Comments by "" (@obsidianjane4413) on "USHANKA SHOW" channel.

Intelligence documents tend to remain classified longer than it seems reasonable not for the information they contain, but sometimes they reveal "methods and sources" used to collect the information.
50
@snowsnow4231 Hey look its a tankie right on cue.
5
@joojoojeejee6058 OTOH they used much thicker sheetmetal for bodies and frames back then too.
4
@jonthinks6238 Because they inherited the Tsar's feudal economy. In 10 years they would have the world's largest tank fleet. BTW- The French Army was still wearing the Adrian in 1940.
4
@petershen6924 You made the assertion that the reason why Ukrainian privatization failed was because of the collapse of the USSR. That isn't true. It failed because the transition to free market economics failed due to corruption and lack of investment .
4
The "Fan mail" is becoming the most entertaining part of your videos. The rest is just very informative.
3
@avengemybreath3084 No.
3
@ffffffff-vv7yp Everything was thicker. Frames, bodypanels, etc. They didn't have FEA to figure out the minimum/lightest material strength needed, nor did they have as much experience with structural design to do the same. So they made thing overly beefy. Surface finish doesn't mean anything either. That is why many old pre '70s wrecks and yard art are still intact even though their paint is almost completely gone. In the 80's it was the worst of both worlds. Car mfgs reduced metal thickness and quality to save money and so that is why the often quickly rusted out (just after the warranty expired). Modern alloys and treatments are much better at preventing corrosion and unibody construction gives it less surface area to attack. But alot of modern cars are mostly plastic now too. That won't age as well as heavy metal.
3
At this time the USSR was in the process of rapidly trying to industrialize and still recovering from the Civil War (which those British tanks were captured from). They were building the factories to build the tanks. By '41 they had tens of thousands of modern tanks, aircraft , and machine guns.
3
Nyet. The problem was that state industries were sold off piecemeal and often to people who had either no experience in that industry or if they did, they had no experience (interest?) in making them efficient and competitive private businesses.
3
I know you're kidding, but that was/is the custom in Southern Slavic, and especially Muslim Turkman and other ethnic groups.
3
But they could be bought. And the example marginal trailer that is the subject here would have been within the affordability of even lower income people.
3
@waverider227 Found the Trumpers...
3
LOL. You might as well have written that there was no blackmaket in communism. Good joke!
2
Communism was the idealization that once everyone agreed with the principles, everyone would just settle down at whatever they wanted to do and cooperate. There would not be any need for a state apparatus. Obviously this is unrealistic and you can't get there from here. You can't even get there from socialism, which is the state with absolute control over everything. Literally the opposite of what communism is supposed to be. Which is (one reason) why both failed.
2
Not Russians.
2
@GoldenAgeSk8Video You did notice the spelling and grammar errors she had to read right?
2
@jonthinks6238 Not true at all. The Germans came to use the Soviet's established tank development and training center at Kama. At least read a Wiki before you show everyone you don't know what you don't know.
2
@petershen6924 We aren't talking about China. Your "perspective" presumption is wrong. The USSR did not collapse like, overnight. It was in the making for decades. And there was a lot of preparation and offers of help and investment by the West and the transition took years and was absolutely not smooth in the FSRs. The problem is that ended in corrupt oligarchy holding major assets and a failure to establish a culture of entrepreneurship.
2
@petershen6924 That is also wrong. There was still interstate trade between FSRs. IDK what you think you are talking about. They went out of business because of the malaise of post-socalism and/or that they were inefficient or uncompetitive without state subsides.
2
In 'Merica communist is just a derogatory. A long four letter word. What they mean is socialist, and there are lots of those, even those who say they aren't. They still take those benefits don't they?
1
@Balthorium Try reading my post instead of reading into it.
1
You (and the Soviets BTW) missed the point of communism in that everyone was supposed to be an equal worker, including the bosses.
1
@braydonrogers3461 Communism does not have classes. Workers are a class. Communism had to have solidarity with everyone. Which is why it failed. Try to wrap your head around that instead of cliche revolutionary slogans.
1
That is not socialism. That is human nature to seek the path of least resistance thru life.
1
Positively bourgeoise.
1
Only in one manifestation of it. Generally because they are practical necessities, and why communes fail over the long run and do not scale. At some point you have to start forcing people to contribute and then its no long voluntary fun. That's when "The Man" puts on their socialist jackboots...
1
Is the association of Adidas with Gopnik criminal element why they put the Crocus theatre attackers in that style of clothing recently?
1
@gagamba9198 That is "a method" used. The example you use is coming from the abuses of capitalism which arose out of feudalism where the owners of capital had an advantage over and exploited the workers. Does the 2nd or 3rd descendants of the founder or the idle shareholders deserve to benefit far greater than those who make the actual profit possible? That injustice is what Marx was attempting to address.
1
@mickvonbornemann3824 That is BS because even Stalin didn't run the whole country by themselves. Even when a whatever was at the top, there was the entire Soviet bureaucracy and the Duma that was dominated by ethnic Russians.
1
I wonder if they perferred "weedwhackers" because their use was similar to the classic scythe? I wonder what they would think of the small riding tractors Americans use now. lol
1
@JTA1961 with just a hint of polonium.
1
And you know they did not pay to license it.
1
@vintheguy Not a joke just someone making a dumb religious statement.
1
Has nothing to do with communism. But thanks for playing.
1
I think you misheard them. They probably said "idiot".
1
Ignorant.
1
Its a parody, not a rip off.
1
It depended on who you knew.
1