Comments by "Вячеслав Скопюк" (@user-yj8vj3sq6j) on "TIKhistory" channel.

  1.  @ohhibob1006  but how are they related to Finland? >Finland also received demands to take key defensive locations nope
    3
  2. ​ @mabussubam512  >It's not like Stalin took any good actions on liberating the starving city as a matter of fact - he took good actions. It's not like USSR armies just smoked cigars watching at Leningrad starving > Why waste the opportunity to wage propaganda-warfare against the losing side? ROFL. You really think that USSR had no real life examples except Leningrad?
    3
  3. >considering the unjust land grab on the part of the Russians so, land grab on the part of the Finns was just?
    3
  4. >In the continuation war they never advanced beyond the border line of 1939. Facepalm. Look at the border line of 1939. Look at the border line of 1942. Hit yourself in the face
    3
  5. >Stalin' blocked the PPSH nope. Stalin blocked PPD, because it was a darn expensive and USSR had semiauto rifles
    3
  6. Isaev's book was first published in 2004, maybe that's the point with the numbers of tanks etc. In any case, as far as the Eastern Front is concerned, I will put Isayev above Glantz. He has much more opportunities to use primary sources from the Soviet side
    3
  7. >All guilt, all of it, thus falls on Soviet Russia. lol. So, evil Stalin forced peaceful finns to side with Hitler and go to 4 year futile war :D
    3
  8. you have that Germans starved Russian prisoners of war to death. By millions
    3
  9. >Finland and Germany had a common enemy and was working togheter but they was not allied yep. Not allied to the point where German troops were part of Finnish units under Finnish command. Not allied at all. Could you please point me to some US Special Forces troops under command of Suheil al-Hassan?
    3
  10. >To the north and east was Norway, now occupied by the Germans. and somewhere there was neutral Sweden >The alternatives to saying no to Hitler were either: A. Wait for the Soviets to finish the job and annex the whole country or B. Wait for Germany to invade via Norway and the Baltic Sea. C. wait until nothing happened
    3
  11. >Continuation War Pre-Planned? NO, IT WAS NOT. ROFL. You know very little about your own history, do you? Maybe you should try and check, when German troops, assigned to Operation Silver Fox, started to arrive in Finland
    3
  12. Oh. yes. Suvorov. Of course. Great histroian with zero facts. Лабусы любят Суворова :D
    3
  13. > Then wonder if Finnish troops really wanted to participate on siege of Leningrad would anything have stopped them. yes, those famous Finnish terminators. Who could accomplish Germans can't. Except they were not. >They had already whole northern side of Leningrad really? I don't remember KaUr being a part of the northern side of the Leningrad >How on earth you think Leningrad got constant food supply from north (Murmansk) without Finns shooting a single supply column because they were poor bastards, who had almost no long-range artillery piece or decent bombers? >even they mastered whole territory north of Leningrad? If you mean 'north of the Ladoga lake', you should check out 'Road of Life' and look, that it started nowhere near to north shore of Ladoga. And on the Ladoga lake... Finns got virtually nothing
    3
  14.  @popsey72  we discussed that earlier. >There where nothing between Finnish Army and Leningrad the first weeks of September. except KaUR fortifications and exhaustion of the Finnish army itself >Leningrad Peoples milita would have been crushed like a bug if they would have tried to stop Finnish army. Strangely, Germans didn't managed that fit
    3
  15.  @jarskil8862  > So thats why there is small justification for Soviets will to move the border. I know they didn't teach you that in the school but british naval forces, based on Finland territory, attacked Kronstadt >But Finns would have fought against Germans on "Soviet side" or not
    3
  16.  @Bassap_  >and the continuation war was a backlash for it. as I said earlier "loosing quite a lot of Finnish man for nothing was a wrong doing" >Had not there been an attack from the soviets in the first place, both wars could have been avoided. Had not there been a greedy politicians in Finland government, second war could have been avoided
    3
  17.  @verticallogic5909  >But you might want to consider why all of Eastern Europe threw off communism during the mid/late eighties. what it has to do with Stalin? Btw, you didn't answered about good guys and their rights to claim someone's territory
    3
  18. you prefer Khrushchev claims over real data?
    3
  19. +Jukka Kurola >it seems to be illegal in Russia to tell inconvenient facts about Russian military history. nope
    3
  20. +mitch verr he wasn't fined "for simply stating that Russia invaded Poland". You could read for yourself, what he really was fined for
    3
  21. nothing. They had no means to do anything serious
    3
  22. ​ @nikolaangelov3583  >Explain the winter war then There is nothing to be explained. Look at what USSR wanted from Finland - naval base at the entrance of Gulf of Finland and moving border from Leningrad. Look at what USSR got from Finland - naval base at the entrance of Gulf of Finland, moving border from Leningrad, nickel from Petsamo and some territories in the center of Karelia
    3
  23. >The choice wasn't necessarily popular but it had to be one or the other or he third
    3
  24.  @jm-holm  >The 2 remaining options were to accept German help or be invaded by the Soviet union. why Soviet Union should invade Finland?
    3
  25.  @jm-holm  >Because Finland was still part of the "Soviet sphere of influence" as outlined in the molotov-ribbentrop pact 'sphere of influence' says nothing about occupation. It says only about 'not interfering with interests of other country' > every other nation which was occupied by the Soviets in WW2. what it has to do with 'spheres of influence'? >Everybody knew a second invasion was coming. "Everybody" who? >As you heard from the video the Soviets even made inquiries with the Germans if they were still "allowed" to freely invade Finland. I read about these negotiations. And, as I understand them, USSR expressed concern about the increasing German presence at the Finland soil, in contradiction to pact
    3
  26. when you see that one superpower are going to attack another and you offer help in hope to gain some territories
    3
  27. ​ @popsey72  Poor mindwashed boy, you you continue to fight for other people's views that were put in your head. "In your head, in your head, they are fighting"(с)
    3
  28. +Great Jamie Mannerheim didn't used nothing. He was supreme commander. He was way above any tactics. Tactics was the responsibility of officers of a lower level. And skiers didn't attacked tanks, lol - at night or otherwise.
    2
  29. >Soviet Union considered Finland as a problem of former Tsardom and wanted it back ROFL. No. >Therefore they put unreasonable demands on Finns which cannot be fulfilled As far as I remember, Mannerheim urged Finland government to fulfill those demands. At least he says so in his memoirs
    2
  30. >Soviet Russia, firstly tried to "annex" Finland "peacefully" through communist victory in finnish parliament resulting in Soviet-Finnish war (1918-1920). facepalm. The purpose of the Soviet Russia at the time was to export the revolution, not to acquire a new territories. They wanted to 'annex' Finland no more than 'annex' Hungary or Germany(they also had socialist republics at the time) >Similar situation occured in Latvia (1940) where communists voted for entry to Soviet Union. double facepalm. Soviet Union in 1940 was a different country, with much more pragmatic and imperialistic goals. >Teritorial exchange was unfair as Finland had to sacrifice Hanko naval base and Karelia which was basically na industrial heart of Finland for wastelands in the North. Soviet Union din't demanded all Karelian Isthmus, only to move border. And Finland had fought against Soviet Union for those exact "wastelands in the North" several times >Furthermore, Soviet Union planned the offensive to last for five days ending with conquering of Helsinki as a birthday gift for Stalin. that's quite interesting story they teach you in schools. Because if you read the real plan, you'll find that terms for the defeat of enemy units on the Karelian Isthmus were set to 8-10 days
    2
  31. >Must be because they were so awesome! yup. It's quite an achievement - to beat technically superior enemy
    2
  32. > it's worth noting that Russian KIA in the Winter War were likely closer to 300k, and WIA were north of 900k. by western estimates. Overinflated, i should say > it was always Stalin's goal to annex Finland into the Karelo-Finnish SSR as a part of the Soviet Union Stalin's goal, about which nobody knew. Except Finns :D >There's a fair bit of evidence that Russia was preparing for another war against Finland in the fall of 1940 Strangely, nobody knows about said plans. Except Finns :D By the way, why USSR should have wanted another war with Finland? USSR had Hankoniemi and all the Karelian Isthmus, after all... Ah, yes, I forgot - "it was always Stalin's goal to annex Finland". Stupid me. >It is perhaps likely Finland would have eventually attacked anyway once Germany pushed deep enough into Russia, but that does not remove the fact Russia did attack first Really? So, Gebirgs-Korps Norwegen was just for fun? > like it had in 1918 Russia. Attacked Finland. In 1918. Am I forgetting something? > Ultimately Finnish troops remained in defensive positions all the way until July-August, 1941. *Sigh "Unternehmen Silberfuchs" - date beginning 29 June 1941 >Many of these areas btw had partially de facto joined or wanted to join Finland during the Russian Civil War, this is an open lie >The Finnish military was entirely capable of carrying out this operation, but chose not to Finnish military wasn't capable of any large offensive operations as of end of 1941. Especially at such large front >or even participate in the Siege of Leningrad Of course, Finland didn't participated in the siege of Leningrad. Finnish troops only formed part of the encircling ring >maintain that its war, unlike the German one, was defensive in nature Capturing some territories when USSR had his hands full with Germany - that's I call a defensive war :D You, Finns, are so charming when you try to make yourself good guys in aggressive war
    2
  33.  @itsVilu  >Japan was part of the Tripartite Pact so yes, they were part of the Axis but 'not 'true member', isn't it? Japan had neutrality pact with USSR until 1945
    2
  34. ​@Sami Sund >Russia was allies with Germany really? When? Show me some examples of 'allied actions' >and started the whole WWII with Germany something new. I don't remember USSR taking part in capturing Czechoslovakia >Did you know that? I'm not very well versed in history of your alternate reality
    2
  35. how so?
    2
  36.  @villesorjonen5779  how your country will loose without nazis?
    2
  37.  @villesorjonen5779  are you drunk or high?
    2
  38.  @villesorjonen5779  I know enough. But I really can't get any meaning from your words
    2
  39. >the permanent agresion and grabbing lands politics of russia from they small neighbors really? What you say about, for example, Finland grabbing lands politics from they big neighbor?
    2
  40.  @mariusvladu2041  remember Munchen my friend
    2
  41.  @mariusvladu2041  Munchen says that Russia wasn't in any way unique
    2
  42.  @mariusvladu2041  > You are right ! Is not a fact . Hitler-Stalin pact was just a reuniunion beween two old good school friends what dou you have to say about Munchen agreements, then?
    2
  43.  @SerAkel  naval operations such as mine laying are planned and prepared well ahead. So, finnish navy was ready for aggressive actions.
    2
  44.  @popsey72  "blocked and reported", huh ;)
    2
  45.  @bobbleheadelvis6607  Nope. I don't remember anything particularly bad coming to Finland after that and before June of 1941
    2
  46. ​@Sami Sund > countless of killed people As far as I remember, all Finns, killed during Winter War, ARE counted. And it's not that big of a number >lost lands, including second largest city of Finland vae victis. All of this could have been avoided > do i have to go on? Please, continue. Remind me anything particularly bad coming to Finland AFTER conclusion of the Winter War and BEFORE June of 1941
    2
  47.  @VIItut  you forgot to take your meds, pal
    2
  48.  @mabussubam512  >Is what you're saying in a nutshell. bullshit, I can't hear you
    2
  49. > What proof is there that Finland wasn't just preparing for a war that seemed inevitable Taking part in plans to capture Murmansk. Operation Silberfuchs >Why would we wait for the soviets to strike first Was USSR planning to strike Finland? Any signs? >Why not just wait it out and focus on the Germans? wait what? Finnish submarines laying mines in soviet coastal waters? Finnish navy providing bases for German minelayers? Finnish troops advancing at Murmansk alongside German troops?
    2
  50.  @readhistory2023  > since they actually spent the blood to take the ground Naval base and demolition of Mannerheim line >Do you have another take on it? I could only repeat, that Finland itself had no value
    2