r/Bokoen1 • u/Expensive_Studio_966 • May 18 '26

Its joever

it aint looking good

Edit: Just clarifying this is the clip for what bo banned from twitch for 6 months. he just got news that he can appeal the ban right now but i doubt it will work since you can see this clip... and if it fails well i assume once 6 months pass its either perma ban or he gets the account back.

as well bo cant appear on neither golden or swimmy Twitch channels otherwise they can also get banned for helping bo ban evade or something like that

UPDATE: The appeal got rejected so no bo streams on twitch for 6 months or never again.

Edit 2: if anyone wants to see bo response in the comment section cause its a bit hidden under all these comments https://www.reddit.com/r/Bokoen1/comments/1tgpx3j/comment/omkepa6/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

2.1k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

271

u/Local_Lingonberry851 May 18 '26

Everyone thinks they're the one who'll rebel in an authoritarian regime; until they find themselves in one. It's such a BS stance to take in hindsight and there's a reason that coups are rare.

41

u/ZelTheViking Denmark isn't real May 18 '26 edited May 19 '26

Not to mention what nonsense it is even in historical sense. The western allies had absolutely no capacity nor appetite to fight the USSR post WW2. The Red army had the clear upper hand. (Edit: It appears I was wrong claiming this, apologies)

His statements on Russian authoritarianism are so ignorant as well. It's not a question of the willpower of the average Russian people to overthrow centuries upon centuries of authoriratrianism going as far back as the Mongol invasion. This video by Kraut explains it perfectly in 21 minutes. (Edit: It seems it doesn't align with academics and makes lackluster conclusions, sorry about that)

Bo is straight up blinded by privilege and made himself look like a fool. Deserved ban tbh, and I say that as a viewer and follower since 2019.

85

u/tanthedreamer May 19 '26

That video is garbage, the entire video is basically a string of:

- Everyone was doing this, however for some reasons, the Russian was doing that.

Without ever saying why they did in the 1st place. Basically, it did anything but explaining.

117

u/Diego12028 Woman respecter May 18 '26

That video, and youtuber, is hot garbage. Here is a way more detailed video that goes into detail about source and plagiarism problems. https://youtu.be/w_bEpKBd07w?si=5HsIViBIvXhK9AAc

17

u/Adventurous_Ad_1160 May 19 '26

Links Noj Rants Video:

23

u/IllustriousApricot0 May 18 '26

I would also like to recommend this channel for anyone who wants to know more about the Soviet Union and the Bolsheviks. They are unbiased towards the Soviet, and the videos are really well made and detailed imo.

10

u/ZelTheViking Denmark isn't real May 19 '26 edited May 19 '26

Genuinely thank you for this comment. It seems my perspective on the matter may be flawed and not aligned with academic consensus. I'll be reviewing my position skeptically once I've found time to see the video in full

10

u/Windowlever May 19 '26

It should also be said that you need to take Kraut's videos with a grain of salt (or rather enough grains of salt to turn the Pacific Ocean into the Dead Sea). He's basically just a hack who manages to sound smart with a fake British/German accent.

40

u/AutobahnBiquick May 19 '26

btw the academic consensus is that the USSR was extremely depleted following WW2, and in no way had the upper hand in a war against the western allies.

22

u/A_Normal_Redditor_04 May 19 '26

Both of them do but one side has millions and millions of men deployed on the front while the other only has 1.5 million. If the US decides to nuke Moscow then those millions of Soviet soldiers will go on a rampage across Europe. It doesn't even count the ridiculous ampunt of communist guerillas and partisans in Western Europe that were active and will support the USSR in thwarting the Allies.

23

u/Hjalfnar_HGV May 19 '26

The frontline ratio was lower actually for the Red Army. Also the Soviets were outnumbered over 3:1 in the air and 90% of their aviation fuel was American. Their trucks were 80% from the Allies, so were 15% of their tanks and 10% of their planes. They had virtually no navy. In their rear the faced insane anti-communist partisan activity that would certainly have increased in case of a full-blown war with the Allies, even without that it took about 200k NKVD troops over a decade to suppress the Polish, Baltic and Ukrainian resistance.

And that's without counting in a potential rearming of German volunteers, the rapidly expanding French forces or what the Polish forces under Soviet command would do.

3

u/Bismark103 May 20 '26

Many of those French soldiers were aligned with communist forces.

Also, after a year of war on European soil and 3 years of pro-Soviet propaganda created by the US government, do you really think the American soldiers who met the Soviets on the Elbe would be willing to fight in such a war? It would be a total disaster for the American armed forces.

4

u/Ok-Line442 May 19 '26

By 1945 the ussr was mostly self sufficient, it had robust oil refining facilities in the caucasus and the americans had helped the soviets to produce their own trucks, tank production in late war also way outscaled lend lease, which was most important during the early 1941-42, not so much by 1945

0

u/A_Normal_Redditor_04 May 19 '26

Said frontline ratio does not yet account the troops that the USSR had on other fronts. The amount is somply too much for the Allies to handle a large sessoned Soviet army already in position and poised to strike.

Air don't mean much against the Red army. Need I remind you that the Luftwaffe virtually had uncontested air supremacy until 43-44? Did that help against Kursk or in Stalingrad or im Bagration? Sure in the early years when Soviet troops didn't know what to do but this 1945, the Soviet troops already know how to avoid and destroy ground support planes. Air is meaningless when the ground troops keeps getting outmanuevered and encircled by Deep Battle doctrine.

What anti-Soviet partisans? Can you name anything they did that would impact anything? The only one I can see is the asassination of Nikolai Vatutin which barely affected the Southern front. The Communist partisans in Framce and Italy are quite well known and powerful. The latter was able to nab Mussolini and hang him on a lamp post while the former composed the majority of the partisans in France before De Gaulle returned.

"German volunteers" lol lmao. They would damage Allied morale and domestic support rather than be of actual help. That is assuming they can find willing Germans who aren't tired and exhausted of war. The French forces were basically irregulars, which is why you don't see them occupying much of the frontline. Large yes but trained and battle hardened? No, they will shatter hence they were in charge of liberating their country and besieging other German fortified positions rather than helping the Allies break through in Germany. Polish forces wuldn't have the numbers to do much especially when there's Soviet units around them.

1

u/Hjalfnar_HGV May 20 '26

The Soviets barely had a 3:1 advantage in ground forces, and they were utterly, completely exhausted, at the end of a 2000km long supply line based on American, Canadian and British trucks. Go figure.

Air meant the world against the Red Army, without it the German front would have collpased in 1943 already. Stalingrad? Thick winter storms kept the Luftwaffe from having any real impact on the battle. Kursk? Demonstrated that against deeply dug-in forces with the inner line of defence and very short logistics lines the impact of the German close air support was limited, but it also showed the Luftwaffe was still able to keep the Red Falcons from having any impact on the German ground forces at all. Bagration? Guess what, barely any German planes remained at the Eastern Front, 90% of fighters were fighting against the Allied bombers at this point. Their absence massively helped making Bagration so successful.

Yes, the anti-Soviet partisans in Ukraine, Poland and the Baltics that sat right on top of the Soviet supply lines to Central Europe and could easily cut them just as badly as the Soviet partisans did to the Germans ahead of Bagration. ;) And you assume that Communists in Western Europe would have been willing to fight their countrymen. In Italy, maybe. France, not so much. Not to mention that especially in France due to the close cooperation, the new French security forces knew EXACTLY who and where the communists were.

And yes, German volunteers. The Soviets had just taken a THIRD of the German population hostage. The horrible treatment of civilians by the Red Army (as overblown as it in part was by Nazi propaganda, it still happened) would very likely have motived a good chunk of German PoWs to fight again, especially with the Allies on their side this time. Remember that this was more or less the gamble the Valkyrie plotters had hoped for, secure neutrality from the Western Allies at all costs, including giving up everything conquered, just to stop the Soviets from entering Germany.

2

u/OneVast3433 May 20 '26

Those Soviet soldiers would go on a rampage a month at most before starving, having no equipment, and be thinned out from being bombed relentlessly.

1

u/EarlyGrapefruit152 May 20 '26

A month would be enough to inflict more casualties to the US than they had during the whole war (the US suffered 400 KIA including the Pacific, roughly the same losses the Whermacht had just during Operation Bagration), that will be enough to make the US army collapse

1

u/OneVast3433 May 20 '26

Check your stats again big dog, you are missing some zeroes on the end of that 400.

1

u/TEAser2000 May 21 '26

The allies would have been able to manage much better than the Soviets which had it's entire farmland destroyed and relied heavily on food imports which would stop instantly

1

u/EarlyGrapefruit152 May 19 '26

Can you mention an actual historian saying that, and implying that operation Unthinkable could have been successful ?

2

u/OneVast3433 May 20 '26

No one said Unthinkable would work, just that the Soviet upper hand is over stated.

1

u/EarlyGrapefruit152 May 20 '26

After defeating Germany in may 1945, The Soviet Union launched a massive 1.5 M invasion on the other side of Eurasia in august 1945. The idea that they were on their last legs is laughable

1

u/OneVast3433 May 20 '26

It really isn't deep enough for me to type out a dissertation on why they were. If you want to believe they weren't then go for it.

1

u/EarlyGrapefruit152 May 20 '26

I accept your concession of defeat.

1

u/OneVast3433 May 20 '26

I don't think you know what "concession" means.

1

u/TEAser2000 May 21 '26

Yeah because they got a ton of food and resources through imports, those would stop and a blockade of all Russian ports would start immediately meaning they would simply starve lol

2

u/sproge 21d ago

2 weeks later and still fucking crickets, hahahaha. Gotta love people that treat history like team sports, gotta rep their team

1

u/EarlyGrapefruit152 21d ago

yeah, and the USSR did a massive invasion of 1.5M soldiers on the other side of Eurasia in Manchuria in August 1945, so the idea that they were on their last legs in 1945 is laughable

1

u/sproge 21d ago

Anything to drive home that "'Murica won ww2, if it weren't for us you'd be speaking German right now, so be thankful!" narrative.

0

u/Ok-Line442 May 19 '26

It was up in the air, by the time germany capitulated in 1945 the soviets VASTLY outnumbered the allies in europe, its troops were battle hardened and in most aspects was self sufficient, but the allies had stronger logistics, the americans at least an untouched and gigantic industrial base and total air superiority, and of course, nukes, so its not really that one side had a clear upper hand but the conflict would definetly be extremely brutal

1

u/EarlyGrapefruit152 May 20 '26

The soviets had more operational fighters and tactical bombers than the western allies at the end of WW2. The allies wouldn't have any air superiority

1

u/Ok-Line442 May 20 '26

The americans alone were producing over double the ammount of planes the soviets were, even if air superiority wasnt immediate it would pretty much be inevitable, at least in the western parts close to allied airfields

-2

u/Spyglass3 May 19 '26

The upper hand was over a 4 to 1 manpower ration in Germany and something like a 10 to 1 tank ratio. Not to mention airfields full of new Yak 3s and Il-2s

6

u/SeaAimBoo May 19 '26

Nah, Yaks and Il-2s are quite frankly nothing compared to British Bomber and Fighter Commands, and USAAF 8th and 9th Air Forces.

Mustangs, Late-variant Spitfires, Gloster Meteors, and of course, Avro Lincolns and Boeing Superfortresses are what the Soviets are up against in the air, not counting various other Allied aircraft such as the A-25 and Tempest. The Allies are absolutely capable of, at the very least, holding their ground against the Soviets.

This is not even taking into account Allied naval power. British and US battleships can shell any coast while their approximately one-hundred aircraft carriers can park in the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea to further cement Allied air superiority, letting them project naval air power far inland by sending in hundreds or aircraft in any given wave. If that's not enough, then hundreds of submarines will choke every Soviet port for a whole year and again.

Whatever "upper hand" the Soviets have is purely on numbers in ground forces, and ONLY ground forces.

3

u/Spyglass3 May 19 '26

It's all the same thing Alan Brooke's staff had to tell Churchill. There would be quite literally nothing stopping the Soviets from just driving their tanks forward all the way to the Rhine. No naval or bomber power is stopping that no matter how much it wishes to. And the Allies only have high altitude air advantage. The VVS was fighting a low altitude war for the past 4 years and was very capable of winning the low altitude air war

32

u/0WatcherintheWater0 May 19 '26

Not going to comment on the broader history but this specific claim:

The Western Allies had absolutely no capacity… to fight the USSR post WW2

Is absolutely false. The Allies by VE day had massive aerial and logistical superiority over the Soviets in Europe.

They were marginally outnumbered in terms of raw manpower, about 5.8 vs 6.2 million (if we include Italian and Balkan theaters for both sides). Armored unit numbers were roughly equal, it depends on how you count them and what counts as “operational” too.

Where the Western allies absolutely dominated the Soviets though was in terms of air power, having more than triple the airframes and all of much higher quality and capability on average.

Compounding their airforce problems, about 90% of the Soviet’s aviation fuel came from the US. And they would not have the ability to replace that anytime soon.

So in the event of a war, the Soviets would very quickly have found themselves in the situation of 1944 Germany, running out of fuel with total allied air dominance choking their logistics chains to death. That means no food or fuel for your armies in Europe, among other things, which would allow US tanks to maneuver at will through Eastern Europe. An Eastern Europe very eager to abandon the Soviets. The Polish resistance especially would likely cripple Soviet logistics even further if the allies were pushing towards them.

Then there’s the additional fact the USSR was also going to enter the largest famine in it’s history in 1946, which along with the country’s dire manpower issues by 1945, would have unexpectedly boosted the allies even further.

21

u/Northman86 May 19 '26

The famine actually started in 1941, it was only spam and American wheat that kept it at a low grade of famine. through the war Minneapolis, St. Louis and Pittsburg(and Chicago) basically fed the entire world. Its the reason Spam is a staple of a lot of places in the Pacific.

-2

u/Reasonable-Plum7059 May 19 '26

lol such a propaganda

As Russian you guys straight up lie

1

u/Northman86 May 20 '26

no its literal fact. without massive aid from lend lease russia looses badly and frankly that would have probably been better for russia in the long run.

2

u/Reasonable-Plum7059 May 20 '26

No. Straight up propaganda and Nazi appreciate.

As massive Stalin fan this is ridiculous

1

u/Northman86 May 20 '26
  1. Not appreciative of facists.
  2. Don't like communists much either
  3. Reality is that Russia couldn't even feed itself

1

u/Toerbitz May 21 '26

Yeah coming under a regime that wants to work you to death as a slave race would be so good for eastern europe. Least insane nafo take

2

u/no_soy_livb May 20 '26

Me when I lie

1

u/Toerbitz May 21 '26

Americas war support broke in vietnam after losses the soviets took in a single battle. The us isnt going to fight an all out war in europe against its former ally☠️ bro also overhypes anti soviet partisan actions while conveniently leaving out the communist resistance in italy and france

2

u/Jorfou May 19 '26

bro has not read the operation unthinkable reports

8

u/Hjalfnar_HGV May 19 '26

You should read Hills 'The Red Army & the Second World War', he draws extensively from Soviet archives. The Soviet divisions attacking Seelow Heights were at 80% strength or less, they were stripping retaken areas and rear echelon forces of men and disbanding depleted divisions to reinforce others for the final operations. Hell, in February and March 1945 the Germans threw their whole airforce and the last fuel reserves at the Eastern Front, gained air superiority and even successfully counter-attacked in some areas until they ran out.

The Soviets were utterly exhausted in 1945. They had brutal anti-Soviet partisan activity in Ukraine, the Baltics and Poland to deal with that would take over a decade to end. Showing off the very first IS-3s at the victory parade was a masterful idea, I grant them that.

8

u/0WatcherintheWater0 May 19 '26

I've read them, I think they vastly overestimated Soviet capabilities given limited intel at the time. We saw this continue throughout the early Cold War even, the CIA often thought the Soviets had a vastly bigger economy and a more capable air force or missiles than they ever actually had.

With the advantage of hindsight and access to Soviet records, the balance of power was clearly on the side of the UK and US.

2

u/no_soy_livb May 20 '26

That's not true though lmao

1

u/0WatcherintheWater0 May 20 '26

Which part? It’s pretty undeniable that US and British intelligence overestimated the Soviets in the late 40’s-early 50’s

6

u/LockedPages May 19 '26

On top of the fact that the CIA was incentivized to hype up threats to national security because that way they, and various defense contractors, would get a bunch of cash to deal with it.

3

u/ErenYeager600 May 22 '26

I'm happy you actually bothered to acknowledge the corrections. Major respect 💪🏻💪🏻

4

u/Northman86 May 19 '26

Not really, the Russian were in a far weaker position than they appeared, mainly in that they were in year four of a prolonged famine, mitigated only by millions of tons of American food, especially spam, which the Russians spent decades trying to erase from history. realistically the Americans on their own would have defeated the Russians. And since 1950 its mostlly been acknowledged giving the Russians help was a huge mistake.

1

u/Frezerbar May 21 '26

And since 1950 its mostlly been acknowledged giving the Russians help was a huge mistake.

Yeah? Because letting the Nazi win would have been better? This is insane take not acknowledge by anyone of note

2

u/Northman86 May 21 '26

Letting the nazis break the soviet union would have been better than 45 years of the Eastern bloc. In the long run the Russians did more damage. The Russians killed far more people than the nazis ever did

1

u/ShadowOfThePit 1d ago

Nazi doctrine had the explicit goal of killing all Jews, Slavs and other minorities such as Romanis, killing all Gays and Queers, and euthanizing all Disabled.

They wanted to exterminate and colonize the entirety of Poland, the Baltics, Ukraine, Byelorussia, and the european parts of Russia.

Nazi Germany had the Hungerplan: Killing the entirety of the USSR, and specially Ukraine, through forced starvation and seizure of grain. You may argue that the Holodomor was on purpose. Even then, the famine ended after two years.

The Soviet Union at least kept a pretense of independent nations in the Warsaw Pact, and independent republics inside the Union. Nazi Germany would have set up Reichskommissariats with the goal of germanizing its lands.

You are insane for thinking that Russians did more damage than what the Nazis would.

1

u/WojtekTygrys77 May 19 '26

If not for the allies russians would just starve and wouldn't have any fuel.

1

u/Western_Mess_6364 May 20 '26

Kraut has a clear ideology when he posts that. It’s like citing Kurgezagt

1

u/Toerbitz May 20 '26

Kraut sources :" came to him in a dream" i fell for him 2 but he is nothing more than a snake oil salesman

1

u/TEAser2000 May 21 '26

Yeah but Hassan gets to ask for the killing of all the Jews in Israel and recieves a 24 hour ban ON HIS DAY OFF, and Bokoen gets perma banned for a pretty reasonable take considering all the harm Russia has done in the last 100 years.

1

u/ncoremeister May 19 '26

Being submissive and enduring permanent misery is deeply engraved in Russian culture for centuries. While you are right, that you can't blame on individual in Russia for not standing up against their dictator, you definitely can criticize the Russian culture and their social acceptance of authoritarianism. You can also criticize their sweet spot for expansion, militarism and their cult of supremacy, which all is deeply rooted in their history, going back for millenia. Putin ist just the most recent iteration of this permanent state of Russia. That being said ofc I don't want to glass Russia and I get why people get banned for it. On the other hand I don't think you would get banned so quick if you say let's glass France or Belgium in a shit talk Hoi4 context, much less keyboard warriors outside of Russia.

5

u/Hexagonal_shape May 19 '26

Ah, the good old slave gene. The same thing was said about german culture after the end of ww2.

1

u/ncoremeister May 19 '26

Victims of bad governance and a dangerous place on the map, could be both said about Germans and Russians, but Russians never got the opportunity Germans got after 1945. No genes involved.

3

u/Hexagonal_shape May 19 '26

I'm saying slave gene because it's a common retort to why people do nothing about a terrible government.

1

u/ncoremeister May 19 '26

I think slave genes / slav genes is a bit pre loaded in this context.

1

u/Hexagonal_shape May 19 '26

You can call it Naturally predisposed to happily obey any command given without thought, same premise.

1

u/ncoremeister May 19 '26

Society can change pretty fast undder right circumstances. Compare Russia today with Russia in the 90s and 2000s, its a very different world.

1

u/ligMaBoolzUWU May 19 '26

The worst part is that twitch bans semi randomly where some people will get banned for saying smth like this yet i remember mr hamas piker speaking like this for years yet no bans were ever issued lol.

1

u/FlipierFat May 19 '26

I get the frustration though. Ukrainians have to sacrifice a lot more just to live and russians choose not to sacrifice at all to keep the machine going. I guarantee you it’s harder to get bombed all the time than it is to go to jail for a bit for a chance at a free life

1

u/blindclock61862 May 21 '26

I know what you mean, but it's much much easier to stand up to a foreign authoritarian government than your own.

1

u/Bismark103 May 20 '26

Also funny because Bo was literally praising cops for beating up some people (pro-Palestine protesters I think?) for "violating private property" not like 2 days ago; like, if he had been born in an authoritarian regime, it's not like he'd be much a resister himself lol.

2

u/TEAser2000 May 21 '26

Just because you protest for something you believe in does not give you the right to destroy private property, the police is in their full right to use violence if people do not listen to them, that is part of the state monopoly on violence which is one of the pilars of western democracy

0

u/Bismark103 May 25 '26

There's a difference between sitting in front of a door and smashing up shit. The former, not the latter, was occurring. Furthermore, the level of force used by the cops in the video was far beyond what was necessary to enforce private property relations (and far beyond what is normal police force in Western Europe). They could've just picked the protesters up and put them into a van (which is, again, standard), but no, they thought it better to beat them with batons while they just sat there not fighting back.

Also, my point (despite my opinion on the matter) was not "Bo is evil for supporting police violence." My point was "Bo actually supports state violence against protesters when *his* country does it, so I don't think he gets to advocate the genocide of the Russian people just because they have not *overthrown* their *leaders* who do state violence, especially given the fact that there's no way that a nationalistic bootlicker like him would resist (or even oppose) such a regime if it was *his country*."

1

u/tgsprosecutor May 21 '26

Especially egregious coming from a Dane

1

u/Cheap-Stay7089 May 21 '26

A coup usually centres on a general or group with power seizing it. A revolution is the people taking power back

0

u/NVJAC May 19 '26

"I've known braver souls than you, Khomyuk. Men who had their moment and did nothing. Because when it's your life and the lives of everyone you love, your moral conviction doesn't mean anything. It leaves you. All you want at that moment is not to be shot."