Comments by "Вячеслав Скопюк" (@user-yj8vj3sq6j) on "Top 7 Red Army Myths - World War 2" video.

  1. >due to disorganization - an aftereffect of the purge. aftereffect of the rapid army growth
    83
  2.  @yousefseed1874  rude
    69
  3. NKVD run internal AND external affairs until 1943, when it was split to NKVD and NKGB
    66
  4. "Fun" fact - sometimes blocking detachments recruited from the same people they detained
    52
  5.  Owen K.  yep. You definitely do not know what communism or communists are
    41
  6.  @nobleman9393  gunto
    19
  7.  Owen K.  nope. And you don't know what communists are
    15
  8. >didn't they also severely impact the German armies operational freedom? they impacted operational freedom on both sides >some soviet soldiers where sent to the front without guns and told to "pick up your fallen comrades riffles" AFAIK, there is no evidence about that being a regular practice
    9
  9. >those arrested and sent to the rear ended up in the Gulags nope. They could end up in the army. In regular or penal units > which meant they were either executed, or worked to death GULAG was a labor camp system, not a death camp system
    6
  10.  @ФедяКрюков-в6ь  > but at the time of blocking detachment they there entirely separate entities Nope. NKGB and NKVD were united in July 1941 and separated again in 1943 >That's not what is called a 'predecessor' NKGB was formed from GUGB NKVD. It's called 'predecessor' in my book >By late 1941 and onwards NKVD was a police force it was only part of their duties. For example, they also trained saboteurs
    6
  11. >armies of socialist nations seemed to all treat their own soldiers far worse than armies of greedy capitalist nations did yep. Armies of greedy capitalists like Imperial Japan army or Argentinian army in 1982 or Central African Republic army - they treat their soldiers quite good, indeed
    6
  12. > the Germans were losing more men to frostbite than to the enemy during that winter and the snow severely hampered logistics and operational movement LOL. It works for both sides
    5
  13. Yes. Those infamous plans that nobody seen ))
    5
  14. half of those 20 millions were civilians
    5
  15.  @NoName-vz4wu  not after. It was parallel process
    5
  16. what a bunch of fairy tales
    5
  17. because there was a war in Europe. And strong opponent had plans to go to war against USSR
    5
  18.  @haansolo7834  >but they could not know that the nazis would defeat france that fast at the end of WWI all fighting countries had quite large armies
    5
  19.  @harrybuttery2447  >the Soviets had a Railway network backing them up yep, but that railway wasn't reaching frontlines. And they had to rely on vehicles, horses and manpower to deliver stuff railways brought, especially when counteroffensive started >The Germans didn't Germans used soviet railways >The Russians were also well equipped for the winter and fighting from positions protected from the elements, they were not being told to hold open ground and expose themselves to the elements that's not true. At least, partially. I don't know how well-equipped for the winter soviet troops were. I think ,they were equipped better than germans. But ' fighting from positions protected from the elements' - that's a clear bullshit. Often they quite hold open ground > The Russians could afford to play that game, the Germans could not ROFL. Afford to play what game - not having enough supplies and manpower? Why they couldn't allow to play that game later in the war? Say, during the siege of Demyansk pocket?
    4
  20.  @Collectorfirearms  being global power and spreading communism does not require invasion into Germany
    4
  21.  @hazzmati  why USSR should want to attack?
    4
  22. And predecessor of NKGB was NKVD
    4
  23. ROFL
    4
  24. >They were both planning to backstab each other why? USSR didn't need to 'backstab' Germany, if France holds out, as happened in WWI. And nothing indicated that France couldn't hold against Germany
    4
  25. а ты правильно произносишь Paris или Ministry of Defense?
    3
  26. Congratulations, tovarich. You have been promoted to Grammar KGB Colonel
    3
  27. >did the western allies have comparatively more experienced units by the end of the war? it depends on your definition of experience. Germans with Eastern front experience tended to regard Allied ground troops inferior to the Soviet
    3
  28.  @RouGeZH  > that's an undeniable fact. that depends of your definition of 'human wave' > There is too many testimonies, both on the Soviet and Axis side. Real Soviet testimonies tell us about ill-coordinated and badly supported attacks, not about human waves.
    3
  29. I mostly seen "convicted" used as synonym to "imprisoned"
    3
  30. > And that was only one day in Kursk battle it was very specific day >they were real and they really where machine-gunning down any retreating soviet troops nope >Soviets lost nearly 32 million men in WWII because they used absurd tactic of human waves where did you get that number from? Most exaggerated numbers I know about were around 25 millions >yes even "famous" La-7 had plywood and fabric wings and airframe famous Mosquito also was built from wood. So what? >death probability there was 70% in first flight that's quite interesting number. Where did you get that? >The typical Soviet infantry regiment consisted of an immutable core composed of staff officers and a mass of non-commissioned officers and privates that changed after each major battle as they usually perished that's utter bullshit. >Use real historians work as source real historians like Mark Solonin, I suppose? People from Baltic states praise Mark as historian, don't know why. >Without US, war for soviets would ended in first months of 1942 that's hilarious. Lend-lease in the first months of 1942 was drop in a bucket >soviet T-34 real life refueling interval was 50-80 km, depending on the type of road or soil in off-road situation. that varied during lifetime of T-34. And it was not refueling, it was lubricant oil that need to be replenished >The New Russian T-72B3 uses SAME ENGINE AS T-34! You can't seriously call 500 hp engine the same as 1000 hp engine
    3
  31. >so where is only 2 variants: red army was accumulated such a force to attack, or red army command was mentally disabled, so make your own choices... third variant - Red Army occupied recently acquired territories & was preparing to fight Germans off
    3
  32. >yes, this guys was named "black coats" that's another myth > and sometimes reds simply grab every thing that could move and throw into nearby nazi position. somethimes, somewhere. Of course, you don't remember where you hear that :D
    3
  33. > that was in use for Penal Battalions nope. No more than for regular troops > Penal Battalions being sent on what were in fact INTENTIONALLY Suicide Missions such as clearing mine fields with their feet. that's a bullshit. Penal battalions and penal companies were used for especially dangerous missions, not as live minesweepers > well ... that may well have been the same thing as shooting them nope. Losses in penal units were higher, than in regular, but not 100% or even 70%. And that includes wounded, sick, etc. >the guys being machine gunned would probably all be dead nope. Machineguns are not death rays. >and the guys operating the machine guns - would hardly be likely to commit that to paper why do you think that?
    3
  34.  @BobSmith-dk8nw  >Penal Battalions were treated more strictly than regular units Nothing about machinegunning them >One of the especially dangerous missions they were sent on - was clearing mine fields. nope. Where did you find that shit? They were assault units, not minesweeper units > So - how was it they found those mines? like any other infantry unit >what do you think that says for anyone's long term survival? You know that even lightly wounded were released from penal units? >What makes you think machine guns are less effective than Death Rays? statistics >Why do I think people who have murdered their fellow soldiers (even if ordered to do so) would be hesitant to put that down in writing? because it was their duty. To write things. And people from military counterintelligence also had the duty to write such things >though ... they were all treated harshly. As for USSR, in some areas they were treated better than regular troops. For example, in area of supply >Your disputing what I said - is at best nit picking - but more like - just bull shit. ROFL. Sorry, but your beliefs are bullshit. You have very slight ideas about penal or regular units in USSR
    3
  35.  @nate_thealbatross  the goal of Winter War was to prevent enemy from using Finland as beachhead to attack Leningrad. Soviet military commanders overestimated Red Army capabilities, this led to high losses but also, in the aftermath, spurred modernization. In 1939 nobody knew that France will fall so easily. What's your point?
    3
  36. >Similarly, the reputation for using human wave attacks seems to be based in truth. AFAIR, stories about human wave tactics are based on postwar German accounts. Soviet attacks sometimes were ill-prepared, but nothing like "Enemy at the gates"-style rush
    3
  37. >The Wehrmacht marched on foot into the USSR for the most part same applies to France invasion. But... No substantial delays. Oh, and advancing German troops were mechanized
    3
  38. do you trust any data that someone put on himself? If yes, then why?
    3
  39. >Why did the Germans not employ the tactic of pressing into infantry service the soviet POWs and the recently "liberated" people? their problems were with vehicles and oil, not with manpower. >I thought the preemptive attack scenario meant a Soviet attack in 1942/43 nope, it meant "Soviet were ready to attack, but not ready to defend themselves"
    2
  40. >Of course was Barbarossa a preemptive attack. Just not in response to an imminent invasion. than any attack could be called preemptive >We know that Stalin hoped for Western Europe to grind each other down so he could afterwards just swoop in without significant resistance and mop up. nope, you don't "know". You believe >We know that Nazi Germany was dependent on Soviet imports to continue its war against the Allies. ROFL. What USSR could give to Germany in 1940 that other countries couldn't? >Defence would have been ready by 1943 and offence by 1945. So yes, it was a preemptive attack - several years in advance. wishful thinking at its finest
    2
  41. Holy shit. Didn't know you guys still exist
    2
  42.  @harrybuttery2447  >The Russian railways practically did reach the front nope. It depends on the time and place we are talking about. Frontline moved significantly during last phases of german offensive >Barely wat? You implying that they transported supplies and men all the way from Germany using trucks and horses? >The Russians were fighting from more fortified positions if you call an open trench on the hill near the village an "more fortified position"... >that was why they won Sorry, but no. They won because they had enough supplies and troops and means to transport them quick enough
    2
  43. You are a one strange man indeed. Why hate the Red Army when you don't like the government?
    2
  44.  @Collectorfirearms  > how did the English come to power? By building a fleet and taking over land. How did America come to power building a fleet and taking land. nope. Only by building a fleet >How did German come to power. Taking land. nope. By building an army >How did the USSR come to power? by building an army >They spread communism by war show some examples, please
    2
  45.  @Collectorfirearms  >The English had Australia, India, big parts of Africa they took by force. yep. By force. By building a fleet. First they became a power and THEN they had Australia, India etc >why would you even build a big army if your not going to do anything with ask USA, what they plan to conquer with their largest army, Canada or Mexica?
    2
  46. >Your info only proves that soviets weren't ready on 22.6.1941, not that they weren't ready for a later date. all argument about preventive strike goes "Stalin was ready to attack, Hitler beat him to that"
    2
  47. ROFL
    2
  48.  @yuripantyhose4973  > its written by ex communists that fact, by itself, adds no value > all the data is substantiated though ofc some numbers are extrapolated that not adds to the credibility of the book
    2
  49.  @yuripantyhose4973  go to what? Not jumping on a horse immediately?
    2
  50. You see, not all people are like-minded, even in they live in the same country
    2
  51.  @edi9892  some "sources" tend to repeat each other
    2
  52.  @stefanschleps8758  bla-bla-bla
    2
  53.  @Xfire209  > then by the Germans who murdered the jewish populace of those countries Germans? O'rly? ;)
    2
  54. >U.S aid are you joking? What aid? Do you realize that early US and Britain aid was drop in the bucket?
    2
  55. Bernard doesn't speak russian, so it's quite difficult for him to use more soviet/russian articles unless they are translated
    2
  56. ​ @triibustevonkass9100  ​ > Yes, that was specific day.. as next 30 days in row. that was very specific day when tank army was forced to advance in a narrow area on prepared positions of the enemy > Russians lost 2000 tanks in this battle, by your on count! about 6000. For a large battle with millions of soldiers participating - that's not a big number > casualties 32 million men was actually official number after 1991 nope. Didn't heard that before 2013. >Putin ordered to use number 8 million that's a number of military casualties >and what about Mosquito? it was "legendary plane" > La-7 was not even a close to Mosquito so what? Remember, you talked about "made from plywood" as if it was something bad. >No, unfortunately I’m right no, you are not. There was no "immutable core", because even the officers had high casualty rates during offensives > this as true even in 1980ties Afghanistan war. What Afghanistan war has to do with WW2? >People from Baltic and all other former occupation zones prize Solonin because he speaks truth nope, he doesn't. He's a confirmed liar :D > Without American can food and American produces uniforms, boots and American made Russian caliber ammunitions, war would ended for Russian in beginning of 1942. check the numbers. Lend-lease was drop in a bucket until late 1942 >in Short: Moscow would had been captured in November 1941, without American ammunition, American made winter uniforms and can food. Even Russian uniform buttons had marks: Made in Chicago in short - that's some number one bullshit >T-72B3 do not have those super-duper über-puper new 1000hp engines. yes, they have >99% of them still have derivate of those old two stroke V12 engines, what where used on T-34... 100% of them have derivative of those old engine that were used on T-34. Because, guess what - new 1000 hp engine is also V-2 descendant. I guess, you really don't understand what are you talking about >T-34 could drive with maximum speed of 12-16km/h that's so-called 'battle speed' . Surprise, surprise - most of the contemporary tanks had the same battle speed > And specially to you товарищ Скопюк , all "Russian" aviation fuel until 1945 was imported from US, all railroad engines, 90% railroad cars and nearly all aluminum was also from US, even T-34-85 gun was developed by Americans and its turret ring was produced exclusively with US sent equipment. Looks like you forgot to take your meds, pal. That's a top-notch nonsense
    2
  57.  @triibustevonkass9100  not, i'm just connected with reality. You too, maybe, but reality you connected is very special. For special people
    2
  58.  @triibustevonkass9100  fortunately for me, you are living in YOUR real world. Do not forget to take your pills, though
    2
  59.  @waszkreslem9306  read Alexey Isaev books on Zhukov
    2
  60. do you prefer to trust German numbers?
    2
  61.  @michaelritzen8138  USA supplied Britain with weapon and materials, USA ships escorted convoys and sunk German submarines... In my book it's called "USA interfere in the war"
    2
  62. If history is written by the Victor, why then is the history written by imprisoned German officers?
    2
  63.  @BobSmith-dk8nw  >And how many Penal Battalions did you serve with? Zero. You? >And what I've read - says you're full of shit. You've read bullshit. I can attest to that. And you continue to spread it. >Vyacheslav Skopyuk - is that an accurate English translation? yep >How do you know how much I know about the Russian Military though? you were quite explicit in your comments >If you are thinking of later war Penal Battalions - then yes - they might not have been as bad as the early war Penal Battalions. Early war, late war - that's irrelevant. Red Army had constant shortage of manpower. Even the blocking detachments drafted from people they detained. In these conditions no one will shoot entire units
    2
  64.  @nate_thealbatross  400000 troops. Your numbers are quite exaggerated. And no, they couldn't have defended Leningrad, because troops, that fought in Winter War, came from all Soviet Union
    2
  65.  @nate_thealbatross  >And 400,000 troops who had years more training plus all of the weapons, vehicles and equipment they lost not all of them were lost. 400000 includes wounded and sick >Not to mention that the Germans saw the disastrous Winter War as exposing Russia's weakness not to mention that Winter War exposed his weakness to Soviet Union >With 400,000 fresh troops, German might have delayed attacking Russia don't be ridiculous
    2
  66.  Owen K.  communists do not exists anymore
    2
  67. was it miserable?
    2
  68.  @fazole  >You can't compare France to size of Russia and Ukraine! you talked not about the size, but about Wehrmacht marched on foot. In the WWI Reichsheer also marched on foot into the France. Didn't go quite well. >USSR is so huge, the German mechanized divisions were far too inadequate you changing your argument from ' Wehrmacht marched on foot' to 'USSR is so huge' >This gave Soviets time to prepare and bring in Far East troops. size of the country works both ways - it delays enemy movement, but also it delays your troops >Read the German memoirs. They always had critical shortages. They cannot admit that they were beaten on equal terms >Soviets were far more mechanized. ROFL. Sadly, no.
    2
  69. preemptive attack argument is "Stalin was ready to attack Germany and Hitler beat him at the last moment"
    1
  70.  @dejabu24  i don't know what was "Hitler's point of view". I heard from wermacht veterans that Stalin was ready to attack and they managed to get ahead
    1
  71. nope
    1
  72.  @Runenschuppe  >There's a difference nope, in you logic there is no difference. In some future - say, 20 years, BeNeLux could consider an armed conflict. >not to mention the ideological foundation of Bolshevism sorry, but ideological foundation of Bolshevism has little to do with USSR external policies. Not to mention that large part of Comintern staff members became victims of the Great Purge >Especially oil facepalm. Romania. Ploiești.
    1
  73.  @harrybuttery2447  >It does not matter how it moved, it was still in Russia Russia is quite a large country >They practically had too AFAIK, they used russian trains >I don't understand what you disagree with... I disagree with thesis that USSR won because it was less sensitive to losses.
    1
  74.  @harrybuttery2447  ok, I take your point
    1
  75.  @StopFear  >It is not the same as the men who were enlisted IN the Army the people, who were enlisted in the army, were part of that army > I mean it as that hierarchy which gave out orders to the soldiers who followed orders. yep. The hierarchy which is composed from people
    1
  76. >Russia's military was all ways inferior to the west ROFL > Peter lost several battles to the Swedes many European countries lost to the Swedes
    1
  77. >I always understood the preemptive attack thesis more as it would have happend in a few years or a year but not eminent at that point like next month they come. but preemptive attack thesis goes like "Soviet attack was like next month"
    1
  78.  @meistereder6382  >Doesn't matter nope. it does matter. >To catch them offguard and before they were fully prepared was the whole point after all again, preemptive attack thesis goes like "Soviet attack was like next month". Your speculations here are irrelevant
    1
  79.  @meistereder6382  nope. Seems more like I am very familiar with the facts.
    1
  80.  @Collectorfirearms  do Canada and Mexica know that USA conquered them by military force?
    1
  81.  @Collectorfirearms  so no, USA didn't conquered Mexico and Canada with that huge army. Then, again, what country USA intends to conquer with that huge army?
    1
  82. > About third one, do you honestly believe NKVD was more or less equivalent of a simple MP detachment ? Really ?! it's not about beliefs, it's about knowledge. NKVD had a very wide range of responsibilities, and, in that particular case, they functioned like MP detachment
    1
  83. you can't trust memoirs on the face value
    1
  84.  @NoName-vz4wu  what do you mean by "20 million man army"?
    1
  85.  @yuripantyhose4973  is it any good?
    1
  86. > Given the nature of Stalin's regime it is very likely that such things would be ignored, or in fear of punishment not even reported. you are plain wrong. In the aftermath of Winter War there was a conference on the analysis of the experience of war
    1
  87. do you know what human wave is?
    1
  88.  @obadiah_vandal  >A human wave is just that if "human wave is just that", then it's not related to soviet infantry tactics >until they found the appropriate weak spot and would wave attack with infantry until it broke... you are retelling "Enemy at the gate" >that it was unsophisticated again, it's not related to human wave tactics
    1
  89.  @edi9892  it depends on time and place
    1
  90. he can't speak russian. Give him a break
    1
  91. You can not trust memoirs. Simple as that.
    1
  92.  @jessel3621  not a "chance". They always inaccurate. >they are the most accurate thing we have. you can't trust them without cross-checking
    1
  93.  @jessel3621  >they are not always innacurate memoirs are genre of narrative, they are not intended to accurately convey events. >Tell a historian that Julius Caesar's memoirs are irrelevant because they may contain a few misremembered details and a few exagerations. a "few"? :D How do you know that?
    1
  94. sorry, you don't have the idea about Zhukov or Rokossowski capabilities
    1
  95. facepalm
    1
  96.  @pRahvi0  why both?
    1
  97.  @pRahvi0  what is with Soviet way of publishing numbers?
    1
  98.  @pRahvi0  what George Orwell production has to do with Soviet way of publishing numbers?
    1
  99.  @haansolo7834  AFAIR, France had army about 2000000 men size in 1940. Soviets didn't take part in WWI, but they could reasonably suggest that anyone who wins in Europe will have a large standing army
    1
  100. > Nazi empire hit before Soviet empire did zee, there is no evidenze about Soviet Union planz to attack Germany.
    1
  101.  @TotalRookie_LV  >Sure, just amassing of Soviet forces on western borders and had nothing Looks like you forgot that across the western border USSR had country, that waged war all over Europe >Those plans might be real defense plans, but that would only mean one thing - Soviet high command were complete idiots. They presumed, that Germans would attack and then... stop. Why? For no reason, really. And the Soviets would "counterattack" and defeat Nazis on German soil. sorry, but your words don't make sense
    1
  102.  @TotalRookie_LV  >I haven't forgot, looks like you did forgot. Looks like you did. >waging war on tanks fuelled by Soviet gasoline facepalm. Ploiești rings a bell? It looks like you understand now, why USSR amassed forces on the western borders
    1
  103. preemptive attack argument is "Stalin was ready to attack Germany and Hitler beat him at the last moment"
    1
  104. Hitler couldn't not have declare war on USA, because Britain was backed by USA
    1
  105. а мне норм
    1
  106. >M3-Lee Tanks in army was called "a brothers-grave for six" )) thats all u need to know about it :D tankers say that shit about every tank in their arsenal >Early M4 Tanks have poor armor\gun USSR only had M4A2 with diesel engines >have bad off-road patency and capricious engine strangely, marshal Fedorenko praised M4 for their low maintenance requirements
    1
  107.  @REtoX_NSK  >далеко не о каждом танке так говорилось, о чем ты? ладно, о танках с хорошей бронёй не говорили. Естественно, средние танки к таким не относятся >Цитируешь - про броню\пушку угу. У ранних М4. Которые СССР массово не получал. Дизель - это про твой дальнейший комментарий про "требовали качественного топлива" > Как это связано?)) связано так, что у тебя плохо с английским. Low maintenance requirements - это нетребовательность к обслуживанию. Федоренко отмечал, что М4 были надежнее отечественных танков
    1
  108.  @REtoX_NSK  >так не говорят даже о легких танках с хорошей конструкцией говорят, говорят. Прозвища Су-76 помнишь? > М4А2 которые получал СССР я бы не назвал поздними. а я бы не назвал ранними >в этих года данные машины уже вундервафлей, мягко говоря, не были. Т-34 в этих годах тоже не были вундервафлей. Сюрприииз >у тебя тогда плохо вообще с основой основ сорян, я не знал, что ты туговат. Сейчас вот уже понимаю >И еще у тебя плохо даже и с русским - "нетребовательность к обслуживанию" по смыслу ОЧЕНЬ даже перекликается с "легкостью обслуживания". лицопальма. Посмотри синонимы слова "нетребовательность". Попробуй найти среди них что-то похожее на "лёгкость" >Такое ощущение что ты выполз сюда тупо чтобы доебаться до меня высасывая из пальца поводы для этого. я сюда не выполз, а почитал твой комментарий и указал тебе на места, в которых ты неправ > Что там, совсем все плохо с самооценкой что надо такой хуйней заниматься? ROFL. Чувак, а ты забыл, что ты сам занимаешься "такой хуйнёй", комментируя это видео? Что там, совсем всё плохо с самооценкой, что ты решил доебаться до видео высасывая повод из пальца?
    1
  109.  @REtoX_NSK  >А я тут никому не говорю что "он не прав". бугага. Т.е. двоемыслие во все поля?
    1
  110. why do you think that three German generals are more correct?
    1
  111.  @JackKrei  >Because the Soviets were filled to the eyes with Propaganda. and Germans? >Plus there were 3 Germans not just one but three. i don't see how that changes things >They were in the think of things and saw it first hand. see, their goal wasn't to tell the ultimate truth.They were more inclined to tell the story about how great military leaders they were and how Hitler prevented them from winning the war > for years their versions stood the scrutiny of thousands and found to be accurate. ROFL. No, their versions didn't stood the scrutiny
    1
  112.  @mydlear4238  you may believe what you want but they are communist only in name
    1
  113. almost all. Some BT-7 modifications had diesel engine. Also, some KV and T-34 had petrol engines
    1