Comments by "George Albany" (@Spartan322) on "Lotuseaters Dot Com"
channel.
-
@SansSentiments
"when there is only one Attribute you can use to describe the russian mind its pragmatic i would say."
I vehemently disagree, Russians are traditionalist and have always been a superstitious people, they still are, as a people they've never shown a pragmatic side, they adhere to tradition and are very religiously stuck to it. Its cause plenty of issues and preference for a Russian Empire is one of such problems.
"Also dont forget, that everyone in the West of them Always treated them as some Kind of sub-humans."
The Poles were nowhere near willing to wipe out Russians for being Russian and neither were the Ukrainians (or Ruthenians at the time) yet they fought against both. The whole Russians being sub-human thing is not all that common amongst the Slavs, and to be honest it also does not appear among the Germans until the Nazis get into power. It was a lot more common among the French and further Western thought because those were French-spawned ideals.
"Even Stalin never crossed that Line. The romanovs (Being Western nobles) did."
The Romanovs were the Russian Royal Dynasty at the founding of Russia, while the direct male line ended in 1762, (only 40 years separated from the existence of Russia entirely) even if we want to claim that one individual claiming the dynasty was from the West, his children (or children's children at least) in ruling over Russia were not, descendants of a king/emperor born in a nation for which they rule are indistinguishable from the nation they were born into. I hate this concept of "oh they came from somewhere else, they can't be of the home they were born in" because its stupid, illogical, and untrue. The Romanovs did not do that anymore then Stalin, as Stalin still partook in genocide toward Slavic ethnicities he didn't consider Russian, which the Poles didn't do, and Stalin wasn't even Russian, he was Georgian, he wasn't even a Slav, he was ethnic Caucasian. (the Poles and Romanovs were more Russian then Stalin ever was)
3
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
Connor doesn't understand what Jesus had said and created his own assumptions without any Biblical reference to actually draw from, when Jesus says in Matthew that "we will be like the angels for which they do not take in marriage" (paraphrasing obviously) and for which Jesus explicitly says in that manner, are the angels who are individually named and referenced part of this "corporal being" or is Jesus wrong? Jesus never once describes this "dissolution" into the totality of the corporeal body of God and there isn't any Christian of any denomination I've heard that describes it this way nor argues for that. You created a contradictory view to Jesus and the theological perspective of even the Catholics, (for which are Biblical apostates) Jesus describes Lazarus and the rich man as well in which Abraham and Lazarus are still individually (Luke 16:19-31) named waiting for God in Paradise yet they do not want or need anything outside God, are they dissolved?
"That isn't the conception of Heaven from the Bible"
All will be made new with a new body on a new Earth and a new Heaven, but those who are not saved will not have inheritance in the Kingdom of Heaven, you will meet your loved ones again, but only so far as at judgement, those of the saved however you will know and see individually and in equal love to every other member of the church under Christ. It is also quite clear that you will know of those who were not part of the elect as Lazarus knew the rich man, but we will only feel a pity for them, just as God does, no more sorrow for they had made their choice and we will be comfortable.
As an aside you have a purpose and role in Heaven, even in the life after you will still have to work and worship, but you will never be lazy, never have to force yourself to, and will never suffer for it, you will desire to do all that pleases God which is your expressly defined purpose.
1
-
1
-
@fegeleindux3471
"Fins loved the T34 (they had only two of them and they lasted the whole war)"
This is fairly irrelevant to the argument. Most of their warfare success had nothing to do with tanks and they had little reason to rely on tanks, they wouldn't have notable experience evaluating the best tanks for any job.
"Italy also copied the T34"
I don't recall success with tanks being what the Italians were known for historically in WWII. Copying a design does not mean the design was good, it maybe meant they thought it was good but Italy was notorious for bad infrastructure and bad industry even during WWII, as best it suggests it was the best tank they could manage to build with crap industry and crap infrastructure. And again, Italy's prowess regarding every front with all its divisions was always overshadowed by the Germans, it was often said by British leadership that if the Italians had proper equipment, they'd have been much better fighters then the Germans, the operative piece being that they never had proper equipment.
"after they captured one and even the Germans changed their tank's hull with the Panther which was an evolved giant T34"
This doesn't necessarily suggest the tank hull even was better, it could just as well be that it was cheaper to produce as Germany was running out of iron and coal. (not that they actually were but that German logistics broke down creating resource rations for things that were even plentiful in the country)
"while the British still operated boxed tanks (Cromwell and Comet with no slope and some of them still used shitty bolts which could be dangerous for the crew, the first Shermans were also inferior to the T34 althought the later versions were good competitive workhorses similar to the T34 in industrial philosophy"
Being cheaper doesn't outright mean better, generally nations only start thinking that way when they run out (or think they're running out) of resources, but when they have the resources, usually the most tested systems are developed. Though that may not always be the case, especially when you get ideological and drive out meritocracy, which to be fair all the nations of WWII did so its hard to say any of the tanks had any real merit behind them.
"The Lend-Lease program was helpful but not fundamental in winning the war, it amounted for 20% of the Soviet industrial output,"
This is just outright false, without external support, the Russian military would never have been able to turn the tide at all since they were wholly incapable of independent production for much of the the precursor, it was a lot more then 20% at the breaking of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, Russia most certainly didn't have enough functioning industry at the start. And even after the declaration they still did not have the resources nor personnel to resist until about 43. Russian personnel initially openly talked about how the west saved them and only later were they forced stop speaking about it.
The rest of this was more less irrelevant.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1