Comments by "bakters" (@bakters) on "Did the Soviet Union EVER Recover from WW2?" video.
-
5
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@horatio8213 "TIK do it and you should do it the sam to prove him wrong."
I did. The relevant topic is the state of Soviet economy post war. I have found the source and posted the title, quote, reasoning behind it and a direct link. In a separate post.
This tank thing was just an addendum. I found it symptomatic, because similar to this video, TIK have read a bunch of sources, analyzed them as best he could, then came up with a conclusion which could be easily falsified.
Anyway, I have found it.
Under "Soviet "War-Winning" Tanks in 1941? The Role of Tanks on the Eastern Front WW2" video I wrote:
"What's the point of putting high velocity guns on tanks? To punch holes in frontlines? No. It's to punch holes in enemy armor.
If tank-on-tank encounters were as insignificant as you seem to put it, WWII tanks would be designed differently.[...]
To which TIK responded with:
"There's two aspects to this. 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. And two, the Matilda Mark II suffered from not having a sufficient gun, and couldn't fire HE rounds, making it poor against infantry (which was it's purpose, as an "infantry tank"). So you do need higher calibre guns. You also need range, because you don't want to be out-ranged by the enemy AT guns - e.g. 88mms in North Africa comes to mind.
But here's a question for you - why are light tanks still in use? Surely, they would have been replaced by heavier and heavier tanks if they weren't capable of going toe-to-toe with a heavy tank?"
So, as we see, my argument was valid and I did not distort his opinion. If I did, he could simply dismiss it as irrelevant. Which he did not do , but responded with a counter of a possible lack of friendly AT gun.
Of course I responded further, but that's where the discussion ended.
1
-
@horatio8213 "You just prove that TIK was right, because he in both statements put point on importance of anti-tank and kiling soft target."
Nonsense. If you are correct, my argument would be irrelevant. Dismissed, not countered.
If you are correct:
Me: You said tanks hardly ever fight tanks.
TIK: That's not what I meant.
Me: Oh, sorry.
If I am correct:
Me: You said tank-on-tank doesn't matter, because tanks fight infantry while AT guns fight tanks. So why bother with AT guns on tank turrets?
TIK: Idunno. Just in case?
See? By trying to show that my argument is wrong, he validates my understanding of his position.
Besides, I challenged him on this once again quoting Nicolas Moran. He responded that Chieftain thinks like a tanker, not like a strategic commander. AT guns are cheaper, so that's how you are supposed to deal with a tank.
No! I'm not searching for it on Youtube! Let's pretend it's just my fantasy.
"Going to soviet economy you claim something without proper sources."
Nonsense. I wrote that I have the data and I have explained my reasoning. Do you want to read through it? So far only one person here addressed this topic at all.
"TIK bring his sources and his understanding of facts looks proper."
TIK is also extremely biased against Socialism, in case you didn't know. He's a human being. Listen to him, but don't just blindly follow everything he says.
Now, don't get me wrong. I like TIK, I respect him, but I'm no fanboy. I also hate Socialism (I was raised under this PoS), but I'm not blinded with hate because of that.
1
-
@horatio8213 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?
"Tank with great AT gun but without any way to attack soft targets (only MG is poor tool for that)."
Actually, Chieftain claims that you mostly fire your MG, but whatever. But I agree. You need both, and there were various ways how people tried to get there, different early in the war and late. I get it. TIK did not. Because he read a bunch of books, where tank-on-tank engagements appeared to be statistically insignificant.
But it's often like that. For example, on a different channel, people analyzed the effectiveness of close aerial support and came to the conclusion that it was almost useless. Very few hits, even less kills, so why even bother? They speculated that psychological impact could maybe explain that.
But it's not how it works. People avoid danger, so if you know there is an enemy tank in the area and you have no means of taking on him, you just don't go there . If the enemy is bombing the hell out of your transport columns, you don't use them during the day, you hide, you organize AA support and so on.
However, all of those avoidance measures cost you dearly. In ground taken, poor supplies, heavily impacted mobility and so on.
But the kill statistics don't show that, do they? So that's how people make false conclusions. TIK is not the only one here.
1
-
@horatio8213 Oh, I forgot the "You didn't show me the sources, I never asked for!" accusation...
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."
One should always try to find a way of crosschecking the final conclusion. TIK has failed to do so. Despite arriving at a really weird conclusion, that Soviet Union was basically in a state of constant collapse. It did not surprise him, because he believes that Socialism is unable to produce wealth, but can only redistribute it.
That's what he read in a book, so it's obviously true...
So once again we have the same process at work. Socialists claim that Socialism is the best thing ever, TIK knows they are wrong, then the opposite must be true.
1
-
@horatio8213 "Then using simple logic iI ask about it."
No, you did not. You just accused me of not showing any sources, while I actually wrote that I did. In a separate post, not in this thread, in which up to now right next to nobody seemed to be interested in discussing the effing video.
"And that is your capital evidence that TIK mIssunderstand economics and policy in USSR?"
Yes, and I'm quite convinced about it. He did say that food production numbers were faked, while the population was starving. The first thing is to check how the population was actually doing, which I did, and TIK did not!
They were doing better than before, so TIK is wrong.
"whole industrialized world came with great jump"
I agree, but TIK claims that the Soviets did not participate.
"Also data itself as usual in USSR could be altered for many reasons."
Sure... Everybody was on it, but only from 1935 to 1970. Because before that the data show a decline and after that there are obvious signs of a recession.
That's just silly. Don't be silly. It hurts my brain.
"Whit less childrens even with less resources you can uplift their state."
Check the demographics data. It's just not true. Old men breed just fine, boys grow up quickly, so losing young men is no biggie.
"You mix two set of data and try that way made TIK thesis wrong."
Nonsense. 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.
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.
Okay, time for a summary. I truly believe that your whole case stands on "TIK didn't really mean it!" So we both agree on the issues I raised, but you excuse TIK for being silly, because he surely couldn't have meant it.
Time to wake up! He really did.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@horatio8213 "[Ukraine] Starved by Stalin."
All of USSR was starved by Stalin, not just Ukraine. It was worse there than elsewhere (apart from Kazakhstan), but the famine was widespread.
"your claim about war rise production of grain!"
I never claimed that. Per capita means "by head" or "na głowę" (I'm Polish too). Neither Ukraine nor Kazakhstan could feed themselves in the early to mid thirties. Soviet Union could lose both and not get that much worse per capita !
"Ukraine was and still is food basket"
Sure, but if Socialists took over Sahara, they'd run out of sand. An old joke, but fitting.
Nobody, including you, seems to be aware of how bad the situation was during the famine of 1932-1933. The cannibalism was widespread. People were eating their own children.
When you compare wwII with that, it actually is possible that it wasn't any worse.
Why don't you read the paper? Just throw the title in Google and it's freely available from a bunch of sources.
Anyway, I actually studied it a little bit, trying to find traces of unreliability or fakery and can't find any . I mean it. It all looks convincing. Why? Let me explain.
The data are often scattered, there are holes in various sets, totally surprising results, which often paint a very damning picture of the Soviet Union. It all seems legit. Fake data tend to look very smooth and show no surprises. Also, when a liar admits he did something wrong, you tend to believe him. The data admit that the Soviets did plenty of wrong. Legit again.
Let's discuss Leningrad in particular. In the data it looks like children's health did not go down during the siege and later even went up considerably. Not what everybody would expect! It could be a blip, the data might not be very precise, too much noise, whatever, but you wouldn't expect that someone would fake such a result!
So fakery is probably out, but how about unreliability? If the data are more or less reliable, various independent datasets should agree with each other, and they do. The height of girls, boys, total calories per capita and calories from animal sources.
So it's possible that the data are reliable and we simply do not know how come children didn't suffer as much as expected.
You do not fudge I don't know result!
So once we exclude all the scatter and concentrate on clear signal, we can quite convincingly state that from 1935 till 1965 the condition of the Soviet population steadily improved .
1
-
@horatio8213 Gdzie na to wszystko są jakiekolwiek dane? Bo jeśli to prawdziwy obraz rzeczywistości, to musiał on mieć wpływ na populację.
Naprawdę przeczytaj tę publikację.
Na przykład są dane dorosłego wzrostu względem roku urodzenia. W późnych latach trzydziestych, kobiety są niby o centymetr wyższe od mężczyzn, co nie ma sensu, czyli dane są po prostu niedokładne.
Nikt nie naciąga danych w ten sposób! To prawdziwe dane, tyle że niedokładne. Ale jak pominiesz rozrzut, to i tak wynika z niego że ludzie w ZSRR rośli coraz wyżsi i tyle. Jakim cudem, skoro stale bidowali?
Dalej - są dane wzrostu dzieci miejskich i wiejskich. Duży rozrzut ale trendy oczywiste. O dziwo, w czasie pierwszej wojny też im się powoli poprawiało, ale przyszedł Lenin i zrobił głód. Potem na początku za Stalina szli ostro w górę, aż zaczął rozkułaczać i znowu głód.
Po co ktoś fałszowałby dane w taki sposób, że Leninizm wygląda gorzej niż pierwsza wojna światowa a Stalinizm wygląda na większą klęskę niż druga? Te dane nie są fałszywe.
"Odbudowa trwała, ale jako całość demogrrafia i ekonomia ZSRR nigdy nie odrobiły strat otrzymanych w drugiej wojnie."
Jesteś wyjątkowo odporny na argumenty... Nawet CIA szacowało wzrost PKB w ZSRR i im wyszło co innego. CIA też uprawia sowiecką propagandę?
1
-
@horatio8213 "Dane szacunkowe CIA [...] mocno przeszcowane"
Owszem. Od 30 do nawet 100% (realny wzrost dwa razy mniejszy niż szacowany), ale trendy z grubsza te same. Czyli można traktować je jako niezależną weryfikację, nawet jeśli bardzo przybliżoną.
"jak Japonia podniosła się z klęski po wojnie"
Oczywiście. Ci mieli cud, Sowieci nie mieli, ale to nie znaczy, że im się w ogóle nie poprawiło.
Dobra, znudziło mi się. Pogadajmy o czymś innym. Chleb niedawno zacząłem robić bo mam swoją mąkę (dzierżawię gospodarkę) i wszyscy się zajadali. Wirus ludzi wystraszył i chleba nie ma, no to co, aby drożdże kupić i git.
A tu kicha. Drożdży nie ma, bo wykupili. Tylko suszone dostałem, ale do kitu i nie rosło.
No to na zakwas przerobiłem i taki chleb mi wychodzi, że pojęcia nie masz. Ludzie wtryniają bez pojęcia. A tu jeszcze kobiety żurku na zakwasie nagotowały i też zupełnie bez porównania. Nie ma tego złego, co?
Szczerze polecam! Na sklepowej mące to zakwas się będzie długo robił, bo moja to rośnie jak na sterydach, ale wyjdzie. Roboty to mniej niż z drożdżami, tylko czasu wymaga. Chętnie pomogę, jeśli masz ochotę spróbować. Nie święci chleb pieką... ;-D
Trzymaj się.
1
-
1
-
If the food production went down, the average height and weight of the population must go down to.
Reassessing the Standard of Living
in the Soviet Union: An Analysis
Using Archival and Anthropometric Data
Elizabeth Brainerd
http://ftp.iza.org/dp1958.pdf
"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."
It was a five minute search, at worst, and it totally falsifies your stance. Well, until we go into deep conspiracy and start suspecting that Soviet statisticians were super smart and kept on making up antropometric data from 1935 till 1970, but not earlier or later than that.
I understand that you hate socialism, I do too, but Soviet economy was basically working. Not as well as capitalist economies, but it did work. Why shouldn't it? It was a tyranny. The vast majority of people through the vast majority of human civilization were living under tyrannies. Ancient Egypt had a central government and it was producing grain.
It's not like civilization did not exist before Adam Smith, is it?
1