Comments by "MrSpamaccount" (@MrSpamaccount) on "BadComedian"
channel.
-
121
-
78
-
71
-
44
-
25
-
24
-
21
-
15
-
13
-
they were more likely to be evacuated and if not possible to do so - destroyed. difference is that when nazis did just the same when retreated from ussr it was all ok, though they did it in occupied foreign territory, not theirs. when finns did just the same during winter war it was all ok (in fact i think it is ok). and when soviets do this its suddenly not ok, evil regime bla-bla. napoleon was defeated by burning/evacuating fourage and food supply from moscow and by destroying places for his army to live in winter, beside partisan terror. i guess beria should have had all tank production facilities for germans, production lines, whatever they will find useful. the most adorable thing is - various scumbags use certain facts of resources destruction as an excuse for nazis to starve millions of soviet pows. at the same time when soviets captured berlin germans recieved better rations than soviet citizens back home. somehow they found resources to feed starving germans. plus millions of pows too. also the fact that there was no harsh famine in winter of 41, though it obviously was the time of hunger, hints me that amount of food destroyed by retreating soviets, to say humbly, is overexaggerated. thinking that nazis were providing rations for civilians from their supplies is kinda stupid to me, keeping in mind their policies in the east and attitude to pows. but yea, keep noticing how one does something debatable, and close eyes when others do the same, it is called bias if i'm not wrong. uh, and i wonder if some of "civilized" states would be attacked, would they gladly provide enemy with vital resources?
11
-
9
-
9
-
7
-
CoD always copypasted movies, this was a plain copy of "Enemy at the gates", moment was stupid, as in real life many soldiers drowned if their rafts or landing crafts were destroyed, because they were overequipped. Also bad filmmakers tend to pick extremes and turn them into absolute to bring out emotions. In context of WW2 attacks without weapons is a plain lie, but there were situations when soldiers had to defend with lack of arms, having only rifles and several machineguns, when should have been equipped with mortars, at guns etc. But this happened due to improper supply infrastructure and rapid actions of german troops, not because weapons were not given, there was just nothing to give at the moment.
But compare CoD1 and CoH2 and try to find more examples of such biased rusophoby in first game.
6
-
Lol. I think some poles still think that Poland always was PRL and USSR was always an ally of Poland. First of all NKVD had no motive to kill all valuable people, soviet method is to use valuable people in own interests, its Nazi method that was about getting rid of all kind of polish elite and Hitler spoke of it in plain text.
Our lovely Red Army, as it was told million times here, reached Visla right after Bagration operation. Your blame about not assisting your idiotic rebellion is just like a blame, that USSR did not take Berlin in summer of 1944. If your AK freaks did coordinate their actions with soviet side, everything would be different, but thing is nobody was going to coordinate anything, aim was in capturing Warsaw and start creating problems for soviet side. So having no possibility for assistance, no good reason to do this, no motivation to do this you find it acceptable to blame soviet side for not assisting rusophobes who'd backstab in situation when army is exhausted.
Truth is that everyone who joined Anders army was a fucking coward that escaped USSR after living here on soviet money away from the battle for 2 years. It depicts perfectly how much they wanted to fight. And the fact that they fought as a smaller partner of their british owners depicts them as fighters for independent Poland, of course. Cheap cowards. Poland is closer to reach from USSR than from Italy.
6
-
Let me cut grass with a lawn-mower having a paid worker do it and you clean up railroad station toilet with a toothbrush, and later we'll speak of our mutual contribution, with mine being more important.
Also speaking about major victories, Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, Bagration operation, Visla-Oder operation. Berlin, Vienna, Belgrade, Warsaw, Budapest, Manchuria, finally. Of course allies liberated more territories, especially when there were no enemies to liberate them from there.
6
-
6
-
5
-
***** Wtf, pole. NKVD could not order to kill anyone, NKVD can only fulfil order to do so. Russian soldiers destroyed houses, thats true. For instance in his memoirs pilot Dolgushin said how he was ordered to destroy a club building in some village using rockets, he flew and did it, somewhere after special order about burning houses in the frontline was recieved by troops in november of 1941. In this club he killed a good bunch of german officers. Now can you explain why this house STOOD and germans created an HQ there if everything was burnt because of scorched earth tactic? Its also fucking idiocy to say that houses were destroyed. For what fucking purpose? It was discussed million times here, why the fuck would somebody destroy a fucking house in summer? Who needs it, who would waste time destroying it, what the fuck are you trying to tell when you tell your wonderful revealing stories. Strategic objects were to be destroyed if could not be evacuated - its logical, any country would do this defending itself, and your american owners, for instance, would do it normally invading somebody like they did in Vietnam. Damned peasants huts or city buildings have NO strategic value, unless if there are troops defending in it or if it could be used by the enemy. By saying this shit about scorched earth involving houses, also speaking in tone of a tutor, who wants to tell russians what happened and what did not, being a polish brainwashed kid you just show yourself as an idiot, but its ok, all westerners do this, no problem if their faithful peons want to look the same.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
***** "but I find it interesting how American's elect their leaders and Russians still don't elect theirs. (You know they don't)"
Pha-ha-ha. Americans elect from 2 equally shitty candidates specially chosen by oligarchy for centuries and it is called elect. Russians elect from vast variety of shitty candidates, picking least shitty, and its called - they do not elect. With help of american friends russians enjoyed drunk swine who murdered thousands in Moscow in 1993, farce in Kiev compared to what happened back then is nothing, keeping in mind muscovites were defending legal already elected parliament, unlike kievans who fought for eligitimate coup. And you know what happened in 1996 - drunk swine and murderer was reelected, only because he was 'american' guy. When majority of russians votes for Putin - its called dictatorship and whatever. For some reason nobody yet forced me to vote for him or his party, and i always voted against.
"Also compare Iraq and Chechnya. Both were terrible wars, but the American government showed some restraint and care for civilian life in Iraq (You might disagree, but take a look at Chechnya's infrastructure after the war, and then Iraq's), where as the Russian government showed nothing but brutality in both Chechen wars. "
Yea right, evacuating settlements before operation began in Chechnya due to such thing that russian govt yet saw chechens as citizens of Russia is of course worse than bombing the hell out of sleeping Baghdad, Belgrade or Tripoli, it would be nicer if degenerates like you kept their mouths shut, if they can not retranslate anything but cheapest propaganda.
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
+Isaac Jones i do not see how barbarism of civilized germans was different from IS in eastern europe and especially in USSR and Yugoslavia. Well, i see how, they hid their crimes from the public. I do not see how barbarism of american soldiers who boiled japanese skulls for souvenirs was different from IS, dont see how its different from behaviour in Korea or Vietnam. These people are "civilized", but you label IS as barbarian because they are some filthy arabs or what? I dont remember " civilized" butthurt about absolutely similar islamic state that existed in republic of Chechnya under name of Ichkeria, everyone adored these freedom fighters, though they did just the same, shot every nonmuslim, traded slaves and cut heads making vids on camera. Only difference was they used VHS cams instead of 4K. But since it was a local problem for Russia, not a regional for whole middle east and europe, everyone was happily licking their asses.
3
-
3
-
Nope, AK wanted to 'liberate' Poland before soviet and loyal polish troops would. They made attempts to cross Visla and enter the city, but actually this needs a lot of planning and army to be ready. Red Army by that time just finished liberating Belorussia, after a rapid offensive and was exhausted, they did not, like polish resistance, sit on their asses for 5 years doing nothing. In addition to this, there was Nazi defensive doctrine of fortress cities, when german troops would concentrate there and defend them till the end. Obviously this needed preparations. Also it would be dumb, even if theoretically crossing Visla, to hold the bridgehead, and fighting for Warsaw at the same time. Finally Germans would necessarily organize a counter-attack on Warsaw if it fell, they would not need to cross any river to do this.
All these stories about Stalin betrayed Warsaw is bullshit. Its political mistake of asshole polish government in exile or polish resistance itself, poles should know better. Without Warsaw soviet troops sacrificed 600 thousand men liberating Poland, but asshole poles instead, having no respect to the dead, dare to blame those 600000 for not dying in even bigger numbers sacrificing themselves for rusophobic and antisoviet polish government. Just imagine how stupid poles do look from aside, and how laughable their accusations are.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2