Comments by "bakters" (@bakters) on "The Myth and Reality of Joseph Stalin’s Order No. 227 “Not a Step Back!”" video.

  1. +CreatorUser - Assuming the fall of Soviet Union, especially early on, without the drain of the protracted war, it's hard to imagine how USA could have won. Sure enough, Soviet Union wouldn't fall totally. There would be some remnants of them behind Urals. Americans could have supported them, but Germans wouldn't have to do much to keep those forces at bay. With the full might of Axis forces defending Europe, there would be no hope for serious invasion. A-bomb is a game changer, because it allows destruction of a full city without committing huge resources to the task. Sure enough, that's a lot of advantage, but how many cities would need to be destroyed? Hamburg or Dresden were flattened with conventional means, and it mattered little overall. It's hard to win by killing civilians. Actually, it's just more food and resources which can be diverted to the frontlines. You are not proposing to nuke Paris, are you? If not, then German armies don't even need their own civilians to support them. Hard to tell, but I think that Nazis would have kept their empire for a while if they won in Russia.
    11
  2. +Dave - You said: "Thank Hitler for invading them or they would have invaded Europe". That's definitely not what I wrote. I wrote that Stalin would have joined Western Allies after the Germany was already beaten (just like Western Allies did) and took what he could (just like Western Allies did). Not that he'd attack Europe. "Thank Hitler"? For what? That he forced the Soviets to take Berlin with everything East of it and convincing them they absolutely need to keep it too? Just to be safe? What a dude! We were really lucky to have him!
    6
  3. +Dave - They had enough oil to survive. Not enough to flourish and prosper, though...
    6
  4. +ThePunisher - I'm from Eastern Europe. Sure, there isn't any love lost between my people and the Soviets, but Nazis were way worse. Seriously.
    5
  5. +ThePunisher - Soviets were not against separate national cultures and customs. The state funded various cultural activities and institutions whose sole purpose was the preservation and popularization of local cultures. Current marxists might be against nations and borders. Soviet Russia was not.
    5
  6. +Dave - The preventive attack narrative is extremely weak. Soviets were not ready to invade and wouldn't be ready for years to come. Why would they do it in the first place? Why not wait till constant war against Britain and USA weakens Germany first? In a hypothetical scenario in which Hitler does not initially ally himself with Stalin in order to take Poland and Western Europe it's even worse. Defensively minded Hitler would find allies in the West way easier than Stalin, so Stalin had no chances at all at invading Europe. Alone against the world he was in risk of simply dying (which is what happened to Hitler). It's because of Hitler and Germany that communism was spread up to the iron curtain. What's more, Germany funded bolshevik revolution in Russia. With absolutely crazy amounts of money. Without them, there would be no communist Russia in the first place. So, please stop talking about "heroic fight against communism". They started it, then the fed it a bunch of territories, then they allowed them to take even more. My country among those.
    4
  7. +Standardowy Login - Communist unrests post WW1 had very little to do with Soviet Russia. They were simply communist in nature and Soviet Union didn't even exist at the time. You can hardly blame them for those. Regarding "brotherly help" to Poland and Baltics during 1939, Soviets had good strategic reasons to do that, especially if they expected the inevitable future conflict with Germany. They needed a buffer zone. What if Germany took the whole Poland and Baltics instead and launched Barbarossa from there? I think they'd won then. At the very least they'd have way better chances. Incidentally, the Stalin's insistence on holding onto Eastern Europe post war could very well be of similar nature. They just barely survived, so obviously more buffer was needed.
    4
  8. +Koelebig - I agree that if Germany wanted to attack the Soviets, they chose the moment of attack well. I disagree that the Soviet attack on Germany was either imminent or prevented. Soviets were in no hurry. The thing is, Germany did not need to fight the Soviets at all. What if they were (hypothetically) content with what they already took and consolidated their contests instead? OH, Stalin the Terrible would have invaded them! Would he really? It took incredible effort to push Germans back after they were beaten at Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk. Would he really risk losing against fresh enemy? I think not, he was not stupid. Germans didn't attack Soviets because they had to. They attacked them because they were their main target from the get go (as you wrote). They could have survived fine without Soviet contest, but they didn't start the war just to survive. They started it to flourish and prosper! That's what Hitler promised, and that's what he tried to achieve. Only in this light the attack on Soviet Union was necessary.
    4
  9. +993ti - The Western Allies waited until the Germans were conclusively beaten to enter the war for real. If Germans would've faltered earlier, less people would have died since the war would be shorter. My country lost about 2000 people per day. Think about that. One day is a village. 10 days is a small town. And so forth.
    4
  10. +Standardowy Login - "German soldiers, whose sacrifice blunted down communism march on Europe in cold war." - That's total nonsense. For once, Germany's loss to Soviets allowed the spread of communism westwards, not "blunted its march". And of course, Germany attacked Poland and hence started the war with France and Britain first , while being allied with Soviets! Ever heard about Ribbentrop-Molotov? Its sad to say it, but I don't see anything good that came out of the sacrifice of German soldiers.
    3
  11. +Dave - So what happened to Germans once everybody refused to give them oil? They crumbled immediately, I assume? Or maybe they managed to fight effectively for close to six years while suffering no serious shortcomings in their day-to-day lives? In my reality they continued to fight and simply ate less butter.
    3
  12. +Koelebig - I wrote that Germany had enough oil to survive. It doesn't mean they had enough to wage a modern war of maneuver for long periods of time. For that they needed more. Regarding civilian needs - there was a factory which produced trucks and they received a special allowance for testing fuel pumps after the whole production stopped at some point. Can you imagine that? They produced trucks without any gas at all! They just couldn't test the pumps... The economy was mostly coal based. They had enough coal. Regarding Soviet potential attack on Germany - I don't think this idea is based on anything of substance. Yes, Soviets would gather strength with time, but never enough to hope for beating the Germans *quickly*. Only a quick war makes any sense. There is too much unknown in a prolonged conflict to risk it willingly.
    2
  13. +TIK - Is this really the case? ;-) BTW - I think you were wrong about the purge too. Just because Marshall kicked out some chair-farting paper-pushers and it served him good, it does not make murdering, torturing and incarcerating experienced battle commanders a good move. Don't get me wrong. I'm a fully committed fan of your channel and your work. Actually, that's why I question your conclusions. You told me to do so over and over again! ;-)
    2
  14. +Dave - I wrote that Stalin would have waited at least a few years before doing anything. What could have happened later is anybody's guess. Chances are, nothing would have happened, until the Germans were significantly weakened and ripe to be taken. Then sure, he would grab what he could, but surely not nearly as much as he ended up having.
    1
  15. +David Olie - He's made a video about tanks which supposedly don't need to fight tanks. That's against what tank commanders like Chieftain say and also against the need for a high velocity gun in tanks in general. I'm quite convinced he was wrong about it. If you look at the insides of a Panther turret, you suddenly understand that a high-velocity gun was not put there by accident. People were simply desperate to somehow cram it inside. TIK is not aware of that, I think. Just helping to remain critical. ;-)
    1