Comments by "No Name" (@NoName-hg6cc) on "The Armchair Historian" channel.

  1.  @user-dl1xz3mj3i  Ahahahahahaha nope, it's Italy. Germany would be poor without help in 2000
    1
  2.  @raccoonmoustache  France got his behind kicked by few Italians in 1945. Please...
    1
  3. uk: hold my tea
    1
  4. Italy: you are going to war 'Murica? I'm not going. Not especially with France and uk: one will surrender, the other will run. And you are a bad fighter, you will retreat declaring victory after you lost, badly. I'm not going USA: you are and that's definitive! YEARS LATER France: surrendered uk: ran and hide USA( beaten up): Awww sh....well we won Italy: I knew it
    1
  5. Exactly, especially the last point
    1
  6. It is not Mussolini army. It's the ITALIAN army
    1
  7. In Friuli, Istria and Trentino there weren't German majorities. Beside, article 7 was clear on eventual expansions in the Balkans
    1
  8. Italy navy was one of the most powerful and Ethiopua was beaten by superior technology, and equal numbers not gas.
    1
  9. "This Treaty hurts!"
    1
  10.  @michaellaro7443  Wow, English not respecting their own word, who could've guessed....
    1
  11. YIKES
    1
  12. Bullshit?
    1
  13.  @rizzochuenringe669  He didn't meant against Italy, but against Serbia, though AH thought of attacking in 1908, but in the end didn't. The border of Italy was, after all, one of the most secured, since Italy RIGHTFULLY didn't trust AH at all and AH answered by securing the border as well
    1
  14.  @rizzochuenringe669  "Italy hated AH" LOL, hate? Even if it was true, it was justified! AH had Italians territories, where only Italianslived, and tried to delete Italian langand culture! Not to mention it had other pieces of Italy fifty years before! That's why Italians declared war, to free those territories before Slavs and Germanic people deleted all Italians culture. And Italy succeeded, until WW2 when the Slavs whined with the Russian and Italy was forced to give them part of its territory. But at least it kept Trieste and Trentino Alto Adige
    1
  15.  @rizzochuenringe669  Italians wanted land that had ancien italian cultures and people of Italian heritage who lived there for a millennia: Istria, Dalmatia, Trentino Alto Adige
    1
  16.  @rizzochuenringe669  Many of those were ancestors of Italians,, Slavs never appeared until 600 AD, and some areas still had a majority of Italians since Middle Ages. Same for Alto Adige, inhabited by people of Latin origin until the Germanic people arrived
    1
  17.  @rizzochuenringe669  AHAHAHA yes there were, it was part of the center of Empire. North had Etruscan and Greeks. Besides, you said yourself: ARRIVED. There were not Germanic people, like there were no Slavs, they invaded.
    1
  18.  @rizzochuenringe669  AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA Italians were there already, Slavs and Germanic were not (Italy existed since early Middle Ages and, as I said, there were their ancestors)
    1
  19. When Italy helped the allies it was betrayed by treacherous English
    1
  20. 0:47 shortest book in the world: british ACTUAL victories in war We saw their prowess at Gallipoli
    1
  21. Joffre, Haig, Nivelle, Churchill were so good.... For the Alliance 😂
    1
  22. France and uk were as bad if not worse
    1
  23. You mean like uk, claiming it was the lonely underdog vs Nazi Germany when its victory was guaranteed by USA?
    1
  24.  @ILikedGooglePlus  maybe YOU should learn how to read: I specifically refereed to uk, who's the only one who boast this narrative ps: I'm not American
    1
  25.  @ILikedGooglePlus  Except it's only the uk the one who believe the fair tale "of the lonely island, alone against the nazi ogre". Don't delude yourself because you don't like Reality
    1
  26.  @ILikedGooglePlus  Really? Have you ever seen English movies? Like the recent 1917, even though it was about WW1, or Dunkirk, where a retreat is celebrated as a great victory? The USA might have exaggerated a bit Nazi Germany strenght but America's propaganda never went as far as uk's one, which still permeates English psyche (every politician once in a while mention the war and "how we stopped nazi alone") Try to understand and read as well as you can, because you can overcome these troubles on text comprehension. I never denied USA did that, I just pointed out who use that rhetoric the most
    1
  27.  @barrybeebenson8102  But it didn't do anything else. Had not been for America who knows when uk could have touched European soil again
    1
  28.  @barrybeebenson8102  That's the point: WITH AMERICAN supply. uk needed America to win
    1
  29.  @barrybeebenson8102  Really? It doesn't look like that when you look at uk narration. By the way, USA and USSR could have won with just each other, they were most than enough powerful
    1
  30.  @barrybeebenson8102  USA wouldn't need to go through Black Sea to give support to USSR, who was taken by surprise but not beaten Germany navy wasn't much, except for the u-boats What I mean is that uk needed the other two, the other two didn't particularly need uk
    1
  31.  @barrybeebenson8102  Who said they cannot going throught the pacific? Japan was defeated while USA were fighting Germany
    1
  32.  @barrybeebenson8102  Because USA focused on Germany, but still fought Japan in the meantime. And japan loss whatever dominance it had in 1942, with USA effort still focused on Atlantic!
    1
  33.  @barrybeebenson8102  Actually you proved mine, given how USA managed to secure the Atlantic while fighting Japan as the same time and helped uk in securing the Mediterranean in 1943, something uk couldn't do
    1
  34.  @barrybeebenson8102  The Mediterranean has been a battleground until late 1942/early 1943, when USA were heavily involved in Nord Africa And on the Atlantic USA was the decisive factor as uk didn't stop u-boats from sinking tons of ship. All while fighting at East, where uk basically did very little if anything
    1
  35. The generals divided the columns and Ethiopians attacked them with a 10:1 ratio. Very strategic 😂😂😂
    1
  36. Probably not. Had Italy entered.. But Italy had reasons not to trust Germans and Austrians
    1
  37. Lol, British vs Italians and Germans =retreat British vs Japan=retreat
    1
  38. Churchill himself said the war of convoy was an Italian victory
    1
  39. Italy was winning in 1916 though
    1
  40. More like such a war wouldn't be convenient, since AH was not an ally either and could exploit it Also, Ah never respected the treaty
    1
  41. @mttokrnk So many inaccuracies
    1
  42. Both were meh. French had a better general
    1
  43. ​ @commandercorl1544 Greeks were starting losing even before German intervention
    1
  44. ​ @OK-yy6qz Actually they barely entered and were stopped
    1
  45. Italians won this fight alone
    1
  46. ​ @bradley8575 Well, for the Allies Ussr did all the work
    1
  47. ​ @jordanscherr6699 I hope you are not talking about WW1 Italy, who won alone
    1
  48. ​ @lucadesanctis563 Typical Muricans: when a coalition wins, like in Iraq, it's because of them, when it loses its because of the allies and not because 'Muricans are incompetent kids who think war is throwing planes, tanks etc....
    1
  49. ​@sethael1741 Nope. Again, Italy won alone. Emglish, French and Slavs were laughable both wars 😂
    1
  50. Except Italy did very well while English and USA were very poor
    1