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

  1. > Finland had 2 choices either be occupied by the Sovjets or get help from the only power able to provide it. third choise - stay neutral. >In 41 the Sovjets bomb Finland before any other hostilities take place 22 June fiinnish troops captured Aland islands, finnish submarines placed mines in soviet coastal waters. >So yes they cooperated with the Germans to regain lost territory regain lost territory like Petrozawodsk? Remind me, please, when it was lost by Finland
    2
  2.  @hopeinen5287  Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal - they all stayed neutral.
    2
  3. >Attack or be invaded. Period. stay neutral. Period. >The fact that the Finns refused to participate in the siege of Leningrad is illustrative. but they participated. Passively. They had almost no means to do that actively >Ultimately that choice turned out to be correct, as evidenced by the fact that Finland emerged from the war as a still-independant nation facepalm. You think that dead Hitler not allowed USSR to capture Finland?
    2
  4.  @SinOfAugust  Finland managed to stay neutral and anticommunist from 1940 to 1941. What were you saying about "to be annexed"? >Tell Poland, and Baltic states about how neutrality worked out for them. They weren't neutral. As a matter of fact, Poland was actively hostile towards Germany. Do your homework, please.
    2
  5.  @nikolaangelov3583  in 1944 Stalin had what he got in 1940. It was enough to consider Finland 'not dangerous' . And Finland itself is of no value.
    2
  6.  @nikolaangelov3583  who says Stalin wanted Finland in 1939? Finns? > Also, Finland was in the Axis, so why not use this excuse to steamroll the tanks to Helsinki? Because Finland itself is of no value
    2
  7. ​ @jm-holm  >Wrong, the sphere's of influence were territories to be occupied. where I can read something on that? >Everything that was called a "sphere of influence" in the pact WAS invaded and occupied by these 2 powers, except for Finland that managed to hold on. Your memory serves you bad. Finland didn't managed to hold on. >Already answered spheres of influence. Simply a term for territory to take by force and annex. or not >Everybody. The entire world. some confirmations to that statement? >Incorrect, there was no German presence by the time the Soviets asked Maybe you should read it yourself then? Molotov expressed concerns about German presence in Finland, and Hitler told him that such presence shouldn't concern USSR
    2
  8. ​ @jm-holm  >Oh I'd suggest for example books on "history" "books on history' isn't enough, you know. Maybe, books of some particular author? >Oh yes it did. Some alternative history you are talking about >If Finland hadn't held on we would have been part of the USSR, that contradicts historical reality >Or yes confirmations? >refer to history it's quite a vague direction. Could you be more specific? >I've read a lot on the subject, don't you worry. but you don't really know what Hitler discussed with Molotov... Somehow I'm starting to doubt your words... >I find it sad. Don't be. It's funny to catch your little lies here and there ;)
    2
  9. ​ @agris8859  I have read these excuses many times. It doesn't change the fact, that only reasons for Finland to engage in war alongside Germany were revenge and territorial gains
    2
  10. ​ @agris8859  >And it wasn't really ''gaining territory'' it was mostly ''gaining back territory lost in the winter war and before''. maybe for people of Finland. Not for Ryti and his colleagues >but it could have been avoided by the Soviet Union if they had not been greedy and initiated the Winter War a few years prior Winter War wasn't for greed. It was for security of the state borders. And Soviet Union tried to avoid war. Negotiations about moving of the border and lease of territory to build naval base longed for two months
    2
  11.  @agris8859  >Don't agree with me ? yep >Soldiers and civilians flood in>Soldiers in civilian clothing go out to demonstrate for joining the USSR that's quite an alternative history. Also -you suggest that soviet soldiers would go and demonstrate in finnish language?
    2
  12. > it was also a reality that the Soviets would have Attacked Finland again eventually Old west Germans love to say something among those lines - "we were forced, Soviet Union was ready to attack us". I see a trend here
    2
  13. ​ @wardeni4806  >Their original plan was to annex the entirety of Finland you are mixing things up. Not 'annex Finland', but 'to destroy Finland' military might'. There is no 'original plan to annex the entirety of Finland' >They had 321,000–381,000 casualties they had not >After it was over the relations between Finland and the USSR only worsened, which resulted in the Continuation Wa nope. Continuation War was result of opportunity to seize some lands while USSR had his hands full. >which is named so because it was a continuation of the Winter War. yes, by the Finns. Because, you see, it looks wrong when you say 'we helped Hitler to fight his war against Soviet Union because we saw profit in that'. But it looks good when you say that "it was just a continuation of winter War, nothing more" >The USSR invaded/occupied just about every nation in eastern Europe in their bid to outplay the U.S. invaded? You calling liberation from German troops an 'invasion'? that's a interesting logic you have >and would have done the same to Finland. are there some evidences to that?
    2
  14. > I have not heard any historian or a Finn call Continuation War defensive war. you find plenty of Finns(judging by their names) calling Continuation War a 'defensive war' here, in the comments >If Finns were really allies of Germany then there should have been no reason why Finns wouldnt aid Germans in Leningrad and Murmansk-railroad activities flawed logic. You didn't account for Finland's limited war capabilities. And, for example, Japan, which was the undisputed ally of Germany, didn't fight the USSR at all.
    2
  15.  @samuelsilver8077  >Japan didnt see any military value freezing their troops in Siberia for no good reason they did see military value in 1938-1939, though, fighting against Soviet Union in Mongolia >But USSR wasnt attacking them so there wasnt really any need to attack USSR they were members of Tripartite Pact. USSR didn't attack Italy or Slovakia, but they send their troops into USSR nonetheless
    2
  16. >It was the American and British bombing campaign that crippled the German manufacturing capabilities that saved the Soviets really? Then why Germans produced MORE in 1943-1944, than in 1941-1942?
    2
  17.  @stinkypete891  destroyed Luftwaffe but not manufacturing capabilities of the Germany
    2
  18.  @stinkypete891  and?
    2
  19.  @stinkypete891  nope. Swedes won WWII. They sold ball bearings to Allies
    2
  20.  @stinkypete891  What about swedes selling ball bearing to the Allies? They won the war, isn't it?
    2
  21.  @stinkypete891  >Swedes were importing ball bearings to both Britain and Germany. so, they won the war, right?
    2
  22.  @stinkypete891  >America was fighting a two-front war thousands of miles apart with Imperial Japan who's navy crushed you at the Battle of Tsushima, RIGHT??? nope >Soviets couldn't even defeat Germany WITHOUT America's help US couldn't defeat Germany without Sweden help. RIGHT???
    2
  23.  @stinkypete891  Nope. Cause Finland didn't sell anything to USSR. Or leased anything
    2
  24.  @stinkypete891  >RIGHT??? that's a stories from alternate universe. In our universe, though, Finland didn't sell or lease anything to USSR, ergo - Finland didn't won the war. According to your own logic
    2
  25.  @stinkypete891  nope. It's in your universe. One of them, at least
    2
  26.  @stinkypete891  >nope. You're universe and your universe only. not mine. You don't know things that were going on in my universe ;)
    2
  27.  @stinkypete891  ball bearings, man. Ball bearings
    2
  28.  @stinkypete891  ball bearings, man. They saved all. You stated that yourself
    2
  29.  @stinkypete891  hence. Sweden won the war. It's your logic, not mine
    2
  30.  @stinkypete891  Ball bearings, man. Remember - ball bearings. Sweden win the war, you stated that yourself
    2
  31.  @stinkypete891  > America won the war, saved Russia and the entire world. Sweden won the war, saved US, Britain and Russia and entire world. All the allies did was purchase ball bearings. Right???
    2
  32.  @stinkypete891  Sweden won the war, saved US, Britain and Russia and entire world. All the allies did was purchase ball bearings. Right???
    2
  33.  @stinkypete891  >Sweden sold ball bearings to Britain and Germany. Yes, you are right. Sweden won the war. You said that, not me
    2
  34.  @stinkypete891  you said Sweden won the war. Because they sold ball bearing to Allies. It's your logic man not mine
    2
  35.  @stinkypete891  you said you saved USSR because of land-lease. Hence, Sweden sawed all because of ball bearings
    2
  36.  @stinkypete891  >The only thing Sweden saved was it's own bank accounts and Allies. Because ball bearings were important
    2
  37.  @tonks-gaming  'orders'? What about 'preparations'?
    2
  38.  @TheWersum  AFAIR, Germans didn't placed Russians in concentration camps indiscriminately. Not like you know who
    2
  39.  @Leperzco  > Before that not Finnish or German troops based on Finland have not crossed the Soviet-Finnish border or any way waged war to Soviet Union. rofl. So, they were some neutral german soldiers, completely separated from Nazi Germany? >As it was agreed on Finnish-German negotiations that German troops only assist Finnish troops on that case that Soviet Union starts war with Finland. ROFL[2]. They were planning attack on Soviet Union, in unison with Barbarossa.
    2
  40. there is no 'Siberian' ethnicity :D People born and living in Siberia are called Siberians, whether they are Russians, Ukrainians, Poles or Buryats
    2
  41. >more than likely they would prefer to live under Finish rule than under Russian rule. cool story, bro
    2
  42. +Great Jamie He distinguished himself as a politician, not as a general
    1
  43. +Great Jamie what 'brilliant tactics' do you mean?
    1
  44.  @jounisuninen  oh, stop that nonsense with "Finland army stopped on the old border"
    1
  45. +Michael McCabe >Those who have actually lived under communism will all attest to that. Finnish 'reds' weren't communist, nor bolshevik's
    1
  46. +Michael McCabe >The reds always considered themselves to be socialists and communists nope, lol. >You're effectively calling them liars. nope, i calling you a liar. We didn't talk about communists. We were talking about 'reds'
    1
  47. jeffrey dahmere >but on all of those cases that I mentioned above they were breaking those agreement how do you checked that? Read materials of field investigations? Remind me, what form of warfare conducted inhabitants of Oradour-sur-Glane? >hostages that were hiding and protecting partisan nope. Just hostages. >if you don't want to get involved it was simple don't help those terrorists/partisans/resistance save me from this bullshit, please. Nobody checked, who was helping partisans, and who not.
    1
  48. jeffrey dahmere >I can see that scene so, we are agree, that Germans killed civilians on principles of collective responsibility? Then, what the point of you talking about 'they killed only partisan supporters', when you denying your own words >thats right Oradour-sur-Glane they were hiding weapons and helping the resistance ,thats why the germans retaliated "collective responsibility" > thats what the germans did yep. Indiscriminately killed civilians, on the official orders. So, why are you talked about cases of misconduct on both sides? In the German case, misconduct - it's when German soldier refuses to execute civilian hostage
    1
  49. it's like a being in a bar and you saw that big gay, who hit you once in the past is in the fight with other big guy. So, when you saw that, you tried to quickly rob first guy and then look what happens next
    1
  50.  @mattegunnar  >and he still got that deal to kill you off nope, he just hit you in the face and you parted your ways > because fuck that guy, he is and asshole maybe, but then he gets his hands free and now he is really pissed off with your attitude. And now you think 'maybe I shouldn't rob him in the first place?'
    1