The point about post-Stalin Soviet leadership being consensus-based is absolutely spot-on. There's a tendency in Western historiography to just assume that Soviet leaders of the 1950's and onward were basically just Stalin without the moustache. But it is, as you say, a situation where consensus and group leadership prevailed. The big reason for this was that nobody wanted to go back to the Stalin Era. The leaders who had lived through Stalin's purges and autocratic rule had no desire to go back to that era in Soviet politics. The other reason was that Soviet politics had become a lot more institutionalised. Organisations like the Red Army, intelligence services, the Politburo, etc. had all emerged as powerful actors with their own interests and agendas, and they couldn't just be purged into obedience in the way that Stalin had been done.
like! Kruschev's speech condemning Stalin's cult of personality was the symbolic end to political concentration in a single person in the USSR. In the end that speech was used to undermine and remove Krushchev. Consensus governing of the Politburo is likely the single biggest reason for USSR collapse, the Bureaucracy made such a large country ungovernable. Brezhnev used the consensus to hold on top power at the expense of increasing economic stagnation and the expansion of the military
I think the post-Stalin succession crisis may have also played a role in the transfer. Gaining support and legitimacy was one of the new regime's primary goals after Stalin died and Beria was removed. Given that Ukraine was Khrushchev's traditional power base and the breadbasket of the USSR, handing over Crimea probably made logical sense.
Khrushchev had also been personally assigned as a military commander to deal with the postwar insurgency against Soviet rule in Ukraine. The Soviet government was understandably REALLY unpopular in Ukraine after the Holodomor and there were a lot of armed anti-Soviet partisans that still existed in Ukraine after the war, so it was necessary for the Soviet government to devote *considerable* military resources to suppressing this uprising. Khrushchev's decision to transfer the Crimea to the Ukrainian CCP was LIKELY motivated at least in part by this situation and the fact that Khrushchev was trying to build goodwill among the Ukrainian populace.
@@HellqueenRoz Communist party always had several power factors. Khrushchev was from the power factions which had many Ukrainians in it (centred around a lot of people from Dnepropetrovsk). So that was probably a factor too
@@HellqueenRoz Holomodor was also organized by Kaganovitch, Ukrainian half Ukrainian Krutshev, Georgian staline with lavrenti beriaalso Georgian Ukrainian have been enourmouslyinvolved in the crimes ov Soviet union
@@HellqueenRoz Holodomor was not that devastating as presented in the late years to fuel the Ukranian national agenda though tragic it was without doubt, Moreover it affected the south and the southeast of the newly minted by Lenin pseudo state entity overwhelmingly populated by russians plus the adjacent regions of south Russia. It was never a problem in the North and North West namely Galicia which was not a part of Russian Empire till the WWI and the reasons for the insurgence in those regions were always nationalistic not based on ideology or anything else.Those ethnic differences are at play constantly in very destructive way in the Ukranian politics since the creation of this country till those days.
Some have never called himself as fool, but they act as one everyday; take a look at Bill vonGates, Elon O'Musk, Jeff McBezos and the whole bunch of world politicians :-)
@@danielbromwich1827 I don't consider Kaliningrad, Sakhalin, the Kurils or Karelia occupation (jesus christ man, what are you a Japanese imperialist with some of those claim?), personally & I wasn't just talking about Russia, but yeah some of those are good examples. Imma go out on a limb & guess that you're Ukrainian & just support the secession of any region in Russia that could vaguely be claimed by a neighboring state. I get having beef with Russia, but Sakhalin has more business being part of China than Japan, but honestly unless you give all of Siberia independence, it fits best within the broad idea of the Russian far East.
@@Taranchuk1100 Actually, there is no border change on your list. USSR Republics left the Union according to the USSR Constitution. The case of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia is similar even if their constitutions did not allow secession: their internal state borders remained unchanged basically. Neither the GDR bordar changed; this state simply merged into the FRG. The case of Crimea is really unique: there was no internal state border where Russian occupation ends now.
@@BiharyGabor Well, there being an internal border doesn't quite justify a piece of a country being taken away, but yes, Crimea & Ossetia & those areas are certainly special in some ways.
This great video focused on the events of 1954, but did you know that already in 1993 then-nationalist-dominated Russian parliament voted to assert Russia's claim for Crimea (also, there was some unrest in the peninsula, too, which allowed them to bargain for certain autonomy with Kyiv). Neither lasted long, though...
My mother always complained how Russia had so easily given up Crimea during the breakup of the USSR. And we emigrated over 30 years ago when it was still the Soviet Union, so it's not like it was of any real concern to us.
The realpolitik answer, true. Personally I think Crimea is great example of how stupid it is to try and assign fundemental ownership rights of land to any one people group... Not only do people groups move but their make-up evolves over time. Much better universal principals that don't specify race or ethnicity be used to regulate governing of territory.
Great content. I traveled to the region in 2007 when it was a part of Ukraine. It was very much ethnically Russian from conversations I had with local people. At the time you could see many Russian and a few Ukrainian warships. NB Sevastopol is pronounced easiest if you make it 2 syllables Sevas -topol not the way we English speakers pronounce it as Sev-as- ta- Pol. Simferopol the same .
in conversation everyone used Russian language indeed as it was post-imperial lingua franca for numerous tatars, ukrainians, greeks, armenians. they had no other choice.
@Юрий Чумаков to deny what: that Czechs are not the Germans? sorry, not "frish" (it was from an other language), but which another fresh ideas do you have?
Nice video! Why didn't you mention more about the emotional importance of the 19th century Crimean War and the terrible Second World War battles over Crimea in Russian collective memory among the bases of their claim to the peninsula?
very interesting and enlightening, but also really sad when, by the end, you fast forward until today and understand what depressing a situation the people are left in...
What people and what depressing situation? The majority of Crimeans are (and always have been) Russians or are of Russian descent - something like 90% of the Crimea's population. The result of the local vote was something like 97% in favour of joining Russia with about an 83% voter turn-out. Both percentages clearly sends a very strong message about how the locals felt. Unless you haven't noticed, the Ukraine has stumbled from one crisis to the next: after leaving the Soviet Union, it remained fairly independent, then moved towards closer relations with the EU, then back towards closer ties with Russia, and so on and so on. There's been no stability in the country for decades and its economy is a complete mess. The "depressing situation" the people are left in is that at least Russia has been putting a bit of investment into the region. It does have some economic activity (agriculture and tourism) and the tourism industry is now thriving - which really helps to support local people.
@@deadmanriding1118 I've met Ukrainian refugees coming across the border into Western Russia because their homes have been shelled/destroyed by their own government. This has been going on for nearly 9 years now. The Ukrainians have even been "bulk" firing petal/butterfly mines into residential areas for years - which (very sadly) young Ukrainian children try to pick up - thinking they are toys or something.
In addition to the Crimea, in 1922, Donbass was assigned to the administration of Ukraine. There were other territories around USSR. But the most important thing is that the local population has never been asked in all these territorial assignments.
The people of kosovo didn't want to be part of a totalitarian fasisct regime like "Yugoslavia" under Slobodan. The majority of the country (albanians) had a right to cede from "Yugoslavia"
The Serbs could have chosen to not go down a genocidal road when dealing with the rebellion in Kosovo and Kosovo would likely still be Serbian. So Serbia was not forced to do anything. Serbia DECIDED to shoot itself in the foot, and some Serbs are still unhappy that there were consequences to their own actions.
@@larslundandersen7722 There were already ethnic tensions in 1990. 8years before the rebellion. One major reason why Slobodan was popular in SR Serbia was duo his solving and promises in kosovo Every serb with a brain should despite Slobodan for ending Yugoslavia with his "genial" centralzied nationalsitic politics. I mean he is one big reason why there isn't a serbian majority in Croatian Kraijna anymore, losing all of Kosovo, ending the domination of serbs jn SR Bosnia and kinda losing their ally Montenegro
@@eldermoose7938 According to international law until that intervention dealing with a rebellion was an internal matter under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
Conflict that never happened, until the destruction of USSR. Ironic do you not think? You would think they rise up sooner when people who were actually alive to remember their loss of autonomy.
it was not stripped of Autonomy, it changed status from Union Republic in union with Georgian SSR to Autonomous Republic within Georgian SSR. also Abkhazia was under control of Georgian Democratic Republic until Bolshevik occupation when it was given SSR Status.
@@SMGJohn Uprisings very rarely happen during strong autocratic rule. They generally start after the pressure is reduced on the population and people start to feel that they are allowed to voice their opposition. This is how the 1789 French, 1956 Hungarian and other revolutions started. When you know that if you do not applaud enough a politician's speech the secret police will take you away (like during Stalin's time) you dare not start organising a protest.
this vdeo is systematicely pro-Ukrainian standings ( at least the radicals ukrainian who infests the countries ideology) It forgets to emphasize that Khanat of Crimea under Ottoman protectorates one of the biggest center of save trade and woman aspecialy tor the harems The center of this trade was Feodossia. It was one of the reason of the war between Russia and Ottoman Empire, Catharina the great won an in the treaty of Koutchouch 1777 Russia won sovereignty one Crimea tHis is a state treaty the only guilty How could you take legitimate internal affairs of the Bolcheviks a totalitarian regime issued from a "coup d'Etat" who made 80 millions deaths . It is well known the Krutchev wal mentlay sick il; to take his shoes on on the pupitre of United nation, to put soviet missiles 120 km from USA, to genocide his own people under Holomodor as Political it is well known not only by humorists that he signed the Crimean oukaze completely drunked
The point is that Crimea being ‘given’ to Ukraine in 1954 was no more than a ‘name change’ as in any case Russia controlled Ukraine and Crimea, as they did all the Soviet territories. By way of an admittedly crazy example, if the UK were to ‘give’ part of Shropshire in England to Wales then leaving all else aside, it would change the administrative name of the area, but as the UK is essentially dominated by England, it would from an overall sovereignity point of view be completely inconsequential.
Well, at the beginning when you talked about the 1793 defeat of the Ottomans and Crimeea entering under the rule of the Tzar of all Russias you've presented in fact a painting presenting the surrender of the Ottoman forces of Danube fortress of Nikopol (today Bulgaria) to the Russian Imperial armed forces at the very beginning of 1877 - 1878 Russian - Ottoman war.
1954 Russia: Hey Ukraine, we want to keep on being friends so here's Crimea Ukraine: We don't want to be friends anymore 2014 Russia: I'm taking my Crimea and going home My bell button has been transferred and I thus no longer have access to it
visited Crimea in 2015 - it really felt like going back to the USSR - everything falling apart - for 23 years the only thing Ukraine invested in were the oligarchs' dachas, while pumping money out of it. Visited last year - Russia spends more on it in a year, than Ukraine did in 23 - and its starting to show. Crimea is almost caught up to 2021 by now
Crimea is receiving insane funding from the Federal government for this very reason, they want to show everyone that Crimea is better under Russia but it is not due to the Russian government being less corrupt or more efficient than Ukranian, for them it is simply an image question ( показуха). Russia has a big problem with regional inequality Moscow and St Petersburg is wealthier than London while the rest of the country is sinking into poverty and are living in commie blocks that have not been properly maintained since the 90s. If it was not for the oil revenue I think there would not be much of a difference between Russia and Ukraine, since both face very similar economic hardships.
@Юрий Чумаков Government must bring prosperity to everyone not just to selected few. Even if some one in Crimea is much wealthier now than 5y ago, what difference does it make to average russian? Russia is a bit better off than Ukraine but it is still a poor country with limited resources that should be spent on improving the life of russians not on pointless conflicts just to boost domestic nationalism and allow the Putins regime to stay in power. Crimea has problems with water, electricity and small businesses are closing down due to the lack of tourists, not to even mention the tatars and remaining ukranians living there. Large infrastructure projects such as the new airport, kerch bridge will boost the GDP numbers for the region but it does not mean that the quality of life has improved for anyone there.
@@artursnikitenko7333 The West started this conflict between the Ukraine and Russia when it supported the illegal coup/putsch against an elected government. President Biden was heavily involved in this.
Stalin: Georgian. Trotsky: Ukrainian. Brezhnev: Kazakstani. Krushchev:Spent majority of his life in Ukraine. Beria: Georgian...... Russia was the largest, most populace and economically powerful Republic but it did rule the rest of the Republics as Puppets.
Yeah sure... Maybe there is another reason? Can it be the sh.ite that US government does in there just away from eyes of mainland? Maybe they do not want you to know that crap or smell of it. Lol. Open your eyes wo/man.
Maybe, If the US had ethnically cleansed Guantanamo bay, then given cuba Guantanamo bay, then signed a binding agreement acknowledging it as part of cuba, then invaded.
With the exception of Palestine, Ukraine is only the country that had its territory stolen by military means within the 21st century. This makes the situation in Crimea much more unique then it was decades ago.
It was basically the same as Trump's presidency. Tons of rape, corruption, murder and incompetence. The only real different is Trump added fascism to the mix.
The west sort of broke the whole "sanctity of the territory of sovereign states" thing when they backed Kosovo splitting off Serbia along ethnic lines, and so Putin cited the same thing when he advocated for Crimea splitting off, along ethnic lines, a pretty important precedent.
@@CrocodileWhispers After Milosevic was deposed there was no reason to pursue some weird nation building instead of just making Serbia put constitutional rights to the Kosovo Albanians or something, basically supporting the independence of a region only based off the ethnicity that live there in Europe opens a door for Putin to say hey look Crimea is inhabited by Russians it belongs to us, same with Tyrol in Austria, Basque country, Catalonia, Transylvania, Wallonia/Flanders and many others, basically you shouldn't support this in Europe if you don't want chaos, territorial integrity should have been as preserved as possible
@@CrocodileWhispers Not a Russo apologist, I'm literally advocating for respecting territorial integrity of all nations in Europe, so don't take pieces of Ukraine, don't take pieces of Serbia, don't split up Bosnia or whatever the fuck, so it's the opposite of what Putin wants, even if Ukraine was discriminating Russian speakers (hypothetically) then Russia should have pressed them economically or diplomatically which they can since they're their biggest trading partner and a huge economic influence, but instead Putin decided to invade because he's unhinged or smth, I don't support it lmao I love Ukrainians and most other Slavs, just saying that if NATO didn't support Kosovo independence Putin couldn't annex crimea, btw p sure I left my original comment before the invasion of Ukraine, I didn't even think it can ever happen for real
The UPPER PENINSULA of Michigan has no land border with the main (lower) part of Michigan. It does have a significant land border with the state south of it, Wisconsin
A little bit addition to the history of Crimea: Prior to the second battle of Vienna in the war council of the Ottoman war camp, Khan of Crimea Murad Giray presents his opinion but Grandvizier Kara Mustafa Pasha ignores him. Therefore he becomes really resentful and decides to "teach a lesson" to the Ottomans thinking that They do not show enough gratitude to Crimea. During the siege, he was assigned to stop the Polish army but instead he watches John Sobieski and his army meanwhile they are crossing the danube river. After that everybody knows rest of the story. Due to the fire from the spark of his "lesson"; Ottomans were defeated massively, Crimeans fell under Russian power eventually and most ironically, Poland was partitioned between Austria and Russia, after the decline of Ottoman power on that region.
Do you have a source for that. I tried googling but I didn't find mention of something like that. (I did see mentions that the Crimean troops performed badly in the battle but that's a different thing.)
@@edenender I wasn't asking about that. I guess my question wasn't worded the best. I was asking for a source for Murad Giray refusing to do what he was tasked with due to being offended.
@@seneca983 I don t think something like that really happened. Crimeean Tatars fought bravely when ever asked by Otomans. The Otomans were not capable to mantain the crimeean péninsula and support Tatars against russia
Ask any "real" citizen in Crimea, they have freedom! I've been there every summer for the last 2 years and people are happy, business is booming and they have a popular tourist trade!
Crimea was never Ukrainian except for its addition by the Soviets in the 1950s! Few Ukrainians ever have lived in Crimea and the majority of Crimea's population has always in the last 500-1000 years been Tartars and ethnic Russians!
Greece never did. The was acncient greek colonies but it has no relation to national state of Greece. Ottomans conqured it and then lost, never colonized. More than 60% of population is ethnic russians. Crimea's cities, resorts, civil and military infrastructure was built on Moscow's money/resources. The only reason Ukraine has some claims on Crimea is single person's (Khruschev) whim.
So basically, Ukraine has no historical or factual basis for claiming Crimea, except a USSR law. Sounds legit to me. Maybe Russia can claim all of Ukraine based on the 1654 treaty as well.
Bottom line is that this internal 'transfer' to a republic (not a soverign, indendent nation) was on pretty thin grounds to begin with, compounded by bureaucratic malaise and ineptitude during the USSR break up. For context, Crimea was part of Russia since about the time the United States was formed. It was never actually part of Ukraine. The west and US like making the issue bigger to destabilize Russia.
@@stischer47 Reason for Germany's loss of East Prussia - war crimes against people of the Soviet Union. Reason for Russia's loss of Crimea in 1954 - whim of a single person.
I just feel sorry for the fellows in the Change of the Light Brigade because at the time they would have carried coal gas lamps as a light source and I'd imagine that those lamps must have been quite dangerous to carry in the heat of such pitched battles. I really don't know why they simply didn't want to fight in the daylight anyway.
the last theory, about a minority cluster is very viable. And the deportation of the Crimean Tatars actually aided in creating such a cluster: 1939 census shows 49.6% of russian ethnic group vs 71.4% in 1959 according to wiki page. Had the Crimean Tatars remained on the peninsula, simple lower level projection of enthic group popuplation growth based on the other ethnic groups data predicts around 21% of Crimean Tatars in 1959 and would have lowered the russian share to 56%
First precendent was Kosovo in 2008, followed by South Sudan in 2011. And Helsinki accords were not ammended because decision on the West Bank would then need to be made. Regardless, I do not see any referendum in Crimea which would return it to Ukraine, unless Ukraine becomes successful EU member and role model for Russians.
I took a class in grad school taught by Nina Khruscheva. Fun to see her mentioned, cool lady. I learned a lot. Now I realize I have no witty quips and have lost track of watching....so eerrr...URA!
Khrushchev was able to rise during the time of Stalin, and think very tactically. He most likely thought a great deal about the pros and cons of the deal and made very deliberate strategic moves including this one.
Russia is sticking to the mindset that some European power is always preparing to invade it, when in reality, Germany refuses to even defend itself or its allies, and refuses to believe Russia is a threat.
In the end they gave the US the perfect excuse to destroy one of its two main rivals economically for the next 30 years. All they can really do now is offer Germany the world in the hopes of them breaking from Nato. Of course the US will never allow this.
there was no coup in Kyiv in 2014. A coup is made by force. There where no tanks and army taking control in ukraine. Yanukovich fled to rostov one day with his team. no one arrested him, no one shot at him
@@georgioszampogiannis1054 That's a military coup specifically. It was a coup, organised and staged by a Foreign Government (and it's vasals). But you could also describe it as a Putsch.
Right on, and the Kosovo crisis probably helped to force Yeltsin to retire by the end of 1999, with Putin as his replacement. The rest is history, as they say.
@@harri6214 No nation conquered it but I think he’s referring to the referendum that took place in Kosovo which wasn’t provided for by Serbian law but was seen as legitimate by the West. This set the precedent for Crimea where an illegal referendum was held in the same exact way as the Kosovo referendum and 93% of the people voted for independence from Ukraine and to join Russia. The Western countries didn’t recognize this referendum thus demonstrating double standards. Recognizing Kosovar independence opened Pandora’s box and allowed Putin to point to these double standards to justify his annexation.
Kosovo was not conquered by anybody and there is little strategic value for most countries to support Kosovo independence. By the way, Russia refuses to recognize Kosovo while citing the precedent. When Russia recognizes Kosovo as an independent nation, then they can bring up the precedent. Until then, Russia can shut up
I think it is also worth stating that the transfer was not constitutional at the moment as the Cvorum was not met that day. The decision being made when a good portion of the commitee members were not at work. This right here being largely the main issue that drags the matter on up until today.
Another possible theory of why Crimea AND several Russian oblasts (now called "Novorus") of the Donets Basin were added to Ukraine, was to ensure there were enough patriotic voters in the Ukraine to prevent any embarrassing elections or actual uprising. Western Ukraine regions that had been part of Poland in the interwar period were very pro European and had many pro German sympathizers during the Nazi occupation in WW2. It has been forgotten that the CIA used the Gehlen Org (recycled Nazi/Wehrmacht Intelligence, rehired for the CIA) to run insurgency operations from the late '40s into the mid '50s.
Yeah and I think this theory makes a lot of sense because Soviets tried to do the same with Lithuanian SSRS when they tried to add Kalliningrad to Lithuania.
Long story short, the annexation of Crimea in 2014 in the aftermath of that ,,referendum" in which the subject was until the last moment the independance of Crimea, then changed to the union with Russia was a response to the Ukrainian Euromaindan in which Putin's Ukrainian president was forced to resign, a way to ,,tsar" Putin to increase its popularity, the existence of Sevastopol that he uses to send troops to Syria, the potential resourses around the peninsula among others.
I heard the USSR had a policy of mixing populations of different ethnicities that lived in on single republic. The recent Armenia/Khazakistahn conflict was on a region with those characteristics. Thanks for the video!!!
Could another reason possibly have been as part of a rapprochement to the Ukrainian people after the Soviet security services brutal guerrilla war against Ukrainian nationalists which was just finishing up around 1954?
Tatars provided 20,000 soldiers for the Nazi "Tatar Riech". They were commented on by the Nazi officers as shockingly brutal and sadistic. It was not for revenge on Soviets. The mayor of Yalta was a Tatar. Stalin may have exiled them for their own protection. Crimea was given to Ukraine for the same reason the entire Donbas was given to them by Lenin. Gerrymandering. It was to Ballance the anti Russian Polish and German population of Western Ukraine
You should do a video on the Kaliningrad Oblast - how the USSR took it from Germany in 1945, forced expulsion of the German population and Stalin's proposals to divide it up.
Why specify Kaliningrad? Millions of German refugees were deported from all Central European states. The transfer of sovereignty happened as part of the Potsdam Conference, supported by all Allied Countries. It was a collective Allied action. If that was "taken by the USSR" why not focus on the Rhine, Alsace or any of the territory "taken" from Germany by NATO countries as part of the same agreement? Kaliningrad simply isn't controversial because so few people were deported on transition of Sovereignty. The reality was that nearly the entirety of the local population vacated Koninsberg ahead of the Red Army's arrival during the war. East Prussia was the heartland of German Nationalism and the citizens feared reprisals for their countries massive crimes against Humanity and multiple programs of Genocide. The larger controversy of German post war deportations is about those in Sudetenland and the Rhine region.
One blatant error in this guy's commentary, is that the Russian controlled Crimea from 1793 onwards. There a little incident known as the Crimean War of 1853 to 1856, that pitted the Russians against the coalition of French, British and Ottoman Empires. There were nearly 900,000 soldiers on both sides killed with an additional 750,000 wounded. The Russians in the end were kicked out of Crimea, with control of the Crimea being handed to the Ottomans, by the French and the British. So you wonder why the Russian's feel so strongly Crimea. The French and British support for Ottamans is a classic example of "Miss-Guided Geo-Politics".
I have been a sub of your channel since the day 1 with ring-sign as on. You release your videos once everyweek but I have never gotten the alarm of your channel's release when it is up. I want to let you guys know. There is an A..hole as an admin on youtube's command chair, just FYI. Greetings from Istanbul.
On the topic of "historic ties of Crimea to Russia", it had tatar and ukrainian majority for most of its history, even becoming a part of short lived Ukrainian state in 1918
@@impaugjuldivmax Russia first got its control over Crimea and got russian population there around 200 years ago. If we talk about older times, Crimea belongs to Crimean tatars, and absolute majority of them supports Ukrainian sovereignty over Crimea.
@@impaugjuldivmax There wasn't even a rudimentary Russian state entity till around the the late 13th century when the grand duchy of Moscow began to consolidate the other duchies around it. A recognizable Russian state really doesn't appear until Ivan the terrible. Yet we still consider the Rus peoples as part of Russian history. So denying the cultural significance of a land and it's people groups because there was an absence of a cohesive modern state is rather reductive and not helpful. I mean Germany didn't unify in any significant fashion until 1870s are you gonna argue that means Bavaria or Swabia aren't German because there was no official Germany?
@@DelijeSerbia first widespread movement started something around 1848 (Spring of nations and stuff). Not that long after the concept of nation actually appeared.
Good job. Other channels make factual mistakes left and right, but here I only spotted one. Holodomor was not a genocide. It was a humanitarian disaster spread across both Ukraine and Russia, but it was "privatised" by Ukraine as a leverage to pressure on Russia politically and diplomatically. As for the history of the question, as good of an analysis you have made, it does not matter much for the current situation, since the majoriry of Crimea already made their choise, and, to no surprise, they got protection and some Major economic upgrade conpared to Ukraine. As for Russia, it was quite a problem, but all things considered, It was worth it.
This was the US equivalent of giving back Florida to the Spanish, who turn out to be Cuba. Never going to happen. Strategically too important so all the rest is interesting yapping points, to put it politely. Bottom line is Crimea will never be Ukranian again. It's Russia's only warm water port & they'll never let it go, especially with NATO at the eastern border.
Treaty of Pereyaslav was not the treaty between Ukraine and Russia, but a decision of Autonomous Cossack Hatmanate to unite with Moscow. Cossacks consider(ed) themselves ethnically Russian.
it wasn't Khruschev. In fact, the decision was brought up within Stalin's inner circle, in 1952, due to economic reasons (quite logical). Stalin died soon, and was unable to sign it. In 1953, Khruschev was not in full sole power - there was a triumvirat of a sort - the full power he would gain in 1957. Indeed, making Crimea all-Russian was one of Stalin's imperial thoughts during 1940s - but thoughts they were. So, not to blame Kruschev.
Whatever the history, what do the people living there right now want? Even western polling shows an overwhelming majority want to be part of Russia. So should they have self determination rights like the West supported for Kosovo and the UN endorses? The West does not see it the same way. I tend to think Russia was out of order about how they got the province, but on the other hand if its what the people actually do want, then it is the most democratic outcome. Maybe Ukraine has a case for seeking some compensation. I do not think the population will want to go back. Ukraine is a basket case economy and has been since 1991 when it first became a country, while Russia is doing okay, with living standards improving ten fold since the Yeltsin era, which is probably the main reason Putin has so much support in Russia, i.e., pocket book issues. Living standards in Crimea have improved accordingly. I also read that Crimea tried to join Russia in 1991 through a plebiscite. Russia was weak and in chaos, so Ukraine was able to block it and had western support to do so. For what it is worth, I have some anecdotes. I am from NZ and worked at sea for over 12 years with dozens of crew from Sevastopol, which is why I took an interest in this conflict. Some identified as Ukrainian and others as Russian, while another said he was Russian and Tatar born in Uzbekistan and raised in Crimea. Most were ex naval infantry, i.e., marines, while three were ex Soviet special forces and had served together in Ethiopia. They were tight and always stuck together in port etc. I stay in touch. They all remain friends. They are happy with how it turned out for Crimea, but are still concerned about Donbas. P.S. Even ten years after the dissolution of the USSR, they still kept their Soviet passports etc. Very proud of it. They liked visiting the West, but would defend the USSR against all the usual tropes etc. They would get quite worked up about it. The galley hand Elena said she was Ukrainian, but then she would say things like "you people think we Russians are just about vodka and Cossack dancing', i.e., she hated the stereotype and would sometimes identify as Russian. In other words, there was not a clear divide between them in their minds - whatever the politicians and nationalist activists say. Ukraine is not a unified people. Western Ukraine for most of middle ages history was part of western empires like Austria Hungary etc. They tend catholic and towards the west. Eastern Ukraine tends orthodox and towards Russia. It's the divide at the heart of the endless troubles since 1991. Political parties tend to be for one or the other. When one gets power the other revolts etc. Western governments and Russia involve themselves, especially the USA who have spent many billions trying to bring Ukraine into the US and NATO orbit. Meddling megalomaniacs who make a mess everywhere they go. I think they want Ukraine as yet another debt vassal.
The point about post-Stalin Soviet leadership being consensus-based is absolutely spot-on. There's a tendency in Western historiography to just assume that Soviet leaders of the 1950's and onward were basically just Stalin without the moustache. But it is, as you say, a situation where consensus and group leadership prevailed.
The big reason for this was that nobody wanted to go back to the Stalin Era. The leaders who had lived through Stalin's purges and autocratic rule had no desire to go back to that era in Soviet politics. The other reason was that Soviet politics had become a lot more institutionalised. Organisations like the Red Army, intelligence services, the Politburo, etc. had all emerged as powerful actors with their own interests and agendas, and they couldn't just be purged into obedience in the way that Stalin had been done.
like!
Kruschev's speech condemning Stalin's cult of personality was the symbolic end to political concentration in a single person in the USSR. In the end that speech was used to undermine and remove Krushchev.
Consensus governing of the Politburo is likely the single biggest reason for USSR collapse, the Bureaucracy made such a large country ungovernable. Brezhnev used the consensus to hold on top power at the expense of increasing economic stagnation and the expansion of the military
Just a tiny correction - there was no Red Army after 1946. It was reorganised into the Soviet Army, which was a bit more than a simple name change.
Whats ironic is how you assume Stalin somehow controlled every aspect of the government and the trials.
@@SMGJohn We get it, you like the tanks.
@@TheBucketSkill
The T-34? Or the King Tiger?
All I can think about when all these clips of Khruschev with members of the council, is the movie...
The suit doesn't really work without the belt
How l Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb.
"Death of Stalin" ?
I think the post-Stalin succession crisis may have also played a role in the transfer. Gaining support and legitimacy was one of the new regime's primary goals after Stalin died and Beria was removed. Given that Ukraine was Khrushchev's traditional power base and the breadbasket of the USSR, handing over Crimea probably made logical sense.
+another of many reasons, thx for the info never thought of it like that
Khrushchev had also been personally assigned as a military commander to deal with the postwar insurgency against Soviet rule in Ukraine.
The Soviet government was understandably REALLY unpopular in Ukraine after the Holodomor and there were a lot of armed anti-Soviet partisans that still existed in Ukraine after the war, so it was necessary for the Soviet government to devote *considerable* military resources to suppressing this uprising.
Khrushchev's decision to transfer the Crimea to the Ukrainian CCP was LIKELY motivated at least in part by this situation and the fact that Khrushchev was trying to build goodwill among the Ukrainian populace.
@@HellqueenRoz Communist party always had several power factors. Khrushchev was from the power factions which had many Ukrainians in it (centred around a lot of people from Dnepropetrovsk). So that was probably a factor too
@@HellqueenRoz Holomodor was also organized by Kaganovitch, Ukrainian half Ukrainian Krutshev, Georgian staline with lavrenti beriaalso Georgian Ukrainian have been enourmouslyinvolved in the crimes ov Soviet union
@@HellqueenRoz Holodomor was not that devastating as presented in the late years to fuel the Ukranian national
agenda though tragic it was without doubt, Moreover it affected the south and the southeast of the newly minted by Lenin pseudo state entity overwhelmingly populated by russians plus the adjacent regions of south Russia. It was never a problem in the North and North West namely Galicia which was not a part of Russian Empire till the WWI and the reasons for the insurgence in those regions were always nationalistic not based on ideology or anything else.Those ethnic differences are at play constantly in very destructive way in the Ukranian politics since the creation of this country till those days.
"The cleverest of all, in my opinion, is the man who calls himself a fool at least once a month"
-Fyodor Dostoevsky
Some have never called himself as fool, but they act as one everyday; take a look at Bill vonGates, Elon O'Musk, Jeff McBezos and the whole bunch of world politicians :-)
@@ergun9980 Get yourself some original lines, yours are well worn and tatty.
“The Golden Horn and Constantinople - all of this will be ours" (russian's Chauvinist Dostoevsky)
Yeah, I'm clever!
I'm jerk...
Well I have to say it’s hardly as if this is the first time since the 1940s that territorial integrity was ignored
Yup, russia still occupies Konigsberg, Sahkalin, the Kurils, Karelia, Salla, Petsamo, Transnistria, South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
@@danielbromwich1827 I don't consider Kaliningrad, Sakhalin, the Kurils or Karelia occupation (jesus christ man, what are you a Japanese imperialist with some of those claim?), personally & I wasn't just talking about Russia, but yeah some of those are good examples.
Imma go out on a limb & guess that you're Ukrainian & just support the secession of any region in Russia that could vaguely be claimed by a neighboring state. I get having beef with Russia, but Sakhalin has more business being part of China than Japan, but honestly unless you give all of Siberia independence, it fits best within the broad idea of the Russian far East.
GDR, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Serbia, USSR etc. All these dont count I suppose...
@@Taranchuk1100 Actually, there is no border change on your list. USSR Republics left the Union according to the USSR Constitution. The case of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia is similar even if their constitutions did not allow secession: their internal state borders remained unchanged basically. Neither the GDR bordar changed; this state simply merged into the FRG.
The case of Crimea is really unique: there was no internal state border where Russian occupation ends now.
@@BiharyGabor Well, there being an internal border doesn't quite justify a piece of a country being taken away, but yes, Crimea & Ossetia & those areas are certainly special in some ways.
My dad told me that gift story all the time. Now it's time to educate him thx ^^
want somebody take a desert without water like a gift?..
@@wladjarosz345 I am ok, give me your desert
@@ImPedofinderGeneral you must live in russia and there take you all...
@@wladjarosz345 how about Israel? ;-P
Exactly the same here 😂😂😂✌
Excellent analysis. You captured the Soviet processes accurately and insightfully.
just melting Soviet Union with russia with the Georgian gang Stalin-Beria A red star of mediocrity
Bro you forgot the Greeks , most of the cities were founded by them and even city names including Crimea itself are greek
When he said roman I think he meant east roman
@@ShubhamMishrabro thanks but I meant even before Roman times 8 century bc
@@chrisd997 ohh
I thought of the same thing though it is not a huge error per se.
@@clementl.9566 it was not like a critic at all just some additional info 😀 channel content is State of the Art
This great video focused on the events of 1954, but did you know that already in 1993 then-nationalist-dominated Russian parliament voted to assert Russia's claim for Crimea (also, there was some unrest in the peninsula, too, which allowed them to bargain for certain autonomy with Kyiv). Neither lasted long, though...
My mother always complained how Russia had so easily given up Crimea during the breakup of the USSR. And we emigrated over 30 years ago when it was still the Soviet Union, so it's not like it was of any real concern to us.
Kiev in English
@@louisecorchevolle9241 Kiev and Kyiv are both used in English.
@@louisecorchevolle9241 it's Kyiv in English - Київ in Ukrainian.
@@myronsamila7493 а я думал, что вы только русских можете учить их родному языку, а вы оказывается и на хозяев лаять смеете.
the thing about land is that it belongs to whoever has the power to hold it.
That is a very 19th century view of sovereignty
@@badluck5647 That is the real formula. Was and always will be.
@@badluck5647 Yet it plays out today regardless, a prime example is the normalcy of Chinese planes going over Taiwan in regular drills.
The realpolitik answer, true.
Personally I think Crimea is great example of how stupid it is to try and assign fundemental ownership rights of land to any one people group... Not only do people groups move but their make-up evolves over time. Much better universal principals that don't specify race or ethnicity be used to regulate governing of territory.
That's right. Vae victis.
Great content. I traveled to the region in 2007 when it was a part of Ukraine. It was very much ethnically Russian from conversations I had with local people. At the time you could see many Russian and a few Ukrainian warships.
NB Sevastopol is pronounced easiest if you make it 2 syllables Sevas -topol not the way we English speakers pronounce it as Sev-as- ta- Pol. Simferopol the same .
I cannot find the comment replying to my pronunciation lesson. Thank you
in conversation everyone used Russian language indeed as it was post-imperial lingua franca for numerous tatars, ukrainians, greeks, armenians. they had no other choice.
100-200 years ago, Prague: mostly everybody spoke German... and? is it Deutschland? no!
@Юрий Чумаков your "frish" mention about old history is curious... and very important for Czechs!
@Юрий Чумаков to deny what: that Czechs are not the Germans?
sorry, not "frish" (it was from an other language), but which another fresh ideas do you have?
Nice video! Why didn't you mention more about the emotional importance of the 19th century Crimean War and the terrible Second World War battles over Crimea in Russian collective memory among the bases of their claim to the peninsula?
Because the American education system is sponsored by Oreos cookies and Coke diet
@@AugustusOmega and weed!
@@MooseMeus it would be much better off it was but sadly no
Because this channel focuses on the cold war era.
very interesting and enlightening, but also really sad when, by the end, you fast forward until today and understand what depressing a situation the people are left in...
What people and what depressing situation?
The majority of Crimeans are (and always have been) Russians or are of Russian descent - something like 90% of the Crimea's population.
The result of the local vote was something like 97% in favour of joining Russia with about an 83% voter turn-out. Both percentages clearly sends a very strong message about how the locals felt. Unless you haven't noticed, the Ukraine has stumbled from one crisis to the next: after leaving the Soviet Union, it remained fairly independent, then moved towards closer relations with the EU, then back towards closer ties with Russia, and so on and so on. There's been no stability in the country for decades and its economy is a complete mess.
The "depressing situation" the people are left in is that at least Russia has been putting a bit of investment into the region. It does have some economic activity (agriculture and tourism) and the tourism industry is now thriving - which really helps to support local people.
@@grantchallinor5263 They also have fresh water again💥😜 no thanks to Ukr. Also, a direct connection to mainland Russia. Huge investments.
@@deadmanriding1118 I've met Ukrainian refugees coming across the border into Western Russia because their homes have been shelled/destroyed by their own government.
This has been going on for nearly 9 years now. The Ukrainians have even been "bulk" firing petal/butterfly mines into residential areas for years - which (very sadly) young Ukrainian children try to pick up - thinking they are toys or something.
Very informative and easy to follow. Thank you for the great (and timely) content.
Great video! Would love for you to share more on how power/authority of leadership was distributed/executed within the Soviet leadership.
absolute nil historacly
So proud to be part of #ProjectUkraine =) amazing videos by all the great content creators! 🇺🇦
In addition to the Crimea, in 1922, Donbass was assigned to the administration of Ukraine. There were other territories around USSR. But the most important thing is that the local population has never been asked in all these territorial assignments.
That principle of international law was abandoned when Serbia was forced to cede Kosovo.
The people of kosovo didn't want to be part of a totalitarian fasisct regime like "Yugoslavia" under Slobodan.
The majority of the country (albanians) had a right to cede from "Yugoslavia"
Can you explain? I don't know much about the Kosovo war.
The Serbs could have chosen to not go down a genocidal road when dealing with the rebellion in Kosovo and Kosovo would likely still be Serbian. So Serbia was not forced to do anything. Serbia DECIDED to shoot itself in the foot, and some Serbs are still unhappy that there were consequences to their own actions.
@@larslundandersen7722 There were already ethnic tensions in 1990. 8years before the rebellion.
One major reason why Slobodan was popular in SR Serbia was duo his solving and promises in kosovo
Every serb with a brain should despite Slobodan for ending Yugoslavia with his "genial" centralzied nationalsitic politics.
I mean he is one big reason why there isn't a serbian majority in Croatian Kraijna anymore, losing all of Kosovo, ending the domination of serbs jn SR Bosnia and kinda losing their ally Montenegro
@@eldermoose7938 According to international law until that intervention dealing with a rebellion was an internal matter under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
Wunderbar, another upload comrade
Went from german to russian in one sentence
was it supposed to be german or what? :-)
Under Stalin Abkhazia was stripped of its autonomous status as a SSR and latched it to Georgia laying the foundation of future conflict.
Conflict that never happened, until the destruction of USSR. Ironic do you not think? You would think they rise up sooner when people who were actually alive to remember their loss of autonomy.
it was not stripped of Autonomy, it changed status from Union Republic in union with Georgian SSR to Autonomous Republic within Georgian SSR. also Abkhazia was under control of Georgian Democratic Republic until Bolshevik occupation when it was given SSR Status.
@@SMGJohn Uprisings very rarely happen during strong autocratic rule. They generally start after the pressure is reduced on the population and people start to feel that they are allowed to voice their opposition. This is how the 1789 French, 1956 Hungarian and other revolutions started. When you know that if you do not applaud enough a politician's speech the secret police will take you away (like during Stalin's time) you dare not start organising a protest.
Same for Artsakh/Karabakh and Azerbaijan
wowwwww where is that beautiful painting from
reminds me of ilya repin's
0:22 - it didn't. That was called into question when NATO wrested the region of Kosovo and Metohija from Serbia.
First comment! Great series. Tough topick that can get a lot of people's feelings hurt.
TH-cam says that the video was uploaded 13 minutes ago yet your comment is presented as "9 hours ago". Wow😂
Patreon membership has it's advantages...
@@TheColdWarTV Oh.... I see😏
Curious to know how your traffic to this video has changed in the last three months?
Nice video. Russia always seems to be making headlines one way or another. My compliments to all those who made this video a reality.
this vdeo is systematicely pro-Ukrainian standings ( at least the radicals ukrainian who infests the countries ideology) It forgets to emphasize that Khanat of Crimea under Ottoman protectorates one of the biggest center of save trade and woman aspecialy tor the harems The center of this trade was Feodossia. It was one of the reason of the war between Russia and Ottoman Empire, Catharina the great won an in the treaty of Koutchouch 1777 Russia won sovereignty one Crimea tHis is a state treaty the only guilty How could you take legitimate internal affairs of the Bolcheviks a totalitarian regime issued from a "coup d'Etat" who made 80 millions deaths . It is well known the Krutchev wal mentlay sick il; to take his shoes on on the pupitre of United nation, to put soviet missiles 120 km from USA, to genocide his own people under Holomodor as Political it is well known not only by humorists that he signed the Crimean oukaze completely drunked
The point is that Crimea being ‘given’ to Ukraine in 1954 was no more than a ‘name change’ as in any case Russia controlled Ukraine and Crimea, as they did all the Soviet territories.
By way of an admittedly crazy example, if the UK were to ‘give’ part of Shropshire in England to Wales then leaving all else aside, it would change the administrative name of the area, but as the UK is essentially dominated by England, it would from an overall sovereignity point of view be completely inconsequential.
Grateful for this Playlist! @Kings and Generals & Company!!
Well, at the beginning when you talked about the 1793 defeat of the Ottomans and Crimeea entering under the rule of the Tzar of all Russias you've presented in fact a painting presenting the surrender of the Ottoman forces of Danube fortress of Nikopol (today Bulgaria) to the Russian Imperial armed forces at the very beginning of 1877 - 1878 Russian - Ottoman war.
The other popular myth is that Khrushchev was drunk when he made the decision.
1954 Russia: Hey Ukraine, we want to keep on being friends so here's Crimea
Ukraine: We don't want to be friends anymore
2014 Russia: I'm taking my Crimea and going home
My bell button has been transferred and I thus no longer have access to it
Last time I check "friends" don`t keep "friends" in collars.
It 2014 not 214
1954 take this peace of desert and make it suitable to live there!
2014 i take it back because we are the "brothers"...
no terrorussia - no problems!
Great education of the crisis thank you
I would like a citation of the "15 minute" 2009 article please.
"Just trust me bro" - OP
visited Crimea in 2015 - it really felt like going back to the USSR - everything falling apart - for 23 years the only thing Ukraine invested in were the oligarchs' dachas, while pumping money out of it. Visited last year - Russia spends more on it in a year, than Ukraine did in 23 - and its starting to show. Crimea is almost caught up to 2021 by now
Tbf, except for major cities, most ex-Soviet states still look like the Soviet Union.
Crimea is receiving insane funding from the Federal government for this very reason, they want to show everyone that Crimea is better under Russia but it is not due to the Russian government being less corrupt or more efficient than Ukranian, for them it is simply an image question ( показуха). Russia has a big problem with regional inequality Moscow and St Petersburg is wealthier than London while the rest of the country is sinking into poverty and are living in commie blocks that have not been properly maintained since the 90s. If it was not for the oil revenue I think there would not be much of a difference between Russia and Ukraine, since both face very similar economic hardships.
@Юрий Чумаков Government must bring prosperity to everyone not just to selected few. Even if some one in Crimea is much wealthier now than 5y ago, what difference does it make to average russian? Russia is a bit better off than Ukraine but it is still a poor country with limited resources that should be spent on improving the life of russians not on pointless conflicts just to boost domestic nationalism and allow the Putins regime to stay in power. Crimea has problems with water, electricity and small businesses are closing down due to the lack of tourists, not to even mention the tatars and remaining ukranians living there. Large infrastructure projects such as the new airport, kerch bridge will boost the GDP numbers for the region but it does not mean that the quality of life has improved for anyone there.
@@artursnikitenko7333 The West started this conflict between the Ukraine and Russia when it supported the illegal coup/putsch against an elected government. President Biden was heavily involved in this.
@@artursnikitenko7333 а кто воду то перекрыл, а, Мыкытенко?
My father coded the bell icon, and his fathers father coded the daily motion subscription system so I am justified in seizing it for myself
This video is full of fascinating information
watching this in Oct.22. Eight moths into the renewed invasion of Ukraine by Putin. Amazing. Good work.
13:56 "By 'divide and conquering', Moscow tried to maintain control over the peripheries". That's the most logical explanation.
Ukraine: You gave it to us
Russia: But back then you were our puppet so our intentions was to give it to ourselves!
Stalin: Georgian. Trotsky: Ukrainian. Brezhnev: Kazakstani. Krushchev:Spent majority of his life in Ukraine. Beria: Georgian...... Russia was the largest, most populace and economically powerful Republic but it did rule the rest of the Republics as Puppets.
People who hate Russia hate to hear this and in addition USA drunk puppet Eltzin gave away anything US wanted.
this reminds me of Guantanamo bay land so valuable for its navy base usa does not wanna give it up
Yeah sure... Maybe there is another reason? Can it be the sh.ite that US government does in there just away from eyes of mainland? Maybe they do not want you to know that crap or smell of it. Lol. Open your eyes wo/man.
Maybe, If the US had ethnically cleansed Guantanamo bay, then given cuba Guantanamo bay, then signed a binding agreement acknowledging it as part of cuba, then invaded.
@@ergun9980 That's the pot calling the kettle black. Turkey has such a great track record.
It's functionally more valuable to NSA, NRO and CIA than the NAVY but yes to US Security.
Guantanamo was never part of the USA though. Crimea has been Russian for 300 years.
The continuing impact of Crimea in international relations, ah, how the world seems so similar decades later.
With the exception of Palestine, Ukraine is only the country that had its territory stolen by military means within the 21st century. This makes the situation in Crimea much more unique then it was decades ago.
@@badluck5647 well, there was Tibet that was completely annexed by China
@@ilyasasilgaly2744 That was done in the 20th century.
You could describe the China's expansion in the South China Sea as stealing territory though.
@@badluck5647 Armenia too tbf
Saving this for later; I wasn't aware of this history.
Do the Video about the Philippines under Ferdinand Marcos
It was basically the same as Trump's presidency. Tons of rape, corruption, murder and incompetence. The only real different is Trump added fascism to the mix.
is there any story about oman to Cover?
There’s the Oman civil war but that happened in 1963-1974 and we are still covering the 1950’s
small fish in vast volume of the ocean. I suggest do you research privately.
The west sort of broke the whole "sanctity of the territory of sovereign states" thing when they backed Kosovo splitting off Serbia along ethnic lines, and so Putin cited the same thing when he advocated for Crimea splitting off, along ethnic lines, a pretty important precedent.
@@CrocodileWhispers After Milosevic was deposed there was no reason to pursue some weird nation building instead of just making Serbia put constitutional rights to the Kosovo Albanians or something, basically supporting the independence of a region only based off the ethnicity that live there in Europe opens a door for Putin to say hey look Crimea is inhabited by Russians it belongs to us, same with Tyrol in Austria, Basque country, Catalonia, Transylvania, Wallonia/Flanders and many others, basically you shouldn't support this in Europe if you don't want chaos, territorial integrity should have been as preserved as possible
@@CrocodileWhispers Not a Russo apologist, I'm literally advocating for respecting territorial integrity of all nations in Europe, so don't take pieces of Ukraine, don't take pieces of Serbia, don't split up Bosnia or whatever the fuck, so it's the opposite of what Putin wants, even if Ukraine was discriminating Russian speakers (hypothetically) then Russia should have pressed them economically or diplomatically which they can since they're their biggest trading partner and a huge economic influence, but instead Putin decided to invade because he's unhinged or smth, I don't support it lmao I love Ukrainians and most other Slavs, just saying that if NATO didn't support Kosovo independence Putin couldn't annex crimea, btw p sure I left my original comment before the invasion of Ukraine, I didn't even think it can ever happen for real
It's interesting that Kaliningrad was always part of Russia never transferred to belarus or Latvia.
staline was winner of the war and wanted a poetin Baltic BElaruss soon reintegrated to Russia under a supra national body as treaty says
They actually planned to transfer it to Lithuanian SSR, but Lithuania refused.
Why would it be transferred to countries that do not border the territory?
Unless there is a joke that I am missing.
Actually they wanted to transfer it to Lithuanian SSRs but Lithuania refused.
The UPPER PENINSULA of Michigan has no land border with the main (lower) part of Michigan. It does have a significant land border with the state south of it, Wisconsin
A little bit addition to the history of Crimea:
Prior to the second battle of Vienna in the war council of the Ottoman war camp, Khan of Crimea Murad Giray presents his opinion but Grandvizier Kara Mustafa Pasha ignores him. Therefore he becomes really resentful and decides to "teach a lesson" to the Ottomans thinking that They do not show enough gratitude to Crimea. During the siege, he was assigned to stop the Polish army but instead he watches John Sobieski and his army meanwhile they are crossing the danube river. After that everybody knows rest of the story. Due to the fire from the spark of his "lesson"; Ottomans were defeated massively, Crimeans fell under Russian power eventually and most ironically, Poland was partitioned between Austria and Russia, after the decline of Ottoman power on that region.
Do you have a source for that. I tried googling but I didn't find mention of something like that. (I did see mentions that the Crimean troops performed badly in the battle but that's a different thing.)
@@seneca983 Crimeean Tatars had light cavalry and where not capable to match the polish husars
@@edenender I wasn't asking about that. I guess my question wasn't worded the best. I was asking for a source for Murad Giray refusing to do what he was tasked with due to being offended.
@@seneca983 I don t think something like that really happened. Crimeean Tatars fought bravely when ever asked by Otomans. The Otomans were not capable to mantain the crimeean péninsula and support Tatars against russia
@@edenender "I don t think something like that really happened."
I was skeptical of that claim by OP (Musa Onur) as well.
I like this video. Good and pretty much unbiased
Please forgive me for upsetting the balance of 420 comments, but I'm dropping in to say
*THANK YOU COLD WAR, BUT THE "PRINCESS" IS IN ANOTHER BLOC*
My grandfather was born there. I hope to one day visit after freedom is restored.
Ask any "real" citizen in Crimea, they have freedom! I've been there every summer for the last 2 years and people are happy, business is booming and they have a popular tourist trade!
@@orson_krennic831 If by real you mean Russian then probably
@@orson_krennic831 Crimea was annexed over a naval base.
@@ernestbatiy1070 Then you don't have to wait for this "Freedom" then huh
@@orson_krennic831 I will wait until the restoration of Crimea to its Rightful state. Ukraine. Now be gone troll
Would love for you to go back to Africa at one point, particularly the Angolan War
Crimea was never Ukrainian except for its addition by the Soviets in the 1950s! Few Ukrainians ever have lived in Crimea and the majority of Crimea's population has always in the last 500-1000 years been Tartars and ethnic Russians!
>in the last 500-1000 years
>ethnic Russians
lost it here
Going by your logic, I can say that Crimea belongs to Greece or Turkey. Both countries held control of Crimea.
Greece never did. The was acncient greek colonies but it has no relation to national state of Greece. Ottomans conqured it and then lost, never colonized. More than 60% of population is ethnic russians. Crimea's cities, resorts, civil and military infrastructure was built on Moscow's money/resources. The only reason Ukraine has some claims on Crimea is single person's (Khruschev) whim.
I grew up in Yalta and Ukrainians were small minority and we had well known NAMES FOR EAST UKRAINIAN AND WEST UKRAINIAN!
So basically, Ukraine has no historical or factual basis for claiming Crimea, except a USSR law. Sounds legit to me. Maybe Russia can claim all of Ukraine based on the 1654 treaty as well.
Please never stop doing jokes on the bell bottom
🇷🇺: I’ll annex Crimea. Yoink!😈
🇺🇦:😮😢
🇺🇸: That’s not cool, Russia.😠
🇪🇺: Yeah, that’s not cool.😠
🇷🇺: Hey, we did it democratically.😏
🇺🇸🇪🇺: Bullshit.😠
Bottom line is that this internal 'transfer' to a republic (not a soverign, indendent nation) was on pretty thin grounds to begin with, compounded by bureaucratic malaise and ineptitude during the USSR break up. For context, Crimea was part of Russia since about the time the United States was formed. It was never actually part of Ukraine. The west and US like making the issue bigger to destabilize Russia.
So if Germany were to "reoccupy" Kaliningrad, that would be OK since the region was part of Germany since 1255, well before the founding of the USSR.
@@stischer47 russians don't understand double standards tho
@@stischer47 Reason for Germany's loss of East Prussia - war crimes against people of the Soviet Union. Reason for Russia's loss of Crimea in 1954 - whim of a single person.
Rock one David!
I just feel sorry for the fellows in the Change of the Light Brigade because at the time they would have carried coal gas lamps as a light source and I'd imagine that those lamps must have been quite dangerous to carry in the heat of such pitched battles. I really don't know why they simply didn't want to fight in the daylight anyway.
the last theory, about a minority cluster is very viable. And the deportation of the Crimean Tatars actually aided in creating such a cluster: 1939 census shows 49.6% of russian ethnic group vs 71.4% in 1959 according to wiki page. Had the Crimean Tatars remained on the peninsula, simple lower level projection of enthic group popuplation growth based on the other ethnic groups data predicts around 21% of Crimean Tatars in 1959 and would have lowered the russian share to 56%
Crimean tatars we’re deported because 20 thousand of them fought with Nazi and were very brutal!! Not for some imaginary ethnic cleansing
First precendent was Kosovo in 2008, followed by South Sudan in 2011. And Helsinki accords were not ammended because decision on the West Bank would then need to be made. Regardless, I do not see any referendum in Crimea which would return it to Ukraine, unless Ukraine becomes successful EU member and role model for Russians.
I took a class in grad school taught by Nina Khruscheva. Fun to see her mentioned, cool lady. I learned a lot. Now I realize I have no witty quips and have lost track of watching....so eerrr...URA!
Pertinent today 3/4/2022 helps perspective a little for background.
Slavs of the world Unite!
Khrushchev was able to rise during the time of Stalin, and think very tactically. He most likely thought a great deal about the pros and cons of the deal and made very deliberate strategic moves including this one.
Okay... What a pointless comment..
Russia is sticking to the mindset that some European power is always preparing to invade it, when in reality, Germany refuses to even defend itself or its allies, and refuses to believe Russia is a threat.
In the end they gave the US the perfect excuse to destroy one of its two main rivals economically for the next 30 years. All they can really do now is offer Germany the world in the hopes of them breaking from Nato. Of course the US will never allow this.
The 2014 coup in Kiev was not theoretical
It was fictional
there was no coup in Kyiv in 2014. A coup is made by force. There where no tanks and army taking control in ukraine. Yanukovich fled to rostov one day with his team. no one arrested him, no one shot at him
@@georgioszampogiannis1054 You forgot to mention the embezzled $ billions that Yanukovych took with him.
The NATO Govs/Media account of it is theoretical.... in fact it's literally a Conspiracy Theory.
@@georgioszampogiannis1054 That's a military coup specifically. It was a coup, organised and staged by a Foreign Government (and it's vasals). But you could also describe it as a Putsch.
I would wager to guess it is a combination of many of these theories on various levels, or better yet, different theories for different events.
Thanks
You're a man of culture and education as well =D Stay well
We set the precedent when we carved Kosovo away from Serbia. Can't blame Russia from following your lead.
What nation conquered and annexed Kosovo?
Right on, and the Kosovo crisis probably helped to force Yeltsin to retire by the end of 1999, with Putin as his replacement. The rest is history, as they say.
@@harri6214 No nation conquered it but I think he’s referring to the referendum that took place in Kosovo which wasn’t provided for by Serbian law but was seen as legitimate by the West. This set the precedent for Crimea where an illegal referendum was held in the same exact way as the Kosovo referendum and 93% of the people voted for independence from Ukraine and to join Russia. The Western countries didn’t recognize this referendum thus demonstrating double standards. Recognizing Kosovar independence opened Pandora’s box and allowed Putin to point to these double standards to justify his annexation.
Kosovo was not conquered by anybody and there is little strategic value for most countries to support Kosovo independence.
By the way, Russia refuses to recognize Kosovo while citing the precedent. When Russia recognizes Kosovo as an independent nation, then they can bring up the precedent. Until then, Russia can shut up
1:12 What movie it is?
This is not movie, it’s a game
@@kitpesec1536 Really? It looks like live-action footage and it looks really cool.
Oh, indeed. I guess I'm old already...
Russian historical movie "Viking" (2016) although it's rather some kind of fantasy than real history.
I think it is also worth stating that the transfer was not constitutional at the moment as the Cvorum was not met that day. The decision being made when a good portion of the commitee members were not at work. This right here being largely the main issue that drags the matter on up until today.
Why didn't the Soviets ever think of building a bridge from Crimea to Russia itself?
they did
Another possible theory of why Crimea AND several Russian oblasts (now called "Novorus") of the Donets Basin were added to Ukraine, was to ensure there were enough patriotic voters in the Ukraine to prevent any embarrassing elections or actual uprising.
Western Ukraine regions that had been part of Poland in the interwar period were very pro European and had many pro German sympathizers during the Nazi occupation in WW2.
It has been forgotten that the CIA used the Gehlen Org (recycled Nazi/Wehrmacht Intelligence, rehired for the CIA) to run insurgency operations from the late '40s into the mid '50s.
Yeah and I think this theory makes a lot of sense because Soviets tried to do the same with Lithuanian SSRS when they tried to add Kalliningrad to Lithuania.
Request to submit this video to the US Supreme Court.
Russo Ukrainian War, Day 1
Long story short, the annexation of Crimea in 2014 in the aftermath of that ,,referendum" in which the subject was until the last moment the independance of Crimea, then changed to the union with Russia was a response to the Ukrainian Euromaindan in which Putin's Ukrainian president was forced to resign, a way to ,,tsar" Putin to increase its popularity, the existence of Sevastopol that he uses to send troops to Syria, the potential resourses around the peninsula among others.
There are no resources around the peninsula that matter. It's all 100% about Sevastopol
I heard the USSR had a policy of mixing populations of different ethnicities that lived in on single republic. The recent Armenia/Khazakistahn conflict was on a region with those characteristics. Thanks for the video!!!
Armenia Kazakhstan conflict? That's news to me 😂😂
Could another reason possibly have been as part of a rapprochement to the Ukrainian people after the Soviet security services brutal guerrilla war against Ukrainian nationalists which was just finishing up around 1954?
It is interesting to watch both videos from this channel on Ukraine's history in succession!
Tatars provided 20,000 soldiers for the Nazi "Tatar Riech". They were commented on by the Nazi officers as shockingly brutal and sadistic. It was not for revenge on Soviets. The mayor of Yalta was a Tatar. Stalin may have exiled them for their own protection. Crimea was given to Ukraine for the same reason the entire Donbas was given to them by Lenin. Gerrymandering. It was to Ballance the anti Russian Polish and German population of Western Ukraine
You should do a video on the Kaliningrad Oblast - how the USSR took it from Germany in 1945, forced expulsion of the German population and Stalin's proposals to divide it up.
Why specify Kaliningrad? Millions of German refugees were deported from all Central European states.
The transfer of sovereignty happened as part of the Potsdam Conference, supported by all Allied Countries. It was a collective Allied action. If that was "taken by the USSR" why not focus on the Rhine, Alsace or any of the territory "taken" from Germany by NATO countries as part of the same agreement?
Kaliningrad simply isn't controversial because so few people were deported on transition of Sovereignty. The reality was that nearly the entirety of the local population vacated Koninsberg ahead of the Red Army's arrival during the war. East Prussia was the heartland of German Nationalism and the citizens feared reprisals for their countries massive crimes against Humanity and multiple programs of Genocide.
The larger controversy of German post war deportations is about those in Sudetenland and the Rhine region.
hm blatantly failed to mention the Kosovo precedent...
Russia will never give back Crimea.
The movie scenes....which movie is it from?
Lion king
@@interestinglife934 could you please send me a link from a trailer or something similar, beacuse all Iit pops up is the disney movie
You take my life, but, I take yours too.
One blatant error in this guy's commentary, is that the Russian controlled Crimea from 1793 onwards. There a little incident known as the Crimean War of 1853 to 1856, that pitted the Russians against the coalition of French, British and Ottoman Empires. There were nearly 900,000 soldiers on both sides killed with an additional 750,000 wounded. The Russians in the end were kicked out of Crimea, with control of the Crimea being handed to the Ottomans, by the French and the British. So you wonder why the Russian's feel so strongly Crimea. The French and British support for Ottamans is a classic example of "Miss-Guided Geo-Politics".
The invasion only took from Eupatoria to Sevastopol and Balaklava, only a fraction of the peninsula.
Can you talk about how Muslims were treated and felt about being in the USSR?
It would be an interesting video to see how the atheist Communist Party suppressed religious groups.
Bro, no one could tell that honestly but muslims.
He talked about it in another video
@@ergun9980He talked about it in another video
Could it be just another Soviet attempt to create a frozen conflict? Congratulations comrades!
What is this melody on the end?
I have been a sub of your channel since the day 1 with ring-sign as on. You release your videos once everyweek but I have never gotten the alarm of your channel's release when it is up. I want to let you guys know. There is an A..hole as an admin on youtube's command chair, just FYI.
Greetings from Istanbul.
Crimeea is the land of the Crimeean Tatars
Crimea is the land of Greeks
On the topic of "historic ties of Crimea to Russia", it had tatar and ukrainian majority for most of its history, even becoming a part of short lived Ukrainian state in 1918
Mykhaylo, there was no ukraine for most of Crimean history
@@impaugjuldivmax Russia first got its control over Crimea and got russian population there around 200 years ago. If we talk about older times, Crimea belongs to Crimean tatars, and absolute majority of them supports Ukrainian sovereignty over Crimea.
@@impaugjuldivmax There wasn't even a rudimentary Russian state entity till around the the late 13th century when the grand duchy of Moscow began to consolidate the other duchies around it. A recognizable Russian state really doesn't appear until Ivan the terrible. Yet we still consider the Rus peoples as part of Russian history. So denying the cultural significance of a land and it's people groups because there was an absence of a cohesive modern state is rather reductive and not helpful. I mean Germany didn't unify in any significant fashion until 1870s are you gonna argue that means Bavaria or Swabia aren't German because there was no official Germany?
@@eldermoose7938 “Russia” was introduced by moscovite tzar Piyotr in 1721, - the name stolen from Rus’, like lots of its history
@@DelijeSerbia first widespread movement started something around 1848 (Spring of nations and stuff). Not that long after the concept of nation actually appeared.
Good job. Other channels make factual mistakes left and right, but here I only spotted one. Holodomor was not a genocide. It was a humanitarian disaster spread across both Ukraine and Russia, but it was "privatised" by Ukraine as a leverage to pressure on Russia politically and diplomatically. As for the history of the question, as good of an analysis you have made, it does not matter much for the current situation, since the majoriry of Crimea already made their choise, and, to no surprise, they got protection and some Major economic upgrade conpared to Ukraine. As for Russia, it was quite a problem, but all things considered, It was worth it.
This was the US equivalent of giving back Florida to the Spanish, who turn out to be Cuba. Never going to happen. Strategically too important so all the rest is interesting yapping points, to put it politely. Bottom line is Crimea will never be Ukranian again. It's Russia's only warm water port & they'll never let it go, especially with NATO at the eastern border.
More like Crimea will never be a secure part of Russia again. Not with their 3rd rate army.
Vikings are proud of you bro
1) Why you translate "oblast" as "province"? How about Moscow oblast? )))
2) It is steressed on the first syllable.
'Oblast' has the same definition as 'province' in English.
Not transfer but land swap between two soviet Republics.
Treaty of Pereyaslav was not the treaty between Ukraine and Russia, but a decision of Autonomous Cossack Hatmanate to unite with Moscow. Cossacks consider(ed) themselves ethnically Russian.
it wasn't Khruschev. In fact, the decision was brought up within Stalin's inner circle, in 1952, due to economic reasons (quite logical). Stalin died soon, and was unable to sign it. In 1953, Khruschev was not in full sole power - there was a triumvirat of a sort - the full power he would gain in 1957. Indeed, making Crimea all-Russian was one of Stalin's imperial thoughts during 1940s - but thoughts they were. So, not to blame Kruschev.
I hate no single reason! 😣 I love a blend of reasons.😉
Whatever the history, what do the people living there right now want? Even western polling shows an overwhelming majority want to be part of Russia. So should they have self determination rights like the West supported for Kosovo and the UN endorses? The West does not see it the same way.
I tend to think Russia was out of order about how they got the province, but on the other hand if its what the people actually do want, then it is the most democratic outcome. Maybe Ukraine has a case for seeking some compensation.
I do not think the population will want to go back. Ukraine is a basket case economy and has been since 1991 when it first became a country, while Russia is doing okay, with living standards improving ten fold since the Yeltsin era, which is probably the main reason Putin has so much support in Russia, i.e., pocket book issues. Living standards in Crimea have improved accordingly.
I also read that Crimea tried to join Russia in 1991 through a plebiscite. Russia was weak and in chaos, so Ukraine was able to block it and had western support to do so.
For what it is worth, I have some anecdotes. I am from NZ and worked at sea for over 12 years with dozens of crew from Sevastopol, which is why I took an interest in this conflict. Some identified as Ukrainian and others as Russian, while another said he was Russian and Tatar born in Uzbekistan and raised in Crimea. Most were ex naval infantry, i.e., marines, while three were ex Soviet special forces and had served together in Ethiopia. They were tight and always stuck together in port etc. I stay in touch. They all remain friends. They are happy with how it turned out for Crimea, but are still concerned about Donbas.
P.S. Even ten years after the dissolution of the USSR, they still kept their Soviet passports etc. Very proud of it. They liked visiting the West, but would defend the USSR against all the usual tropes etc. They would get quite worked up about it. The galley hand Elena said she was Ukrainian, but then she would say things like "you people think we Russians are just about vodka and Cossack dancing', i.e., she hated the stereotype and would sometimes identify as Russian. In other words, there was not a clear divide between them in their minds - whatever the politicians and nationalist activists say.
Ukraine is not a unified people. Western Ukraine for most of middle ages history was part of western empires like Austria Hungary etc. They tend catholic and towards the west. Eastern Ukraine tends orthodox and towards Russia. It's the divide at the heart of the endless troubles since 1991. Political parties tend to be for one or the other. When one gets power the other revolts etc. Western governments and Russia involve themselves, especially the USA who have spent many billions trying to bring Ukraine into the US and NATO orbit. Meddling megalomaniacs who make a mess everywhere they go. I think they want Ukraine as yet another debt vassal.