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

  1.    > All of this was about teritorial demands they were quite moderate. Lot less than USSR got in the aftermath. Btw, USSR didn't just demanded territories from Finland, it proposed some territories that Finland wanted in exchange.So, no ''considered Finland as a problem of former Tsardom and wanted it back" >Mannerheim urged the government as finnish army was in desperate condition. and because those demands could be fulfilled. The only point of contention was the lease of territory for military base. That could have been negotiated, but I guess that people in power thought at the time that USSR wouldn't go to a war
    1
  2.  @coloradoing9172  first one - nobody asked Finland to give up the all Mannerheim line. Second one - I don't remember soviet troops invading Finland from Hanko during 1941. I wonder why
    1
  3.  @coloradoing9172  so, you ignored that part where I talked that there were NO advances from Hanko during 1941. Despite it's presumed 'danger to Helsinki' As for "portion that would have been rendered the entire line useless" - that's some first class conspiracy theory, I presume taken straight outta Finland. Any sane man, familiar with the USSR's plans for the Winter War knows that Soviet military commanders did not consider the Mannerheim Line an obstacle
    1
  4.  @coloradoing9172  >The red army in 1941 was in a state of complete collapse and had no capacity to commit offensive operations in Finland. well, It's called pulling the facts to fit your point of view. >The sad thing is that you're falling for Soviet propaganda from the late 30s LOL. Man with conspiracy theories about 'rendering Mannerheim Line useless' tells me that I fall for propaganda. What words in the sentence "Soviet military leaders did not view the Mannerheim Line as an obstacle" you didn't understand?
    1
  5.  @KBKriechbaum  >You can drop 20 rocks on a watch and claim that your technologically inferior rocks beat the technologically superior watch. what it has to do with german superiority? > Just with massive support did the soviets actually manage to get things going. like in the end of 1941, yes :D Massive support >Their losses speak a very clear language. about German superiority, yes >The finnish beat them up with way less manpower but way superior fighting capabilities. You talking about 1939-1940, yes? You will be surprised, but Soviet Army at the front was equivalent to the Finland army in terms of manpower > In WW2 it took the russians over 3 years to learn how a modern war is fought you falling into the trap of the "Great German fighters vs inferior Soviet fighters". But in fact it was "Great German industry vs inferior Soviet industry". So, it took russians over 3 years to build up industry more or less equal to German(in some areas) > The british fought immediatly and managed because their airforce and leadership was excellent. LOLWUT? You talking about guys who lost ALL their heavy weapons during Fall Rot, and only thing that saved Britain from falling was a 30 km wide anti-tank trench >Saying the Soviets were a good fighting force is ridiculous when you look at their losses. look at their enemies >They won through nothing but manpower. manpower solves nothing since invention of the machinegun, quick firing guns and shrapnel
    1
  6. ​ @KBKriechbaum  >The example with the rocks is merely to show that "winning" is relative and does not say much about fighting capabilities. then you failed to provide correct example >The russians never fought very smart. that's bullshit >Their doctrines never were very smart compared to their adversaries, either. you really don't know anything about russian military doctrine, so your opinion is irrelevant > They were very inefficient as a military they beat stronger enemy, though > hence massive losses even when massively outgunning and outnumbering their enemy like when? >The losses sustained by the soviets are due to inferior military tactics and poor training. the losses sustained by soviets are due German superiority in weapons and transport > But on the tactical level, the german military was just more advanced. that's just words. You don't understand their meaning > In the international comparison, even today russia lacks those on a grand scale. but you don't have an idea, what today Russia lacks or not ;) You just repeat the words you heard somewhere, not understanding their meaning >In the end of 1941, winter stopped the ill equiped germans. ROFL. What about ill equipped soviets? >Even without the red army being there, it would stop them. LOL. You are so funny >In the winterwar, the soviets had roughly twice the men in the fight, 100 times the aircraft and 30 times the tanks. as I said already - Red army was equal with the finns on the terms of manpower > The soviet casualties are 20 times as high as the finnish casualties. 390000 / 20 gives us 19000, not 70000. What's your major malfunction? > thats why you need 10 times more soviets in a fight against the Wehrmacht. Facts in numbers. explain then, why Wermacht win only when it concentrated 10 to 1 against soviet soldiers? > Industry has little to do with how good your individual already equipped force is in terms of training. really? ROFL. You so clueless. Try to think, how do you equip your force without industry? Where you get that fuels, ammo, food? Where you get that shells for your 280mm howitzers, bombs for your Ju 87? >The british fought the german luftwaffe at its prime and managed to fight them off. the british fought german wermacht at its prime and managed to loose badly. Unfortunately, USSR had no 30km wide anti-tank trench You stuck in the times of Cold War, pal. Try to educate yourself, start with Glantz books
    1
  7.  @KBKriechbaum  > Haha, you are so smart Only in comparison with you >the US shoved equipment up soviet russias booty not so much as they showed up Britain booty. Remember, what Germans did to Britain and US troops in Africa? >stalin himself said that they were on the brink of collapse and without the help of the US they would have he didn't said that. After all, where did you get that, obviously your Cold War era historical books don't cite Stalin quotes >Whenever russia tried something, afterwards they were worse of than before that's another bullshit >Russia to this day, is only a big gas station with very cheap prices. that's all you have to say about WW2? Very deep analysis, indeed. >The US fought the germans, too. The brits fought the germans too. Their kill/loss rates are a lot better. Because they had better militaries (and still have). obviously not because they waited until Germany bleeds their army on the Eastern front. No sir! > Looking forward to see how it goes for great russia in the future. Obviously you don't look into anything. You just miserable little man who thought he knew something about the history of World War II and now he is trying to hide his bitterness behind attempts to laugh at modern Russia. Attempts as miserable as he himself. Cheers
    1
  8. ​ @spudrobera4099  >You can believe the latter. I will believe in "The Plans". When I see them. After all, we got secret appendix to the Pact, didn't we? >n 1918, Bolsheviks did intrude into Finland to support the Finnish Reds. When i see words "Russia invaded Finland" I think about one country invading another. >There is something called the East Karelian uprising of 1921–22 and The Republic of North Ingria. If you really know, what it was, you can't, in your right mind, say that "Many of these areas btw had partially de facto joined or wanted to join Finland during the Russian Civil War" >About Finland choosing not to further carry out offensive operations, for example the Operation Silver Fox: which ended in 1941. As I said, Finnish military wasn't capable of any large offensive operations as of end of 1941. >Finnish troops only formed part of the encircling ring as that was the Finnish border. Facepalm. I think, you should change your name to "Some Dumb Guy". Finnish troops moved so far beyond the old border as Soviet fortifications allowed them
    1
  9. ​ @spudrobera4099  >But on actions that they took, which also contests such, the deep advance into Finland do you suggest that USSR captured Mannerheim line, Hankoniemi and then just stood and wait while finnish artillery shelled them? I'm seriously suggest to you to change nickname. "Some Dumb Guy". The only means to assure further peace was destroying Finnish military. For Finns just the threat of such destruction was enough >Also, USSR did not merely demand strategic areas, but for example demanded Finland do demolish possible fortifications along the eastern border. it wasn't in the final draft >One of the main reasons Finland declined nope >There were absolutely no intentions amongst them of joining Finland? you got some problems reading simple text, I got it. I repeat it for you. "Many of these areas btw had partially de facto joined or wanted to join Finland during the Russian Civil War" - that's an open lie. There was nothing about ''some intentions'. > however, Finnish troops had already earlier in August 1941 received orders to halt the advance after reaching their goals strangely, Finnish commanders 'on the spot' described it somewhat like 'we had no people to advance' >Mannerheim terminated the offensive on 31 August 1941, when the army had reached the 1939 border. again you repeat that. Do you think that repeating "finnish troops only got as far as old border" somehow changes historical reality?
    1
  10. ​ @spudrobera4099  >Meant, for example, the 163rd Rifle Division which was halfway on its route to Oulu "The only means to assure further peace was destroying Finnish military. For Finns just the threat of such destruction was enough". Next time, try to read what I wrote. >What comes to the areas wanting or not wanting to join Finland: as I said earlier - if you know, what it really was, you can't, in your right mind, say that ""Many of these areas btw had partially de facto joined or wanted to join Finland during the Russian Civil War"" >Such demands is stated in the sources of Wiki. yes >Do you have a raw copy of the final draft yourself to link? it was in the memoirs of the diplomats. The final proposition from USSR was base at Hankoniemi and partial movement of the border >Who and when was this "Finnish commander"? I will remember that colonel name >described it somewhat like" seems like very sound evidence. indeed >thus straightening the frontline so that it ran along the old border "ran along"? Interesting game of words. Please, stop make yourself an idiot, I couldn't stand that
    1
  11.  @spudrobera4099  >The absolute refusal or absence of requested sources. pardon me, you didn't provided any sources of your own. Statements from Wikipedia didn't provide any base for conclusions you did
    1
  12. ​ @spudrobera4099  >You can request a source and I will confirm or back it up yes, I request your sources on points as 1) USSR planning to annex all Finland(plans to advance to Sweden border coudn't be counted as plans to annex), 2) most of the population of Karelia wanted to be part of Finland, 3) finnish troops staying on old border at Karelian Isthmus > If you don't remember a name or so, you should not use it as an argument why shouldn't I? You could remember that man yourself. It's not like Finland had many colonels at the time and at the place
    1
  13. TiK is not Russian
    1
  14.  @marcinterlecki6021  why teach him how to pronounce word in russian, then?
    1
  15.  @marcinterlecki6021  > it's an acronym and Sh is for surname Shpagin Acronym from the Russian surname. Lewis, being an englishman, understandably having a hard time pronouncing russian letters > BTW it's weird that Russian has any objections i'm not a 'pronouncing nazi', and I am very annoyed by people who floods comment section with "It's not S-H, it's Sh" etc
    1
  16. > Nazis became "evil demons" only after ww2 lolwut? They captured half of the Europe. You think that other nations saw them as nice guys in the moment?
    1
  17.  @lexbor3511  >they were just another conquerors for the public. nope >Like French under Napoleon. like germans in WW1. They were called "hunns", remember? > siding with Nazis was not a big deal during the war. I call bullshit
    1
  18.  @lexbor3511  >You can call whatever u want but public in those days was different (surprise). sorry, but name "hunns" was coined by "public of those days" > Thats why prime-minister of GB had no problem meeting with Hitler during the war? i highly doubt that > thats why pro-nazi parties were openly operating in every democratic country nope. Pro-nazi (in fact, right-wing, fascist parties) openly operated in democratic countries because people felt that strong anticommunist state united under strong leader is a right way to be saved from the perils of the modern world. Rising of nazis to the power in Germany was part of that world movement >thats why Stalin had no problem signing a pact with Hitler.. Stalin had all the problems signing pact with Hitler. Most likely you don't know that, but USSR cut ties with Germany when Hitler became Chancellor. >Other-wise Finland would never align her-self with Hitler. Finland had quite a grudge against USSR
    1
  19.  @jarskil8862  do you understand what 'Alliance' means? >So with your logic, "No one in Europe saw USSR as good guys" it's not 'my' logic. It's the way world governments saw USSR those days and why Nazy Germany was the main trade partner of the USSR just before the war
    1
  20. > The only semi/full automatic rifle with a high powered rifle round in WW2 was the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR). Garand M1, FG-42, Gewehr-41 and Gewehr-43, SVT-40/AVT-40
    1
  21.  @Crashed131963  >But the AVT used a lower powered short 7.62mm x 39mm or 7.62x41mm not a true 7.62x54mm round. I was talking about AVT-40, which was an SVT-40 with autofire capabilitiy. You were talking about rifle that was developed to complement assault rifle. Tokarev's rifle lose to Simonov's SKS
    1
  22. ​@Sami Sund >Russians don't even belong to these parts of the world really? AFAIR, People in West-Northern Russia have quite a share of "finnish" genes >go back to Black Sea what Russians has to do with Black Sea?
    1
  23.  @mariusvladu2041  >but the real event who realy start WWII was Ribentrop=Molotov pact o'rly? Did chinese and japanese agree on that?
    1
  24.  @mariusvladu2041  >Of curse Russia signed a kind of so call "Non Agression Pact" like Ribentrop-Molotov pact with Japan too . That allowed Japan to still attack China if memory serves, Japan attacked China long before non-agression pact with Russia. Check your facts
    1
  25.  @mariusvladu2041  >Of course they attacked earlier but that pact help them a lot So, you ignore the facts :D
    1
  26.  @mariusvladu2041  >The main fact is that Stalin=Hitler pact really ignited the WWII, nope. you want that to be an fact, but it isn't
    1
  27.  @mariusvladu2041  >A smaller Ribentrop-Molotov pact, so, Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact isn't a sole reason for the beginning of WW2? >why USSR (if was such a ...peace lover) had attacked Poland together with Germany and grabb half of it ?? to prevent Germany from getting close to USSR borders >Why USSR attacked Finland and grabb land ? to prevent other lands from using Finland to attack USSR >Why USSR grabb Baltic states ? to prevent Germany from getting close to USSR borders >Why USSR grab Basarabia from Romania ? because Romania grabbed it from Russia
    1
  28.  @mariusvladu2041  >In fact Russia grabb Basarabia in 1812 . Romania did not existed in 1812 >All yours answers are in line with perpetual imperialistic russian polycy all my answers are in line with facts >This is the real proof that they did not belonged to Russia . nope. It proofs only that their leaders want to be leaders of the state, not of some Russian region >By the way , even Belarus did not want anymore to join Russia in a.... single country not 'Belarus'. Alexander Lukashenko says so. Because he wants to be a sovereign leader >That dictator, Putin who want to restore USSR is a bloody psychopath ! you forgot to take your meds, pal
    1
  29.  @mariusvladu2041  nope
    1
  30.  @mariusvladu2041  >Then Russia should not invaded those countryes ever why? >Invading and grabbing land is not a long term solution to have friends it works for USA and France >Unfortunately even today Vladimir Putin way of thinking is a czaristo-soviet ones . ROFL. You live in illusion >Is very hard to understand the appetit of today Russia to still grabb lands ! Tell me - if you get your legs and arms cut off, do you want them to be sewn back or leave it as it is?
    1
  31. they had their 75mm antitank guns. And their 88mm antitank guns(not anti-aircraft). And Tigers. And Panthers
    1
  32.  @kirgan1000  what it has to do with anti tank defense?
    1
  33.  @kirgan1000  don't know anything about "suffering". As far as I know, almost until the end of war in general German artillery could fire more heavy shells than Soviet
    1
  34. billions of people. Communists(Russians) killed billions of people. That's common knowledge
    1
  35.  @vascotank5033  >only fought on the Eastern Front, no secriuty duties or bandit hunting lolwut? Schutzmannschaft batallions weren't army troops. They were the forces, assigned to hunt 'bandits' and perform 'security' duties. What "Eastern Front fighting" they did in Belorussia in 1942? Cease that bullshit, please >can you explain more on how it doesn't look like they where forced? They had a choice. Military service or labor
    1
  36.  @crabyman3555  >if you were in their place you would swear allegiance to Hitler too. i'm not that predisposed to killing Jews, Russians, Belorussians, Ukrainians and getting paid for that
    1
  37.  @vascotank5033  >I didn't say only the eastern front at all, "ONLY fought on the Eastern Front" -you wrote that > also it being a schuma battlion dosen't mean they where made to do anti-partsian work yep. They could be made to support Einsatzgruppe (and they were made) > but even still in such operations, they where placed in inactive sectors O'rly? If memory serves me, they got they share of KIA in Belorussia
    1
  38.  @vascotank5033  >for the 16th,18th,19th,21st,24th and 26th Schutzmannschaft batallions. you said that they only fought on the Eastern Front > i didn't say for all only those battlions really? Quite a short memory you have. "most of the other 20 or so Schutzmannschaft batallions too only fought on the eastern front" - that's your words  >also i didn't captlized the whole word only at all. I personally capitalized that word. To emphasize that you wrote that said battalions only fought on the Eastern Front and didn't participated in police duties >you didn't specifie that you where talking about that, so thats on you not me. I talked about bullshit you wrote in your first comment, so that's on you not me
    1
  39. There was quite a peaceful outcome out of Winter war
    1
  40.  @arvopohja7693  >Whole period was constant aggressive violence towards finland. anything particularly bad? > huge amount for small nation 25 thousands? Really?
    1
  41. ​ @tonks-gaming  >How is this relevant? it was planned before Barbarossa started >In my opinion the USSR striking Finland is a quite clear sign that they were planning on striking Finland. USSR striking Finland was a reaction to capturing Aland islands and alleged military cooperation between Finland and Germany. Military cooperation that was indeed real >All of that happened after the war had already started. 1) war wasn't declared until 25. Those things happened before 25, some of them - before 22 2) you can't send minelayers on a whim, you should plan operation long before
    1
  42.  Mauri Mela  > wikipedia at least. It's obvious that he has no slight of information on the topic
    1
  43.  @watgaming9479  Soviet Union also had naval base in Finland - and look what happened to them
    1
  44.  @ohhibob1006  and you know it from?
    1
  45.  @ohhibob1006  how are they related to Finland?
    1
  46.  @vaahtobileet  i'm talking about the fact that USSR didn't demand 'key defensive locations'. Hanko was not a 'key defensive location'
    1
  47.  @mabussubam512  go play, kiddo
    1
  48.  @mabussubam512  that is only comment you deserve. Go play
    1
  49. >Well, the Finns did what was necessary to maintain their independence and their freedom. Siding with the Germany and then, when winds have changed, with Soviet union?
    1
  50.  @apilolomi  slowpoke.jpg
    1