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

  1. >but they weren't part of the Axis powers. look deeper into the finnish units. You find some German divisions inside. Weren't part, of course
    1
  2. >yet I stood up to a tyrant you choose to side with one tyrant against another? Great choice, man!
    1
  3.  @Sturminfantrist  >Finland was a democratic nation and the wesetrn allies France and GB should had helped them during the Winter war it doesn't work that way > no wounder that the Finns tried to take back what they lost not a wise move, really
    1
  4.  @Sturminfantrist  >It was at least a move to take back what they lost wasn't wise. They could just wait. Or.. they could agree to Moscow demands in the first place. As Mannerheim proposed
    1
  5.  @ernestcote3398  I don't see any connections here
    1
  6.  @ernestcote3398  sorry, but in that case Poland should have been less aggressive
    1
  7.  @ernestcote3398  to neighbouring countries. You really don't know history of early 20th century Poland, do you?
    1
  8.  @ernestcote3398  so, you have not studied, but you know very well? Of course
    1
  9.  @rexfrommn3316  you talking about quite specific situation, then
    1
  10.  @KuopassaTv  I don't see tendencies to such behavior until the end of 1941
    1
  11. >and they didn't do much beyond that wat? Compare the old border with border in 1942 >Not taking part in the siege of Leningrad after the Germans needed help kind of attests to limited war aims it attests to limited war capabilities
    1
  12.  @timomastosalo  >So attacking Finland Stalin got what he feared: German troops in Finland. he didn't feared German troops in Finland particularly.
    1
  13. ​ @bobbleheadelvis6607  nope, it wasn't. Everybody and their dog still chewing old cold war western bullshit propaganda about 40000 soviet troops destroyed at Raate road, Simo Hayha and his kill count and so on.
    1
  14.  @bobbleheadelvis6607  as I said, people still chewing old cold war western bullshit propaganda. So, unbiased video on the topic wouldn't harm anyone
    1
  15. >So who really was the one who started the hostilities? Finland in 1918? >Soviets invaded Finland under pretext of false flag attack You are really don't know your history. USSR din't used any particular attack as a pretext for invasion. >Of course Finland took revenge when they got the opportunity when Germany invaded USSR. "Finland"? If I remember correctly, "Finland" in general didn't know about no war before late spring of 1941
    1
  16. they helped to take Leningrad. But germans did not fulfill their part of the plan in time
    1
  17.  @Darqshadow  >Man to Man the Garand was better than the Kar and with use of the Thompson and Carbine the fighting became more lopsided for the U.S. air superiority helped too
    1
  18. >Finland opted for the second and only option left which was the axis Why Sweden didn't opted for the second option? Maybe, because it didn't wanted to get territories of Soviet Union, eh?
    1
  19. ​ @robowarrior2126  >You've posted tens of comments all in Anti-Finnish tone under this video. nope, it wasn't Anti-Finnish tone. It was "Anti-guys who think that Continuation War was somehow justified" and "Anti-guys who think that Finns were good guys in the WW2" tone >Finland was under a constant threat of another invasion. Fact. Lie. >Offensive-plans to re-invade Finland are made by the Red Army Army are constantly planning thing. That's the job of General Staff >Attack Preparations were made what preparations? >Molotov pressures Germany to look elsewhere if the USSR were to re-invade I read this text. As far as I remember, Molotov expressed concern about the presence of German interests and German troops in Finland >Had Finland looked elsewhere she might have gotten invaded from two sides Or not. >Petsamo nickel mines Finland provided nickel to Germany anyway >Karelian Isthmus approach to Leningrad belonged to USSR, not to Finland > Effectively giving Finland the Poland treatment. Poland had it coming since 1920's. Not the case with Finland >Finland wanted it's lands back Yes. And some more. >At the time, backing Germany made the most sense. Yes. If you are a minor scavenger, siding with large predator will provide you some juicy scraps >Betting on the Germans was not only the ONLY choice Finland had, but also seemed the smartest at the time. Betting on the Germany wasn't the only choice Finland had, but also seemed the smartest at the time for Ryti and his clique >She was never in direct threat of Soviet invasion but Sweden was in direct threat of German invasion. >She would've been too costly and pointless for the Germans to invade try and apply same logic for Finland >So in some ways Sweden opted for the second option; which in their example was heavy handed Axis cooperation. but they never fought the Germans war, as a state. >All of this is fact and there is no way around it. part of this are fact. Your conclusions, though. are not Don't try to paint Finland as innocent victim of the circumstances. There was a choice, and Finland government choose to fight Hitler's war, because they thought it would bring profit. Not only something abstract like 'survival in the Hitler's Europe', but specific thing like Rebola and Porosozero
    1
  20.  @robowarrior2126  >here are no "good guys" and "bad guys" tell that to the Finns in the comments section
    1
  21. >Minor points: By "taking Karelia", the Finns were referring to the Karelian Istmus(Karjala), lost in the Winter War, not Eastern Karelia(Vepsia). bullshit. They wanted all Karelia > Finland's engagement was an offensive but not an aggression. just words play. They had they goals, namely - seize Karelia
    1
  22. >is Ireland now to be considered an aggressor in the Iraq war??? yep >If Ireland today decided to take back northern Ireland is it the aggressor or simply claiming back its rightful land??? "Rightful land"? "Claiming back"? LOLWUT? Independent Ireland exists only 100 years.
    1
  23.  @DeagláinÓCathail  Britain is an island. They have England and Scotland and Whales though
    1
  24. > I also read somewhere (and haven't yet accepted this as verbatim) that the Finns deliberately didn't push too far in the siege on Lenningrad they pushed as far as soviet fortifications >and allowed the Russians just a sliver of land/space to get a few food supplies in google "Road of life" maps
    1
  25.  @FXxcRx0ka  Finns tell that they were mobilizing to attack, and had German troops and equipment in their country. Simple as that
    1
  26.  Tabourba  difference is that Finnish troops participated in German unit destined to attack Murmansk
    1
  27. third option - stay neutral
    1
  28. >Tonns of SMG basicaly useless in a fields as CQC was more of an exception than a rule. Especially on East European fields. you have no idea what you're talking about. а) Soviet infantry, armed with submachineguns, rapidly closed with enemy riding on tanks b) with single shots and short bursts SMG's were effective up to 200 meters
    1
  29. ​ @slicemf5347  >To ride to an enemy trenches on tank is another form of suicide you have no idea what you are talking about. The safest attack method for infantry is to reach enemy lines as quickly as possible > Infantry goes on feet. to make it easier for machine gunners and mortars of the enemy to shoot at them ,yes >or alone from mg34\42 you don't realize that approaching to the enemy lines on foot makes infantry much more convenient target for MG34/42, do you? > Yea, and mosin is effective on 800 metres. nope. 400. How do you think, why? > In other words, outside of shooting range You wil miss. nope. Bullet drop is taken into account >Trained shooter in prone position will hit target at 200m, but from foot, rushing to an enemy trenches? forget about it. you really have no idea how the infantry attacks proceeds. NOBODY takes aimed shots while rushing to the enemy trenches. Germans, brits, americans, russians - nobody. >And once agai - You have to reach this distance first. familiarize yourself with WW1 assault infantry tactics. You can get an gist of how it was done before introduction of tanks and personnel carriers
    1
  30. >however in the open rural areas rifles would have the advantage because of the superior range. You must have quite skilled rifleman to use advantages of the rifle >Thus you deplete your own forces rapidly as well. as a matter of fact - no. Look at assault troops in WWI - often enough they had no losses >Someone using an SMG tend to use a lot more ammunition on blind fire I assure you, same goes for rifle fire >That means that more room in the supply train, that could have been allocated to other items, is taken up by small arms ammunition. look at the rate of fire of MG-38/MG-42. Then talk about consumption of ammunition :D >Overall since no army adopted the USSR tactics after the war, it seems unlikely that pure SMGs offered an overall advantage over the rifle/mg squad composition. But modern assault rifles are more close to SMG, than to traditional rifle
    1
  31.  @jernmajoren  >Not really, in open terrain where you can see your enemy at long range thing is, enemy don't want you to see him or hit him. So, it doesn't behave like target on the shooting range >WWI != WWII yup. They added tanks for rapid advancement and planes to suppress the defenders. But if you look into infantry tactics... >Assaulting troops in WWII often suffered horrendous losses. when closing to the enemy, yes. Alternate, they can seat in trenches taking potshots with rifles :D >The MG-34/MG-42 had slightly higher RoF than the PPD/PPsH-41, so there is only minor difference in ammo consumption. a) rifle ammo has much more weight and volume than pistol ammo b) MG's are used for suppression, which implies a high consumption of ammo >After WWII the common issued infantry weapons in use either full case that comes from USA. Because US generals imagined, that their soldiers would precisely hit targets at many hundreds of meters, despite their own studies that show that real combat distances for infantry during WW2 were about 300 meters >Modern Assault rifles have more in common with rifles than they do SMG's. lightweight, low recoil ammunition, effective range about 400-500 meters?
    1
  32.  @jernmajoren  >For germans the MG was the primary squad weapon meant to kill enemy, the rifle men were there to protect the MG And consumed rifle ammo at high rate >Thus rifles or MG's would be more optimal than SMGs to engage the enemy. yep. In their imaginary world :D In the end they decided that small, relatively short-range ammunition(not rifle cartridges) is way to go on the modern battlefield
    1
  33.  @jernmajoren  >Both of them are same size as rifles MP-40 or PPSH are the same size as rifle > So the main usage is that akin to rifles. do you think that SMG main usage was 'spray and pray'? >In general soldiers armed with short range weapons have historically taken significantly higher casualties than those with longer range weapons longer range weapons you mention includes not only infantry small arms
    1
  34.  @jernmajoren  > I think they were meant to fight the enemy at close ranges. what do you mean by close range? Is 300 meters a close range?
    1
  35.  @jernmajoren  >At longer ranges the precision of SMGs drops fairly quickly I really don't know where you got that idea. Effective range for soviet SMG shooting point target is 200 meters. If we take Kiraly 9x23 submachinegun, effective range will increase accordingly
    1
  36. > Ultimately they were directly threatened by the Soviets how so?
    1
  37.  @antiochusiiithegreat7721  > Why should the Finns think that it wouldn't happen again? because USSR had what it wanted, and Finland had no value by itself >The Soviets had a obvious interest in invading Finland. the had not. They had interest in Germany staying out of Finland >So I think its obvious that Finland would look to form an alliance with the other competitive power Germany as they saw alignment with a greater power as the best chance of remaining independent. It's obvious that Finland wanted revenge and some territorial gains
    1
  38.  @antiochusiiithegreat7721  > Soviet Unions actions prove that they were trying to restore the territory lost to the empire during the revolution. Why didn't SU captured whole Poland then?
    1
  39.  @antiochusiiithegreat7721  Are YOU kidding? Polish–Soviet War of 1920 wasn't aimed to capture Poland territory. Invasion had more ambitious goals. As for 1939 - USSR got part of the Poland along the Curzon line
    1
  40. @Sami Sund "saved you from communism"? Then, why Mannerheim turned against Finland saviors?
    1
  41. wow. I thought y'all "Soviet Union were planning on invading Europe." guys were dead
    1
  42.  @arvopohja7693  they "invaded" Europe?
    1
  43. @Leif saying or writing outright bullshit doesn't confirms anything
    1
  44. @Leif i didn't said or wrote any bullshit at all. Whaddayamean?
    1
  45. @Leif yes. but I didn't wrote bullshit of any kind here
    1
  46.  @alanpennie8013  They had troubles flattening Germany while flying from England. I don't see how they could do that to Helsinki
    1
  47. >It was allready known that Soviet attack was imminent because of the strenghed forces on Finnish- Soviet border nope. It's post-war fairy tales, like stories about that the Soviet Union was preparing to attack Germany >stating that he would not put his sword in the sheath until Finland and Eastern Karelia were free. free from what?
    1
  48. what nickel?
    1
  49.  @desmondanderson665  yes, but nickel in Petsamo belonged to USSR, as far as i remember
    1
  50.  @desmondanderson665  what semantics? You told that Hitler couldn't risk his primary source of nickel. But Finland wasn't such a source at the time.
    1