Comments by "The Looinrims" (@looinrims) on "1980: could NATO stop a Soviet tank rush in Europe?" video.

  1. Gets halted at Düsseldorf xD
    56
  2. Okay in the next three years we’ll get Nato Vs Warsaw Pact 1970
    12
  3.  @Wintersoap123  lol, a complete neckbeard take
    5
  4.  @fulcrum2951  you’re missing the point The intention and result are two different things
    5
  5.  @vlad_47  that’s why the Japanese did so well and conquered China, right? And they had a larger disparity in quality and quantity against China
    4
  6. Wasn’t the 1941 invasion of Russia to reach the Urals by November? Yes, and?
    4
  7. That’s sorta like saying the 7.62mm bullet is the most dangerous weapon in modern warfare I mean, yeah? Cuz they’re not using anything else though
    3
  8.  ghjimyn  30,000 atomic bombs? What? Are you mad? The entire planet doesn’t even have 30,000 warheads
    3
  9.  @vlad_47  it’s sarcasm about how the Japanese still failed against China despite having far more advantages then than the Soviets did in 1970 How you missed that is beyond me
    2
  10. Imagine calling out Binkov for logistics For one, you’re a random, but two Binkov has a hardon for logistics
    2
  11. it would take 24 hours for Soviets to get to Berlin?
    2
  12. Is that actually the case or your anecdote? 🤔
    2
  13. They say that because their nation was subjugated somewhat quickly in the initial invasion They don’t realize being nazi puppets that the nazis were ripped to shreds in russia, and left Russia running for the most part, rather than fortified in strength in line
    2
  14.  @antonmeshcheryakov5068  right…and who’s at the tip of the spear thrusting forward? The artillery of course, or maybe the foot sloggers, perhaps it’s the EW units? No, it’s the armored units, those are the guys who stare the enemy’s lines in the face and make the breakthroughs Come on dude, let’s be real in basic logic, if the tanks/armored units weren’t making the breakthrough, why were they so heavily invested in more than anything else on the ground? Why was doctrine built around them and their capabilities and limitations?
    2
  15. NATO never planned to start the war of their own accord, if they did start it in some strange timeline it wouldve been a terrible terrible accident, that’s why everything was built around the idea that A the soviets start it and B the NATO plays catch-up, that’s why ReForGer existed, not to begin an offensive war but to respond to one
    2
  16. lol, k
    1
  17.  @hernerweisenberg7052  no lol
    1
  18.  @Internetbutthurt  “Ministry of Truth” yeah that’s a good name for you, definitely truth
    1
  19.  @yourstruly4817  lol
    1
  20.  @yourstruly4817  you’re a random talking out of your ass
    1
  21.  @jebes909090  “While it is safe to say USSR was mobilizing for a war against Germany, just not a war in 1941” Besides, from a strategic concept…who’s left to fight a war with at that point? Germany and it’s puppets so, Germany and Germany
    1
  22. It wouldn’t be so successful, everyone jerks off the soviet plans of reaching the sea in x many days or weeks, but forget the old saying “no plan survives contact with the enemy”
    1
  23. France has always been in NATO https://youtu.be/k17KlonUDOM they never left they just pulled their classic French card
    1
  24. Let’s ignore the fact you’re a random on the internet None of anything you said would be the case It would be nuclear war, the subs wouldn’t cut the old and new worlds, they could NEVER invade Iceland, are you mad?
    1
  25.  @el_bizcocho6916  are you mad? The Soviets entire doctrine was under the idea that they’d be nuking the west and pushing through it
    1
  26.  @skywillfindyou  hardly
    1
  27.  @filiphabek271  lol, no
    1
  28.  @adif7542  that’s probably the most ignorant statement I’ve ever heard It wasn’t particularly either side of paranoia, we just don’t know what the soviets were paranoid of and when it was, unlike america which aren’t a bunch of bitches and be like “yeah in the 60s we were quite worried the incident with Cuba would lead to nuclear war”
    1
  29. Geopolitics and economic dominance isn’t nothing Can’t stand this naive view
    1
  30.  @lolroflroflcakes  yeah, a nuclear wasteland even still isn’t ‘nothing’, it changes everything, in fact Naivety
    1
  31.  @ohiobrian8993  repeat that in English and yeah no shit a west east war would’ve been nuclear It’s like saying a Russo American war of today would be nuclear, duh
    1
  32.  @iplaygames8090  tell that to the checkpoint Charlie incident
    1
  33.  @atari947  right and the topography isn’t flat and there is a competent enemy across the border And, morons on the internet of course can never stop strawmanning, just fucking stop and accept the basic truth of intentions=/=reality
    1
  34.  @atari947  because logical fallacies deserve nothing but ridicule
    1
  35.  @fulcrum2951  another strawman
    1
  36.  @antonmeshcheryakov5068  and, no shit it would be a NBC conflict, but one look at the first thirty seconds of every Binkov video that isn’t a nuclear exchange (except Israel VS Egypt and India Vs Pakistan) begins with “No nukes!”
    1