Hmmm, I'm going to support the channel through watching your good ( not outstanding) content. For American influenced content it is really good, but for European standards, it often falls short and could be more in depth to point out things that are not of common knowledge.
Watched a Mark Felton video yesterday, with many commenters saying they hated the Hunting Clash sponsorship. Not so here I see. Edit: having read more of the comments, I take my statement back.
Great channel. Being a child of the Cold War, I have studied its origins literally all my life, and this video was really great because it underscores the political dynamics going on in the background that help explain the earliest origins of the Cold War. Well done!
Bit dissapointed that you didn't have a map of europe graphic showing the countries that you are talking about. While myself and i'm sure other are aware of the locations of the countries of eastern Europe and the Kuril Islands, i'm sure to a lot of people watching you reading off a dozen countries and saying they had Soviet troops in is hard to visualise.
I hope they just take the video down and reupload. I just found this channel and just started the video but am for sure no expert in the 1945 borders of Eastern Europe, with all its now non-existent countries like East Germany, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and even the Soviet Union. So maps are always helpful!
Thank you, I just wanted to write the same thing. Also when he was talking about the division-plan of germany (and what parts of germany should be given to which country) I had to google a map of germany in 1945, so that I could follow this part.
Its unimaginable how they talk big about how much they learned and how they made this new episode better and then just forgot to add maps. Very disappointing.
As always a well researched, produced and presented episode of the Cold War. I have watched your presentations from the very first episode, and I must say that they are getting better and better every time. David, by the way since you are from Canada please make an episode about the 1972 Summit Series between the Canada and U.S.S.R. Hokey teams, as I am sure it will be very interesting for the younger generation. I know that it was Huge in Canada and The Soviet Union, however it was also important in regards to the Cold War.
Ok, I get it; I'm open to anarchism and respect Makhno. But go tell those who were set free from Nazi KZs, if they weren't liberated in the fullest sense of the word, even those who had been liberated by the Soviets...
I find w TH-cam presentations jamming 2 + hours of content into 30 minutes or so usually ends up being a tragedy. This however was absolutely outstanding. Thanks so much
The Bulldog was effusive in his praise of Mussolini so fascism was never really an enemy for him. It was the challenge to British hegemony that got old Bulldog really riled up...
The Bulldog was as much an anti Communist as Hitler. The Bulldog respected Stalin but he did not TRUST STALIN. I have been told by those who shall not be named that the.sick Commie FDR sold out the free world to ....Uncle Joe!🤔😉
I mean he was very much pro colonialism and keeping the British Empire together, which was totally against what America wanted, which was to break it up. And then build up its own Empire. Which it did. And now that's slowly crumbling. That's the circle of life. You crush the old order, reach a zenith of apparent might and power. Just as you are basking in that pre-eminence and self congratulation, little do you realise the rot has already started from within, slowly spreading. The year is 1999. The economy is booming. You're off the back of brokering a historic peace agreement in Ireland, and a conclusive victory in the former Yugoslavia. USA military prestige, economic and political power has absolutely no equal, not even in sight. The biggest enemy vanquished earlier in the same decade, your influence reaches around the planet. Peace, freedom and stability is restored across virtually all of Europe for the first time in literal centuries thanks largely to you. Fast forward. 22 years later. Your soft influence has rather waned. National debt is absurd, renewed challenges from serious opponents on all fronts and political division within the country itself breaking apart national unity. There's a growing wealth gap, scattershot foreign policies, serious damage to military prestige and former closely aligned allies perfectly happy to go their own way on critical matters. Seen it all before. It's all downhill from here.
Hi, David! Please make episode about Mitrokhin Archive. Vasili Mitrokhin was a Soviet KGB archivist who defected to United Kingdom in 1992 with his family. During his service in KGB he copied by handwriting top secret documents from KGB archive and made his own archive, and then in 1992 passed it to British embassy in Latvia. That documents reveal many secret informaton and details from 1918 to early 1980's. His archive was so huge so even Britsh recognised that if even to UK would defect the head of KGB, he wouldn't know so huge volume of top secret information. Later in 1999 the historian Christopher Andrew wrote book named "The Sword and The Shield" based on Mitrokhin Archive. It would be a very interesting episode. You and your team made a very interesting TH-cam-channel. Greetings from Russia!
Good Video. As a German the Morgentauplan sends shivers down my back. But it is absolutly understandeable, that they felt like it was a good thing to do at the time. I am just now reading on the history of the early west german navy for one of my videos and what amazes me is how quickly "total demilitarization" turned into "a west german contribution to european defence" First rumblings on this were recorded in 1948 and it finally happened officially only 10 years after the end of WW2.
10:04 Putting the Yalta and Potsdam conferences in perspective , think its critical to understand that the Soviet army was in control of Eastern Europe and had reached the Oder River - only 70 Km from Berlin - The British and Americans had yet to cross the Rhine . So Stalin was holding most of the cards and there wasn't much Churchill or FDR could do about it . No one really wants to admit this but , as the power of the Soviets and the US was rising , Churchill and Attlee were becoming junior partners. Churchill was trying to bargain back and forth between Stalin and FDR . Stalin wanted a buffer between Russia and Western Europe , and refused to give back the Eastern part of Poland that he took in 1939 . As a result , a part of Eastern Germany was transferred to Poland. This resulted in German refugees fleeing this former area of Germany that had been taken over . Churchill wanted the Polish government in exile to govern Poland - while Stalin wanted the Warsaw Poles to govern and "promised" there would be a Polish election . Churchill recognized Stalin for threat he was - and in May 1945 instructed his chiefs of staff to develop a military plan to push the Soviet army out of Poland . The strategic planners came back and said Operation Unthinkable would result in total war . The idea was dropped immediately . FDR had to play a delicate balance , because he needed Stalin's support to declare war on Japan , to end the Asian Pacific war. .
If the US had been forced to invade Japan it’s very likely the Soviets would invade not just Hokkaido, but also northern Honshu by 1946 as the American invasion bogged down on Kyushu and southern Honshu. Without the bomb when the war ended sometime between 1947-50 we would almost certainly have had a North and South Japan divided between the Allies and Soviets.
Unlikely, the Soviets might have a big army and had experience in land war, but they have neither the capability nor experience to conduct amphibious operations.
@@michaelwarenycia7588 they are indeed. How many did the Soviets have in the Pacific? How many carriers did they have? His many logistical ships did they have to support their other "boats"? Answers: Few. None. None. Does your mommy know you're using her computer? Isn't it your bed time?
Bit of an odd sponsor but whatever keeps you guys afloat. I absolutely love this channel, its evolved to surpass its parent channel imo with its breakdowns of political struggles and the like.
4:17 - oh well, Churchill had to learn the difference between being a winner and being on the winning side. Brits are yet to learn this - after 78 years after...
Besides the Cold War when was the last time allies turned on each other in such a way? Is it the case enemies become allies more often then allies turning into enemies?
Entente fell apart at the end of WW1. Russia went soviet-communist and Italy went fascist. The alliance against the French Revolution and Napoleon was falling apart throughout the Congress of Vienna in 1815. Competing imperialist powers united only by their hatred of the French Revolution and Napoleon. The Concert of Europe was essentially a century-long multipolar cold war that could have boiled over several times, but each time either diplomacy prevailed or the war was short and involved a very limited number of great powers. France and Spain both joined the American Revolution against the British. However, within a decade France and the new USA were on the outs due to regime change and even fought a short quasi-war 15 years after the end of the American Revolution. The USA also had numerous diplomatic issues with Spain, mostly centered around Americans coveting Florida. On an internal level, the USA fractured politically within a decade of the end of the American Revolution into Federalists and Anti-Federalists/Republicans over disagreements about how the new country should be governed. Likewise, the Union coalition in the American Civil War fell apart soon after the war over issues of financial policy, machine politics, political spoils, racism, the nature of reconstruction, and war-weariness.
This was a nicely informative video. Do you know when you'll do that video on "Operation Solo?" My compliments to all those who made this video a reality.
Amazing video! Just one more thing, you could have included that Vienna was also split into 4 zones just like Berlin but that was in allied occupied zone
@@Horseshoecrabwarrior Thats because after 1955 Austria wasnt split anymore unlike Germany but for the brief time it was Vienna was in the Soviet sector just like Berlin. West Germany was already independent in 49 so actually earlier. The Allies and Soviets weirdly agreed on letting Austria "loose" on the basis of her declaring neutrality, thats why Austria wasnt in Nato during the cold war and isnt now, although this isnt a rule Austria is obligated to follow or ever was and parliament can simply decide to lift its neutrality and subsequently join NATO. Although as we have already seen Russia will probably see this as Austria and Nato doing something illegal motivated by their desire to destroy Russia and they will retaliate by taking Vienna again (like how they did in WW2) and "denazifi" Austria as they have already said clearly that this is their intention on Russian State TV about Berlin after Scholz agreed to sending Leopard 2 Tanks.
10:58 - " Poland , the original reason why the UK went to war in 1939 , was one such victim ." As this is such a sensitive topic , a primary source of information is needed to support this statement . In May 1945 , Churchill instructed the British Chiefs of Staff to develop plans to militarily take eastern European countries to " impose the will of the Western Allies" on the Soviets "The will" was qualified as a " square deal for Poland. " This was called Operation Unthinkable , which was declassified in 1998 . th-cam.com/video/o9Ovajkwyxw/w-d-xo.html However , the British strategic planners came back and said this would lead to total war with the Soviets. Truman would not back the plan . He needed Stalin to declare war on Japan , in order to get Japan's "Big Six " to agree to the Potsdam Declaration of July 26th , 1945 . The Soviets declared war on Japan on August 9th , 1945 . .
The reality/status quo around 1900: A geographical advantage (island status) gave Britain (unlike land powers) the ability to choose alliances without consequences, as long as she had an overpowering navy which could ward of invasions. London was in the lucky geographical position (island) to be able to simply shift her temporary alliances (aka "favoritism") back and forth. During peace times: "friends" one day, "rivals" the next. During war: "ally" in one war, "enemy" in the next war. Note: the cogs in this clockworks tick almost imperceptually slowly. Most people simply don't care or don't notice. Anyway... London thus "balanced powers". By own confession: hop on "the scale" here one time, hop on another side another. Her army was always kept small in times of peace, and rapidly "boosted" in times of war, and thrown in on the side of the weaker power/country/alliance. Her navy was *always* the major military investment (irrelevant of war or peace) to keep enemies at bay. Worked well up to WW2, when a sudden technological boost (aviation/nukes) meant that that age-old strategy was no longer effective. Land powers did not have this advantage of being able to distance themselves from neighbors. Since (logically) they could be invaded much simpler, especially if such countries/alliances had long borders. Land forces are far simpler to "boost" for invading neighbors (aka "mobilization"), than to rapidly increase a navy to invade GB which already had the advantage of an overpowering navy in peacetime. In a nutshell: You can stick a gun into the hand of a factory worker or farmer overnight, and have a million+ army within a few days, but you can't conjure a massive navy out of a sleeve in the same time. *Up to WW1, it was geography which gave London the upper hand re. "choice".* From the turn of the century, gaining rapid momentum after WW1, the *geographical advantage* which London enjoyed for around a hundred years, shifted rapidly to the USA. After 1945 the USA had the geographical advantage, the technological edge, the overwhelming economic power, the inancial leverage = political leverage, the military might (now including the advantage of the largest navy) to simply do what it wanted, and have the "leverage" re. deals made, and the advantage to be able to simply walk away without having to fear consequences (same as London did until WW1). A rather simple exercise in "who rules the world"...
@@michaelwarenycia7588 Thank you for the positive feedback. The essay is a part of something much bigger, which is how the world is "divided", then "ruled" over. All it needs, is as explained in the OP, a "position of superior power." *The dividers of Europeans in Washington DC found easy prey amongst the "rich, proud, hectoring, squibbling"** European nations, and their "rich, proud, hectoring, squibbling" (quote Thomas Jefferson) leaderships.* Having millions of citizens being tutored into being "rich, proud, hectoring, squibbling", means to be easily divided, in the divide and rule/conquer strategy of an outside power, the Washington DC power players. Starting around 1900, they played European leaders "like fiddles", employing mainly "favoratism" (see footnote). In case you wish to know more about the impact of divide and rule/conquer in the current and past *geopolitics and grand strategy,* please go to the "Kai--ser Wil.helm_II" video on the "Hi-sto.ry R__oom" educational channel (distorted because such messages are often autoblocked). I wrote a series of essays here, so please select the "latest comments first" by clicking on the three little bars at the top of the comments section. I also left a comment for you there, but please read as far back as you wish, and leave a comment wherever you wish. Footnote: *Divide and rule is a defined term:* "the policy of maintaining control over one's subordinates or opponents [incl. imperialist rivals], by encouraging dissent between them, thereby preventing them from uniting in opposition..." (or similar definitions) One of the key techniques is the strategy of "chosen ones" (favoratism). Note, to be clear: there was never any provable intention by Washington DC/London of direct rule over Europe. But a definition is a definition. It does not change depending on who makes the argument. It does not matter what justifications or explanations one gives for the actions or events. As long as the actions fit the definition of the term *favoratism,* any attempts at deflection, become "whataboutism." It does not matter how one skirts the issue, by jumping from one criteria to the next: words have meanings and definitions. US actions in regards to Europe "around 1900" fit the definition of favoratism/"divide and rule". It does not matter how one justifies these actions. The definition is indifferent to anybody's favorite empire. The definition does not pay heed to anybody's biases, nor cares about any explanations or personal opinions, and it does not matter which authority proclaims these. Furthermore, nobody even has to know that they've become a tool of someone else's divide and rule (google the term "useful idiot/innocent", which are also defined). A definition does not care about whether it concerns a "good empire" or a "bad empire". Look at the actions/events and then determine whether they fit the definition.
@@ralphbernhard1757 oh, an essay? Normally long TH-cam comments are boring or psychotic rambling, but you have a follow-able logic. My family is from Ternopil, which was in Austrian Galicia. Currently I live in Vinnytsia, Ukraine. So I'm familiar with the consequences of Wilson's reordering of Europe. In short, I think he was a naive and conceited fool, acting well beyond the scope of his limited intellect and the limited grasp of continental complexities which most of the Anglo Saxon elite (commercial in nature) possessed. Technology very rapidly made their assumptions false, as you point out (eg of insulation and security), and events showed the delicate internal balance in Europe which they dismembered at conference tables were not trivial, but, in fact, deadly serious.
@@michaelwarenycia7588 Yes, I agree about your conclusions. Yes, specifically Wilson, and that most US Presidents were mere figureheads, there only to fill a post while the *real* geopolitics/grand strategy decisions were made by "back rooms" (think tanks, strategic study centers, etc.). Most people are completely unaware that his "14 Points" were largely written by a think tank called The Inquiry (New York based) and that according to the rules of power, Wilson simply took the credit, while others had done the work. Also. most people don't realize that the "14 Points" *was* a divide and rule strategy, hidden behind a plethora of words. Alongside other measures, the Treaty of Versailles was a "divide and rule"-strategy, by outside powers, intent on gaining power by dividing Europeans. This simple statement or theory, can be validated by simply investigating the events around the turn of the previous century, and cutting out the distortions created by "dissention" (note: "sowing dissention" in systems, is a means used in the "divide an rule"-technique). There is a saying stating that if one cannot explain something in a few minutes, that it is probably false: *At Versailles, Europeans were "divided" with a "ruling".* The divide and rule strategy *of and over* Europeans, can be explained in three seconds... Once one cuts out all the bs. created by words, and reduces the policies to the core words, the strategy lurking behind emerges to the foreground. I wish you and your family and friends, and all citizens of the Ukraine, safety and well-being, and hope this gastly war will soon end, and the leaders get around the table and start talking. Unfortunately, Europeans have no idea how they were once manipulated by the USA and the British Empire (London), and this "divide and rule"-policy carried on after the Cold War right through to today, following the strategies of the "think tanks", in order to keep the USA position as "top dog" in the world.
@@ralphbernhard1757 I appreciate your good wishes but we must fight. The Russians are not our brothers, despite their delusions, and they never have been. They have always been our enemies and their rule has always been hated by us. My great grandfather, as an officer in the Austro-Hungarian army, fought them in ww1. He was captured and sent to Siberia. His village held a funeral for him because such a sentence was as good as death. Yet, miraculously, he wandered into the village, battered and starved but alive, some months later. He fought them again as an officer of the Polish Second Republic, when the Bolsheviks attacked in 1920 (and where the city I live in now was captured and subjected to oppression and manmade famine... thankfully Ternopil was held and did not suffer the "blessings" of Russian administration in the 1920s-30s, hence I exist). My grandfather, Zenovi Warenycia, joined the Galician SS to fight the Russians in the next war. He was wounded in the left arm near Graz. The bullet stayed with him all his life, as did the lessons he taught me about the Russian character. Now, I am here and they are coming again, with the same barbarism and authoritarianism but better PR. We Ukrainians can't let them occupy any of our territory. Any peace treaty signed before Russia is beaten and crippled economically and militarily is merely a ceasefire to allow them to regroup, and the west to wash their hands and hide from reality, before the next push. This is not a matter of academics like mearsheimer giving elegant speeches on geopolitics. We know this from our own lives, and our own reality today. Even if the US wanted to sign a treaty tomorrow, this will not end. Mark my words.if we have to do this guerilla style, well, that is what it will be. There is no "peace" with a strong imperialist Russia seeking to aggrandize itself at the expenses of its neighbors.
The host makes a point about the Soviets not having enough amphibious equipment to make a landing at Hokkaido, and while this is a generally agreeable point, what the Soviets do have is an experienced and well used airborne infantry contingent, whose forces could have been used reasonably to capture ports and other beachheads for further reinforcements, I'm sure however that this plan if it ever did exist, was only in preliminary stages as I'm sure they would have wanted to secure Manchuria and Korea before launching any invasion of Japanese mainland, and the war was well over before that was accomplished.
You’re being WAY too optimistic. 1. Even if they paradropped into Hokkaido, they would face resistance from the populace, along with traversing through mountains/terrains. 2. Paradropping on an island with no immediate land reinforcement is suicidal. Look at Crete for the Germans. How tf are they suppose to capture an ENTIRE port city or establish a beach head. If D-Day was done solely with Paratroopers, it would make history for the worst and silliest idea ever came up by Allied High Command.
@@mahari893 I mean look no further than Operation Market Garden for proof of that
2 ปีที่แล้ว
I would not want to do an airborne attack on japanese home territory in WW2. On the islands the americans routinly had to kill above 90% of the defenders. Thats just not something that light airborne forces do well.
IF Japan doesn't surrender in August 1945 then after the capture of Manchuria, Korea, Sakhalian, and the Kuriles I expect the Soviets would have started preparing in earnest for an invasion of Hokkaido which likely would have been a bloodbath.
30:14 just love how everyone portrays france as the victim all the time when it and england are usually the darn aggressor states/nations. hopefully someday scandanavia russia poland germany romania ukraine etcetera become strong enough that time and history starts to largely pass by the uk france spain and italy.
"We learned a lot about presentation during those 2 years" "It is very important to understand the map as it was in may 1945" * no map shown * Maybe in 2 more years?
@@christopherconard2831 Who are you talking about? Certainly not Cordell Hull. I mean Truman thought some of the members of that administration were soft on the reds but which ones wanted to rip the Constitution and create a totalitarian dictatorship?
Great video as always. I do think your constant use of "The Moustache" when referring to Stalin doesn't match with the professionalism of your content.
That's the difference between TV shows and YT videos. In the latter presenters try to make what they are saying a bit fun and entertain themselves too, even if that is also be silly sometimes
I'm even surprised not that many leadera of the time agreed with him, the soviets were like the germans at the start of the war, attacking here there and a bunch of places. Or it could just be that the leqders of the time were afraid of getting into another war.
How? Stalin wanted an alliance with them in the begging of the war they refused Stalin promised to stop his offensive in korea and they stoped Stalin promised not to support the communists in the greek civil war and he dellivered Churchill was way more false than stalin in the terms of geopolitics
Well it was pretty much just accepting what the Soviets were going to do anyway. Besides when did any of the Allies ever say anything against ethnic cleansing? "Populatiom transfers" were not uncommon at all in the first half of the 20th century.
Presidential historians consistently rank FDR in the top three of the _Greatest_ _American_ _Presidents,_ but his quote @ [ 8:40 ] would have definitely made Winston Churchill cringe. FDR was brilliant man, a highly effective politician, and my personal choice as the greatest president; but he could have been considered one of the Soviet Union's first and most influential "useful idiots."
At 23:29 you use the expression "as such" incorrectly. "Therefore" would have been correct, but "as such" requires an antecedent: As what? For example: "Stalin was a brutal dictator. As such, he had no qualms about shedding blood." That is, as a brutal dictator.
I really like your videos, very well done and presented. I do similar content but probably some stuff your channel would be unwilling to cover, such as Slansky trial and Zydokomuna commanders in Poland. I get it.
Why did the narrator keep calling Stalin "The Mustache"? Does Google limit the number of times his name can be spoken? He's the only one who got that treatment, otherwise we would have heard stuff like "Lame Frankie Two Legs" or "Four Eyed Harry" or "Winston the Drunk." If it wasn't by necessity, it sounded silly.
I think an argument can be made that the Cold War began on June 22, 1941 when Hitler broke the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and Stalin found himself an adversary rather than an ally of Germany
Me hace bostezar más bueno. Debería conseguir mejores ilustraciones, meter mejores datos, esto nos gusta más a los hombres, debería pensar en eso al momento de hablarlo. De todas maneras muy buena, felicitaciones
because everything has to be "fair" and 50-50, "fine people on both sides", "holocaust is ok because allies did bad things too", i hate people who use logic like you
Don't go remake every video, you will never finish. While I like the series I would like to see the final episode. The Wall Coming Down and the Russian Federation Flag replacing the Soviet Union Flag.
I mean, communism can symbiotic with capitalism, but the British and Americans abducted CCCP as a scarecrow in order to achieve their world order. Their purpose is to intimidate other countries so that other countries have to listen to them.
In fact, Roosevelt benefited from Stalin: both the French Communist Party and the Italian Communist Party had strong armies in World War II, so France and Italy could establish socialist countries and join the Soviet Camp. After Roosevelt talked with Stalin, Stalin dissolved the Comintern. After World War II, he asked the French Communist Party and the Italian Communist Party to give up the army. Finally, France and Italy became allies of the United States.
14:29 if they could/did exclude france, why didnt they exclude england/churchill too and just let the us and russia sort things out amicably? and possibly the stupidest foreign policy move ever made by the usa was letting the uk and france lead it into being involved in indochina/vietnam. should have just told them both to buzz off and let the country be independent like india and indonesia were going to become.
Henry Morgenthau didn't give a rip about what was happening to the Jews in Germany early on. Then he grows a conscience and decides Germany needed to be turned into a farming commune dependent on the rest of Europe for its survival. It fit in nicely with Stalin's plans. I'll be honest, I'm pretty far from being a fan of FDR. But he handled his role as commander and chief during the war admirably for the most part (his Japanese internment policy left a lot to be desired though). That said, wishing death on people isn't my thing unless they deserve it but the world dodged two bullets WRT Roosevelt. The first was when the democratic party bosses kept the VP nomination away from Henry Wallace. Wallace was a starry-eyed dreamer who would have been a dupe for Stalin in the post-war world. The second break the world caught was when FDR passed away and Truman was allowed to deal with Stalin. Like I said, it's not that I'm celebrating the man's death, but FDR had this sense of himself that he could handle anybody if he could get them in a one-on-one situation. It is true that he was catching onto Stalin and his true nature near the end of the war but I believe he still would have tried to reason with "Uncle Joe" and might have given him even more territory. Truman was a simple guy who saw the world through a simple lens and he knew right away Stalin was a SOB who could not be trusted. He also told Morgenthau to take a hike and got rid of a lot of Stalin's other fellow-travelers. A few slipped through but I believe Harry was much better on the question of communism than FDR. FDR had plans to reinstate a lot of the controls that restricted the economy in the 30s and kept America in a depression longer than it needed to be. Sadly, Truman did let MacArthur have his way in the East and a lot of Japanese who should have hung from ropes were allowed to live and prosper. Yalta was a disaster but Potsdam was more of a mixed bag. That's my take anyway.
Given the fact that Roosevelt's wife was an active communist fellow traveller was probably why he was so sympathetic to the Moustache. After the war, she wrote a regular newspaper column. Whenever the Party line changed as announced in Pravda, her 'line' changed in her column to follow Stalin's policies.
🏹Support us and your Hunting Hobby: huntingclash.onelink.me/LNzZ/TheColdWar
Meh
Hmmm, I'm going to support the channel through watching your good ( not outstanding) content. For American influenced content it is really good, but for European standards, it often falls short and could be more in depth to point out things that are not of common knowledge.
13:52 Germany as the "protagonist"?
whats a #Documentaryu ?
Watched a Mark Felton video yesterday, with many commenters saying they hated the Hunting Clash sponsorship. Not so here I see. Edit: having read more of the comments, I take my statement back.
Great channel. Being a child of the Cold War, I have studied its origins literally all my life, and this video was really great because it underscores the political dynamics going on in the background that help explain the earliest origins of the Cold War. Well done!
Bit dissapointed that you didn't have a map of europe graphic showing the countries that you are talking about. While myself and i'm sure other are aware of the locations of the countries of eastern Europe and the Kuril Islands, i'm sure to a lot of people watching you reading off a dozen countries and saying they had Soviet troops in is hard to visualise.
I hope they just take the video down and reupload. I just found this channel and just started the video but am for sure no expert in the 1945 borders of Eastern Europe, with all its now non-existent countries like East Germany, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and even the Soviet Union. So maps are always helpful!
Exactly what's the point of a redo, if presentation materials are lacking.
Thank you, I just wanted to write the same thing. Also when he was talking about the division-plan of germany (and what parts of germany should be given to which country) I had to google a map of germany in 1945, so that I could follow this part.
educate yourself. its not hard.
Its unimaginable how they talk big about how much they learned and how they made this new episode better and then just forgot to add maps. Very disappointing.
As always a well researched, produced and presented episode of the Cold War. I have watched your presentations from the very first episode, and I must say that they are getting better and better every time.
David, by the way since you are from Canada please make an episode about the 1972 Summit Series between the Canada and U.S.S.R. Hokey teams, as I am sure it will be very interesting for the younger generation. I know that it was Huge in Canada and The Soviet Union, however it was also important in regards to the Cold War.
“Liberation” under the management of any government or political set-up - what’s that got to do with freedom?"
- Nestor Ivanovych Makhno
Ok, I get it; I'm open to anarchism and respect Makhno.
But go tell those who were set free from Nazi KZs, if they weren't liberated in the fullest sense of the word, even those who had been liberated by the Soviets...
@@stefanodadamo6809 not in the fullest sense of the word, some were later sentenced to long prison term or promptly executed by the liberators.
@@elendal All European Nazi-occupied countries executed traitors and collaborators after becoming free from Nazis. USSR is not exception.
If the Soviets were not the liberators in Eastern Europe then the western allies were also not the liberators in South East Asia
Even better than your intriguing first Potsdam doc, which I learned a lot from. And your "Bell Button" bits are the best on TH-cam, hahaha!
I find w TH-cam presentations jamming 2 + hours of content into 30 minutes or so usually ends up being a tragedy. This however was absolutely outstanding. Thanks so much
The Bulldog was effusive in his praise of Mussolini so fascism was never really an enemy for him. It was the challenge to British hegemony that got old Bulldog really riled up...
True
The Bulldog was as much an anti Communist as Hitler. The Bulldog respected Stalin but he did not TRUST STALIN. I have been told by those who shall not be named that the.sick Commie FDR sold out the free world to ....Uncle Joe!🤔😉
@@owlnyc666 Ah yes, FDR, a communist…sure thing McCarthy…
I mean he was very much pro colonialism and keeping the British Empire together, which was totally against what America wanted, which was to break it up. And then build up its own Empire. Which it did. And now that's slowly crumbling. That's the circle of life. You crush the old order, reach a zenith of apparent might and power. Just as you are basking in that pre-eminence and self congratulation, little do you realise the rot has already started from within, slowly spreading. The year is 1999. The economy is booming. You're off the back of brokering a historic peace agreement in Ireland, and a conclusive victory in the former Yugoslavia. USA military prestige, economic and political power has absolutely no equal, not even in sight. The biggest enemy vanquished earlier in the same decade, your influence reaches around the planet. Peace, freedom and stability is restored across virtually all of Europe for the first time in literal centuries thanks largely to you. Fast forward. 22 years later. Your soft influence has rather waned. National debt is absurd, renewed challenges from serious opponents on all fronts and political division within the country itself breaking apart national unity. There's a growing wealth gap, scattershot foreign policies, serious damage to military prestige and former closely aligned allies perfectly happy to go their own way on critical matters. Seen it all before. It's all downhill from here.
Great video as always, guys. Love watching your episodes
Hi, David! Please make episode about Mitrokhin Archive. Vasili Mitrokhin was a Soviet KGB archivist who defected to United Kingdom in 1992 with his family. During his service in KGB he copied by handwriting top secret documents from KGB archive and made his own archive, and then in 1992 passed it to British embassy in Latvia. That documents reveal many secret informaton and details from 1918 to early 1980's. His archive was so huge so even Britsh recognised that if even to UK would defect the head of KGB, he wouldn't know so huge volume of top secret information. Later in 1999 the historian Christopher Andrew wrote book named "The Sword and The Shield" based on Mitrokhin Archive. It would be a very interesting episode. You and your team made a very interesting TH-cam-channel. Greetings from Russia!
That’s really interested. Never heard about this before
You dear guys of the cold war channel have truly master the skills of Feedback loops. Congratulations!
love your content bud always informative
Good Video. As a German the Morgentauplan sends shivers down my back. But it is absolutly understandeable, that they felt like it was a good thing to do at the time.
I am just now reading on the history of the early west german navy for one of my videos and what amazes me is how quickly "total demilitarization" turned into "a west german contribution to european defence" First rumblings on this were recorded in 1948 and it finally happened officially only 10 years after the end of WW2.
NICE!
And YES, more details are always preferred! Particularly with this channel, which is meant to specialize on the topic/ era.
Dear Channel: Much better! Thanks for the upgraded version!
The dye was cast! Great explanation!
In depth looks into topics we were lied to in school about. Is exactly what I am looking for.
Happy Birthday, I am thankful for your channel!
10:04 Putting the Yalta and Potsdam conferences in perspective , think its critical to understand that the Soviet army was in control of Eastern Europe and had reached the Oder River - only 70 Km from Berlin - The British and Americans had yet to cross the Rhine . So Stalin was holding most of the cards and there wasn't much Churchill or FDR could do about it .
No one really wants to admit this but , as the power of the Soviets and the US was rising , Churchill and Attlee were becoming junior partners. Churchill was trying to bargain back and forth between Stalin and FDR .
Stalin wanted a buffer between Russia and Western Europe , and refused to give back the Eastern part of Poland that he took in 1939 . As a result , a part of Eastern Germany was transferred to Poland.
This resulted in German refugees fleeing this former area of Germany that had been taken over .
Churchill wanted the Polish government in exile to govern Poland - while Stalin wanted the Warsaw Poles to govern and "promised" there would be a Polish election .
Churchill recognized Stalin for threat he was - and in May 1945 instructed his chiefs of staff to develop a military plan to push the Soviet army out of Poland . The strategic planners came back and said Operation Unthinkable would result in total war . The idea was dropped immediately .
FDR had to play a delicate balance , because he needed Stalin's support to declare war on Japan , to end the Asian Pacific war.
.
If the US had been forced to invade Japan it’s very likely the Soviets would invade not just Hokkaido, but also northern Honshu by 1946 as the American invasion bogged down on Kyushu and southern Honshu. Without the bomb when the war ended sometime between 1947-50 we would almost certainly have had a North and South Japan divided between the Allies and Soviets.
Really? How was the red army going to get to the Hokkaido, much less Honshu? Drive their tanks over the water?
Unlikely, the Soviets might have a big army and had experience in land war, but they have neither the capability nor experience to conduct amphibious operations.
@@HWDragonborn they DID conduct amphibious operations, capturing the Kirill and Sakhalin islands from Japan.
@@indianasunsets5738 they're called "boats"
@@michaelwarenycia7588 they are indeed. How many did the Soviets have in the Pacific? How many carriers did they have? His many logistical ships did they have to support their other "boats"? Answers: Few. None. None. Does your mommy know you're using her computer? Isn't it your bed time?
Bit of an odd sponsor but whatever keeps you guys afloat. I absolutely love this channel, its evolved to surpass its parent channel imo with its breakdowns of political struggles and the like.
4:17 - oh well, Churchill had to learn the difference between being a winner and being on the winning side. Brits are yet to learn this - after 78 years after...
Potsdam Redux: now with improved stealth during the Truman playthrough
Feeding the algorithm has never been more deserved.
Besides the Cold War when was the last time allies turned on each other in such a way? Is it the case enemies become allies more often then allies turning into enemies?
Entente fell apart at the end of WW1. Russia went soviet-communist and Italy went fascist.
The alliance against the French Revolution and Napoleon was falling apart throughout the Congress of Vienna in 1815. Competing imperialist powers united only by their hatred of the French Revolution and Napoleon. The Concert of Europe was essentially a century-long multipolar cold war that could have boiled over several times, but each time either diplomacy prevailed or the war was short and involved a very limited number of great powers.
France and Spain both joined the American Revolution against the British. However, within a decade France and the new USA were on the outs due to regime change and even fought a short quasi-war 15 years after the end of the American Revolution. The USA also had numerous diplomatic issues with Spain, mostly centered around Americans coveting Florida.
On an internal level, the USA fractured politically within a decade of the end of the American Revolution into Federalists and Anti-Federalists/Republicans over disagreements about how the new country should be governed. Likewise, the Union coalition in the American Civil War fell apart soon after the war over issues of financial policy, machine politics, political spoils, racism, the nature of reconstruction, and war-weariness.
This was a nicely informative video. Do you know when you'll do that video on "Operation Solo?" My compliments to all those who made this video a reality.
Something like sychronicity going on here, since I read Michael Neiberg's book on Potsdam this week.
Great video! Outlines Potsdam so well.
I always listen till the very end - waiting for the "bell button comment" :) Great work guys!
I'm good on the rumbling noise that happens when a picture is sliding into frame. Makes me feel like my brain about to explode thanks
REDUX!
thanks a bunchx!
Amazing video! Just one more thing, you could have included that Vienna was also split into 4 zones just like Berlin but that was in allied occupied zone
No as Austrian I can say with certainty that Vienna was also like Berlin within the Soviet Sector, in the Northeast of the country.
@Jan Lenzmann It appears you're right, until 1955. A lot of maps of the Iron Curtain show Vienna on the western side, though it wasn't originally
@@Horseshoecrabwarrior Thats because after 1955 Austria wasnt split anymore unlike Germany but for the brief time it was Vienna was in the Soviet sector just like Berlin. West Germany was already independent in 49 so actually earlier.
The Allies and Soviets weirdly agreed on letting Austria "loose" on the basis of her declaring neutrality, thats why Austria wasnt in Nato during the cold war and isnt now, although this isnt a rule Austria is obligated to follow or ever was and parliament can simply decide to lift its neutrality and subsequently join NATO. Although as we have already seen Russia will probably see this as Austria and Nato doing something illegal motivated by their desire to destroy Russia and they will retaliate by taking Vienna again (like how they did in WW2) and "denazifi" Austria as they have already said clearly that this is their intention on Russian State TV about Berlin after Scholz agreed to sending Leopard 2 Tanks.
Thanks
Well done! I saw 33 mins I was like wow 🤩
Thank´s for the revised video, I moved last week to Berlin, the eastern sector.
Do the Video about the Philippines under Ferdinand Marcos and the Declaration of Martial Law
I was just about to suggest that! XD
Simon Whistler just had an episode on one of his channels about the Ferdinand.. Interesting while being what I expected for a Dictator.
Later on, once this channel gets into some topics related to the 70s Cold War era.
Completely off topic, but I had to mention that Atlee looked a lot like Robert A. Heinlein from certain angles
10:58 - " Poland , the original reason why the UK went to war in 1939 , was one such victim ."
As this is such a sensitive topic , a primary source of information is needed to support this statement .
In May 1945 , Churchill instructed the British Chiefs of Staff to develop plans to militarily take eastern European countries to
" impose the will of the Western Allies" on the Soviets "The will" was qualified as a " square deal for Poland. "
This was called Operation Unthinkable , which was declassified in 1998 .
th-cam.com/video/o9Ovajkwyxw/w-d-xo.html
However , the British strategic planners came back and said this would lead to total war with the Soviets.
Truman would not back the plan . He needed Stalin to declare war on Japan , in order to get Japan's "Big Six " to agree to the Potsdam Declaration of July 26th , 1945 . The Soviets declared war on Japan on August 9th , 1945 .
.
The reality/status quo around 1900:
A geographical advantage (island status) gave Britain (unlike land powers) the ability to choose alliances without consequences, as long as she had an overpowering navy which could ward of invasions.
London was in the lucky geographical position (island) to be able to simply shift her temporary alliances (aka "favoritism") back and forth.
During peace times: "friends" one day, "rivals" the next.
During war: "ally" in one war, "enemy" in the next war. Note: the cogs in this clockworks tick almost imperceptually slowly. Most people simply don't care or don't notice.
Anyway...
London thus "balanced powers". By own confession: hop on "the scale" here one time, hop on another side another.
Her army was always kept small in times of peace, and rapidly "boosted" in times of war, and thrown in on the side of the weaker power/country/alliance.
Her navy was *always* the major military investment (irrelevant of war or peace) to keep enemies at bay. Worked well up to WW2, when a sudden technological boost (aviation/nukes) meant that that age-old strategy was no longer effective.
Land powers did not have this advantage of being able to distance themselves from neighbors.
Since (logically) they could be invaded much simpler, especially if such countries/alliances had long borders. Land forces are far simpler to "boost" for invading neighbors (aka "mobilization"), than to rapidly increase a navy to invade GB which already had the advantage of an overpowering navy in peacetime.
In a nutshell: You can stick a gun into the hand of a factory worker or farmer overnight, and have a million+ army within a few days, but you can't conjure a massive navy out of a sleeve in the same time.
*Up to WW1, it was geography which gave London the upper hand re. "choice".*
From the turn of the century, gaining rapid momentum after WW1, the *geographical advantage* which London enjoyed for around a hundred years, shifted rapidly to the USA. After 1945 the USA had the geographical advantage, the technological edge, the overwhelming economic power, the inancial leverage = political leverage, the military might (now including the advantage of the largest navy) to simply do what it wanted, and have the "leverage" re. deals made, and the advantage to be able to simply walk away without having to fear consequences (same as London did until WW1).
A rather simple exercise in "who rules the world"...
Interesting analysis. I can't fault your logic
@@michaelwarenycia7588 Thank you for the positive feedback.
The essay is a part of something much bigger, which is how the world is "divided", then "ruled" over.
All it needs, is as explained in the OP, a "position of superior power."
*The dividers of Europeans in Washington DC found easy prey amongst the "rich, proud, hectoring, squibbling"** European nations, and their "rich, proud, hectoring, squibbling" (quote Thomas Jefferson) leaderships.*
Having millions of citizens being tutored into being "rich, proud, hectoring, squibbling", means to be easily divided, in the divide and rule/conquer strategy of an outside power, the Washington DC power players. Starting around 1900, they played European leaders "like fiddles", employing mainly "favoratism" (see footnote).
In case you wish to know more about the impact of divide and rule/conquer in the current and past *geopolitics and grand strategy,* please go to the "Kai--ser Wil.helm_II" video on the "Hi-sto.ry R__oom" educational channel (distorted because such messages are often autoblocked). I wrote a series of essays here, so please select the "latest comments first" by clicking on the three little bars at the top of the comments section. I also left a comment for you there, but please read as far back as you wish, and leave a comment wherever you wish.
Footnote:
*Divide and rule is a defined term:* "the policy of maintaining control over one's subordinates or opponents [incl. imperialist rivals], by encouraging dissent between them, thereby preventing them from uniting in opposition..." (or similar definitions)
One of the key techniques is the strategy of "chosen ones" (favoratism).
Note, to be clear: there was never any provable intention by Washington DC/London of direct rule over Europe.
But a definition is a definition.
It does not change depending on who makes the argument.
It does not matter what justifications or explanations one gives for the actions or events.
As long as the actions fit the definition of the term *favoratism,* any attempts at deflection, become "whataboutism."
It does not matter how one skirts the issue, by jumping from one criteria to the next: words have meanings and definitions.
US actions in regards to Europe "around 1900" fit the definition of favoratism/"divide and rule".
It does not matter how one justifies these actions.
The definition is indifferent to anybody's favorite empire.
The definition does not pay heed to anybody's biases, nor cares about any explanations or personal opinions, and it does not matter which authority proclaims these. Furthermore, nobody even has to know that they've become a tool of someone else's divide and rule (google the term "useful idiot/innocent", which are also defined). A definition does not care about whether it concerns a "good empire" or a "bad empire".
Look at the actions/events and then determine whether they fit the definition.
@@ralphbernhard1757 oh, an essay? Normally long TH-cam comments are boring or psychotic rambling, but you have a follow-able logic. My family is from Ternopil, which was in Austrian Galicia. Currently I live in Vinnytsia, Ukraine. So I'm familiar with the consequences of Wilson's reordering of Europe. In short, I think he was a naive and conceited fool, acting well beyond the scope of his limited intellect and the limited grasp of continental complexities which most of the Anglo Saxon elite (commercial in nature) possessed. Technology very rapidly made their assumptions false, as you point out (eg of insulation and security), and events showed the delicate internal balance in Europe which they dismembered at conference tables were not trivial, but, in fact, deadly serious.
@@michaelwarenycia7588 Yes, I agree about your conclusions.
Yes, specifically Wilson, and that most US Presidents were mere figureheads, there only to fill a post while the *real* geopolitics/grand strategy decisions were made by "back rooms" (think tanks, strategic study centers, etc.).
Most people are completely unaware that his "14 Points" were largely written by a think tank called The Inquiry (New York based) and that according to the rules of power, Wilson simply took the credit, while others had done the work.
Also. most people don't realize that the "14 Points" *was* a divide and rule strategy, hidden behind a plethora of words.
Alongside other measures, the Treaty of Versailles was a "divide and rule"-strategy, by outside powers, intent on gaining power by dividing Europeans. This simple statement or theory, can be validated by simply investigating the events around the turn of the previous century, and cutting out the distortions created by "dissention" (note: "sowing dissention" in systems, is a means used in the "divide an rule"-technique).
There is a saying stating that if one cannot explain something in a few minutes, that it is probably false:
*At Versailles, Europeans were "divided" with a "ruling".*
The divide and rule strategy *of and over* Europeans, can be explained in three seconds...
Once one cuts out all the bs. created by words, and reduces the policies to the core words, the strategy lurking behind emerges to the foreground.
I wish you and your family and friends, and all citizens of the Ukraine, safety and well-being, and hope this gastly war will soon end, and the leaders get around the table and start talking. Unfortunately, Europeans have no idea how they were once manipulated by the USA and the British Empire (London), and this "divide and rule"-policy carried on after the Cold War right through to today, following the strategies of the "think tanks", in order to keep the USA position as "top dog" in the world.
@@ralphbernhard1757 I appreciate your good wishes but we must fight. The Russians are not our brothers, despite their delusions, and they never have been. They have always been our enemies and their rule has always been hated by us. My great grandfather, as an officer in the Austro-Hungarian army, fought them in ww1. He was captured and sent to Siberia. His village held a funeral for him because such a sentence was as good as death. Yet, miraculously, he wandered into the village, battered and starved but alive, some months later. He fought them again as an officer of the Polish Second Republic, when the Bolsheviks attacked in 1920 (and where the city I live in now was captured and subjected to oppression and manmade famine... thankfully Ternopil was held and did not suffer the "blessings" of Russian administration in the 1920s-30s, hence I exist). My grandfather, Zenovi Warenycia, joined the Galician SS to fight the Russians in the next war. He was wounded in the left arm near Graz. The bullet stayed with him all his life, as did the lessons he taught me about the Russian character. Now, I am here and they are coming again, with the same barbarism and authoritarianism but better PR. We Ukrainians can't let them occupy any of our territory. Any peace treaty signed before Russia is beaten and crippled economically and militarily is merely a ceasefire to allow them to regroup, and the west to wash their hands and hide from reality, before the next push. This is not a matter of academics like mearsheimer giving elegant speeches on geopolitics. We know this from our own lives, and our own reality today. Even if the US wanted to sign a treaty tomorrow, this will not end. Mark my words.if we have to do this guerilla style, well, that is what it will be. There is no "peace" with a strong imperialist Russia seeking to aggrandize itself at the expenses of its neighbors.
Thank you very much for this video and the knowledge provided.
Why you choose this low resolution footage at 20:00… there exist more than enough high resolution footage from Berlin?
hate the advert
Oh Roosevelt... He really had no idea.
The host makes a point about the Soviets not having enough amphibious equipment to make a landing at Hokkaido, and while this is a generally agreeable point, what the Soviets do have is an experienced and well used airborne infantry contingent, whose forces could have been used reasonably to capture ports and other beachheads for further reinforcements, I'm sure however that this plan if it ever did exist, was only in preliminary stages as I'm sure they would have wanted to secure Manchuria and Korea before launching any invasion of Japanese mainland, and the war was well over before that was accomplished.
You’re being WAY too optimistic.
1. Even if they paradropped into Hokkaido, they would face resistance from the populace, along with traversing through mountains/terrains.
2. Paradropping on an island with no immediate land reinforcement is suicidal. Look at Crete for the Germans. How tf are they suppose to capture an ENTIRE port city or establish a beach head. If D-Day was done solely with Paratroopers, it would make history for the worst and silliest idea ever came up by Allied High Command.
@@mahari893 I mean look no further than Operation Market Garden for proof of that
I would not want to do an airborne attack on japanese home territory in WW2. On the islands the americans routinly had to kill above 90% of the defenders. Thats just not something that light airborne forces do well.
IF Japan doesn't surrender in August 1945 then after the capture of Manchuria, Korea, Sakhalian, and the Kuriles I expect the Soviets would have started preparing in earnest for an invasion of Hokkaido which likely would have been a bloodbath.
@@jlillerThe Soviets had NO realistic way of getting to Hokaido in force unless the USN gives the Soviets a lift which would NEVER happen
I always watch waiting for the "There's always a "but"".
It was more like a "shot" everything at that time.
Excellent Analysis
I am subscribed to this channel, I love this channel, I’ve clicked the bell, please lose that AD!!! I really hate it.Thank you!
Looking at all the buildings destroyed makes us realize how evil wars are.
Millions of people were homeless.
Yeah, Harry Truman tried to make the Potsdam Conference better when he wrote his memoirs as well.
So having huge percentages of foreign ethnics into a land leads to horrible conflict?
Operation Urgent Fury (1983)
Great video
3:02 Still kinda unbelievable how France got a permanent seat in UNSC.
Who's the woman at 2:50?
Please do Pacepa affair.
Please! Do the Cuba revolution!!!
30:14 just love how everyone portrays france as the victim all the time when it and england are usually the darn aggressor states/nations. hopefully someday scandanavia russia poland germany romania ukraine etcetera become strong enough that time and history starts to largely pass by the uk france spain and italy.
"We learned a lot about presentation during those 2 years"
"It is very important to understand the map as it was in may 1945"
* no map shown *
Maybe in 2 more years?
16:49 they saw this and hence operation paperclip
Potsdam conference gave birth to the Potsdam Declaration which decided the fate of Indochina little did people know
Wait the first one got copyrighted? For what?
Probably a picture or clip owned by someone. A lot of the footage of that time is owned by various media groups, some of which are very protective.
I've got dibs on the thumb! The rest of you can argue over the remains.
Oh boy... Franky D. was way off about the stache... I mean like really way off🤪
Many of his advisors openly admired Stalin and hoped America could become another socialist nation modeled after the Soviet Union.
@@christopherconard2831 Who are you talking about? Certainly not Cordell Hull. I mean Truman thought some of the members of that administration were soft on the reds but which ones wanted to rip the Constitution and create a totalitarian dictatorship?
23:15
Wow they were ahead of their time.
I read that Churchill pushed for a French occupation zone to counter the Soviets
Great video as always. I do think your constant use of "The Moustache" when referring to Stalin doesn't match with the professionalism of your content.
It doesn't. But if he stubbornly called scumbag Churchill "deformed potato", it would at least be kinda funny.
That's the difference between TV shows and YT videos. In the latter presenters try to make what they are saying a bit fun and entertain themselves too, even if that is also be silly sometimes
Say what you like about Winston Churchill "Adult Baby", but he was absolutely right with his distrust of Stalin and the Soviet Union
I mean, it makes sense to be distrustful of the Soviet Union but reality doesn't offer many chances to go through that conviction...
I'm even surprised not that many leadera of the time agreed with him, the soviets were like the germans at the start of the war, attacking here there and a bunch of places. Or it could just be that the leqders of the time were afraid of getting into another war.
How?
Stalin wanted an alliance with them in the begging of the war they refused
Stalin promised to stop his offensive in korea and they stoped
Stalin promised not to support the communists in the greek civil war and he dellivered
Churchill was way more false than stalin in the terms of geopolitics
@@rafaslb501 Sun-downing empire, that "the deformed potato" lead during the war, could not afford moral high-ground in any respect.
"Ethnic cleansing is bad, except for when we do it 😎" - The Allies, probably
Well it was pretty much just accepting what the Soviets were going to do anyway. Besides when did any of the Allies ever say anything against ethnic cleansing? "Populatiom transfers" were not uncommon at all in the first half of the 20th century.
19:33
2:11 ads end here
Great video, vile sponsor.
Presidential historians consistently rank FDR in the top three of the _Greatest_ _American_ _Presidents,_ but his quote @ [ 8:40 ] would have definitely made Winston Churchill cringe. FDR was brilliant man, a highly effective politician, and my personal choice as the greatest president; but he could have been considered one of the Soviet Union's first and most influential "useful idiots."
At 23:29 you use the expression "as such" incorrectly. "Therefore" would have been correct, but "as such" requires an antecedent: As what? For example: "Stalin was a brutal dictator. As such, he had no qualms about shedding blood." That is, as a brutal dictator.
Your usage of grammar and punctuation is wonderful! Keep up the good work.
for the algorithm!
I really like your videos, very well done and presented. I do similar content but probably some stuff your channel would be unwilling to cover, such as Slansky trial and Zydokomuna commanders in Poland. I get it.
Why did the narrator keep calling Stalin "The Mustache"? Does Google limit the number of times his name can be spoken? He's the only one who got that treatment, otherwise we would have heard stuff like "Lame Frankie Two Legs" or "Four Eyed Harry" or "Winston the Drunk." If it wasn't by necessity, it sounded silly.
Totally agree.
A history channel ought to be a little bit more....serious?
Name calling like that really doesn't belong in a video like this.
23:22 Currently, Russia is doing the same. She annexed Crimea to protect the Russian minority in Ukraine.
Only because of the coup. To protect their bases.
Potsdam was not unscathed by the war, it had been severely bombed in 1945, with considerable damage and loss of life.
I think an argument can be made that the Cold War began on June 22, 1941 when Hitler broke the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and Stalin found himself an adversary rather than an ally of Germany
Why everyone is marching with a bayonet on the other guy's neck?
It’s pronounced « nobless obleeej » long e. But good effort.
Excellent ! I was in the first Cold War. Nice to see it back .... 🙂
I wonder who'll win this time 🤔
im surprised by how salty the comment section is
"Oh SoRrY yOu nEeD to aDd a DiaGram tO yOur coMmEnt to Show yOur stUdy"
At the time of the Postdam conference the US Army planning for American troops leaving Germany to be part of the invasion of Japan.
DeGaulle always takes issues as personal.
Me hace bostezar más bueno. Debería conseguir mejores ilustraciones, meter mejores datos, esto nos gusta más a los hombres, debería pensar en eso al momento de hablarlo. De todas maneras muy buena, felicitaciones
c'mon, i'm no fan of Stalin but either start assigning nicknames to other leaders too or stop the practice altogether, atm it seems too one-sided
because everything has to be "fair" and 50-50, "fine people on both sides", "holocaust is ok because allies did bad things too", i hate people who use logic like you
@@beepboop204 people who always want to stay "neutral" they are
@@Joshua-fq9tm (ง'̀-'́)ง
Yeah it did sound stupid.
@@Primal-Weed should have picked a cooler name like Primal Regime
Unlike the U.S. labor leaders, Clement Atlee's foreign minister Ernest Bevin was anti-Communist despite having been a senior union official.
This is a bizarre sponsorship lol
Don't go remake every video, you will never finish.
While I like the series I would like to see the final episode. The Wall Coming Down and the Russian Federation Flag replacing the Soviet Union Flag.
hahahhahaha.. what "finish"?
@@michwasi46 I see what you did there
Great Episode ,It was given The George Lucas Treatment
the cold war between the west and the Bolsheviks started in 1917. It's why historians refer to it as the 70 years war
Communism does not want to start a world war with capitalism. It is the British and Americans who deceive our heroes CCCP into being scarecrows.
I mean, communism can symbiotic with capitalism, but the British and Americans abducted CCCP as a scarecrow in order to achieve their world order. Their purpose is to intimidate other countries so that other countries have to listen to them.
The Cold War really started when Igor Guzhenko defected.
Old dying Roosevelt thinking Stalin was really a nice guy is why Presidential term limits are a good idea
If you wanna avoid civil wars is a good idea anyway.
In fact, Roosevelt benefited from Stalin: both the French Communist Party and the Italian Communist Party had strong armies in World War II, so France and Italy could establish socialist countries and join the Soviet Camp. After Roosevelt talked with Stalin, Stalin dissolved the Comintern. After World War II, he asked the French Communist Party and the Italian Communist Party to give up the army. Finally, France and Italy became allies of the United States.
After joining the Soviet Camp, France will make up for the weakness of the Soviet Union: the food problem.
跟读
He didn't think Stalin was a nice guy he just thought he could be bought off or reasoned with.
2:48 wasnt there fascist(-like) govts as a part of the allied powers?
14:29
if they could/did exclude france, why didnt they exclude england/churchill too and just let the us and russia sort things out amicably?
and possibly the stupidest foreign policy move ever made by the usa was letting the uk and france lead it into being involved in indochina/vietnam. should have just told them both to buzz off and let the country be independent like india and indonesia were going to become.
Henry Morgenthau didn't give a rip about what was happening to the Jews in Germany early on. Then he grows a conscience and decides Germany needed to be turned into a farming commune dependent on the rest of Europe for its survival. It fit in nicely with Stalin's plans. I'll be honest, I'm pretty far from being a fan of FDR. But he handled his role as commander and chief during the war admirably for the most part (his Japanese internment policy left a lot to be desired though). That said, wishing death on people isn't my thing unless they deserve it but the world dodged two bullets WRT Roosevelt.
The first was when the democratic party bosses kept the VP nomination away from Henry Wallace. Wallace was a starry-eyed dreamer who would have been a dupe for Stalin in the post-war world. The second break the world caught was when FDR passed away and Truman was allowed to deal with Stalin. Like I said, it's not that I'm celebrating the man's death, but FDR had this sense of himself that he could handle anybody if he could get them in a one-on-one situation. It is true that he was catching onto Stalin and his true nature near the end of the war but I believe he still would have tried to reason with "Uncle Joe" and might have given him even more territory.
Truman was a simple guy who saw the world through a simple lens and he knew right away Stalin was a SOB who could not be trusted. He also told Morgenthau to take a hike and got rid of a lot of Stalin's other fellow-travelers. A few slipped through but I believe Harry was much better on the question of communism than FDR. FDR had plans to reinstate a lot of the controls that restricted the economy in the 30s and kept America in a depression longer than it needed to be. Sadly, Truman did let MacArthur have his way in the East and a lot of Japanese who should have hung from ropes were allowed to live and prosper. Yalta was a disaster but Potsdam was more of a mixed bag. That's my take anyway.
Isn’t this channel produced by the same people that run the Great War and between two wars, WW2 etc?
No Kings and Generals is their sister channel.
God damn British, left Poland to fend for ourselves
Given the fact that Roosevelt's wife was an active communist fellow traveller was probably why he was so sympathetic to the Moustache. After the war, she wrote a regular newspaper column. Whenever the Party line changed as announced in Pravda, her 'line' changed in her column to follow Stalin's policies.