Absolutely fascinating. While a pre-emptive Soviet attack would have undoubtedly been an epic disaster, there is no evidence that Stalin's top generals knew this at the time. Even after the disastrous Finland invasion, their wargaming suggests they were significantly overestimating the capabilities of their forces as well as underestimating those of the Germans. Stalin seems to have had a more realistic view of things. In fact, there is some evidence that Stalin believed that the Soviet Union would be defeated in an imminent war with Germany, which explains his all-out appeasement efforts in the first half of 1941.
He pronounces Russian names excellently, and certainly better than any other English-speaking historians talking on the Soviet-German front that you can find here.
The speaker could have mentioned the international interventions against the nascent soviet state by EG the British, the French and the US.The Soviet leaders were right to be mistrustful of the west. The Soviet Union was the first pariah state since Napoleon's France, and similarly, most of the great powers had sworn to strangle it in its crib. It was only in the mid to late thirties that fascism began to be seen as a threat comparable to communism, until then it had been viewed as a more benign and preferable alternative, or at worst a useful cudgel with which to beat the soviets.
To be clear, you don't have to sympathise with communism to recognise that communist leaders and army planners weren't being outlandish and paranoid to worry about foreign invasions. The conflict that brought the Bolsheviks to power ended with expelling foreign invaders who were, as Churchill later put it, trying to "strangle Bolshevism in its crib". Sun Tzu stressed the importance of knowing one's enemy. To properly understand the Soviet Union it is imperative to be honest about the existential threat the west posed to it, and to look at its actions accordingly. To dismiss the communists' bunker mentality as paranoia is to fail to understand the reality they were dealing with.
@@AliRadicali Yes. And you're quite right; don't have to be a sympathiser to believe this. It was simple reality. The Reds were fighting the Whites and something like 15 other countries who were desperate to stop the communist state before it spread to their own and upset their own ruling classes. Looked at in the context of the time, that's exactly how it was, backed up by Orlando Figes in his book on the Russian Revolution.
British, French, and USA weren't the only invading powers during the Russian Civil War. You forgot Japan, Czeckoalovakia, Poland, Turkey, and a bunch of others. Soviet Union wasn't the first pariah state, but Russia did get demonized and vilified for centuries now. Just like Japan, China, Turkey...
The Germans knew where the Russians were, they probably would have gone a different route if the Russians protected Moscow more. Ukraine for example. Just like in France. They attacked the weakness by surprise
The camera work is terrible. The presenter uses his pointer to illustrate his talk but the camera stays on him walking up and down not what he's pointing to.
@@kathleenmckenzie6261 -- Universities are the worst at this even with a full-time cameraman. If a professor points to physical model of a human torso, fine; but the moment he points at a 2-D IMAGE of that same physical model of a torso the lawyers get all lawyery about reproducing anything that might be copywritten.
jeeze, have a bit of gratitude. Someone took the time to record and upload it so as you can sit there and take advantage of it too. The audio is fine, the sides are there
Got news for ya: in 1918 and 1919 (before the complete Soviet state), the Bolsheviks (for want of a better term) really _were_ in conflict with most of the major states around the world. There were two reasons for this. First of all, they were fighting a civil war against not only the Whites but also the United States, the French and the British and Commonwealth. Secondly, it needs to be remembered that they won this war and by 1924 when Lenin died, the new Soviet state represented a severe threat to the traditional order of the world and the ruling elites. The claim that they wanted to spread communism around the world is only broadly true. They _hoped_ that Germany would become communist but did little to aid their supporters. In fact, it was both Marx's and Lenin's hypothesis that the world, on seeing the benefits of communism, would adopt it. This is largely different from what is usually implied. In fact, the Soviet Union became extremely insular and isolated as it ground through its crash industrialisation program.
their hypothesis was proven correct, throughout the world especially in impoverished and colonized lands, majorities of the populations did in fact want to and tried to follow in liberation and self-actualization. What they failed to adequately take into account was previously totally unimaganable depths to which the western capitalist imperialist powers were willing to go to terrorize their own citizens and exterminate their colonial possessions in order to protect the power and wealth of the elite owning class.
Suvorov thesis is correct. Nazis and Communists were both ready to fight but Suvorov thesis explains Soviet forces on the western border. Which explains the huge losses in Soviet killed and captured in opening stages of the invasion.
Stalin wanted to move his main forces to the south because after the joint agreement with Hitler on Poland he was dissatisfied with his portion of the initial success and wanted to seize additional territory. He met with resistance from Hitler when wanted to seize Romania and Bulgaria. They both wanted the Romanian oil fields. That's why the second meeting with Molotov collapsed. Stalin was anticipating forcefully taking Romania and he thought he would be clashing with the German army there and didn't think their objective was Moscow.
Tukhachevsky was only a second Lieutenant in the Czar's army. He went over to the Bolsheviks despite his noble heritage and earned his stripes there in the Russian Civil war, so he was another one of those (according to Dr.Harrison) 'jumped up' minor officers turned General. Tukhachevsky was more of a careerist rather than a man of strong political convictions. Charles De Gaulle himself shared a cell with Tukhachevsky a German prisoner of war and heard him making many anti Jewish statements; something not adhering to communist or Bolshevik communist philosophy; some of the main Bolsheviks being of Jewish or partially Jewish heritage. As a careerist and with his dislike of the Jews his sympathies with Hitler would not be difficult to understand. He changed to the winning side once and seemed to be quite prepared to do it again. The plan to kill Stalin and side with the Germans was not just exacted through torture, but the details provided and the accusations by the conspirators made against one another would have been improbable to stage manage. Major characters in the Soviet Union who escaped the purges to Britain, Israel and the U.S corroborated the notion of a plan to kill Stalin in the mid to late 30's which involved some of the army staff which were led by Tukhachevsky and also involved collaborating with the Nazis. There is indeed Nazi documentation which supports this as do officers in the Czech army and the Japanese army....all visited by Tukhachevsky. Expanding the army on such a large scale both in man power and technology was bound to leave a deficit of army leaders. Of all Soviet officers accused more than 80% were re-instated after their trials were over and they were cleared. British and French forces were no match for German forces despite their 'seasoned' leadership, or was it just incompetent, inbred nepotism?
Vasantha Perera Who were the “major figures” who gave evidence against Tukhachevsky collaborating with the Nazis? Please share your reference. There is evidence the Nazis concocted documents to imply they were in a plot with the Red Army leadership. They wanted to goad Stalin into decapitating the Red Army. This is separate from the opposition to Stalin that existed in the Red Army officer corps prior to the great terror and other indications of a move against Stalin. In “1937: Stalin’s Year it Terror” by Vadim Rogovin, chapter 46 is titled “Reasons for Reprisals Against the Generals”. It raises seven reasons as follows: 1. The Red Army was a powerful material force that was outside the normal controls of the party. 2. A significant proportion of the officers of the Red Army had fought in the Civil War under Trotsky’s leadership and many were at least sympathetic to the Left Opposition 3. The commanders and personal to a certain degree reflected the dissatisfaction of the peasantry, especially given the catastrophe of forced collectivisation. 4. Tuchachevsky has conflicted with Stalin and Voroshilov on strategic doctrine and warned of the USSR being drawn into a war with Germany. In 1930 his proposal for modernising the Red Army was sharply criticised by Stalin and Voroshilov. Tukhachevsky wrote to Stalin that the current plan would preclude discussing important aspects of defence capability. Only in May 1932 did Stalin accept the error. Tukhachevsky was also consistent in his opposition to fascism and said Stalin was a “Germanophile” who would do a deal with Hitler. 5. The army leadership disagreed with the negative influence of Voroshilov and his group on the Red Army. (In their confessions in 1937 they admitted discussing the need to remove Voroshilov) 6. Stalin could was alarmed by the genuine prestige and respect given to Tuchachevsky. Stalin called him a “little Napoleon” at one point. 7. The officers were very familiar with Stalin’s actual role during the civil war, especially the failure at the battle of Warsaw when Stalin had disobeyed orders to send troops from the southern front to assist Tukhachevsky. This was still being raised in the 1930s despite Stalin’s efforts to falsify the history. It was Stalin who signed the non-aggression pact, ignored up to 82 intelligence reports of an impending invasion despite saying himself in May 1942 war with Germany was inevitable and did not prepare a defence and lined up the front line forces on the border where they could be crushed. Given this we can say Tuckhachevsky and the other executed officers would have been quite right to conclude that in order to defend the USSR they had to get rid of Stalin and it is unreasonable to suppose they hadn’t at least considered it. All of this raises an important point: the purges were not the product of Stalin’s paranoia, as the standard narrative vociferously proclaims, but were an attempt to crush the real opposition that existed to a criminal regime. PS. AFAIK tree is no other source that Tukhachevsky was anti-Semitic besides the book on De Gaulle. This is reason enough to treat it as hearsay.
Yes, the non aggression pact was a smart move, it broke the possibility of a capitalist coalition against the USSR and they hoped the nazis would bog down fighting France and that that would allow for revolution in those countries, but the Germans defeated the French too quickly.
@@dr.barrycohn5461 We'll no, content is what you're writing about - the information you're trying to convey or plot of the story you're telling. Style is the way in which you present that information - your word choice, organization, and other details of the writing..... 'doctor'
Fascinating topic, weak delivery... hesitant, unconvincing and incomplete -- how could he forget to mention the JOINT soviet - German invasion of Poland in 1939? The ussr didn't just randomly "profit" from it, it part-engineered it.
I think the far greater omission was not even mentioning the allied interventions during and after the russian civil war. The fact that Great Britain, France and the US had *already tried* to "strangle bolshevism in its crib" seems pertinent to the question of whether the communists were paranoid to worry about invasions.
@@AliRadicali Hardly surprising the "Allies" tried to kill bolshevism at birth... the bolsheviks made no secret of their intention to export their "people's paradise" to Europe and beyond... they were meddling in Germany, setting up "soviets" and agitating for the military to mutiny, from 1917 onwards -- long before the allies stepped in.
@@acosorimaxconto5610 Sure, the allies had reasons for striking a pre-emptive blow, but that's neither here nor there. The fact is they did strike the first blow and this lecturer is completely ignoring that fact in his analysis of Soviet "paranoia". If he wants to lecture about pre-emptive wars, why not start with the one that actually materialised and influenced subsequent policy? To be clear, I don't think you have to be sympathetic to communism or Lenin/Stalin to demand a fair analysis here. If we want to learn anything from the Soviet tragedy to apply to, say, China, it just doesn't do to ignore the Soviets' legitimate security concerns. Simply dismissing the russkies as "crazy" or paranoid" doesn't help at all to understand their actual thinking, it's a lazy cop-out and a dead-end in terms of gleaning knowledge. As for your point about soviet interference in Germany, I think you've got that exactly backwards, friend. The Germans helped smuggle Lenin into Russia to help stokes the flames of revolution. I have my doubts about the nascent Soviet state even being capable of infiltrating Germany while it was still struggling to establish its authority and fighting a civil war, but I also don't think it's necessary to explain the communist rioting in Germany. After all, the ideas of socialism had been around in Germany and France a lot longer than in Russia itself. I don't doubt that the kremlin sent the german communists their moral support, but I doubt they sent anything more substantial.
5:30 all of which was at the time, and has later continued, to be proven exactly correct. Contrary to our dear dr, the rest of the world is able to imagine why a nation attacked by every colonial imperialist power during WWI and during it's revolution -all of which also then went on to encourage, fund, arm, and support the rise of fascism in central europe- were and would continue to be it's enemies. That "snows of far of northern lands" from the USMC hymn didn't get there by accident, and the US didn't send the marines to kill on accident.
You may have noticed that he is speaking English, not Russian. You are aware that they are different languages, right? I mean, Russian people mispronounce a lot of English names and words too, or do Russians all speak with Received Pronunciation when they say English words? I'll never understand this pedantry among Internet dorks who insist that everybody be able to perfectly pronounce every word and name in every other language. Heres the name of a Welsh town: Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch. Now pronounce it like you would if you fucking live there, you uneducated pleb.
uneducated pleb ... right. btw i am german. you see ...good pronunciation comes with the time and intensity one will work on a matter. so it is a sign of knowledge. and it is also a sign of respect. i dont blame common people who barely speak their own language. but here we have an historian, a professional, highly educated academic , whos only job is to read and research. and he should have good knowledge of russian to read russian documents. bad pronunciation is therefore , in this case, an indication of poor qualification.
Definitely people like David Glantz, who can speak and read Russian sources or Jonathan House, who works with Glantz, tend to pronounce it closer to Russian.
Absolutely fascinating. While a pre-emptive Soviet attack would have undoubtedly been an epic disaster, there is no evidence that Stalin's top generals knew this at the time. Even after the disastrous Finland invasion, their wargaming suggests they were significantly overestimating the capabilities of their forces as well as underestimating those of the Germans. Stalin seems to have had a more realistic view of things. In fact, there is some evidence that Stalin believed that the Soviet Union would be defeated in an imminent war with Germany, which explains his all-out appeasement efforts in the first half of 1941.
Bismarck, the Chancellor, not the ship, said, “Preventive war is like committing suicide out of fear of death.”
Do ships have loose lips?
Bismarck,the ship,not the chancellor,replied blubblubblubityblub..,
So that's why Willi got rid of him.
it worked out great for the Romans at the 3rd Punic War, so they could exterminate the Carthaginians before Carthage could produce another Hannibal.
He pronounces Russian names excellently, and certainly better than any other English-speaking historians talking on the Soviet-German front that you can find here.
What are you saying
He should've marked the Pripyat Marshes on his maps so as to make the geographic concerns apparent
EndTaysachs a
do not question him
The speaker could have mentioned the international interventions against the nascent soviet state by EG the British, the French and the US.The Soviet leaders were right to be mistrustful of the west. The Soviet Union was the first pariah state since Napoleon's France, and similarly, most of the great powers had sworn to strangle it in its crib. It was only in the mid to late thirties that fascism began to be seen as a threat comparable to communism, until then it had been viewed as a more benign and preferable alternative, or at worst a useful cudgel with which to beat the soviets.
To be clear, you don't have to sympathise with communism to recognise that communist leaders and army planners weren't being outlandish and paranoid to worry about foreign invasions. The conflict that brought the Bolsheviks to power ended with expelling foreign invaders who were, as Churchill later put it, trying to "strangle Bolshevism in its crib".
Sun Tzu stressed the importance of knowing one's enemy. To properly understand the Soviet Union it is imperative to be honest about the existential threat the west posed to it, and to look at its actions accordingly. To dismiss the communists' bunker mentality as paranoia is to fail to understand the reality they were dealing with.
@@AliRadicali Yes. And you're quite right; don't have to be a sympathiser to believe this. It was simple reality. The Reds were fighting the Whites and something like 15 other countries who were desperate to stop the communist state before it spread to their own and upset their own ruling classes. Looked at in the context of the time, that's exactly how it was, backed up by Orlando Figes in his book on the Russian Revolution.
British, French, and USA weren't the only invading powers during the Russian Civil War. You forgot Japan, Czeckoalovakia, Poland, Turkey, and a bunch of others.
Soviet Union wasn't the first pariah state, but Russia did get demonized and vilified for centuries now. Just like Japan, China, Turkey...
The Germans knew where the Russians were, they probably would have gone a different route if the Russians protected Moscow more. Ukraine for example. Just like in France. They attacked the weakness by surprise
Great lecture.
1:04:45 - winter 2022 in a nusthell
April 2o22
there are huge high quality topographic maps discovered in archives of the Russian General Stuff but they used these drawings
The camera work is terrible. The presenter uses his pointer to illustrate his talk but the camera stays on him walking up and down not what he's pointing to.
From what I've seen, this failure of camera work is pretty common on RUclips documentaries; very disappointing, to say the least.
@@kathleenmckenzie6261 -- Universities are the worst at this even with a full-time cameraman. If a professor points to physical model of a human torso, fine; but the moment he points at a 2-D IMAGE of that same physical model of a torso the lawyers get all lawyery about reproducing anything that might be copywritten.
jeeze, have a bit of gratitude. Someone took the time to record and upload it so as you can sit there and take advantage of it too. The audio is fine, the sides are there
@@Mineav So people who put huge amounts of work into researching or making top quality content should be allowed to have their work stolen or misused?
The interview of Zhukov part is so hilarious 34:00
Got news for ya: in 1918 and 1919 (before the complete Soviet state), the Bolsheviks (for want of a better term) really _were_ in conflict with most of the major states around the world. There were two reasons for this. First of all, they were fighting a civil war against not only the Whites but also the United States, the French and the British and Commonwealth. Secondly, it needs to be remembered that they won this war and by 1924 when Lenin died, the new Soviet state represented a severe threat to the traditional order of the world and the ruling elites.
The claim that they wanted to spread communism around the world is only broadly true. They _hoped_ that Germany would become communist but did little to aid their supporters. In fact, it was both Marx's and Lenin's hypothesis that the world, on seeing the benefits of communism, would adopt it. This is largely different from what is usually implied. In fact, the Soviet Union became extremely insular and isolated as it ground through its crash industrialisation program.
their hypothesis was proven correct, throughout the world especially in impoverished and colonized lands, majorities of the populations did in fact want to and tried to follow in liberation and self-actualization. What they failed to adequately take into account was previously totally unimaganable depths to which the western capitalist imperialist powers were willing to go to terrorize their own citizens and exterminate their colonial possessions in order to protect the power and wealth of the elite owning class.
Suvorov thesis is correct. Nazis and Communists were both ready to fight but Suvorov thesis explains Soviet forces on the western border. Which explains the huge losses in Soviet killed and captured in opening stages of the invasion.
58:05 -- Everybody quiet! *The Baron Speaks* --58:05
1:04:56 -- Pointed Quote -- 1:04:56
He was spot on in some cases.
You mean he was hit and miss?
Stalin wanted to move his main forces to the south because after the joint agreement with Hitler on Poland he was dissatisfied with his portion of the initial success and wanted to seize additional territory. He met with resistance from Hitler when wanted to seize Romania and Bulgaria. They both wanted the Romanian oil fields. That's why the second meeting with Molotov collapsed. Stalin was anticipating forcefully taking Romania and he thought he would be clashing with the German army there and didn't think their objective was Moscow.
Tukhachevsky was only a second Lieutenant in the Czar's army. He went over to the Bolsheviks despite his noble heritage and earned his stripes there in the Russian Civil war, so he was another one of those (according to Dr.Harrison) 'jumped up' minor officers turned General. Tukhachevsky was more of a careerist rather than a man of strong political convictions. Charles De Gaulle himself shared a cell with Tukhachevsky a German prisoner of war and heard him making many anti Jewish statements; something not adhering to communist or Bolshevik communist philosophy; some of the main Bolsheviks being of Jewish or partially Jewish heritage.
As a careerist and with his dislike of the Jews his sympathies with Hitler would not be difficult to understand. He changed to the winning side once and seemed to be quite prepared to do it again.
The plan to kill Stalin and side with the Germans was not just exacted through torture, but the details provided and the accusations by the conspirators made against one another would have been improbable to stage manage.
Major characters in the Soviet Union who escaped the purges to Britain, Israel and the U.S corroborated the notion of a plan to kill Stalin in the mid to late 30's which involved some of the army staff which were led by Tukhachevsky and also involved collaborating with the Nazis.
There is indeed Nazi documentation which supports this as do officers in the Czech army and the Japanese army....all visited by Tukhachevsky.
Expanding the army on such a large scale both in man power and technology was bound to leave a deficit of army leaders.
Of all Soviet officers accused more than 80% were re-instated after their trials were over and they were cleared.
British and French forces were no match for German forces despite their 'seasoned' leadership, or was it just incompetent, inbred nepotism?
Vasantha Perera Who were the “major figures” who gave evidence against Tukhachevsky collaborating with the Nazis? Please share your reference.
There is evidence the Nazis concocted documents to imply they were in a plot with the Red Army leadership. They wanted to goad Stalin into decapitating the Red Army.
This is separate from the opposition to Stalin that existed in the Red Army officer corps prior to the great terror and other indications of a move against Stalin. In “1937: Stalin’s Year it Terror” by Vadim Rogovin, chapter 46 is titled “Reasons for Reprisals Against the Generals”. It raises seven reasons as follows:
1. The Red Army was a powerful material force that was outside the normal controls of the party.
2. A significant proportion of the officers of the Red Army had fought in the Civil War under Trotsky’s leadership and many were at least sympathetic to the Left Opposition
3. The commanders and personal to a certain degree reflected the dissatisfaction of the peasantry, especially given the catastrophe of forced collectivisation.
4. Tuchachevsky has conflicted with Stalin and Voroshilov on strategic doctrine and warned of the USSR being drawn into a war with Germany. In 1930 his proposal for modernising the Red Army was sharply criticised by Stalin and Voroshilov. Tukhachevsky wrote to Stalin that the current plan would preclude discussing important aspects of defence capability. Only in May 1932 did Stalin accept the error. Tukhachevsky was also consistent in his opposition to fascism and said Stalin was a “Germanophile” who would do a deal with Hitler.
5. The army leadership disagreed with the negative influence of Voroshilov and his group on the Red Army. (In their confessions in 1937 they admitted discussing the need to remove Voroshilov)
6. Stalin could was alarmed by the genuine prestige and respect given to Tuchachevsky. Stalin called him a “little Napoleon” at one point.
7. The officers were very familiar with Stalin’s actual role during the civil war, especially the failure at the battle of Warsaw when Stalin had disobeyed orders to send troops from the southern front to assist Tukhachevsky. This was still being raised in the 1930s despite Stalin’s efforts to falsify the history.
It was Stalin who signed the non-aggression pact, ignored up to 82 intelligence reports of an impending invasion despite saying himself in May 1942 war with Germany was inevitable and did not prepare a defence and lined up the front line forces on the border where they could be crushed. Given this we can say Tuckhachevsky and the other executed officers would have been quite right to conclude that in order to defend the USSR they had to get rid of Stalin and it is unreasonable to suppose they hadn’t at least considered it.
All of this raises an important point: the purges were not the product of Stalin’s paranoia, as the standard narrative vociferously proclaims, but were an attempt to crush the real opposition that existed to a criminal regime.
PS. AFAIK tree is no other source that Tukhachevsky was anti-Semitic besides the book on De Gaulle. This is reason enough to treat it as hearsay.
Brilliant commentary
Sources?
Tuchachevsky looks like Rodney Dangerfield...
Since when do you need to slaughter sheep to get wool. 103.14 lol
Hitler-Stalin Pact gave Stalin room and time to degrade Hitler's forces.... think if Hitler had started at Minsk and not Brest-Litovskt ..
Yes, the non aggression pact was a smart move, it broke the possibility of a capitalist coalition against the USSR and they hoped the nazis would bog down fighting France and that that would allow for revolution in those countries, but the Germans defeated the French too quickly.
Slaughtering sheep for wool?
Watching the current Russian incompetence all over again
Stephen Kotkin's yer only man.
Not one of the better lectures due to the fact the style of the presenter.
This isnt the Disney channel buddy
@@johndonaldson3619 You mean I've been paying a guy with mice ears for nothing?
Try choosing content over style and who knows, you might lean something!
@@johndonaldson3619 Style is content. See, now you thought that was a false dichotomy when it really isn't.
@@dr.barrycohn5461 We'll no, content is what you're writing about - the information you're trying to convey or plot of the story you're telling. Style is the way in which you present that information - your word choice, organization, and other details of the writing..... 'doctor'
Iam sure the Soviet State spent a fortune on his upkeep for those 3 months
Fascinating topic, weak delivery... hesitant, unconvincing and incomplete -- how could he forget to mention the JOINT soviet - German invasion of Poland in 1939? The ussr didn't just randomly "profit" from it, it part-engineered it.
He did around 830
I think the far greater omission was not even mentioning the allied interventions during and after the russian civil war. The fact that Great Britain, France and the US had *already tried* to "strangle bolshevism in its crib" seems pertinent to the question of whether the communists were paranoid to worry about invasions.
@@AliRadicali Hardly surprising the "Allies" tried to kill bolshevism at birth... the bolsheviks made no secret of their intention to export their "people's paradise" to Europe and beyond... they were meddling in Germany, setting up "soviets" and agitating for the military to mutiny, from 1917 onwards -- long before the allies stepped in.
@@acosorimaxconto5610 Sure, the allies had reasons for striking a pre-emptive blow, but that's neither here nor there. The fact is they did strike the first blow and this lecturer is completely ignoring that fact in his analysis of Soviet "paranoia". If he wants to lecture about pre-emptive wars, why not start with the one that actually materialised and influenced subsequent policy?
To be clear, I don't think you have to be sympathetic to communism or Lenin/Stalin to demand a fair analysis here. If we want to learn anything from the Soviet tragedy to apply to, say, China, it just doesn't do to ignore the Soviets' legitimate security concerns. Simply dismissing the russkies as "crazy" or paranoid" doesn't help at all to understand their actual thinking, it's a lazy cop-out and a dead-end in terms of gleaning knowledge.
As for your point about soviet interference in Germany, I think you've got that exactly backwards, friend. The Germans helped smuggle Lenin into Russia to help stokes the flames of revolution. I have my doubts about the nascent Soviet state even being capable of infiltrating Germany while it was still struggling to establish its authority and fighting a civil war, but I also don't think it's necessary to explain the communist rioting in Germany. After all, the ideas of socialism had been around in Germany and France a lot longer than in Russia itself. I don't doubt that the kremlin sent the german communists their moral support, but I doubt they sent anything more substantial.
he has his facts mixed up very badly.
[citation needed]
5:30 all of which was at the time, and has later continued, to be proven exactly correct. Contrary to our dear dr, the rest of the world is able to imagine why a nation attacked by every colonial imperialist power during WWI and during it's revolution -all of which also then went on to encourage, fund, arm, and support the rise of fascism in central europe- were and would continue to be it's enemies. That "snows of far of northern lands" from the USMC hymn didn't get there by accident, and the US didn't send the marines to kill on accident.
Iraq fooled murica lol 😂
i am bored but not THIS bored.
Stop saying "out of" when you mean "from," damn it!
REPEAT AFTER ME: REZUN/SUVOROV WAS RIGHT.
the pronunciation is terrible ! shap O shnikov ! lubl I n ! smolEnsk ! (not smoliensk) with a soft L and hard E !
You may have noticed that he is speaking English, not Russian. You are aware that they are different languages, right? I mean, Russian people mispronounce a lot of English names and words too, or do Russians all speak with Received Pronunciation when they say English words? I'll never understand this pedantry among Internet dorks who insist that everybody be able to perfectly pronounce every word and name in every other language. Heres the name of a Welsh town: Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch. Now pronounce it like you would if you fucking live there, you uneducated pleb.
uneducated pleb ... right. btw i am german. you see ...good pronunciation comes with the time and intensity one will work on a matter. so it is a sign of knowledge. and it is also a sign of respect.
i dont blame common people who barely speak their own language. but here we have an historian, a professional, highly educated academic , whos only job is to read and research. and he should have good knowledge of russian to read russian documents.
bad pronunciation is therefore , in this case, an indication of poor qualification.
Definitely people like David Glantz, who can speak and read Russian sources or Jonathan House, who works with Glantz, tend to pronounce it closer to Russian.