela is catastrophy. Where is this socialism in work? Denmark? They also claim that they are not socialist.
    1
  32.  @robcampbell6700  If you blame US for Venesuela i can't agree. Shortage od basic products in country that can trade with China and others in the world. Venesuela destroy even owned by state oil company. Social giveaway destroy economy before sanctions. Don't blame others when Venezuela have to buy a oil from other countries! Country with one of the biggest oil fields in the world! Also Chomsky for many years support venesuelan dictator Chavez, like Jeremy Corbyn and many others. Today the lie that they never claim that Venesuela is social paradise. Or blame USA for falling of socialism in Venesuela. Still the same lies like on soviet propaganda, communism fails.... because USA.
    1
  33.  @МаксимБромберг  This "weak" central power for nearly 200 years keep Commonwealth running. Sejm was very effective in ruling, you need next 150 years to fall. And talking about Ivan you should wrote insane.
    1
  34.  Jose Raul Miguens Cruz  You know that is term for historic lands, languages, culture and people on much wider scale then russian? This is in example term covering lands of todays west Russia, Bielarus, Ukraine, Poland and few other countries. Russian is term that cover smaller part of this areas, or russian is one of languages from this group. Rus is not the same us russian. Like Russians are one of slavic nations., because not all Slavs are Russian.
    1
  35. TIK do thing you feel you love and you want to do. Do not give up.
    1
  36.  @JWang-qi6lz  Kevin you are basicly using old Russian propaganda. Always when Russia want to take over some country they spread lies about history and today situation. Look like Russia grab parts of China, basicly using the same lies. You wrote that Poland today is messing in Ukraine? Did Poland annexed any Ukraine territory today? Did Poland send unmarked and ununiformed forces on Ukraine soil and create rebelion on Ukraine? In both cases no. Putin and Russia did! Then you accuse country that want today help to keep independent Ukraine using arguments of Putin. Guy who invade few countries. Guy who murder reporter and critic of his regime. And again Poland do not invade Soviet Russia. Both side clashes on Ukraine soil. And Polish forces were invited by Petrula's government to defend independent Ukraine from Bolsheviks invasion. Off course Poland did it to defend own independence too. If Poland was interested in action against Bolsheviks, they would attack when Bolsheviks were losing to Whites. Buy they did not! Also if you want talk about aggression and bad faith, ask yourself how it possiable that in 1937 Soviets murdered over 100 000 Poles. They murdered them just because they were Poles. 1937! How Polish government could trust Stalin after that?
    1
  37. We are here with you. And we will be in the future. Keep yourself in good shape we will wait.
    1
  38.  @samebar  1) Soviet bombs Berlin, Warsaw, even neutral Hungary and Finland in 1941 pushing this two countries to war! 2) Japan and Germans were fighting inh US and UK armies against III Reich and Japan. Japan soldiers in US Army fights in Italy. 3) You are mistaken, leveling Germany to ground was Stalin goal and Red Army was doing as a revenge and policy. 4) In any case of bombing targets in occupied countries was military strategy, like destroying railways or whole tows in Normandy to stop Germans to move to Normandy. But in many times they warn civilians about incoming bombing. 5) Soviets not liberated nothing, they were conquering for communist empire. They destroy vevry independent state on road to Berlin. Only Finland defend itself. That was change one opressor for new one. 6) Yes they bomb and level whole cities using artillery, read about campaing on Bielarus, Ukraine and in Poland or Germany. Civilian look on Red Army like on mongolian or huns horde!
    1
  39.  @TheImperatorKnight  For me there is four main ways to kill " Hitlerv didn't knew". First is Mein Kampf. Second is Wansee Protocole. Third Hitler's own public statements. Four is tricky, but even in dictatorship are some personal and political conflicts. Some would just report Hitler report that whitout his agreement someone is createing Holocaust. That will benefit the position of the side that report to Hitler. Not mention all other material evidence and eye witness testimony.
    1
  40.  @JohnSmith-ft4gc  Republicans use the same terror tactics as a Francist. Boths sides target opposite politicians, situation was so chaotic that any of sides could be seen as a preparing a coup. Spanish PM as killed nad repalced by soviet puppet, are you still claim that Republicans were not internaly divided?
    1
  41.  @hermitoldguy6312  But noonr alowed them to observe voteing. Also That quote is from Lenin. It means "It is not important how you vote. But who count the votes." It is stament that is connected to his other words that " We (bolsheviks) will never give up oower that we gain". Both quotes mean just that the bolsheviks never belive in democracy or election. Because only way that can win is cheating in elcections and count voye in that way that bolsheviks always wins.
    1
  42.  @dickesbrot5724  Poland never plan pushing any one to became catholic. Even in 16th century Polish-Lithuenian Commonwelath guarantee freedome of religion. Yes Catholics were majority, but Protestants and Orthodox Church were in the same rights, rights of Jews and Muslim were also protected. That change after long period of wars in second half of 17th century, but still Commonwealth was one of the most tolerant place in the world to 1795 (not ideal, but still). All acusation about force conversion was started by Tsars, as a way to excuse expansion on Polish-Lithuenian teritory in 16th century and it was used even in 19th century. It is just one of points in long history of polish-russian controversy. There is no side without blame. But most conflicts in 20th century in this area was created or was used by imperial rulers of Austria, Russia and Prussia. This empires were using one religion or nation to weaken another one. Just like Turks leve Balkans in state of never endning conflict.
    1
  43.  @TheTokkin  Then read what companies were created in occiupied countries and who was in control. The same happen with property of Jews on Germany. Look on Goreing and Ley.
    1
  44.  @TheTokkin  They were litteraly a party controlers over company! They could do what they wish in this company if that was "in interst of Reich".
    1
  45.  @LordDark102  China is state own economy. But party have absolute controle over property and people in country. That is not capitalism. For some time that was on way to switch to authoritarian state, but now China make big step back to totalitarian control with Social Credit system.
    1
  46.  @Tupadre97  So strong argument. But not really. Capitalism is based on freedome of trade and service. That is so "totalitarian". I think you are some "starbucks" socialist that never taste real socialism in work. Then you wil understand what is totalitarian and what is not.
    1
  47.  @Phantomrasberryblowe  Plan was full of holes. Maybe Gavin just make it bigger failure. But still I am convinced that Montgomery and Browning are fathers of failure called Market-Garden. And in anyway MG was succses.
    1
  48.  @Phantomrasberryblowe  He was main gamer to push this plan, his role was to keep control on creating and execiuting it. If he didn't that, it is he's to blame, not anyone else. It is simple, good commander trust he's staff, but always check it itself! His staff and his plan failed. Not Gavin, not Sosabowski, mani fault is in Monty.
    1
  49.  @Phantomrasberryblowe  Then why you disscus with me if German genrals are so good source for you?
    1
  50. Any independent country between Russia and Germany is "treat" and "nationalistic" because is in a way of creation of empire by Germans or Russians. Polish-Lithuenian Commonwealth were partitioned because it was weakened by 200 years of wars and crisis. Hungary were partioned by Turks and Austrians. Your logic is flawed that Versalies Trety is responsiable for existing of Poland or other Central and Southern Europeans countries. If that was true countries like Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary or Romania would seize to exists after WW2. And Third Reich alliance with USSR was against UK, France and USA in long term, not against only Poland!
    1