Comments by "Dima S" (@dimas3829) on "World War III, 1989: NATO vs Warsaw Pact" video.

  1. which is total bullshit, morale issues would crumble NATO forces.
    6
  2. China would defiantly change sides cause it was pissed by the USSR PRECISELY cause soviets didn't want to start ww3 with USA, while China wanted to kick some USA asses.
    4
  3.  @richardroberts4355  did you fucken forgot about Vietnam war where China backed up Vietnam against USA? Till 1971 relationship between USA and China were clearly hostile. But the key issue would be the year 1989 when Chinese government violently suppressed political protests and received different economic sanctions from USA. It would never ally it after that move.
    3
  4. the real question is how long before USA troops surrender cause of diminished morale and USA turns into civil war cause population don't want to die in meaningless conflict in Europe.
    2
  5. +Standardowy Login are you implying a chance of anti-soviet uprisings? Well, there would be possibility for that, but the facts are that population of democratic countries VERY much dislike the war on their own territory, while communistic ones ensures to get patriotic vibes to the population. I wouldn't imagine French or Brits to sustain such human losses (be it a percentage of population or same amount) as USSR sustained in WW2 and not overthrow their own government.). Indoctrinated East Germany, fellow slav-brothers from Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, People's Republic of Bulgaria - wouldn't ever rebel. Albania became Chinese friend and if to were attacked by the NATO they would have to deal with China too. Romania, Hungary, Poland - could rebel against USSR, but there were lots of soviet troop stationed there to ensure order and eve if some minority o people there would rebel- they would be brutally crushed. Personally, I would active you to pay close attention of what happened in USA during Vietnam's war (long story short, it was surely an uprising against government, a peaceful one with tendencies to turning into civil war) - democratic countries are not suited for long and bloody conflict, that's why they heavily rely on aviation and swift military campaigns nowadays. On the other hand, both USSR and it's satellites and Chin with it's satellites were prepared for new WW, moreso, the preparations for it were eagerly accepted as something essential. The main reason China and USSR broke their friendship is because China was demanding the war of total annihilation as soon as Soviets made their first atomic bomb and Soviets wanted to have moar means of winning it than jut those weapons, so they prepared and prepared and prepared. I remember watching an old military instruction's|educational film on youtube where it's described how soviet soldiers should act when offensive atomic strike i made onto enemy's city.. It's quite a horror, really. They were supposed to attack right after the mini atomic bomb is exploded and enemy is disoriented and take defensive position in that irradiated city to then march forward to the next one. Now remember thousands of soviet troops that were the guinea pigs for atomic bomb explosions\experimentations in Siberia and imagine THAT sort of people to lose against western cosumerists in terms of morale during a dull-scale war.. It's impossible really. The only reason that Soviets didn't conquer the world was the lack of aggression on their part, not the lacks of means to achieve it.
    1
  6. +Standardowy Login Lol, it seems like you don't know shit about soviet draft procedure and the response to it. Those not loyal to Soviets were fabricating forged documents telling that they are unable to serve so they would be put as the bottom's reserve en mass and would be armed only in case that there is a serious lack of troops on the front-line and the front-line itself is deep in the soviet territory. In such a case, seeing how NATO troops would readily commit war crimes against civilians like UK and USA did at the end of WW2 bombing the shit out of civilian cities which didn't have armed facilities or weaponry production, even those not particularly loyal ones would feel hatred towards democratic forces, not the soviet ones. Mass desertions would e impossible cause of geographic - new soviet troops would be coming from USSR to Europe (with Chinese volunteers cause China would totally participate even if not officially), the disgusting war doctrine of NATO wouldn't led to switching sides either - just google how Yugoslavia was destroyed cause of western intervention. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria... just bomb the shit out of region and hope that some military died for those million civilians killed. China-Soviet split happened precisely cause USSR wasn't as eager as China to start WW3, there is just no possibility that Chinese wouldn't participate on Soviet side in case of Total war while surely being enemy to it during proxy ones. The thing with survival is pretty shady one. France was and is strongly socialistic country even today, they were quite friendly with soviets and jut watching modern-day riots of French proletariat it sees pretty evident that est case scenario they would quickly capitulate as soon as there was soviet troops on their soil, in worst case scenario they would enjoy a civil war or switch sides entirely. There was also a case of French gold in USA nd French president suddenly getting "Ara spring" for requesting it back, so surely there was no economical, nor political reason for France to be loyal to NATO and that's not the only country with such mine under it's skin. Many people were sympathetic to USSR in the NATO, especially after aggressive American wars. The thing with fight for surviving is that at lest USA forced itself (by the government propaganda, sects of Christianity and advertisements) into shelter - there was quite strong feeling or though among the population that in case of Total war you should hide yourself in the most fortified building or bunker you could ever afford, NOT go and enlist in the army.. and surely it was all the way around in Soviet Union.
    1
  7. +Standardowy Login Well, duh, most people don't give a fuck about their nation or ideology of their own country. Most of the people want to get a better life and military of USSR provided such opportunities (until the last yer of it's existence. ) There were special stores only for military use, special rights, there was a policy of providing personal apartments for those who served it. People had plenty of reasons to not actually disobey the rule of the soviets. I don;t know why are you implying that politician's opinion are an ultimate truth. Furtherore 1991 was the year of inevitable collapse and once again it was a peceful time and if war would strike - it was quite a different story. There were no mass-scale soviet war crimes during WW2, there were several small ones, but the official order was to persecute those committing them by firing squads. Yeah, those "innocent children killed by monster Stalin" include those bastards that decided to rob, rape or kill civilians in a war zone. Well, there was a cases of shit going to the fan in Manchuria cause of Chinese civil war going on, but it was not about civilians, but rather about tons of militant groups fighting there one another. I did consider why Gerany fough to the last an against Soviets when it cae otp ocounter-offensive, and it sees like you didn't. Germany killed 20 million civilian in USSR and Germany high command considered that soviets would retaliate the same way. Goebbels turned it's propaganda about "evil Russian monsters" to eleven and here we are, even retards like you are are believing it. Grozny was destroyed by capitalistic forces, not the comunsitic ones, duh. Comunsim has built this city and capitalism destroyed it. Though it seems like you don't want to know WHY exactly it happened. Let e inform you - capture of Russian civilians their torture and ransoming their relatives. - robbing of Russian trains - Attacks on the neighboring Russian states, particularly terror attacks on schools and hospitals. - and open arms trade All in all, Chechnya was not very nice place and even though Russian way of dealing it was retarded the reasoning behind such actions were decent ones. Your nonsense is like if Cuba turns into pirate hideout which would think USA's civilian ships, abduct civilians from USA, etc. and saying that UA should ever intervene cause those pirates has rights to do as they please... Quite a bullshit, isn't it? Ah Afghanistan and it's "movement of peace" founded and sponsored by USA Al'Queda.. Yeah, it's those pesky Russians that fucked up the region, not Americans at all. And what about Syria? I didn't heard anything bad about what Russia would do there e it communist one or the capitalist one. Russia is one of the few countries that helps civilians in the region and acts as a peacekeeper there. The chemical attacks going on right when Assad's forced were on the winning side and pointed out at the ones who liked Assad is clearly not his own doing, thinking otherwise is quite retarded. Precise weapons would be semi-useful during full-scale war, cause Soviet forces were quite large. An once again you are taking example from capitalist Russia, not the communistic one. Local population had grudges against capitalistic side too. Take for example Poland and how VERY reluctantly French and UK were fighting to protect it against Germany (that's the main reason why it's quite antagonistic to the EU modern trends such as taking up refugees from Africa). Other Warsaw countries that didn't like USSR would rather go nationalists, than capitalist - they would not switch sides and if anything (in worst case scenario for USSR) they would create they own side. SU had several minor military conflicts with China and in ALL of them significant Chinese fores were stooped by few soviet ones and their concentrated artillery fire. SU proved to China that those skirmishes were meaningless and while China exploited the Japanese advisors that rebuilt China' economy on a promise of getting a share of those companies- they dealt with those capitalists harshly and have sent them away. USA worked against itself by establishing economical connections with China. China will always be on it' own side and will be quite proactive to weaken the ones it don't like the most and it's not communists (or it would annex North Korea long time ago)
    1
  8. and failed miseraly at that. Just remember how devastated americans were with Vietnam war.
    1
  9. I would argue that the severeness of the people lost in the conflict would break USA in to civil war, capitalist would be devastated by that sort of casualties and morale of NATO troops would be crumbling while communists would fight even harder.
    1
  10. you don't understand what communism is. No money - no problems. On a serious note, USSR was pretty rich in resources especially after it discovered vast oil supplies in Siberia in 1970s. The man reason population was pissed is cause there was no war with capitalists. War would unite communists while to capitalist population even Vietnam was a headache to get it's population in line. It would be USA and NATO citizens violently rioting, not other way around.
    1