Comments by "Вячеслав Скопюк" (@user-yj8vj3sq6j) on "Barbarossa: Why such high Soviet Losses? - Explained" video.

  1. +EdMcF1 >Some German sources noted that the Soviet disposition in mid- June was for an offensive. I think this source was Goebbels
    3
  2. >The knowledge came from the Soviet spy agency, most notably, Richard Sorgei Sorge sent "interesting" reports, to be modest. > The purge took out the most experienced of commanders nope >Example of which, the SVT, which was too hard to mass produce that's why it was built in millions - thing, that of other countries only USA managed to do with semiauto rifle >Frontline troops were mostly listening to propaganda and communist doctrines such a bullshit >the Stavka ordered numerous suicidal assaults resulting in huge losses, along with Order 227 yes, it would be better to sit and wait for German tanks to roll over your positions. And you forget that order 227 was issued in 1942. For a reason
    3
  3. +Thorium Enegry Rezun(Suvorov) and Solonin are by no means a "new studies in the field". They are not studies at all
    3
  4. +Axeman20 bullshit
    2
  5. One word - bullshit
    2
  6. +KelbAlrai1990 Then you must take into account that in real history the Soviet Union cooperated extensively with Weimar Republic. It wouln't be possible with 'conservative Germany'
    2
  7. > more evidence has come out supporting that Barbarossa was indeed pre-emptive yep. Evedences, based on the books of V.Suvorov :D Not on any primary sources
    2
  8. +lethrington > it would've been difficult to have found a more opportune time for Germany to strike the Soviet Union then it did Somethime after the fall of France would be better.
    2
  9. >Hundreds of thousands marching in captivity, tons of equipment abandoned without any contact with the enemy How'd you explain why British, US and French troops surrendered without a fight and abandoned equipment?
    2
  10. >Stalin was moving masses of offensive armies to the border This simply is not true. period
    2
  11. Yes. It was incompetent Russian leadership who initiated army reforms. For them it would be much better to stay at the level of the equipment of 1918 technology
    2
  12. LOL. Suvorov? LOL.
    2
  13. Lol, son
    2
  14. +florian agalli >what were the VVS fighters and bombers doing just few miles away from the border? they did nothing. There was no "VVS fighters and bombers just few miles away from the border". And you could see it for yourself
    1
  15. > the MASSIVE purges that Stalin conducted of the Soviet Officer Corps in 1940 wat? 1940? WAT? >The Soviet forces faced by the Germans in December of 1941 was a completely NEW Soviet Army Was, for example, 17-th tank brigade 'a completely new'?
    1
  16. +Axeman20 What are you waiting for in response to the portion of the bullshit? Long explanations, why is this not so? But, most likely, you are a brainless idiot who does not understand complex reasoning.
    1
  17. "Suvorov" could say all he wants. It does not make any of his words true
    1
  18. +Peter Magro >Stalin whoudl have loved to attack Nazi Germany why?
    1
  19. There were few qualified military leaders even before the purges
    1
  20. nope.
    1
  21. US, British and French troops had the same issues at the beginning of the war. But much less losses
    1
  22. +Jean Lannes > where they had immense advantages in material and intelligence. it isn't true
    1
  23. >included extermination of all the experienced generals by stalin Really? And how Rokossovsky managed to survive?
    1
  24. This is not correspond with reality
    1
  25. Solonin is a walking joke and worth mentioning no more than Victor Rezun (Suvorov)
    1
  26.  @damianb8322  yep. If you know russian language. And you are mistaken - Solonin and Rezun were very popular in post-soviet Russia
    1
  27. try to explain, then, why German offensive was stopped in 1941, when Germany was at peak of might?
    1
  28. > Even late in '41 Germany's tank force still consisted of mostly non-German tanks. This simply is not true
    1
  29. +kollekzioner5 read some good books, will you
    1
  30. > all Russian Tanks running on Diesel Only T-34(with V-2 engine), KV, IS(and, AFAIR, lend-lease M4) and their derivatives had Diesel engines. T-26, T-28, BT, T-60,T-70,T-80, etc. - they all were running on gasoline
    1
  31. nope
    1
  32. nope. Correct spelling is Glantz
    1
  33. These researchers emphasize the negative role of constant counterattacks, but would it be better for Soviet troops if they were bombed by German aviation and shelled by artillery while sitting on the defensive? Soviet troops at the beginning of the war did not often were able to defend against the prepared German offensive, even in fortified areas
    1
  34. >everyone's mindset was still in WW1 during the early stages of WW2. really? But how does this combine with the use of mechanized units by all involved? Or aviation units, dedicated to CAS role? >Hitler blitzed around their defenses around? Lol. German troops broke through the defenses
    1
  35. +13thSystem >You forgot that during the end of WWI there were plenty of planes and tanks nope, I didn't forgot. But there were no such things as motorized units(like Panzerdivision or Mechanised corps), which combined tanks and infantry. Or dedicated attack planes, as Ju-87 or Il-2, with all CAS doctrine. >Hitler didn't go through the Maginot line Hitler got through forts of Belgia(and Maginot line). But I didn't mean any of this. I meant the Allied armies, the defense of which was broken by concentrated strikes
    1
  36. +13thSystem >Yes only Hitler's army were advanced everyone else was still doing wwI tactics nope. Look at the France. They had their own combined arms units > they didn't anticipate Hitler blitzing in through Luxembourg all purpose of the Maginot line - direct attacking Germans trough the Benilux countries >Hitler never intended to smash against the Maginot line full on Germans did break trough the line, though. You can look it for yourself
    1
  37. +13thSystem >Combined arms units was already done in WWI infantry behind the tank nope, there was no such units. There were separate tank, infantry and artillery units
    1
  38. +13thSystem >Ok, They put infantry units together with tanks, not sure why that became suddenly revolutionary because they still intended to do what they did in WWI maybe they were intended. But they didn't. At that technological level it wasn't possible
    1
  39. +13thSystem >They were separate units but they still supported one another so what? There were no combined units, capable of acting independtently. Unlike panzer divisons or mechanized divisions. >They decided to officially put infantry and tanks together in a single unit in WWII nope. > they still did the same thing they did in WWI. nope. Combined units like panzer divisions were capable of making deep breakthroughs of enemy defense. This is their qualitative difference from just "tanks, slowly advancing while infantry follows from behind"
    1
  40. >Also Stalin wiping out all the capable military staff and influential generals such bullshit >Carpet bombing the industry behind the Ural comes to mind really? And how it could be effective without nukes?
    1
  41. >Stalins generals at the front were absolutely worthless? no more than US, British and French Generals
    1
  42. > without lend-lease the soviets would have been defeated try to explain, then, why German offensive was stopped in 1941, when Germany was at peak of might?
    1
  43. +Marc P. so, you didn't explain, how USSR managed to fend off first assault without lend-lease
    1
  44. +Marc P. >the Germans wore themselves out German lossesto the end of the 1941 were about 800000. Do you mean they killed / injured themselves? >The russians built their factories behind Urals and the Germans didn't have a long range bomber to hit them. you played HOI too many times >Like i said before if not for the Russian winter who knows how it would have went? Are you implying that 800000 Germans just froze to death? > when are you people going to learn that war is 80% logistics? when are you people learn to operate facts, not just bullshit you pulled out of your ass?
    1
  45. +Marc P. >the Soviet placed many a factory behind the Urals yep. There were SOME factories behind Urals. >Lets face it the Russian winter saved their asses more than their army has. can you prove it? >You're damn right logistics is a VERY important part of war. so, no facts, just random words picked here and there?
    1
  46. +Marc P keep focus. You said earlier, that USSR won thanks to the lend-lease. Now you are talking about US participation in the war. It's two different things.
    1
  47. +Marc P. > these aren't nobodies like you How does this relate to the role of Lend-Lease or the weather? >God there are 100's of links on google Oh. The links on the google. Of course. >but without the US help and the winter it would have gone way worse. says who? Fucking nobody, who goes by initials 'Marc. P'? >I think we all would have lost without the liberty ships On what is your opinion based? On the quotes?
    1
  48. >. I mean 75% + of officer ranks killed/put into the Gulags. just lol. Maybe, you should read something on this?
    1
  49. >this points to generally inferior training, leadership and tactics. Claiming this, you mean that in other aspects the USSR and Germany were equal. And this is not so. In many respects Germany surpassed the USSR almost to the end of the war
    1
  50. No T-70 in 1941
    1
  51. > How would situation develop if Poland decided do join the Axis? Polish paratroopers would definitely not participate in the operation "Market Garden". But Polish soldiers from Wojsko Polskie could still take Berlin
    1
  52. >Lmao if the USA had not entered and directly supported the ussr they would have been defeated really? And how USSR managed to stop Hitler in 1941-1942?
    1
  53. >TOO BIG for simply a defensive standing army how'd you counted that? >and that the soviet army WAS UNDERGOING modifications to ALLOW a soviet ATTACK on Germany "some time later". or soviet DEFENCE against German ATTACK? > then this german attack IS per definition a PREEMPTIVE STRIKE. nope. READ MORE on definition of PREEMPTIVE STRIKE.
    1
  54. >all of their air bases where on the German border that's not true >all of their bombers where attack bombers do you know about existence of "defense bombers"? > their tanks where mostly light tanks strangely, all armies at the time mostly had light tanks
    1