General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About
Вячеслав Скопюк
TIKhistory
comments
Comments by "Вячеслав Скопюк" (@user-yj8vj3sq6j) on "TIKhistory" channel.
Previous
10
Next
...
All
@kallegran7225 why USSR will need more Finnish territory?
1
@kallegran7225 yep, and they got all they wanted
1
>I do not consider Finland as part of the Axis they were quite involved, though >and apparently the Allies didn't either as it is my understanding that the United States did not declare war on Finland USSR, for example, did not declare war on Japan until 1945 >Any country, including Finland has a right to defend herself, in Finland's case it was a right to attack neighboring country
1
@adrianshephard378 >Finland was a co-beligerment, not an ally. Finnish-german units under german command counts as an ally in my book >They only fought to regain territory and fight the Soviets back. how that makes them not an ally of Germany?
1
@JM-dw8eq idk. Ask @dbassman27 and @Corporal Shephard
1
>Before the war, Latvia was actually one of the wealthiest and fastest growing economies in Europe ROFLMAO
1
> it strikes an extremely eerie resemblance with recent events in Ukraine and the Caucusus how so?
1
@zombieguyproducion sorry, but I don't see "an extremely eerie resemblance" here. Could you elaborate?
1
@zombieguyproducion Baltic states weren't occupied military, you should remember that. Georgia wasn't occupied at all.
1
@zombieguyproducion yes, Baltic States were occupied. But there were no initial military intervention. >As for Georgia, Russia literally INVADED Georgia 2008 for couple of days, yes. Without any further political consequences. I'm failing to see resemblance with events in the Ukraine or Baltic States here
1
@zombieguyproducion >Military occupation. Which is what I said... no resemblance to Crimean events, though. Except, maybe, referendum >And how lucky Georgia has control of Abkhazia Georgia had no control over Abkhazia since 1992. How it relates to Crimea and occupation of Baltic states?
1
@zombieguyproducion >definetly not similar. we were talking about 'eerie resemblance', remember? And what about Georgia?
1
@Dasistrite > You question everyone else’s sources so far little or anything at all sources were provided > If something calls for brainwashing it is that. yep, there is some brainwashed people here, in the comments. @Patrik Pössi, for example >Anyway check out HOLODOMOR. I checked it out long ago. What should I do next?
1
>cooperate with evil Nazi Germany to avoid that avoid what, lol? >Finland could have assisted Germany in taking Murmansk but avoided that they could have assisted shit to do shit. Don't overestimate Finland's military capabilities >They could have attacked the railway line from Murmansk southward, but avoided that Don't overestimate Finland's military capabilities[2] >they could have barraged Leningrad from its position on the frontline by the old border Don't overestimate Finland's military capabilities[3] you know very little about capabilities of WWII Finland and that's showing
1
@kentabrahamsson >Whats so lol about that? the though that "evil Stalin" dreamed about "steamrolling" Finland. >So what facts do you present besides your repeated sentences? what facts YOU present besides your belief in the mighty Finnish army? >As an example Finland certanly had the capability to barrage Leningrad targets from the frontline at the old border. nope, they didn't >The artillery barrage that took out the Soviet full division attack at Ihantala and stopped offensive showed that that's some major bullshit. Talk with the finns about battle of Tali-Ihantala.
1
Loza had quite limited experience with Thompson SMG. AFAIR, soviet testers from NIPSVO got a positive impression of its characteristics
1
@FrazzP >The Baltic states wanted to stay neutral of course, Why they would make connections with Germany than to stay neutral? >Enjoy your fantasy of thinking the USSR were the good guys ROFL. I didn't ever say that USSR were good guys. But you didn't need my participation to determine my views. That's something
1
@dobypilgrim6160 >You have watched way too many propaganda films I really think that it's your psychological projection. Me - I read books. Not 'propaganda books'. >Damn I hadn't realized Poland was such a warmongering country Maybe, you watched too many propaganda films? > And IN FACT Finland did refuse to participate in the siege of Leningrad. Yes, by staying on old border. Wait, oh shi...
1
Sorry, but Lenin promised nothing except what was given by Tartu treaty
1
@allualex2606 Yeah, sure. It is worth nothing, though, that Baltics and Western Ukraine also had guerrilla movements. 'Had' is the keyword here
1
@allualex2606 I wonder, how guerrillas would sustain themselves in that magnificent Finnish forests which are mostly uninhabited :D And I assure you, that population of Western Ukraine was(and is) lot larger than population of Finland
1
@allualex2606 >What can u do with population that doesnt know what to do in case of attack? you can recruit guerrilla fighters. And sustain them ;) >Finns have been warriors since the beginning of time unlike Ukrainians yeah, that helped them not to be conquered by Sweden and Russia in succession. Wait, oh shi....
1
@allualex2606 >We were first warriors of Sweden, then we were warriors of Russia Yes, of course. Especially considering that population of Grand Duchy of Finland wasn't drafted >Till this day we are the only country in Europe that can realistically defend itself from Russia ROFLMAO. Okay
1
>LAH had many casualties at METAXAS line less than expected >fallschirmjägers were annihilated in Creta fighting english troops, yes
1
Yep. fiction books as the source
1
>so was the Soviet Union for a couple of years. O'rly? Exactly how?
1
@mechantl0up was there something about allying with Germany? No? I though so
1
@mechantl0up nope, there weren't. Study some history, dude. Ask the Baltic peoples and in particular the Poles if you need to learn that there were no "Soviet-Nazi alliance". Not in the form and not in the spirit
1
> That means in a fight the Soviet squad would soon run out of ammunition, and the German squad with mostly bolt action rifles and one machine gun would be shooting and more accurately for longer. in reality German squad will expend more ammunition because MG34/42 high rate of fire > Ammunition is heavy, and troops can only carry so much but you can carry much more pistol cartridges than rifle cartridges
1
@TheMentalblockrock >But the MG42 is only one gun and one soldier, trainer to fire short bursts and at definite targets/ suppression. it's the main weapon of the German squad. How do you think, how much ammunition "suppression" requires? You can see that on youtube >The Russians were all spraying bullets as they charged. ROFL. Really? How do you know that? >Plus ALL the German squad carried MG42 belts as said in this video. because high rate of ammo consumption >Therefore the Germans would use less ammunition per enemy casualty. therefore Germans would use more rifle ammunition per enemy casualty. Rifle ammunition is much more heavier than pistol ammunition
1
>Would finns moved to White Sea–Baltic Canal, which was a possiblilty - soviets kept the Finland front in the lowest priority throughout the war, they would cut the lend-lease line from Murmansk could they afford to loose territories they captured during 1941?
1
@romangl9070 did what? Cut Murmansk railroad line?
1
@romangl9070 yes, but it wasn't their will
1
soviet antitank rifles weren't capable of long-range precise shots
1
@popsey72 >the only place where the Soviet had fully combat ready divisions 22.6 1941 was on the Finnish border. ROFL. Why, mister Pössi? Why you insist in making yourself a clown?
1
> Everyone knew that Russians will return and try to annex Finland once again. How so?
1
bullshit. NKVD troops were intended to be used inside country. They weren't supposed to go against regular "military" troops
1
operation Silberfuchs, Finnish troops under German command - rings a bell?
1
@wardeni4806 >They didn't get what they wanted the first time as the matter of fact, they did >and were quite literally planning another invasion I'm afraid, that's a fact only Finns know about >they had quite literally signed a secret treaty with the soviets where they recognised Finland as "soviet territory". nope. They recognized Finland as part of 'soviet sphere of influence' >The tension was there, everyone could see the peace wasn't going to last that's some alternate history. USSR had his hands full in other directions and Finland itself had no value, except those part, that were given to USSR after Winter War. >The Winter War left both sides hostile and unsatisfied USSR was quite satisfied >he took a big cigar and lit it up right next to Hitler's face. what a courage!!!!
1
@wardeni4806 > You clearly don't know much about the subject outside russian propaganda. you are clearly making psychological projections here >The Red army gave route planners to their invading troops of Finland, these papers included, among other things, basics of the Finnish language and instructions not to cross the Swedish border. As I said many times - it has nothing to do with annexation of Finland. Those plans were aimed to crush Finland military might
1
Little Gubba >Finland was not a part of the Axis powers, but it was aligned with them. so much aligned, that there were mixed Finnish-German units?
1
>USSR was also on the side of the axis really? They bombed Britain or France? > They invaded Poland Poland invaded Czechoslovakia when Germany captured it. So, Poland was on the side with axis? >supplied the vital raw materials that Germany needed Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland - they all provided some sort of resource Germany needed. They all were on the side of the axis? >And the USSR invaded Finland. Which was given the ok by there axis partner Germany. Germany was given ok by the axis partners Britain and France to capture Czechoslovakia I got your logic, pal
1
Ha!
1
why GULAG shouldn't have existed?
1
that could be said about many things in USSR during 1920-1950. Those were tough times
1
>The three primary types of weapon that Soviet infantry used were bolt-action Mosin–Nagant's, the semi-automatic SVT-40 and its automatic variant the AVT-40 nope. Number of built SVT-40 and AVT-40 was large(around 1,6 millon), but nothing to compare with numbers of Mosin's and SMG's produced(millions)
1
@lotus95t okay. But you said that "All three variants were used in similar numbers during the war". That's impossible
1
@pebo8306 >I wonder why the Russians lost 5 times of their men compared to the Wehrmacht?? because they didn't starved Germans to death in prison camps
1
@_kommandant_3055 not millions
1
Thing with Israel is that, that their opponents weren't peaceful neighbors and were(and are) quite determined to completely destroy Israel
1
Previous
10
Next
...
All