My local library recently obtained this book and I went on the waiting list for it. I just finished it and it provided a great deal of info to which I did not know even though I've been studying WW2 for years. For example, the data the author obtained from the defunct USSR provided details on the spies and Soviet friendly Americans in the Roosevelt administration. Even Harry Hopkins, Roosevelt's buddy, loved Stalin.
@make a wish Yeah I'm sure his 5-15 million victims think so. Stalin's government definitely achieved a lot in terms of education, industrialisation, expansion of infrastructure etc but almost all of it could have been done without ruining the agricultural system and without killing millions of people.
I like Cimino's books a lot, but they all basically come down to: "This division went this way; that division went that way." McMeekin's book is history and argumentation at the highest level. I could not put it down and hated to see it end.
It isn't though, most early accounts of the Eastern Front are garbage because the USSR was pumping out propaganda and the US were getting little better from their sources from a bunch of coping German generals who just wanted to have a cry and pretend they made no mistakes while it was all Hitler's fault and the Soviets just had too many men and machines. Ignoring their own arrogance in thinking they would defeat the USSR in less than 12 weeks and their failures in logistics, administration and planning. History isn't written by the victors, its written by the survivors who have a politically advantageous narrative to tell their societies.
Mr. McMeekin distills information found in many analyses and biographies of the period but done in a 'aside' way-always the author looking over its shoulder.
Ottoman Endgame was excellent and I read a couple of other writers on similar topic. Would look out for the other of his book as his style of writing is engaging and descriptive.
So Stalin was not informed. What is about the Sowjets production of 35000 tanks Hitler told Mannerheim. He told Mannerheim that he had to strike first how he hated the idee of 2 front line war. And the russian foreign minister had ideas of handling Europe was indiscutable against german interests. The brutality of the german Wehrmacht is a hard one if I see private filming by german soldiers since beginn the Operation don.t show this narrative of special brutality . No the part of the Ukrainen Red Armee could go home . I saw a film with the title "Ukraine Soldaten werden heute aus der Kriegsgefangenschaft entlassen" usw. By the way Hitler told Mannerheim again his german army is a "Schönwetter Armee" word for word. I change complett about the HITLER personality. He was a realist and the Sowjets prepaid invasion. of Europe.
Stalin was hoping that Germany and the allies would go at each other and Churchill and FDR were hoping that Germany and the USSR would go at each other... DARN! the Germans were stuck one way or another! Stalin had 170 divisions at the German border when the Germans went and they were in arrow attack formation, that's why the Germans rolled in so easily, they raced between the Soviet formations, turned and surrounded the Soviet columns, almost too easy. Fortunately the Germans also seized huge amounts of Soviet weapons which seriously heloed them get deep fast, after all they went in with 750,000 horses and few good tanks while the Soviets had more tanks than the rest of the world... combined! Still, without Lend-Lease Germany coiuld have had a chance, but we'll never know.
Unlikely. General Winter and Major Steppes meant that lend-lease or no lend-lease, Germany just didn’t have the economic might and stamina for a long drawn out war with the USSR. It’s real mistake was turning it into a race war rather than a political war: if they’d treated the Ukraine and the Baltics as sovereign states and welcomed the POWs from there into Wehrmacht ranks as soldiers, they might of had a chance in 1941/42. They tried it in 1943 but only after the tide had turned
This was posted on 23 of June 2021, how Europe has changed since then. If only we had known back then, that War woul return in a 7 months from the east to the Bloodlands of Ukraine.
Well Gentlemen, aren't you also suffering from amnisia? Hitler's "criminal war" against Poland had reasons, hadn't it? The question remains: What would your country have done after hundreds of futile complaints about the conduct of Poland between 1919 and 1939 with tenthousands of dead Germans and hundreds of thousands of refugees? Maybe you could safe yourselfs some of your research time by reading/considering German sources?
Then why didn't Germany just take back/demand Danzig and the German majority areas and if the fascists were just the poor innocent victims why did they kill 6 million Polish people during their occupation? It's an absolute lie that the German population was genocided in the interwar years. There was discrimination but frankly that is extremely understandable considering Poland was in between two major powers who had dismembered their country not 130 years previously. At the end of the day the minor mistreatment of the German minority in Poland was just a flimsy pretext for German imperialism. Just like WMDs in Iraq or the supposed mistreatment of Russian speakers in Ukraine. Empires just like to pretend they have moral reasons when they send the tanks in.
@@Iron_Wyvern Well, do you really want to do this to yourself? After taking back the German areas from Poland, the German authorities send in teams consisting of crime police, coroners and archeologists, thus "inventing" the then new discipline of forensic science. They unearthed thousands of killed in mass graves, and documented what they found in the German White Book of 39/40 (fotos included), an official government record, also translated into English. I read this White Book until I came across the murder of the grandfather of a family I know. It is unbearable to read the details, and I will never forgett these records as long as I live. You should really think twice before you expose yourself to this sort of thing. It causes horrid night mares.
@@Iron_Wyvern Well, you should really think twice about subjecting yourself to this sort of thing. And I think you shouldn't, unless you lost ancestors in these horrid murders, which are documented in the German White Book 1939/40, an official governemt document, translated into English as well, to make it available to an inernational public. The German authorities send in teams of archeologists, coroners, and crime investigators, thus "inventing" forensic science. They unearthed so many murdered and documented what they found by fotographs. I forced myself to read the White Book, until I came across the murder of the grandfather of a family I know. I couldn't go on from there. Really, I will never forgett these crime records, and strongly advise against reading this!!!
@@Iron_Wyvern P.S. I thought of a second source. Try the Canadian Red Cross for Ukranians fleeing from the East to Canada. Different ethniticity, but same procedure.
It makes no sense to me why they Allies supported Stalin, he was easily the aggressor as much as Hitler. France and England declared war on Germany because it went into Poland. Russia did the same thing and they said "lets be buddies". Still makes no sense.
If I learned anything from this book it’s that I don’t know nearly as much as I thought I did. If I were to make a guess as to why America chose Stalin over Hitler is because choosing Germany would have not allowed the allies to create a two front war. I’m half joking but that wouldn’t surprise me at all if it was a factor
Yea I was wondering why a crafty Hitler didn’t allow Stalin to start ww2 and get Britain and France to help him fight Stalin instead of the other way around .
Was never going to happen. Our elites were sympathetic for communism and had what the Germans were doing was seen as a bigger threat because it was peaceful and just as revolutionary in terms of political economy and social organization. Churchill, in particular, was anti German going back before WWI because to him he felt insulted that another European country was strong and prosperous.
@@mitchflorida maybe but he did have the benefit of an quite easier position by far . After all Stalin needed no lebensraum, oil or wheat and had unlimited territory with endless resources and a huge military and population . So he could bide his time much more comfortably
@@andysamet4554 Lmao you have it exactly wrong. Much of the British elite regarded fascist Germany as a potentially useful stopgap between Western Europe and the USSR. They sure didn't seem particularly enthuastically pro-Communist during the Korean War, Malaya Emergency and the French attempts to defeat the Viet Minh. The British and French elite had sent soldiers to fight for the Whites during the Russian civil war, Communism was a threat to their economic and political elites and most importantly to their empires. I've heard a lot of things said about Germany in the 1930s but saying what they were doing was "peaceful" takes the cake. Yeah they "peacefully" built up a huge army with weapons they weren't allowed to have, they just peacefully had Kristallnacht and peacefully started ruthlessly germanizing the Czechs and very peacefully liquidated and imprisoned their political opponents. All that talk about how they wanted to enslave and destroy the populations of Eastern Europe for Lebensraum (which they later did killing more than 25 million civilians in occupied Poland and the USSR) was just so peaceful, that's why the British hated it, it was so peaceful and they got mad about it. What is this neo-fascist revisionism hahahaha.
Stalin was a craven opportunist? Of course. But what politician isn't? “If we see that Germany is winning the war, we ought to help Russia; and if that Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany, and in that way let them kill as many as possible.. . ” Sen Harry S. Truman, four days after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. Keep two historical facts central in your mind as you listen to this: Hitler killed off 15% of the Soviet population (mostly ethnic Russians), and four fifths of the casualties suffered by the Nazi army were inflicted by the Red Army under Stalin. Churchill and Roosevelt did the right thing by allying with Stalin.
Only in America is Stalin’s contribution to the Allowe Victory in WWII under appreciated. The Red Army killed 8 out of 10 German soldiers who died fighting for Nazi Germany and once he learnt to trust the competence of his generals, the Red Army was unstoppable
It was unstoppable because it had far more people stalin threw in front of advancing german troops with no concern for the individual life only slowing down the german advance. Hitler crushed the red army two times in 1941 and the soviets only survived because of the size of the soviet union in square miles, the germans had less soldiers, and ran out of oil. Not to mention having to rely on american trucks food and other supplies through out the war to be able to survive.
@@Ryan_lipp not totally true: Russia had its own oil supply in the Caucasus: that is why Hitler drove the 6th Army to Stalingrad which was meant to be a prelude to the capture of Baku. Also they had their own steel industry - how else could they produce 10,000 T-34 tanks a month starting in 1943?
Sean McMeekin’s contention that the second World War was more Stalin’s war than Hitler’s has a long and dubious pedigree reaching back to the war-revolution conspiracy theory of the interwar years. According to this myth, Stalin plotted to precipitate a new world war in order to foment global revolution. In truth, there was nothing Stalin feared more than a major war. While the first World War had enabled the Russian Revolution, that was followed by foreign military interventions which came close to strangling Bolshevism at birth. Stalin’s nightmare scenario was the revival of that anti-communist coalition. War did offer opportunities - and Stalin certainly took advantage of them - but war also posed an existential danger to the Soviet state. So sparse is the evidence for the war-revolution hypothesis that McMeekin resorts to citing a blatant forgery: a document purporting to report on a speech Stalin supposedly made in August 1939 in which he spoke about the Sovietisation of Europe as a result of the war he intended to provoke. The document in question initially appeared in the French press shortly after the outbreak of war and was plainly propaganda designed to discredit Stalin at a time when he was collaborating with Hitler. This book will certainly enhance Prof McMeekin’s reputation as an ideologically-driven conservative historian. His fantastical speculation that standing up to Stalin would have produced a better outcome than standing up to Hitler may appeal to those who share his fervent anti-communism. More impartial readers will recoil from the book’s distortion of the complex and multi-faceted history of the second World War.
I think in its finality, the question of whether Germany invaded the Soviet Union preemptively or whether that was Hitler's intention all along is almost beside the point. Stalin clearly didn't sit idly by when Germany invaded Poland in 1939 and he clearly was very busy "reorganizing" his power/military apparatus while investing heavily in military equipment. The myth of the Russian hordes waiting to be let loose on Europe is both legend and self-fulfilling prophecy, not just in contemporary understanding of geopolitics, but perhaps also as a manifestation of some of the darker aspects of modern civilization. In the end, the Soviets did exactly what Stalin may or may not have proclaimed in August of 1939 and conquered half of Europe, establishing a ruthless stranglehold on the people of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, East Germany, the Baltics, etc. Ironically, today a similarly incessant and nebulous fear-mongering of NATO has produced a similar result for the Russians. The loathed Western military alliance now sits right on the border with Russia within a 6hr car ride from the outskirts of Moscow.
@@deason2365 Now, that's rather snarky and uncalled for. I was inquiring which of among many of the ideologies you were thinking. Thanks for showing me your true nature.
Stalin's Russia was a disaster. But U.S. history is written by middle class white university professors and any claims they make regarding Russia, Hiroshima, Negroes, Natives, etc., has to be met with scepticism.
@@aaronaragon7838 there's a difference between skepticism and rejection. A person can still be honest about something in a factual sense, even if they don't like it or disagree with it. Your just being reactionary and using a Mott and Bailey approach to get anyone reading this back in to respecting your emotionally and ideologically based perspective.
I'd love to see the United States balkanize and separate. We're in an abusive power game with each other over who controls the fed to oppress everyone that one side doesn't agree with. Having an amicable peaceful divorce, kinda like Norway and Sweden, would be good for our countrymen and allow people to live freer lives. And it would destroy the biggest parasite on the American people, its government which is trying to tax and overspend us into oblivion trying to support an empire we were never supposed to have.
My local library recently obtained this book and I went on the waiting list for it. I just finished it and it provided a great deal of info to which I did not know even though I've been studying WW2 for years. For example, the data the author obtained from the defunct USSR provided details on the spies and Soviet friendly Americans in the Roosevelt administration. Even Harry Hopkins, Roosevelt's buddy, loved Stalin.
When fighting Nazi Germany everybody "loved" the Soviet Union. Not so much before or after...
@make a wish Yeah I'm sure his 5-15 million victims think so. Stalin's government definitely achieved a lot in terms of education, industrialisation, expansion of infrastructure etc but almost all of it could have been done without ruining the agricultural system and without killing millions of people.
You need to read "Stalin's secret agents: the subversion of the Roosevelt government" by Stanton Evans and Herbert Romerstein.
I like Cimino's books a lot, but they all basically come down to: "This division went this way; that division went that way." McMeekin's book is history and argumentation at the highest level. I could not put it down and hated to see it end.
Just bought the HARDCOVER. This book is a masterpiece!
Fascinating stuff! New to the channel and now subscribed.
Thanks for this video
Hey thanks ! Great stuff as always
What a great book
The only reason why this book is even considered remotely controversial is because "history is written by the victors"
"Icebreaker" By Victor Suvorov.
You mean the Jews?
It isn't though, most early accounts of the Eastern Front are garbage because the USSR was pumping out propaganda and the US were getting little better from their sources from a bunch of coping German generals who just wanted to have a cry and pretend they made no mistakes while it was all Hitler's fault and the Soviets just had too many men and machines. Ignoring their own arrogance in thinking they would defeat the USSR in less than 12 weeks and their failures in logistics, administration and planning. History isn't written by the victors, its written by the survivors who have a politically advantageous narrative to tell their societies.
@@Sovereigntyfirst which has been debunked over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.. ♾️
@@flaviodrusovalerio2825 Where's your prove?
Mr. McMeekin distills information found in many analyses and biographies of the period but done in a 'aside' way-always the author looking over its shoulder.
Ottoman Endgame was excellent and I read a couple of other writers on similar topic. Would look out for the other of his book as his style of writing is engaging and descriptive.
Thank you :)
So Stalin was not informed. What is about the Sowjets production of 35000 tanks Hitler told Mannerheim. He told Mannerheim that he had to strike first how he hated the idee of 2 front line war. And the russian foreign minister had ideas of handling Europe was indiscutable against german interests. The brutality of the german Wehrmacht is a hard one if I see private filming by german soldiers since beginn the Operation don.t show this narrative of special brutality . No the part of the Ukrainen Red Armee could go home . I saw a film with the title "Ukraine Soldaten werden heute aus der Kriegsgefangenschaft entlassen" usw. By the way Hitler told Mannerheim again his german army is a "Schönwetter Armee" word for word. I change complett about the HITLER personality. He was a realist and the Sowjets prepaid invasion. of Europe.
Did the allies know about the Ribbentrof pact before they allied with Poland? Before they went to war? Before they allied with Russia?
Contrary what is stated in this video the Lend-Lease museum still exists in Moscow.
Stalin was hoping that Germany and the allies would go at each other and Churchill and FDR were hoping that Germany and the USSR would go at each other... DARN! the Germans were stuck one way or another! Stalin had 170 divisions at the German border when the Germans went and they were in arrow attack formation, that's why the Germans rolled in so easily, they raced between the Soviet formations, turned and surrounded the Soviet columns, almost too easy. Fortunately the Germans also seized huge amounts of Soviet weapons which seriously heloed them get deep fast, after all they went in with 750,000 horses and few good tanks while the Soviets had more tanks than the rest of the world... combined! Still, without Lend-Lease Germany coiuld have had a chance, but we'll never know.
Unlikely. General Winter and Major Steppes meant that lend-lease or no lend-lease, Germany just didn’t have the economic might and stamina for a long drawn out war with the USSR. It’s real mistake was turning it into a race war rather than a political war: if they’d treated the Ukraine and the Baltics as sovereign states and welcomed the POWs from there into Wehrmacht ranks as soldiers, they might of had a chance in 1941/42. They tried it in 1943 but only after the tide had turned
Arrrow formation? What are you talking about? it was not a videogame. Nobody attacked with an "arrow" formation.
highly recommended "roads to Moscow" Al Stewart
100X yes
A masterpiece!
This was posted on 23 of June 2021, how Europe has changed since then. If only we had known back then, that War woul return in a 7 months from the east to the Bloodlands of Ukraine.
who in the hell believes that Europe was the side story of the warlmao
Well Gentlemen, aren't you also suffering from amnisia? Hitler's "criminal war" against Poland had reasons, hadn't it? The question remains: What would your country have done after hundreds of futile complaints about the conduct of Poland between 1919 and 1939 with tenthousands of dead Germans and hundreds of thousands of refugees? Maybe you could safe yourselfs some of your research time by reading/considering German sources?
Then why didn't Germany just take back/demand Danzig and the German majority areas and if the fascists were just the poor innocent victims why did they kill 6 million Polish people during their occupation? It's an absolute lie that the German population was genocided in the interwar years. There was discrimination but frankly that is extremely understandable considering Poland was in between two major powers who had dismembered their country not 130 years previously. At the end of the day the minor mistreatment of the German minority in Poland was just a flimsy pretext for German imperialism. Just like WMDs in Iraq or the supposed mistreatment of Russian speakers in Ukraine. Empires just like to pretend they have moral reasons when they send the tanks in.
What are some good sources talking about the Polish treatment of ethnic Germans during this time period?
@@Iron_Wyvern
Well, do you really want to do this to yourself? After taking back the German areas from Poland, the German authorities send in teams consisting of crime police, coroners and archeologists, thus "inventing" the then new discipline of forensic science. They unearthed thousands of killed in mass graves, and documented what they found in the German White Book of 39/40 (fotos included), an official government record, also translated into English. I read this White Book until I came across the murder of the grandfather of a family I know. It is unbearable to read the details, and I will never forgett these records as long as I live. You should really think twice before you expose yourself to this sort of thing. It causes horrid night mares.
@@Iron_Wyvern
Well, you should really think twice about subjecting yourself to this sort of thing. And I think you shouldn't, unless you lost ancestors in these horrid murders, which are documented in the German White Book 1939/40, an official governemt document, translated into English as well, to make it available to an inernational public. The German authorities send in teams of archeologists, coroners, and crime investigators, thus "inventing" forensic science. They unearthed so many murdered and documented what they found by fotographs. I forced myself to read the White Book, until I came across the murder of the grandfather of a family I know. I couldn't go on from there. Really, I will never forgett these crime records, and strongly advise against reading this!!!
@@Iron_Wyvern
P.S. I thought of a second source. Try the Canadian Red Cross for Ukranians fleeing from the East to Canada. Different ethniticity, but same procedure.
It makes no sense to me why they Allies supported Stalin, he was easily the aggressor as much as Hitler. France and England declared war on Germany because it went into Poland. Russia did the same thing and they said "lets be buddies". Still makes no sense.
If I learned anything from this book it’s that I don’t know nearly as much as I thought I did. If I were to make a guess as to why America chose Stalin over Hitler is because choosing Germany would have not allowed the allies to create a two front war. I’m half joking but that wouldn’t surprise me at all if it was a factor
interesting
Yea I was wondering why a crafty Hitler didn’t allow Stalin to start ww2 and get Britain and France to help him fight Stalin instead of the other way around .
Was never going to happen. Our elites were sympathetic for communism and had what the Germans were doing was seen as a bigger threat because it was peaceful and just as revolutionary in terms of political economy and social organization. Churchill, in particular, was anti German going back before WWI because to him he felt insulted that another European country was strong and prosperous.
Liberalism could never allow national socialism to exist, the west and the communists were run by the same people
Maybe because Stalin was craftier.
@@mitchflorida maybe but he did have the benefit of an quite easier position by far . After all Stalin needed no lebensraum, oil or wheat and had unlimited territory with endless resources and a huge military and population . So he could bide his time much more comfortably
@@andysamet4554 Lmao you have it exactly wrong. Much of the British elite regarded fascist Germany as a potentially useful stopgap between Western Europe and the USSR. They sure didn't seem particularly enthuastically pro-Communist during the Korean War, Malaya Emergency and the French attempts to defeat the Viet Minh.
The British and French elite had sent soldiers to fight for the Whites during the Russian civil war, Communism was a threat to their economic and political elites and most importantly to their empires. I've heard a lot of things said about Germany in the 1930s but saying what they were doing was "peaceful" takes the cake. Yeah they "peacefully" built up a huge army with weapons they weren't allowed to have, they just peacefully had Kristallnacht and peacefully started ruthlessly germanizing the Czechs and very peacefully liquidated and imprisoned their political opponents. All that talk about how they wanted to enslave and destroy the populations of Eastern Europe for Lebensraum (which they later did killing more than 25 million civilians in occupied Poland and the USSR) was just so peaceful, that's why the British hated it, it was so peaceful and they got mad about it. What is this neo-fascist revisionism hahahaha.
Capitalism and communism are two sides of the same shekel
Stalin was a craven opportunist? Of course. But what politician isn't?
“If we see that Germany is winning the war, we ought to help Russia; and if that Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany, and in that way let them kill as many as
possible.. . ” Sen Harry S. Truman, four days after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union.
Keep two historical facts central in your mind as you listen to this: Hitler killed off 15% of the Soviet population (mostly ethnic Russians), and four fifths of the casualties suffered by the Nazi army were inflicted by the Red Army under Stalin. Churchill and Roosevelt did the right thing by allying with Stalin.
I find it interesting how 'pandemics', vaccines and wars travel together; like the pandemic that followed mass vaccination of troops.
Only in America is Stalin’s contribution to the Allowe Victory in WWII under appreciated. The Red Army killed 8 out of 10 German soldiers who died fighting for Nazi Germany and once he learnt to trust the competence of his generals, the Red Army was unstoppable
It was unstoppable because it had far more people stalin threw in front of advancing german troops with no concern for the individual life only slowing down the german advance. Hitler crushed the red army two times in 1941 and the soviets only survived because of the size of the soviet union in square miles, the germans had less soldiers, and ran out of oil. Not to mention having to rely on american trucks food and other supplies through out the war to be able to survive.
@Ricky Moore always good advice
Little old Poland stopped Stalin for 40 years, until we helped them; "NAZI" GERMANY helped perfect the overthrow with early military support!
It was only unstoppable because of U.S. gasoline, aluminum, and aircraft.
@@Ryan_lipp not totally true: Russia had its own oil supply in the Caucasus: that is why Hitler drove the 6th Army to Stalingrad which was meant to be a prelude to the capture of Baku. Also they had their own steel industry - how else could they produce 10,000 T-34 tanks a month starting in 1943?
The only honest ww2 documentary I've ever seen was the original unedited version of churchills war by David Irving.
@Solomon II why deny the truth?
Always one Nazi fanboy idiot, in every WW2 video.
🤡
@Ricky Moore watch pat Buchanan video on Churchill and ww2
@Ricky Moore You must have missed Buchanans RUclips video where he blames ww2 directly on Churchill. "Churchill was the one pushing hardest for war"
So many salty fashies and tankies in the comments here 😂
Sean McMeekin’s contention that the second World War was more Stalin’s war than Hitler’s has a long and dubious pedigree reaching back to the war-revolution conspiracy theory of the interwar years. According to this myth, Stalin plotted to precipitate a new world war in order to foment global revolution.
In truth, there was nothing Stalin feared more than a major war. While the first World War had enabled the Russian Revolution, that was followed by foreign military interventions which came close to strangling Bolshevism at birth. Stalin’s nightmare scenario was the revival of that anti-communist coalition. War did offer opportunities - and Stalin certainly took advantage of them - but war also posed an existential danger to the Soviet state.
So sparse is the evidence for the war-revolution hypothesis that McMeekin resorts to citing a blatant forgery: a document purporting to report on a speech Stalin supposedly made in August 1939 in which he spoke about the Sovietisation of Europe as a result of the war he intended to provoke. The document in question initially appeared in the French press shortly after the outbreak of war and was plainly propaganda designed to discredit Stalin at a time when he was collaborating with Hitler. This book will certainly enhance Prof McMeekin’s reputation as an ideologically-driven conservative historian. His fantastical speculation that standing up to Stalin would have produced a better outcome than standing up to Hitler may appeal to those who share his fervent anti-communism. More impartial readers will recoil from the book’s distortion of the complex and multi-faceted history of the second World War.
I think in its finality, the question of whether Germany invaded the Soviet Union preemptively or whether that was Hitler's intention all along is almost beside the point. Stalin clearly didn't sit idly by when Germany invaded Poland in 1939 and he clearly was very busy "reorganizing" his power/military apparatus while investing heavily in military equipment.
The myth of the Russian hordes waiting to be let loose on Europe is both legend and self-fulfilling prophecy, not just in contemporary understanding of geopolitics, but perhaps also as a manifestation of some of the darker aspects of modern civilization. In the end, the Soviets did exactly what Stalin may or may not have proclaimed in August of 1939 and conquered half of Europe, establishing a ruthless stranglehold on the people of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, East Germany, the Baltics, etc.
Ironically, today a similarly incessant and nebulous fear-mongering of NATO has produced a similar result for the Russians. The loathed Western military alliance now sits right on the border with Russia within a 6hr car ride from the outskirts of Moscow.
He could be saying i dont like Russia and save us an hour.
There is money to be had in revision.
It's not revision, it's what's been left out in order to spread one of the three evil ideologies that created this war
@@deason2365 What are those 3 evil ideologies?
@@dr.barrycohn5461 if you have to ask, then you belong to one of them
@@deason2365 Now, that's rather snarky and uncalled for. I was inquiring which of among many of the ideologies you were thinking. Thanks for showing me your true nature.
@@dr.barrycohn5461 thank you for showing me yours
Reject anything the USA claims about Stalin's Russia. Total bias.
What about the claims of stalin's Russia about Stalins Russia?
Stalin's Russia was a disaster. But U.S. history is written by middle class white university professors and any claims they make regarding Russia, Hiroshima, Negroes, Natives, etc., has to be met with scepticism.
@@aaronaragon7838 there's a difference between skepticism and rejection. A person can still be honest about something in a factual sense, even if they don't like it or disagree with it. Your just being reactionary and using a Mott and Bailey approach to get anyone reading this back in to respecting your emotionally and ideologically based perspective.
I'd love to see the United States balkanize and separate. We're in an abusive power game with each other over who controls the fed to oppress everyone that one side doesn't agree with. Having an amicable peaceful divorce, kinda like Norway and Sweden, would be good for our countrymen and allow people to live freer lives. And it would destroy the biggest parasite on the American people, its government which is trying to tax and overspend us into oblivion trying to support an empire we were never supposed to have.
Also your first statement in this thread starts with the word reject. So you're really glib or you're just trolling.
Still don't buy it