Comments by "Вячеслав Скопюк" (@user-yj8vj3sq6j) on "Finland's Continuation War in a Nutshell #WW2" video.

  1. >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
  2.  @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
  3. Combined fiinish-german units - "not axis". Of course!
    2
  4.  @vilzupuupaa4680  >How about the support the red finnish army during the finnish civil war, the first negative contact between the two nations. finnish Red Guard was a part of the finnish nation so idk why do you call it a "negative contact"
    2
  5. Finland belongs to Sweden!
    2
  6. Finland willingly made a deal with the devil
    2
  7. >USSR invaded Finland when it was allied with Germany. USSR wasn't allied with Germany. Non-aggression pact is quite different thing >As Germany defeated France and occupied it, Finland had to pick either Germany or USSR Finland had to pick nothing. Unless Finland elite wanted some part in German "acquisitions" >If Finland did not pick a side, the war would have been fought over Finland from the start strangely, nobody "fought over" Switzerland or Sweden
    2
  8.  @teemuvesala9575  >Very easy to debunk your commie propaganda. why you failed at that, then? >They even drew lines of influence over eastern Europe between themselves it may surprise you, but drawing the lines don't make allies. Most likely you do not know about so-called "Treaty of Tordesillas", when Portuguese Empire and the Spanish Empire divided the newly-discovered lands outside Europe between them. Were they allies? No, quite the opposite. >USSR invaded Poland as an ally of Germany nope. The USSR pursued its own goals. Like Poland, which annexed Zaolzie a year ago during Sudeten Crisis >If Finland stayed neutral, eventually USSR would have invaded Finland again like they already did in Winter War. because you say so? >Sweden allowed Germany to move their troops across Swedish lands, that's why it wasn't invaded you uneducated Russian. I don't remember Sweden being attacked for that. So, what makes Finland different? >Finland only wanted back what the Russians stole from them in Winter War. Hence, alliance with Germany was the only reasonable choice So, no more "Finland had to pick", it's "Finland wanted Karelian Istmus(and some more)". I'm glad you honestly admitted it. >because Sweden allowed German troops to move through Sweden and supplied Germany with iron ore... so, what exactly prevented Finland from allowing German troops to move through and to supply Germany with nickel? >Invading Switzerland is very costly due to the terrain... and Finland terrain is particularly favorable for invasion? I thought German army experienced great difficulties fighting in North. Perhaps I was wrong? >And since the Swiss played nice with both allies and axis, they had little reason to. so, what prevented Finland from doing likewise? Except ambitions for having all Karelia, of course
    2
  9.  @teemuvesala9575  > I failed at nothing Really? You said it was easy to debunk my "commie propaganda", but you ended up confirming that Finland wanted some territories of USSR and allied with Germany for that reason. > at the time anyway so there was just 2 options; USSR or Germany or third option - stay neural >You're telling me Finland should have just supplied Germany with nickel and not sided with them in the war? yep >Germany would have attacked through Finland into USSR whether with Finland as their ally or simply forcefully moved through Finland so what? >the war could have been fought over Finland while Finland would have just stood by and watch... I think many of the Finns killed during Continuation War would choose this option. I think you overestimate Germany, though. Their forces in in offensive operations in the north numbered around 40000 troops. Finland was a substantial help to their war efforts in the North of USSR >The only logical conclusion was for Finland to ally with Germany, because allying with USSR who had just stolen 1/3 of Finnish land area was out of question. As I said earlier, I am glad that you honestly admitted that the ruling elites of Finland wanted to seize Karelia and it was not a matter of choosing sides >Now go back to kiss Putin's feet clown. **yawns* You should try better to impress me
    2
  10.  @adrianshephard378  >and Nazi germany supported them with naval power in the winter war wat?
    2
  11. > 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
  12.  @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
  13.  @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
  14.  @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
  15. they helped to take Leningrad. But germans did not fulfill their part of the plan in time
    1
  16. >We had to fight to survive. nope. And continuation war didn't provide nothing for survivability of Finland
    1
  17. >rebuilt its armed forces after Winter War in a slower pace is 'rebuilding of army forces' a good thing?
    1
  18.  @rappakalja5295  does it help?
    1
  19.  @rappakalja5295  with defending against imperial superpower
    1
  20. >They just wanted to be left alone! so Finlands elites decided to assist Germany only to be left alone? That's peculiar logic
    1
  21.  @patricklundh4738  good points
    1
  22.  Jesus él McNuggetCunt  the former is a legend. But anyways, it contradicts with 'they wanted to be left alone'
    1
  23.  Jesus él McNuggetCunt  > And it's hardly a legend It's a legend indeed. It's a frivolous interpretation of Molotov's words
    1
  24.  Jesus él McNuggetCunt  as a matter of fact - no.
    1
  25.  Jesus él McNuggetCunt  Finns had advantage of intelligence. And Germany promised them return of all lost territories
    1
  26.  @MRtapio5  again - Finland wanted to be left alone and because of that planned to attack USSR together with Germany?
    1
  27.  @MRtapio5  yeah. Continuation War. 1939.
    1
  28.  @MRtapio5  we were discussing continuation war. Is your vision impaired?
    1
  29.  @MRtapio5  > When he said "they just wanted to be left alone" he was implying 1939 don't be ridiculous. He said that after saying 'Mannerheim knew Russia and knew it was just too big to be conquered and OCCUPIED.'
    1
  30.  @MRtapio5  >He brought up winter war at the beginning. and after that he brought up impossibility of occupation of Russia by FInland
    1
  31.  @MRtapio5  'my' English skills. And you ignoring the part about occupation of Russia. Again - is your vision impaired or what?
    1
  32.  @Jokakutihut1  I'm sure they signed some agreement.
    1
  33. Did he?
    1
  34. >Germany sold us artillery, ammunition and some weapons, 1942 aircraft and few bombers + anti tank weapons what about mixed finnish-german units? Joint tactical plans? >Our army was strong enough to fight without germans. why germans lend you a tank regiment then? >Finland took one more time a great defence victory wat?
    1
  35. :D
    1
  36. >The reason ehy we took over so much of Russian Karelia was to establish a buffer. oh, stop it, you >The finnish high command knew that the germans would lose as early as 1941 but they go to war nonetheless. Are you really believe in that? >so they made a buffer so the war will not be fought on finnish soil exactly, why? Did they thought that Finland was strong enough to stop Red Army in "buffer zone"?
    1
  37.  @vilzupuupaa4680  >Obviously you don't want to fight on your own land. obviously you can get as much land in the future reich as you occupied before the end of war >This assumption was made in late 1941 and then Finland stopped advances in Karelia. So, no "buffers", just trying to hold on to what they've won >You were the ones to start it. Really? So, no German troops in Finland in 18th June, no minelaying of soviet coast in the morning of 22nd June, no refueling of german bombers?
    1
  38.  @vilzupuupaa4680  if we look deep enough, we can remember what heimosodat was
    1
  39.  @vilzupuupaa4680  how it is related to USSR?
    1
  40.  @moisuomi  and they lost territory + tens thousands of lives.
    1
  41.  @moisuomi  only the Finns
    1
  42. >the Finish were probably the most successful combatant of World War II yep. Lost some pre-war territory + tens of thousands of lives. That's definitely a success
    1
  43.  @deeremies2266  nope
    1
  44. ​ @deeremies2266  it tells us that Finland mobilized its army 3 months prior the war
    1
  45.  @deeremies2266  >Prior to the war Soviet Union started? yep >Dangerous to soviet union yep. 20 years before ships of the Royal Navy based in Koivisto attacked Kronstadt. Neutral country indeed
    1
  46.  @deeremies2266  roflmao. You took Royal Navy of the United Kingdom as refugees? How interesting
    1
  47.  @deeremies2266  *sigh* google "Operation Red Trek"
    1
  48.  @deeremies2266  it has nothing to do with refugees. It has all to do with attacks on Kronstadt from Koivisto
    1
  49.  @deeremies2266  > oh youre talking about the brits. Yep. Royal Navy >Yeah Finland had just gained independence and was a weak nation. we basically had to let the brits do their thing. Of course, lol. That could be applied to any period of Finland pre-WW2 history :D
    1
  50. Yep. It's like all suddenly forgotten the text of 'Barbarossa'
    1
  51.  @duhni4551  are there any great power that is capable of leaving it's(or someone's) neighbors alone?
    1
  52. >so was the Soviet Union for a couple of years. O'rly? Exactly how?
    1
  53.  @mechantl0up  was there something about allying with Germany? No? I though so
    1
  54.  @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
  55. > where the safest line of defence would have been on the border established after Winter War > a stronger defense position to stop future oppressions from Soviet Russians any sane man would know, that no "defense position" could protect Finland in fight one to one with USSR
    1
  56. >loosely associated power ROFLMAO. Finland military cooperation with Germany was better than with many Axis powers
    1