Comments by "Dima S" (@dimas3829) on "The Armchair Historian" channel.

  1.  @DavidNaval  ended several months after his death, proving original point. Stalin had no surrender in his vocabulary.
    10
  2. crapitslist propaganda. Purged saved USSR from second civil war or losing to Germany.
    8
  3.  @ComeAndTakeIt9235  Germans were quite stronger, with better battle experience, tactics and determination than Americans meanwhile Soviets were in the middle of modernization and relocation of their defensive lines.
    8
  4.  @ysahli  What fascinates me more is that war crimes committed by South Korea are still not addressed internationally. South government was so fearful of monsters that they became such.
    7
  5. no, it didn't. By those actions Germans were forced to not concentrate all their ficres on the western front thus saving France.
    6
  6. American army didn't really felt the weight of the war (at least those that fought in European theater), meanwhile Soviets would be absolutely ready to fight defensively.
    5
  7. German losses are probably severely overestimated to keep morale of the Allies.
    5
  8. No mentioning of Soviet forces surrendering 1 million Japanese Kwantung Army which broke the neck of Japanese mainland forces and arguably was much more devastating for it's military than some atomic bombings.
    4
  9.  @RiftZM  you sound like Goebels
    4
  10.  @robertx8020  Russia was like 4 sizes of Europe, getting the same raliway as Europe was not so economically viable in the long run overall, having wider railway was beneficial in every way, shape and form.
    4
  11.  @DavidNaval  it was, but soviet army was deterministic at that point to stand against any enemy necessary. Allied armies - not so much.
    4
  12. Steel = Stal in Russian.
    4
  13. fed shill. This is not CSA perspective but the northern aggressors' one.
    3
  14.  @3baxcb  the swift and absolute success over France in 1940 quite dulled the skepticism in German army, though.
    3
  15. no wonder, pro-American propaganda is strong in Japan, in a few years they will be thinking that it was USSR that dropped nuclear bombs on them.
    3
  16.  @User-he6zd  protecting Motherland before such would be burnt once again - was more than enough of reason to keep on fighting, yes.
    3
  17.  @sleepyhead6468  thank you. It seems like a lot of people don't realize that the only reason South Korea differs from the North one is the economical blockade that US fleet enforced on the later. Blockade that made it near impossible to get international help during times of famines when USA screeched that North Korean dictatorship is starving it's own people while AMERICANS were in fact starving such. When you surround country with enormous military and constantly train local puppets' forces for the inevitable attack the only logical course of action is to turn your country into fortress that North Koreans did.
    3
  18.  @jaredjosephsongheng372  Except that you have no clue WHAT the strategy of using nukes in combat was proposed by the US high command. Long story short, the allied troops were supposed to advance THROUGH the explosion site to achieve success as quickly as possible (same strategy was later on copied by Soviet High Command when they developed nukes of their own). The results of such assaults would be devastation of American own divisions by the radiation poisoning which was NOT well known at the time. The usage of nukes would backfire on Allies significantly, especially when the irradiated soldiers would be sent back to home and the ships irradiated by them would be used to send more fresh troops from America into Europe all meanwhile everyone involved had no clue what was happening and whether or not it's all just Soviet chemical attacks or something that gathers millions of allied soldiers lives. The usual procedures of several weeks-months quarantine would NOT work at all and all Allied logistics would be screwed. THEN comes the irradiation of families of soldiers and doctors at home. All in all, it would be nightmare scenario for US.
    3
  19. soviets did help them.
    2
  20.  Brain Nguyen  agreed. Spirit of communism is strong with Vietnam, I salute it.
    2
  21. more like full on Ukrainian lies mixed with few facts.
    2
  22. Prisoners of war in USSR were treated better than veteran soviet soldiers, though.The intent was to rehabilitate germans from nazism (and show the world how superior in humane aspects sovoet system is in comparison with others) by showing them the best hospitality possible. It didnt work - they kept being fascistic scum whining how bad they are treated and the west turned on the propaganda machine that Germans were mistreated in USSR that you still enable in your otherwise good video. DIslike.
    2
  23. fitting fate for betraying Czechoslovakia.
    2
  24. of Czechoslovakia, that is.
    2
  25. more like somewhat dependent and it's not like the west didn't get paid for such..
    2
  26.  @jaredR207  it's easy to root for underdogs, especially when they are right.
    2
  27. agree with most things, except Mauser. What's strange about the usage of well-known rifle that your country produced in 9 millions units? It was spread well enough to be used extensively in combat and it's not like German industry had unlimited production lines at the time to support the troops with most modern rifles instead. Like the extensive use of horses by German army during ww2 is obscured too by the propagandized tanks and motorcycles, same as their sever lack of sub-machine guns.
    2
  28. Yeah, Ukrainian cannon fodder in their failed counter-offensive losses were about so.
    2
  29.  @zedeyejoe  Romania outright switched sides which helped USSR in achieving it, though. Although, Greeks pretty much would prefer to be liberated by communists.
    2
  30.  @arandomhuman1996  only if they were part of SS and participated in genocide.
    2
  31.  @brandonlyon730  Except that it was northern Federal government that tried it best to exterminate natives while Southern representatives fought for natives right to live, hence why a few tribes joined Confederacy in it's noble fight.
    2
  32. disgusting detail and author is clearly biased against Stalin.
    2
  33. hah, no wonder, cause Poland started skirmishes against Lithuania trying to force it back into Commonwealth shortly after helping against soviets, duh. Baltic States were not friends with toxic Poland, they were temporarily allies of convenience.
    1
  34.  @maryanchabursky9148  what was it then? President Yanukovich wasn't impeached so he stays the last legitimate ruler of former Ukraine to this day.
    1
  35.  @maryanchabursky9148  there was no article of impeachment.. not then.. nor now. The vote was illegal due to this.
    1
  36.  tomassmith1519  1. Axis was a coalitoin of allid nations including Finland 2. The USSR provided them exchange with twice the size of the land offered for security of Leningrad. Finns kept digging in new fortresses pointing out their agressive policy against USSR and that they will ally itself with Soviet enemies, which they did. USSR was justified in attacking them. 3. Yes, they were indeed bad guys. Desptie mental gymnastics of this channel, Finns participated in blockade of LEningrad, ensureing starvatoin of millions of civilians and they never paid for their warcrimes. You could add up USA into bad guys of ww2 for the bumerous warcrimes they committed but the main ones were indeed Axis members.
    1
  37.  tomassmith1519  USSR did not deliberatly target civilians like US did, nor did USSR commenced firebombing campaigns or nuclear attacks on civilian cities. Also, USSR was the only country during ww2 to execute it's soldiers if such conducted rape or plunder, everyone else was enjoying themselves to the fullest to the point that Americans invented their ill-known tradition of making trophies out of human remains (Heads of Japanese, later on ears of Vietnameese, etc.)
    1
  38.  @enpakeksi765  what about Ukrainian military vehicles shooting while hiding near civilian apartments? Not a viable target either, eh? Russia will cleanse the nazis filth from the face of Ukraine.
    1
  39. Russia had California under it's control until 1841 so I don't agree that Crimean war was the last step of it's glory. Furthermore, the defeat there was due to several mighty governments uniting under UK's control to defeat Russia. Russian defeat in Ruso-Japanese war was NOT humiliating due to excellent work of it's diplomats that forced Japanese to accept rather mild treaty.. Rather, it was Japanese society that rioted against the government when the treaty was signed cause they expected MUCH more. By the way, several hundreds of thousands prisoners died building St. Petersburg so it has the second local name "city built on bones"- some humanitarian they had there, lol, Ivan the Terrible killed much much less than that (and overall was kinder than other European rulers of his time). Finally, you didn't mention that time of troubles called that cause Poland tried to annex Russia while Sweden was attacking Russian north.
    1
  40. nah, Americans would suffer from their own nukes more than achieve through usage of such.
    1
  41.  @Robouteguilliman-t7o  soviet indeed suffers, but Americans would suffer significantly more. The safety regulations against nuclear poisoning were not well developed for decades. You should probably google what the plan was for operation Downfall's usage of nukes and how that would lead to millions of Allied soldiers irradiated.
    1
  42. nothing happened = oh, how horrible purges were. You lot are clowns.
    1
  43. the same vibes as Telegraph saying that Russians are using shovels instead of bullets, yet another mouth peace of western anti-soviet propaganda.
    1
  44. exhales To spend their own hard earned money at their home and not for industrialization of the northern thieves, duh.
    1
  45. lmao, outgunned and outnumbered the allied troops would be against the soviets. With little to no moral to back them up too.
    1
  46.  @historysimplified4075  yes, they would be. UK and France was on a brink of communist revolution by te 1945, they couldn't handle any prolonged fight whatsoever without political collapse. US would fare better, but even then it couldn't conscript more troops without severe retaliation of public that by that time got used to the thought that soviets were allies against Hittler. If original plan of UK to enlist ex-Wermacht and ex-SS would come to fruition - the situation deteriorate further. All in all, numbers were on Soviet side. Regarding the guns - the American divisions were quite envious on amount of automatic weaponry that Soviets had. Yes, I know, enemy at the gates and other propaganda movies made you think that it was other way around, but you should probably rather check out youtube historians that thoroughly researched the composition of battle units at the time. Long story short, soviet troops were better equipped, weaponry-wise, while lacking radios. That would play it's role on skirmish battles in allies favor, but on the huge battlefront it was soviet advantage plain and simple. Soviet rocket artillery in particular would wreck allied ranks like there is no tomorrow. Naval vessels- irrelevant, you can't use such in frozen northern seas at your leisure. Aircraft - Soviets had shown their superiority in Korean war, so there's that.Tanks - soviets had twice tha allied numbers at the possible front-line and even though US could bring more - it would take some time and it would be already late to make change. Nuclear weapons - as I said in comments around here the US had rudiment knowledge of it's consequences and battle strategy planned for operation Downfall, for example, would ensure irradiation of millions of allied troops (since soldiers were to be pushed through the bombing site in matter of days after one, to ensure mobility of the front.. and their own horrible death if that plan was to be used).
    1
  47. a "free" country were french slaves that illegally opposed a referendum of reunion.
    1
  48. And has nothing to do with real life. Stalin made a specific order of not harming any civilian or else. 4 thousands soldiers and officers were executed for breaching it. The Goebels' propaganda was gladly accepted by American state and brainwashed many people in this comment seciton as far as I can see.
    1
  49. more like 14% of population western part of your coutry, sure war economy kept things relatively well, though lack of food mattered technologically superior but less organised, hence initial failure and eventual sucess surrender was not an option 27 millions to be exact not all of them, though. The legions that Spain has sent into the Motherland still hadn't payed their iron price it's easy to achieve gteatness when capitalistic greed is not your goal proceed to liberate half the world from colonialism, from Vietnam to Egypt the traitors collapsed the coutnry, though there were many major setbacks like Chenryobil and major Caucasus earthquake both of which have strained lots of resources. elaborating is fine.
    1
  50.  @Aqua-yc6pt  how about blockade of Leningrad that ensured that millions of civilians would die out of starvation, eh? Not a MAJOR warcrime to you?
    1