Start speaking a new language in 3 weeks with Babbel &. Get up to 60% OFF your subscription *Here: go.babbel.com/t?bsc=usa-influ-eg-dt-1m&btp=default&RUclips&Influencer..Apr-2024..USA-TATAM..1200m60-yt-whatifalthist-apr-2024
A couple of incorrect statements I'd like to point out here: 1) The sentence about Slavs being economically isolated needs qualifying: the group you're relating to there are the so-called Eastern Slavs. They're the group that's largely definded by the proximity of the Eastern Hordelands, resulting in a very war-like, isolationist and relatively non-mercantile community. Western Slavs are usually defined by their relationship with the central european, Germanic neighbors and were more trade-oriented, maintaining historically significant trade routes such as the Amber Road or the Via Regia. 2) The word "slave" is actually based *on* the descriptor that the Slavic people used to identify themselves: "Slowian" comes from "Slowo" - translating literally to "word", as well as "slawa" meaning glory. Esentially, the Slavic tribes called themselves "Those who speak words" or "The glorious ones/ones being praised". It was later corrupted into the greek "sklavenoi" and latin "sclavus", later associated with slavery due to the south-western tribes being a major source of slave labour, both as capturees and (more often) participants in the slave trade.
Yes, most of the people fall in this Folk-etymological explanation, when actually Slav- means "word, speech". This is reinforced by the application of "dumb" to Germans (Nemecky) speaking people.
@@spoonerreligionandpolitics apparently not since in one of his next maps he puts "Siberia" above the "Steppe" and labels all of Siberia "uninhabitable" in brackets.
@@TaylorWilmes Interesting, you learn something new every day. I didn't know as a Finn that even though basically our entire country is made up of taiga and is sub-arctic that we haven't had agriculture here for thousands of years.
Everyone knows you don't go up against a Sicilian when death is on the line, and you don't get into a land war in Asia. Ps Joe Biden is a f*ckin idiot.
Slave developed from slav, we call ourselves Slované (and variationas) it means something like "Word people" since we could understand each other and why Germans are called Němci by all slavs, literally "mutes"
That's basically every single human group ever. The insiders are "humans", the aliens are "barbarians". And it's usually related to language; the outsiders don't "talk", they "bark". Like dogs. Gaijins, gentiles, barbarians.
Slave in Swedish is just slav no difference in pronunciation or spelling. because that is what they were for the longest time. and the word Russia comes from the word Ryssland translated means ruffly the people that attack without thinking it thru
@@antonsamuelsson1317Russia comes from the word Rus', which in turn is derived from the Norse word for rower or rowman, dumbass. It's cognate with Roslagen, which is the area where the Rus' Varangians intially came from.
"There is more Russian money outside Russia than inside it." Somewhere in Douglas Smith's "Former People: The Final Days of the Russian Aristocracy," he states that Russian aristocrats were very patriotic during the First World War, keeping and even repatriating their funds back to Russia from abroad. Which hurt them big time after the war, when the Bolsheviks easily confiscated all that wealth that had been so helpfully brought back to the country. So now when I hear about Russian oligarchs keeping their fortunes abroad, it makes a lot more sense. Lesson learned, I guess.
lol in your sad fascist world everything is Russia's fault no matter what. In reality you simply stole Russian funds through "Russian" oligarchs that you installed in 1953-1991.
"Let's talk about cultural influences that shaped historical russian lands" "Oh you mean the norse legal code, byzantine traditions, dutch innovations and french court-" "Mongols. I will make 12 more videos on this subject."
I still don't get why so few people care about its Byzantine traditions, the Tsars literally proclaimed Russia the 3rd Rome by virtue of sharing the Greek orthodox church with them
@@alexer52Orthodoxy is Russia. It is essential to what makes Russia Russian and not something else. The country may try to reject this, but that doesn’t make it not so.
@@wolliveryoutube exactly, that's what I'm saying. I still don't get why so many people overemphasize the place of the Mongols in Russian history and overlook this
It's really funny youtube westerners trying to explain slavic/eastern history. I'm Bulgarian I remember reading a book on the Ottomans by the best French academicians saying the Ottomans never leveled any fortresses when conquering the Balkans, which is COMPLETELY untrue as ottoman historians themselves wrote that Bulgaria had the strongest fortresses on the Balkans and you can walk through the ruins in so many cities. They'd dismantle the fortresses as they didn't want a strong place for the population to go to if they rebel. Reading a ton of stuff like this over the years made me really cautions when reading western stuff on non-western countries. Also makes you think if he missed so much essential stuff in this video, what his other videos are missing.
I think it’s a misnomer to describe Siberia as undeveloped, sure in comparison to more temperate Europe, but in comparison to Canada, Siberia is arguably more developed, ignoring the differences in living standards. They both have roughly 40 million people. Furthermore Siberia is crucial to Russian history in the fact that Siberian furs financed Russia’s imperial rise. Many people make the argument that without Ukraine there is no Russian Empire, however it is really Siberia that fuels Russia’s strength. Without the natural resources of Siberia Russia would’ve never had the finances to conquer Ukraine from the Polish Lithuanian commonwealth in the first place. I will concede that Russia’s far east/pacific coast is hugely underdeveloped and can easily support a larger population, but the rest of Siberia is fairly well populated, considering how far north it is. Novosibirsk (55°03′N): 1,635,338 Yekaterinburg (56°50′08″N): 1,539,371 Krasnoyarsk (56°00′32″N): 1 196 913 Chelyabinsk (55°09′17″N): 1,182,517 Omsk (54°59′N): 1,110,836 Tyumen (57°09′N): 855,618 … Surgut (61°15′N): 396,443 Yakutsk (62°01′48″N): 361,154 … Norilsk (69°20′N): 174,453 In comparison the northern most major city in North America, Edmonton, is only at 53°32′04″N at 1,010,899 people. If you consider Anchorage a major city, it’s at 61°13′00″N but with only 287,145 people.
I do think he means the southern, fertile bits of siberia. especially far eastern siberia. afterall its something he like to highlight when ever he covers russia.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 where do you think those 1 million plus cities I just listed are located? In the southern fertile regions. Novosibirsk is the third largest city in Russia. That being said, I did mention that I concede that the Russian far east/pacific coast is very underdeveloped/underpopulated. Vladivostok with a population of only 597,237 should have a population that is easily twice as much for being the major pacific port.
From a lecture by Russian-born professor: they expanded into siberia (colonising and later forcefully russifying local people) because they killed all local animals and there were no more animals for fur
@@wayhome5 yes, Russia colonized Siberia in a similar manner to the way the French and British colonized Canada, and in the same time period. Quebec was first settled in 1535 and then founded in 1608. Tobolsk was founded in 1587.
@@wayhome5 it should be understood that this is a different type of colonization. There are many swamps and forests here. Russians were interested in rivers as highways and until recently they didn't care much about what was in the depths of the forests. The steppe fertile lands of southern Siberia were inhabited by nomads. The same European Buddhist republic of Kalmykia is the people who were given this land for nomadism. Russia also provided the younger zhuz of the Kazakhs with lands between the Volga and the Ural River, where there were no Kazakhs. In the Republic of Buryatia, many European Russians understand or speak the Buryat language. The lands of Siberia were colonized by all the peoples of Russia, including Estonians, Germans, and Mordvins. The situation is not that Russians came, but that everyone had to switch to some one language and become Russian-speaking. If we talk about the fact that the Russians drove the small ones to the inaccessible north, then this is not entirely true, because before that the Turkic nomads had already tried hard.
The word "slave" is actually based on the descriptor that the Slavic people used to identify themselves: "Slowian" comes from "Slowo" - translating literally to "word", as well as "slawa" meaning glory. Esentially, the Slavic tribes called themselves "Those who speak words" or "The glorious ones/ones being praised". It was later corrupted into the greek "sklavenoi" and latin "sclavus", later associated with slavery due to the south-western tribes being a major source of slave labour, both as capturees and (more often) participants in the slave trade.
Russia not only has so much natural wealth, it has produced some of the most talented minds in history. It is hard not to lament what it could've been under a decent government.
When you say this you think of countries perhaps like Germany or Netherlands, but Russia is different. It is too big to be a minor partner in the western project and Ukraine war has put an end to any such ideas. Russia's current standing has nothing to do with the government type but rather the power distribution between civilizations (and empires). After the dissolution of the soviet union, contemporary Russia (former world power) has lost almost all of its soviet manufacturing capabilities and was assigned a resource extractor role in the global distribution of labor, akin to the african dictator states. The oligarch class who took control of the extracting industries has sold their resources to the western states and/or China and moved all profits to the imperial core (mostly London and Switzerland). This was quite profitable for the western world, but it was not satisfied because Russia has not overgone its political transformation to 'demoracrcy', which would destroy Russia's great power aspirations for good. The idea was to capture control over Russia and to chop it down into smaller pieces until its great power status would be completely lost (Chechen wars as a clue). When the first plan did not work, they started focusing on the color revolutions schemes which had occured in all post-soviet countries in the periphery of Russia, even in Russia itself in 2011. It's a long topic and it can be debated whether Russia has chosen correct strategy and whether their current decoupling would lead to a better future ... or not. But in order to have this discussion, both parties need to be open minded and not to spew ignorant nonsense like "government bad, corruption bad". Real life is 1000000 times more complicated than that.
And they left if they could. It is a cruel, sick, evil culture, where casual violence is laughed at. Picture blood, pain and laughter by tormentors, egged on by onlookers.
I think there are few point that should be made in regards on your stance with Russia. 1. "Russia will be done in 5/10/15/50/insert-your-number-here years" is somewhere in the same cohort with: "Sanction will kill Russian economy. Any second now!". Broad, over-generalized, overdone. Its far from the most likely outcome for the very reason you've well-described in this video. Sheer tenacity of Russian mindset that basically goes: "Screw it! We'll pull through odds be damned!" is enough reason to doubt purely catastrophic outcome. Rallying behind flag and going on in spite of pressure is what Russians are good at. And current international climate all but ensures the pressure won't recede. 2. As you've pointed out, Russia currently exists in kind of idea vacuum. There are some nascent ideas floating around, sanity of which is varying, as well as traces of both Orthodoxy and Communism (the latter is diminishing though). And Russia is under pressure from inside and outside. This means two things: a) the rallying behind the flag becomes an idea enough due to pressure alone; b) it fastens the process of ideological development. We are yet to see its fruits, since its still developing, but some things can be seen emerging even now. And now to a part most will find surprising. Putin's clique in power is probably the best possible outcome we ALL can hope for. Which is ironic from Ukrainian, but I'll explain. The ideological vacuum in Russia will most likely be filled with some Christian-leaning right-wing ideology, radicality of which is yet to be defined. Outside pressure from the war and sanctions as well as inside pressure from migrant crisis pushes Russia right. Rallying behind the flag is intuitively easier when the flag is shared between at least likeminded individuals, if not outright members of the same nationality. Hence the almost inevitable hostility towards outsiders. There lies a real possibility of outright right-wing Russia, and none of us will want it, trust me. It may not be overtly xenophobic, but it will no doubt be imperial to the max - and very aggressive. 3. One of the reasons the abovementioned scenario is possible is general disenchantment most Russians feel towards the West. Pro-Western people are now a dying breed there - and largely not because of state censorship, but because less and less people see the point in following the West. Get woke get broke? In more ways than you'd think. Current western ideas are no-sellers abroad. Even a complete fool could point out sheer idiocy of what people in the West engage in nowadays - and the fact the West is literally not breeding anymore. More and more people see the West not as kind of promised land, but as a land with no future. And who in their right mind would wager their future on following someone who looks like an idiot slowly destroying himself? People laugh at new BRICS members, pointing out how those countries have too little in common and how their economies are meager. Yet many ignore the fact that those countries were the same who followed West for decades - but less so now. And people in Russia are no different. Many may not like Putin, his clique, his actions - but less and less people like the West. For an average Ivan modern West is a bunch of nosey cretins who gone down the crazy alley with the stuff like LGBTQ+, radical ecologism, the way racial topic is handles nowadays, general anti-natalism and the tendency to meddle with everyone everywhere. Not the icon of progress it once was: a kind of fallen hero, a soured greatness, the mighty who grew senile and weak - at best. People are growing hostile to the West - and to its ideas. Which is good. I am one of those people who no longer see the the West as an idea to follow. More of a warning on what not to do with your society. We need new ideas, so desperately you can't even express it in words. And I really hope anyone would come with something worthy - be it Russia, Latin America, Africa, Iran, Israel. Just anyone with good explanation on what to do with this world except gorge yourself on your own whims and call it a day.
I generally agree with your first point. Although temporally there might be a rapid collapse, but that doesn't mean that Russia will disappear as a country or civilization. I completely agree with your third point. I am a Pro-Western Russian, but even for me modern Western civilization looks failing. I hope it will recover from this some time in the future, but right now it doesn't look great. But I have a lot of doubts about your second point. As far as I can tell, Christianity (Orthodox or otherwize) isn't that popular in Russia, and ideological vacuum is filled with lots of different ideas from Communism to Libertarianism and from Nazism to Islamism (and with weird mixes of those ideas). It is very hard to predict any future development, but both a pluralistic parliamentary democracy and a civil war among many different parties seem more likely than a unified Christian empire.
@@АнтонОрлов-я1ъ People mistake faith and allegiance. Orthodoxy is part of nation's cultural code. Even people who do not count themselves among the faithful may still align themselves with the people and the Church because it still speaks to them. They may not visit churches every Sunday, but still at least have respect for the faith and its tenants. Orthodoxy seats too deep in our cultural code to ignore it. So deep, in fact, we rarely even notice its influence. But do say - how often when you see some outright lunacy in the West, something stirs deep in you? Calls to you in terms and emotions not quite rational or secular? Have words like "blasphemy", "sin", "ungodly" or "immoral" ever crossed your mind when you see something like a girl aged 28 deciding to get euthanasia with full state approval? Or just raw emotions of wrongness or revulsion that would perhaps be more fitting for someone living in times of Crusades who had in-hand experience of religious exaltation? It certainly crossed mine. As for the different ideas - with things the way they are now, Fascism will win most likely, I think. Not ru-propaganda or soy-people kind - the OG one: "power to the state - power to the people" kind, which had less to do with nationalism and more with sheer authoritarianism. You can see it - it defines everyone pro-current course. Some lean right, some lean left, all lean imperial. And Christianity would be a good fleur for them. Besides, if the Big Guy goes, who replaces him? Schmele, who unironically went: "finish off the survivors!" in his rhetoric? There are no noticeable non-imperial figures either among officials, or activists. When the liberals waste their time on stuff like: "lets beat the casseroles at 10 am or something", right and left have actual fighting squads with now years of experience. And if Prigozhin showed us anything, is that little to no one wants the boat rocked. So I won't count on infighting either. Simply put, the bellicose imperial course suits everyone with balls, organization and manpower to be worth accounting for. Yes, there are other ideas and other people, but sludge hits the fan and they won't have firepower or manpower to do squat.
Too much text to Say You are a far right conservative that admires Putin and Russia because gay people there can be imprisoned or forced to live a "quiet hidden" life and feminism is not tolerated. You could have just said it..
@@mauser98kar Very true, the creator of this video does this often and says that despite westerners not being very practicing protestant tradition still lives on but he refuses to do the same for the much more conservative societies of China and Russia
@@apator2 It is true, he has this tendency as much of westerners I've heard. Though we must admit - he has good reason in this specific case. Commies in China and Russia did their best to destroy preceding culture and replace it with their own ideas, which clashes with original culture and still linger to some degree. And it is a weak point and a constant source of squabbles, at least in Russia. But people often make a mistake of exaggerating the weight of these squabbles. I think there are more people in Russia interested in arguing their favorite anime title versus which is better: orthodoxy or communism. And what many fail to notice, WhatIfaltHist included, is that even those people who do argue, are more interested in fighting Ukraine, NATO and whatnot, rather than each other. They have common imperial interest that goes beyond their squabbles. When they captured Lisychansk, on its administration flew flags of Chechen squads, commies and the Imperial Tricolor (white yellow black). Just to paint a picture. So, WhatIf's (and most westerners') error is mistaking differences for fractures. Iran is prime example of this approach, with so many people going somewhere around: "oh, but it has so much minorities, it must mean it will fall apart any moment!". Failing to realize that dealing with those minorities and keeping the country united is basically the entire history of Iran.
I believe it is also important to add the Napoleonic Era, because it is rather important for most modern states: 1) Prof. Lieven writes that Russia had the best horse industry and logistics at that time. 2) It is also the time, were Russian warfare started to deviate from Western Europe's, by focusing more on attrition (see Clausewitz). 3) Lieven also explains why the Czar's power was only absolute on paper: because if the Czar thought he can do whatever, like Paul I., he got a knife in his back. The Czar needed the aristocrats for the bureaucracy, military and courts. If the Czar ruined his relationship with the aristocrats, they would not implement his orders, collect taxes, recruit peasants etc. And often one aristocrat had multiple tasks. 4) The reason why peasants were in the army for live was that these people were given to the army, because they were a mouth too much too feed. So even after they served their time and returned home, they would not be very welcomed. So most stayed in the army. 5) Regarding the Russian nobility speaking French: Russia's first university was founded in the 18th century, but by then you already needed higher education as officer. So Russia imported Western professors who ofc spoke French, not Russian. Additionally the Czar had to promote non-Russians into higher positions to keep the loyalty of certain population groups. For example the army had 7% Baltic Germans, who kept the Baltics under control. Those non-Russians also spoke French, but even though the Russian nobility, including all the non-ethnic Russians, did not speak Russian, most were loyal to Russia and the Czar nonetheless.
You know the feeling when you know more than the average person on a specific topic and that said person gets half of the stuff completely wrong, and that makes you question everything they've been saying on other topic you're less informed of, well this is the video lol.
Yeah. 13:40 in, keeps conflating Slav with Russian and Russian with the Medieval Rus. I could spend a good 13+ minutes doing a bullet point type outline of all that's ass backwards and/ or modern Soviet-Russian Histriography( Moscow approved mythical Ethno-Genesis/ Propaganda) but doing so would waste another full 30+ minutes of life.
Whatifalthist is more a big picture guy. Ask him to describe a forest, and he can tell you which way it grows. Ask him to describe the trees, and many things he says will contradict what you have read in books. Then again, history is a debatable topic; written by the victors, and interpreted by the ivory tower who are funded by the powers that be. And that is true in academia in general. For example, in the last ten or so years, due to changes in who funds them, scientists are now saying biological sex does not exist. Even though scientists knew ten years ago that a body that ever produced seed is unambiguously male and a body that ever produced eggs is unambiguous female. That is all down the drain because that offends people.
@@Leo-ok3uj Depends on the period of antiquity. The earliest periods certainly went through Germania, but there was an increasing push to use the river networks of Russia, especially as the land fell into the hands of more cohesive authorities like the Goths.
I mean yeah, but if you want to maintain an empire and country as big as the US you'd need some form of authoritarianism to be involved. Every massive country needs this authoritarianism in some form to exist, but the main concern of everybody is what it is used for exactly.
The interview was just a propaganda piece with partial takes on the Russian perspective WHICH ULTIMATELY GIVES NO RIGHT FOR THEIR RECENT ACTIONS. The Putin regime has to lose, simple as.
@tterp4228 nice propaganda talking point we got there. It's not like the fatality counts were recorded to like 25-27 deaths per year on that 8 year period. Holodomor on the other hand is a myth while the population count of having at least 3 million less people after it, checked out. Dear vatnik. 🤡
1. The author’s idea that slavery in Russia was stronger than slavery in the USA is erroneous. Serfdom in Russia became a form of slavery only after the adoption of a set of laws (the “Conciliar Code”) in 1649. Until 1649, peasants who were serfs, once a year, every year, had the right to change their master ("St. George's Day") Only after 1649 did the peasants become the property of the nobles. Thus, serfdom in Russia lasted from 1649 to 1861. 212 years old. In the United States, slavery existed from 1619 to 1865. 246 years old. If we are talking about the equality of all people before the law, then in Russia, people received universal equality in 1917. While in the USA, universal equality came only after the abolition of segregation among the black population. This is the year 1964-1968. Of course, if we consider freedom from the point of view of opportunities for the elites (white elites), then in the USA there has always been more freedom than in Russia. However, if we consider freedom in terms of opportunities for the people as a whole, then until ~2010, Russian society was much freer than American society. 2. The author’s idea of the Russian Tsar as an absolute monarch is also completely untenable. The Russian monarch had less authority and power than the monarchy in the British Empire. Russian tsars were killed, overthrown, and even elected during popular assemblies. 3. Russia did not gain independence “at about the same time as the United States.” The author confuses the proclamation of the Russian Empire (1721) with the beginning of the history of the Russian state. The beginning of the history of the Russian state begins in 862. This date is enshrined in all Russian chronicles. From this moment Russian statehood begins. If we are talking about the date of the end of the Tatar-Mongol yoke, then this is 1480. 241 years before the proclamation of the empire. 4. It’s also amazing how the author paints the entire period of communism in Russia with black paint. It's funny. It's worth stopping at this picture: 35:58 Yes, Stalin “destroyed” all the officers. After which the USSR won the greatest war in human history, winning the largest and most monstrous battles in history. Don't think, trust the author. Yes, Stalin “destroyed” all scientists. After which the USSR developed some of the most advanced weapons of its time, was the second in the world to develop an atomic bomb, the first in the world to launch a man into space, the first in the world to launch a satellite into space, and the first in the world to build a nuclear power plant. After all, other countries did the same thing, right? Yes, Stalin “destroyed” all farmers. As a result, Russia from an agrarian power became an industrialized society. The most reading nation on the planet with free medicine and education. And much more. The author also uses the thesis that the Russian Empire developed rapidly while the development of the USSR was “arithmetic” Here's what it means: Conventionally, in 1905, there was 1 factory in the Russian Empire. In 1906, there were 2 factories in the Russian Empire. Growth 100% In 1923, there were 10 factories in the USSR. In 1924, there were 15 factories in the USSR. Growth 50% Author's conclusion: "The USSR developed less! Its development was arithmetic, not literal" If you have even a little brain, you understand that in this case, actual growth (arithmetic) is more important than percentage. The fact that the USSR built many times more factories, factories, and machine tools than the Russian Empire is undeniable. There is much more that could be commented on, but I have already written too much. The author did not understand anything.
"Slavs from word Slave" - man, are you serious? Not to mention that in that time there was no word "slave" among neither swedish, nor slav population, from which we can trace direct correlation, but more over, Romans the one who calls barbarians on the east of germany and nort of daccia "Sklavs" or "Sklavens", by the name of they'r tribe.
With due respect, you could not legally kill a serf as their master. But if you had ordered to lash your serf and they died on the next day, you wouldn't be responsible for their death. For example the Saltychiha who self handedly killed hundreds of her serfs, ended up imprisoned for life, but as long as "killing wasn't the intent", you wouldn't suffer any legal consequences as a master. Also Poland never in its history conquered Russia. Its true, that a polish nobleman was the Russian emperor, but he was crowned as the Russian emperor, not and in fact was supposed by a large chank of Russian nobility as the empress recognized this polish dude as miraculously survived her deceased son. So Moscow nobility did believe he was Prince Dmitriy. In Russian history this man is called False Dmitriy 1. There was a second pretendor, who also claimed to be prince Dimitri (False Dmitriy 2, but he didn't have as much luck
Western absolutism, French and Spanish monarchies, and Hitler, Mussolini and Franco dictatorships are laughing together at your argument about “authoritarism and dictatorship is only in Russia, we are very democratic in the west bla-bla”. Dude, history and mentality is not your subject))
Not the first time he has made such outrageous claims. He reads random popbooks and makes assumption. I mostly follow him because of the discourse and topics. He's unable to stick to one subject and research it deeply.
the point should be that in western europe dictatorships are either episodes or they interleave with other systems while in Russia from the start till today till the the forseeable future there are no episodes of non-dictatorships taking place, and here it is unique
@@gabbar51ngh one way or another, we can consider this a schizo run. but you can still find interesting dependencies and data from him, if you don't dig into the details and his personal attitude to communism or something else for the sake of the big picture. We'll make a discount.
He has the most knowledge and insight on America, and to a lesser extent the broader Anglosphere. When he ventures outside that, he makes a lot more mistakes.
Oh Lord, where to begin to deconstruct your regergitation of every western stereotype. Lets start with, slavs were not the most primitive, a pure lie. We were town and city builders long before the Germans settled. We were not colonized by scandanavians, they were never more then 10% of thr population. The Slavs in the east were not in most of present day Ukraine, actually only northern edges. NW Russia is much older slav areas and that was in no way under the steppe, it is deep forest. Murm is 14-1600 years old. Psvkov, Ladaga and other cities are as or much older. Novgorod is from the 9th century. The Khazars were not all jewish, only the aristocracy the populations were heavily mixed. The steppe were not colonized until the 1600s. Russian peasants had property ownership until serfdom came in in 1500s and left in 1851. The Village allocating land to the residents was a system that operated between 1851 and the 1900s. Stolipen ended it. Russian rulers were never fully autocratic. It is absolutley ignorant to say that thr Church was not a seperate power centers or that guilds and towns werent either. Furthermore, all Velikii Knyazi and then Tsars had a Boyars' Duma (House of Lords) operating parallel. Only Peter the Great disbanded it. So for 150 years there was no parliament. The Mongols did not colonize us, there was not a single Mongol settlement within Rus lands. Rus was vassal states, sent taxes once every 5-10 years and soldiers to fight . That process was already cracking by the time Dmitry Donskoi defeated Mamayav. The princes of Moscow, Tver and Ryazan all completed for premecy at head of Rus under the Mongols. I stopped listening at this point. I've heard all your rehashed stereotypes a thousand times from westerners Westplaining our history to us.
"What I remember about the rise of the Empire is... is how quiet it was. During the waning hours of the Clone Wars, the 501st Legion was discreetly transferred back to Coruscant. It was a silent trip. We all knew what was about to happen, what we were about to do. Did we have any doubts? Any private, traitorous thoughts? Perhaps, but no one said a word. Not on the flight to Coruscant, not when Order 66 came down, and not when we marched into the Jedi Temple. Not a word." - Operation: Knightfall "Knightfall" - Star Wars Battlefront II (2005)
I can explain it. Some christian guy got mad he couldn't have multiple wives because of his religion and cultural attitudes, so he invented a brand new version of Christianity so he could bang multiple women.
@@АлександрДаминин Tomato, tomato. It's interesting that he painted European Russia as having super interconnected waterways, when there are really several large rivers, none of which are connected naturally (meaning, they would require canals to be connected). He doesn't mention that they're connected by canals, though. It is very important to point that out for America, but completely unimportant for Russians, apparently. But even that leaves out three important points: (1) In the image he used in the video [12:43], three of the rivers have never been part of Russia, while five others exist in Ukraine, Belarus, Poland, and the Baltic states, but not Russia proper. (2) Among the remaining three river systems, two are indeed connected by canal, while the third one has a blue connecting line representing.... I have no idea what is supposed to be there, but there is no canal (to be fair, he does not include a canal that actually does exist, connecting elsewhere--I guess he's just hallucinating like a GPT). (3) None of these rivers can be put in the same category as the Mississippi, Missouri, or Ohio rivers in drainage basin, navigability, carrying capacity, or harborage. If you combine all of European Russia's river systems together, they miiiiiight come close to the Ohio alone.... maybe. (BONUS POINTS) What body of water does the Volga empty into? The Caspian Sea (inland). Does St. Petersburg count as a warm water port? Not really. Does the Don river have a decent port? Not really. How much of modern Russia is covered by the drainage basin of all of these river systems combined? About 17%. There is no meaningful river system connecting Russia on either side of the Urals, and the places where building rail is possible in Siberia... that's mostly permafrost... which thaws in the summers and turns boggy. Maintenance and upkeep is not an easy task.
If they ask me what superficial knowledge multiplied by youthful idealism and the idea of American exceptionalism is, then I will give them a link to this video) I don’t criticize, I don’t insult, it’s purely your creativity and freedom of expression... but just as you have the freedom to speak, so I have the freedom to comment
Chess is a lot about patience, predicting behavior, and knowing how and when to sacrifice pieces to trap your opponent and make a decisive move. Aside from simply the geographic origins of the game likely allowing it to reach Russia sooner, if you’re describing Russian culture as one about bearing hardships, sacrifice, and still viewing yourself as a victorious people, seems to me to fit right in
No one would care except for some second-third generation iranian refugees from the iranian revolution who now larp over worshipping fire (Zoroastrians) instead of Allah and try their hardest to connect Iran and Europe because they wish they were white (even though they are brown, on par with indian).
As russian historical you made a lot of popular mythical mistake. Like Slavic from slave, all land was communal, all nobility appointed from Tsar. All of it is wrong or refers to a certain times, not all russian history. And im not really sure that white russia can be better than red, even if as a russian its really easy hate soviets and communism, and i do hate. You are smooth talker but you ignoring facts that don't fit your agenda, no offense
I want to ask: you talk about how much whites of Russia were bad. What aspects of them are bad specifically? I just know Russia became communist as a reaction to serfdom. Also, I can’t blame the uploaded for getting things wrong. I am Chinese and understand the culture and some of our ancient cultural books and texts relics are untranslated to other languages so no foreigner can truly understand stuff that we can understand.
Slav is not related to "slave". It is derived from the Slavic linguistic root "slov" (pick a vowel for o) which relates to the modern Russian word "slovo" (word). Slav derives from the concept of "people who are intelligible" Compare to the Russian word for Germans ("nemets") which has the original meaning of "mute", relating to how those people were unintelligible.
Yes, it is definitely related to "slave" in most Western European languages. It's just that the word "slave" originated from "slav" and "slovo" rather than the other way around.
@@pikulisСлово "раб" произошло от иудейского саклаб (шеклеб), от шекель (сикль), человек на продажу. Потом то ли кретинизм западлян, то ли их русофобия сконтаминировали по случайному созвучию "склаб" и "Склавин". Теперь у нас, ввиду наработанной ответной нелюбви (мягко скажем) к Западлу (западу) идёт примерно такой же процесс: шотландцев именуем скотами (от Скотт), англичан нагличанами (наглецами), русофобских поляков подляками (подлецами), русофобских украинцев руинцами (от слова Руина), или украдинцами (от слова "украсть"), западных людей в целом - западлянами (от слов падло, западло), ну и т.д. А американусов называют в обиходе так, что и сказать нельзя (Ютуб моментально банит). Но когда-то сказалось злобствование Запада против Славян (возможно, ввиду схизмы: католичество отпало от истинного Христианства, и стало клеветать, как и полагается изменнику).
As a huge enjoyer of Russian history, there are a few inaccuracies I want to clear up. First, the Russia (as a whole) does not have good soil for farming. The area around Kiev is very rich, but most of Russia has poor soil. One of the popular farming methods involved burning the trees in the vicinity, using a the ashes as a fertilizer, and farming the land for the next 2-3 years while the soil remained nutrient rich. Another issue is the temperature. Russia is incredibly cold, so most grains cant survive. America was able to capitalize on its temperate climate by farming wheat, which is a very productive grain. Meanwhile, Russia was forced to farm Rye, which is the only grain that would grow in Russia’s harsh climate. Rye is far less economical, but it is certainly a very robust and durable option. I haven’t gotten too far into the video, but those are some of the reasons why Russia lagged behind their neighbors in terms of food production.
The concept of European development was based on robbery. Because she could afford it. All coastal countries within the reach of European ships were controlled (to varying degrees, of course) by Europeans. As the capabilities of the Europeans grew, they moved deeper into the continents, and in a number of regions they retain influence to this day. In its justification, it must be emphasized that it was an economic necessity. To behave differently would create too many risks. There is also a threat of death in case of unfavorable conditions. There is also a threat from neighbors who will not behave well; they will bring resources with which they will prepare a strong army and capture you. There is also a banal lag in the civilization race, which you will get if you do not export resources from the colonies for your development. Therefore, Russia was constantly losing civilizationally, because we could only obtain additional product from our own economy.
That part about Russia being expanded by Cossacks escaping the government, then the government moving in, enserfing them and establishing little incentives for development reminded me heavily of Argentina. The way into Patagonia was paved by Gauchos, many of whom lived semi-nomadic lives. When the government moved in it basically forced the Gauchos into conscription in the military or into underpaid rural labor under rich landowners that divided the newly conquered Patagonia amongst themselves after virtually exterminating the Indians. Despite all its profitability, Patagonia today is terribly underpopulated, with the entire territory having less population than the city of Buenos Aires (2,7 million to 3 million)
One day he explains why young men are single and angry, the next day he drops a BANGER on the history of Russian civilization. It's society's fault I'm single. I'm not a nerd 😂
@@belroise they are insinuating that his video about the 'incel revolution' is personal cope about being a nerd resulting in being single. MyronT3 is infact the one coping, ignoring the massive undeniable trends.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 I see... The most sad of this it's that I saw the other video and WhatIfAltHistory was complaining about the lack of empathy and the use of certain word to attack everyone who talks about male problems
“There are at the present time two great nations in the world, which started from different points, but seem to tend towards the same end. I allude to the Russians and the Americans. Both of them have grown up unnoticed; and whilst the attention of mankind was directed elsewhere, they have suddenly placed themselves in the front rank among the nations, and the world learned their existence and their greatness at almost the same time. All other nations seem to have nearly reached their natural limits, and they have only to maintain their power; but these are still in the act of growth. All the others have stopped, or continue to advance with extreme difficulty; these alone are proceeding with ease and celerity along a path to which no limit can be perceived. The American struggles against the obstacles which nature opposes to him; the adversaries of the Russian are men. The former combats the wilderness and savage life; the latter, civilization with all its arms. The conquests of the American are therefore gained with the ploughshare; those of the Russian by the sword. The Anglo-American relies upon personal interest to accomplish his ends, and gives free scope to the unguided strength and common sense of the people; the Russian centres all the authority of society in a single arm. The principal instrument of the former is freedom; of the latter, servitude. Their starting-point is different, and their courses are not the same; yet each of them seems marked out by the will of Heaven to sway the destinies of half the globe.” ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
It was published in 1835. It's really good. You should read it. I think, yes, it reads differently today now that the US is in steep decline, but during the 1950s for example, it would have been a shock to come across that.
You know, it does starts to make more sense after a while. USA has a different approach, always at a war (military intervention they call it), trying to topple democratically elected goverments, does that make them a better civilization?
Freedom won over slavery in US so much it was abolished 4 years LATER then serfdom was abolished in Russia. Also you have missed near 300 years where russian emperors were russo-germans. Peter the Third who did the most for serfdom was german
In the United States slaves were only a fraction of population which were ethnically African and overwhelmingly lived in the South. In Russia it was the other way around the majority of population of Slavic peasant serfs were controlled by a small class of nobility of many different ethnic origins (Russians, Poles, Germans, Tatars etc.)
@@zagadkazakafresko5409 And yet the US never had 40% of it population as serf or slaves. Certainly not as late as the 19th century. Interesting. Must mean Russia was far more progressive.
@@mastersafari5349the “fraction” in question was 1/7th (4.5 million out of 31.5 million), and 1/9th of the slaves actually lived in the north, where slavery was still legal until December 6, 1865, more than six months after the war’s end (ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment).
Lucio Caracciolo, an Italian expert of geopolitics, says that to know a culture one must read its classic authors. Reading Tolstoj, Dostoevskij, Gogol etc. gives a good glimpse on how Russians see themselves, life and what they think of the rest of the world.
@@mesa9724 knowing some Russians, I would say that the foundational traits are there. Like reading 1800 American literature still gives you glimpses of American people's mind and attitude today. You have to skim the details and keep the core, tho.
30:47 - BTW: Moscovia is the political and geographical name of the Russian state in Western sources, used with varying degrees of priority in parallel with the ethnographic name Russia. Initially, it was the Latin name of Moscow (for comparison: Latin Varsovia), later in a number of states of Western and Central Europe it was transferred to a single Russian state, formed around Moscow. Various researchers believe that the use of this name was facilitated by Polish-Lithuanian propaganda, which deliberately preserved the terminology of feudal fragmentation, denying the legitimacy of the struggle of Ivan III and his successors for the reunification of the lands of Rus'. The Latinism Muscovy was not used as a self-name.
Egypt came up on a poll a while back but it got beat out by something pretty nutty. I’d love to hear your run down on it, considering the civilization is so old and shrouded in an aura of mystery
Fall of Civilizations did an excellent one on the collapse of Ancient Egypt. However, modern Egypt since 12-13th century is basically just another Arab state right? Pretty boring actually?
28:06 Russia abolished serfdom 2 years earlier than US abolished slavery. What are you talking about? You also said previously that Europe has freedoms for womens while Russia doesn't. Russia gave womens right to vote earlier than US, France, Germany, UK, Italy, Spain and so on, actually it was almost first in Europe (only Denmark was ahead) And your atempts to tie everything to mongol invasion is kinda cringe.
Feudalism itself in Russia mentally is very strong to present day and manifests itself in obedience to the authorities that use violence against citizens and the system of oppression.
In poland, as the king was elected by vote, prospectibe kings promised the nobility more and more privileges. Weakening the power of the king and worsening the situation of the farmers. As mostly foreign nobels were elected as kings, most of them weren't interested in the country and let the nobility do as it pleased.
hey bro, it was Koneczny (Konechnee) Yea he also wrote that the best civilization is Latin (Western) and Poland is the highest form of it lol :D But many people on polish right like to refer to his theories.
And The current situation proves Koneczny right. Not with Poland being the highest form of the Latin civilization, but with Latin being the best civilization and Russia being Turanic.
It's hard to find any works of history about Russia written by Russians that have been translated to English so we only hear what the West thinks about Russia and that's an echo chamber. There were some published during the time of the USSR but they had obvious biases. The only way I got some idea of what Russians were like was from being raised with Russians and treated like family. I was lucky. They don't treat many Americans like that and I suspect that no Western "Russia expert" was ever exposed to the real life of a Russian family. There need to be more and better translations of Russian history works. My fiancée is originally from Russia and there doesn't seem to be any other Russian speaker here in a town of 30 000. We both listen to conversations at the store, and there are a lot of different languages spoken, but we haven't heard any Slavic language. The lack of direct knowledge of Russians is crippling the US.
The Soviet Union became the second most powerful nation in history in less than a century, going from wooden plows to launching the first satellite in just thirty years, that'd be unthinkable in any other nation. everything only fell apart after the USSR collapsed.
Yep that's why the communist were used aginst Russian culture more than and before all other's. God willing they find a way to free at least a part of themselves.... God willing America does the same I believe we will at least parts will. I hope Russia can.
Those river systems freeze over a good portion of the year, and are super dangerous when they melt causing big floods. Not good for trade or even settling on the banks
I mean they are 'good' for trade compared to alot of alternatives, just not as great as river systems found in say western europe. its not like african river systems which are basically useless for practically the whole year and even more dangerous.
My father was a cartographer at Defense Mapping Agency. I used to be fascinated by the maps he brought home, especially the topographic maps. I think your maps are well done!
Jewish history is already well understood. Outside of former sultanates, at least. Judaism and its followers began as a branch off of the Caanite peoples. They worshiped the caanite god El (later known as Yahweh). Their sect spread (often through conquest), and Yahwehism became the predominant religion in the Levant. Then Babylonia conquered them. Then Assyria conquered them. Then Rome conquered them. Then they scattered all over Eurasia and northern africa. Then, a branch of messianic Judaism became the state religion of Rome. That is the history.
Well, slave does come from slav because of how many slavs were enslaved in the middle ages. They were the last to convert to Christianity and the Christians are only allowed to enslave non Christian pagans (ofc they would ignore that rule in the early modern period). And islam forbid enslaving Muslims, it must only be non Muslims. So the word definitely comes from there. But the word slav itself does come from слово, as you said, meaning word, as in the slavic tribes can understand each other as слово is where the words for hear слышать, слышал and слушание and so on are derived from.
People in Russia are also fairly worn out by bloodshed from past revolutions and other related events. Even if it’s the case that majority of Russians were tired of their government, they’d rather not try anything in order to avoid millions more dead.
Would be interesting to see an understanding of British Civilisation - I notice stuble similarities between Britain (or at least Modern Britain) and Russia as presented here.
I liked one idea which you mentioned that reform for autocracies are the worst things you could do. I kind of see it in perspective now. The 90s were very terrible time, we didnt know neither how capitalism works nor democracy for that matter. And that is the tragedy of it all because people have an opposite reaction now to these forces. I maybe could argue against such an idea but it really fits here at least
Taiga uninhabitable? I disagree. I've been grown and raised in it. It's habitable. Only there's one growing season so you have to store grain instead of using it all at once.
There is little to no collectivism in russia. It is EXTREMELY individualistic right now with anyone but your closest friends and family being outsiders not to be trusted. Don't listen the nonsense russian government is spreading about traditional values and collectivism.
you are right about individualism, but I haven't heard any claim from russian government that russian society is collectivistic from. Usually it comes from the west, and this is because majority of people in the west (video's author incldued) know very little about Russia
Then why are they allowing an individuals ego to throw away the few remaining young men Russia has? The Russian people will likely never recover from losing 300+ thousand young men to Ukraine because they have such an abysmal birth rate and are an undesirable country for immigration, and yet, they let it happen and even support it.
“There is no justice in this world, and the borders of a country belong to who can conquer them” THANK YOU!!! This is exactly the point I have been trying to get across when arguing the Ukraine war with people. In geopolitics, there are no good guys and no bad guys (to be honest, they are all a bit scummy in their own respective rites). Just geopolitical interests and the means to achieve them. Be they economic, diplomatic, or military. But as you may have already guessed, I am constantly accused of being a Putin apologist and Z-patriot. Rarely do I have anyone who tries to actually counter the substance of my arguments. I deal in facts, not propaganda.
We'll, the Ukrainian nation didn't fully form until the end of 19th. In mid 19th centuries when the government decided to find out the ethnical composition of the empire about 20% of people in mosern Ukrainian borders answered that they were "locals" and about 30% when asked about their nationality named a close large city, so they had more attachment to the people of one land, than the people of one nation. In the end of 19th century most claimed they were Ukrainians.
Ukranian nation never were formed. Attempts at creating it only started appering after soviets collapsed. And even now, still, ukranian identity is weak, couse it's formed not on traditions common along the people living on ukranian lands, but on "anti-russia" principals. That's why they failing and that's what ultimately coused the war.
@@retineyzer1670 well, if you didn't open Russian history book at school, then you should give it a chance, just not the garbage written by Medinskiy. Ukraine is not anti- Russia, Ukrainians are a nation which started forming in 19th century and fully formed in 20th century. It was called Russia minor (Малороссия) which means that is the place or Russian origin. Also if there were no Ukrainians, then who created the Ukrainian rada in 1917 before Lenin took power and later who created USSR (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic?)
@@vladislavshevchenko634 Consequences of ww1 and civil war in Russia, that is what created Ukraine as we know it. It was highly influenced by Galicians, who were heavily simping for everything western (austro-hungary and germany alike) and were basically infiltrated by their finance and influence. Bolsheviks then made a small re-conqista, but Lenin was too liberal to just straightforwadly annex Ukraine back and established the lands of Galicia, Malorossia and others as Ukraine's socialist republic.
@@retineyzer1670 well, by the time of WWI Ukraine already had a national language, a national culture and you'll be surprised, but in the eastern Ukraine there were many people identifying themselves as Ukrainians, than in the West. Most people in western Ukraine identified themselves as poles, Romanians, Ruthenians (ethnic group living in Poland), Jews, germans, Hungarians. If you can read Russian language, you could read (Малороссия в свете данных общеимперской переписи 1879г.) (Russia minor in the light of imperial population census1879) and see that already in 1879 most population, especially in the the east considered themselves either Ukrainians or malorussians, which is the same. In the west Ukrainians were fewer than all other nationalities combined, but still larger, than any single one of them.
12:40 This is a Ukrainian painting based on a poem that literally starts "Love each other, dark-browed, but not with Muscovites", which depicts a Ukrainian girl getting dumped by a Russian imperial soldier after she got pregnant. It's called "Kateryna" and it was made by Taras Shevchenko - a foundational artist and poet of Ukrainian national self-identification and anti-Russian sentiment, and here it's being used to illustrate the point about how great Russia (Medieval Rus, Russia emerges later) was being perceived by Europe. There's definitely more intricacies you will discover as you research the subject of Russia deeper.
Damn. This man speaks some facts. As a russian myself I often see westerners try and fail to understand us, but this video is 100% true. Your conclusions towards the end about the enormous potential of russia being tragically destroyed multiple times by our own governments are so true that it breaks my heart. The fact that we as a society still exist despite countless threats to perish should mean something. I want to believe that russia can achieve greatness in the future but the modern political tendencies prove my belief wrong. I think only if we as a society can deeply understand our past mistakes and try to unite in the face of authoritarianism we will create a better russia. But… it seems really improbable.
Up next please explain Iranic civilization. Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Iran. Including other iranian peoples like Pashtuns, kurds, baloch etc. i think its very unique and distinct from turkic indic and Semitic civilization despite the Islamic nature. Iranics have had influence from Catalonia in spain all the way to Indonesia. They had an empire in north africa (rustimids), and a once had a decent population in hungary. Theres also a massive amount of persian speakers in Uzbekistan. They have influenced india to a massive extent that most of north Indian peoples like urdu speakers can understand Persian decently if they tried. They have influence iraqi and omani Arabic, and even influenced the north Caucasus, with the Alans and tats. And ofc you can talk ab the Persian empire and other iranics like the scythians and sarmatians and later khwarezmians.
Quite a lot of Iranic cultural dissemination came with the help of Turkic peoples. Indeed, the Khwarazmian Empire was Turkic-Persian, along with the Ghaznavid Empire and the Safavids. But indeed, Iranic peoples have an impressive spread; don't forget the Ossetians of the Caucasus, too.
The Indo-Iranian civilizations should be analyzed together. Buddhism and Manichaeism for example were spread by these people to almost all of Asia. Central Asia and Afghanistan were interesting places of merger of the Indo-iranian civilization. The Indo-Iranian civilization had a huge impact in history. Lesser known civilizations like the Kushans and Sakas are also interesting. The Indo-Iranian people also had a huge role in the ethno genesis of the Turkic people. The earliest Turks for example the Xiongnu (Huns) and Gokturks both had heavy Indo-Iranian paternal lineages (haplogroup R1a). This means that the iconic Turkic nomadic pastoralism (which the Mongols alsorelied upon) was spread to Asia by Indo-Iranian people like Sakas. Their genetic contribution is still evident in Turkic peoples like Uighurs and Kyrgyz
For what they achieved, and their exploits in general, the Turkic people are criminally underknown in the West - for example, the Mongol Empire could accurately be called a Mongolic-Turkic Empire given the amount of Turkic peoples crucially involved in it.
I dont think these steppe peoples are underknown at all amongst people in the west who are interested in history. Ofcourse the general population whose knowledge of history ends short of what they were tried to be taught at school knows nothing of the history of any people or nation, they mostly know some fables about the nazies and ww2.
I was surprised to learn that todays Tatars are descendants of the Mongols? I'm an American who learned Turkish while teaching in Istanbul in the '90s. When I visited Ukraine in 2016 I was pleasantly shocked to find I understood Tatar language/dialect. Its basically Turkish with some Slavic loan words and accents, just like Uygur is basically Turkish with some Chinese loan words and accents.
The word slav is not related to the word slave, its only a coincidence. The word slav comes from the word slovo (which in old slavic languages meant word (so slavs are the ones that could use words, or the ones that mutually understood eachother)), and the word slave comes from latin esclavus (which meant slave).
Thanks, sometimes I wonder if people never heard of the term "False Friends" before. It's like arguing "In medieval times paper in Germany was very expensive so Germans only wrote brief letters and that's why letter in German is called brief."
Well, slave does come from slav because of how many slavs were enslaved in the middle ages. They were the last to convert to Christianity and the Christians are only allowed to enslave non Christian pagans (ofc they would ignore that rule in the early modern period). And islam forbid enslaving Muslims, it must only be non Muslims. So the word definitely comes from there. But the word slav itself does come from слово, as you said, meaning word, as in the slavic tribes can understand each other as слово is where the words for hear слышать, слышал and слушание and so on are derived from.
@@SnowLeopard-lt1vf wrong. First, slavs weren't last to convert (all slavic nations converted by the end of 10th century) but the baltic nations like pussians, lithuanians and latvians, who converted in the 13th century. Secondly, slavery never really was a thing in the middle ages Europe (in the early middle ages there were some remnants of slavery dating back from the times of antiquity and roman emipre but rather soon it vanished). Main slave traders and slave owners back then were Arabs. And thirdly, logic behind statement that slavs were slaves so the word slave must come from the word slav baffles me. Not all slavs were slaves, nor all slaves were slavs. I would even argue most of the slaves of arabs werent slavs but other christians from the middle east, spain, southern italy, or subsaharan africans. And besides, there is so much better etymological explanation with the latin word esclavus.
I very much appreciate the unbiased, concise deep dive into Russian history. No western propaganda, just sheer knowledge. You my friend are a true historian.
First we colonise the moon, then we start extracting resources from asteroids and refining them on the moon or in space, then we build a Dyson swarm, we use the energy from it to colonise Mars and Venus. Then after that perhaps we colonise the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. Then once that’s done we become an interstellar civilisation and expand outwards towards other star systems.
In short, there is no future. The vast distances are physically insurmountable. That's why every sci-fi requires literal magic as it's basis. Whether that be Star Trekkian warp drives which just outright ignore physics, or completely different planes, like 40k using hell itself as a highway. Even if we could overcome the vast distances with some sort of warp technology, what would be the point? There's so little out there that is usable. The myriad of things that had to happen in perfect unison to make the earth happen, would reach odds in the 1 in a billion range or more. The idea, that a perfectly sized planet (thus have the correct gravity) would be a perfect distance from it's sun (so that temperatures would be livable) and have the perfect mix of gasses in it's atmosphere (for heat retention, radioactive protection, and breathability) alone are so astronomically rare, if we looked hard, maybe, just maybe, we could find one planet that wouldnt just immediately kill us in the entire galaxy. Finding one single sign of "earthlike" just isnt going to cut it, if it's gravity is 10 times that of earth, or it's temperatures reach near boiling during the day, or -100c during the nights, or it's atmosphere is 80% ammonia... then we can do nothing with it. And dont even try to think we could build atmospheric domes or space ships/stations to support a population for any length of time. We cant even build bridges to last more than a couple decades let alone intricate electronics and machinery that could survive a year or two without a catastrophic failure. I mean have you even seen how temperamental a modern automobile is? ...and we've "mastered" those. It would take centuries of the harshest eugenics plan to breed out enough human falibility to find a work force capable enough to build and maintain any sort of colony ship that would leave the earth completely bereft of any capable people which would immediately descend into chaos and starvation when those "perfect" workers flew away. This is all why modern NASA is just used as a pet project to keep a few women employed doing ridiculous busy work.
The word Slavs does not come from "slavery". It's a derivation from slovo ("word/letter"), originally denoting "people who speak (the same language)", meaning "people who understand one another".
He said he was going to do it a long time ago I think, though this is not the first time I thought that and couldn't find him saying it in the old videos. Mandela effect is real. But I always imagined he said that in a vid where he introduced Orthodox Civilization and that Ethiopia needs its own vid.
Hey man, thank you for your insight. On the subject of Scandinavians colonizing the river trade routes, the theory is quite dated and likely exaggerated by the Germanic intelligencia that dominated 18th century Russian academia; the prevailing theory is that the river routes were controlled by Slavic rulers, while the norsemen had to dock their drakkars (optimized for sea travel) in a port town near the mouth of the Volkhov river called "Staraya Ladoga" (which they called "Aldeigja") where they boarded Rus' lodyas (smaller vessels optimized for river travel) that sailed all the way to Persia and back along a route called "from the Varangians to the Persians". The norsemen tried to take the town on numerous occasions but failed to do so, and eventually many of them relocated to the town and integrated into the local population (which is how Ryurik ended up there in the first place). That being said, the overwhelming majority of the trade (at least in the pre-Ryurikid era) along this route was carried out by Slavic merchants, which would explain the massive cultural and architectural influence that the Indo-Aryan civilization had on the eastern slavs, plus the plethora of Persian/Turkic words in org old and modern Russian; the most notable examples, IMHO, are the terms used to refer to some articles of clothing: a traditional fur-lined men's coat is called a "kaftan" (from the Turkic "quftan"), while a traditional women's dress is called a "sarafan" (from the Persian "sarapa"), indicating that these types of clothes were initially brought to the region from Persia by merchants. I would recommend checking out Yegor Kholmogorov's lectures on the subject matter if you understand Russian.
W40k factions: - Imperium of Mankind - Russia; - Eldar - European Union; - Dark Eldar - Great Britain; - Chaos - USA; - Orcs - countries of the Arab world; - Tyranids - China; - Necrons - Japan; - Tau Empire - India.
@@Chaldon-hl6yk I would put the Arabs as the Necrons, they have infighting, but not in the barbaric way the orcs have, no civilisation has that (that's why it's called 𝗰𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹isation).
Lots of stereotypes. Dude, you really don’t know or understand what Russia is. If you are really interested, then ask me, I will recommend books to you and tell you a lot.
Great job as always my friend! I have some suggestions: 1- Please put the RUclips adds only at the start and end of the videos as they are really big distractions and mess with the continuity of the video. Also they are annoying. I know you have to make money but your videos will be flawless without adds in between. 2- Please also make a video about Iranian/Persian empire. As an Iranian I think we cannot fully understand both western and eastern civilizations without understanding the Persian culture and its vast influence on other cultures through trade,art,war and religion. Thanks for your great work and helping us better understanding the world around us.
I thought this must be an old video when it autoplayed. I was pleasantly surprised when I realized that you uploaded twice in a week. No pressure of course. Take all the time you need brother.
What I never understood was why US foreign policy is so antagonistic towards Russia since the fall of communism. After 9/11 we should have embraced Russia as allies against radical Islam because they had/have the same problems with Islamic terrorism. But no. We have to expand NATO right up to the borders of Russia. This would be like if the Soviets added Mexico to the Warsaw Pact. Nothing antagonizes a country like having a hostile alliance right on your doorstep. The State Department acts like it is still 1965 and the Russians are an existential threat to global democracy. They are not. I fear that opportunity has been squandered forever.
The US didn't "add" NATO membership to countries, nor did it invite them. They, being free nation states, applied to join. They applied because of the history they'd very recently shared with their large Eastern neighbour, and they did not want that kind of abusive relationship again. Ukraine has proved them right.
@@richardsandy6080 Nothing happens in NATO without US approval. To think otherwise is incredibly naive. Aslo, the US had an agreement with Russia after the USSR fell that NATO would not expand East. We have continuously broken that agreement. I think everyone can agree that expanding a hostile alliance up to the border of Russia is antagonistic, at best. The USA can't intervene in every single regional conflict on the planet. It is just not possible. I feel bad for the Ukrainians, but risking a hot war with Russia is just plain dumb. Especially for a country that has zero strategic importance to the USA.
@@richardsandy6080 Russia explicitly said in 2008 [after NATO (US) INVITED(!!!) ukraine and Georgia to join them] that this would be unacceptable and they will response militarily.
American with Russian/Eastern European heritage here, you did a swell job. I can nitpick and say some things, but I can't dislike. I really appreciate honesty on this topic, and actually comprehension, not simply "understanding". One thing though: It's Volgograd, not Stalingrad. I got a good laugh out of that. The naming war in the ongoing Russo-Ukraine War is also hilarious, because the naming patterns are contradictory to both sides.
@@zombopanda Identity markers. Ukraine wants to change names of cities/streets to either pre soviet (example Bakhmut) or new (city of Dnipro), Russia want to return to the Soviet idols.
I’ve done a decent bit of travelling and always been scared of going to places like china and Russia, it’s weird, but now, of all times, I feel more inclined to visit just to see what it’s actually like
I mean, we've diverged onto the "clown world" timeline. You go back to 2004 and explain 2024 and people wouldn't believe it at all. We're living in one of those moments where history is in flux, where you branch off "alternate historys" from. So the Alt history is "what branch will history follow from here?". It's a pretty interesting time to be alive, living during one of these "crux" points in history, where humanity is at a crossroads.
29:39. One note on cossacks is that there were different types of them. The idea was the same: search for land without your government. The picture you chose represents Ukrainian(Ruthenian) Cossacks, who rebelled against Polish, not Russians. These cossacks claimed that they were rightful nobles, descendants of Kyevian Rus(Ruthenia), and wanted to restore their rights in the Polish State. They are not the same as Russian authorities, which were in Moscow. Mainly because of cultural isolation. The same applies to rural people, in other words, not all Eastern Slavs are the same. Later Ruthenian rurals joined Cossacks to fight Polish religious(possibly not only) oppression. There also were Don Cossacks, for example, which did not share territories with Ruthenians. If you seek for further proof, there are subsrantial differences between Rural Eastern Ukrainian people's language(close to standard Ukrainian) and rural people in Don Cossack territories.(similar to Russian language, but featuring some words, which can slightly remind you of Ukrainian)
Oh ffs. I was about 3/4 of the way through your Incel Revolution video (JUST got done reading the text wall explaining why clubs/bars are popular, especially for the women that attend) when the video got removed “due to a copyright claim by Sigmund Ehrlich” I will add, while I’m here, if you edit the video and re-upload it, could you leave out the B-roll of the lesbians kissing? Doesn’t bother me, but I want to show this this to my Boomer parents. They are VERY against such taboo (especially my mom lol) and a simple 4 second clip like that would simply invalidate everything you said in the video. Love your content man, can’t get enough of it. Really appreciate you speaking up for us young men who are struggling so heavily
@@TheLemming1337 I'm not suprised it went down so fast. Politicians would prefer to stick their heads in the sand and pretend this shit isn't happening.
Start speaking a new language in 3 weeks with Babbel &. Get up to 60% OFF your subscription *Here: go.babbel.com/t?bsc=usa-influ-eg-dt-1m&btp=default&RUclips&Influencer..Apr-2024..USA-TATAM..1200m60-yt-whatifalthist-apr-2024
Bruh
Wow I didn't expect video Rudyard, it's quite concerning you being productive?!!(Should I worry)
No
Only reason why we have tarkov
Wait Althist how do you know the Masons think the next great civilization will come from Eastern Europe? Aren't they a secret organization?
A couple of incorrect statements I'd like to point out here:
1) The sentence about Slavs being economically isolated needs qualifying: the group you're relating to there are the so-called Eastern Slavs. They're the group that's largely definded by the proximity of the Eastern Hordelands, resulting in a very war-like, isolationist and relatively non-mercantile community. Western Slavs are usually defined by their relationship with the central european, Germanic neighbors and were more trade-oriented, maintaining historically significant trade routes such as the Amber Road or the Via Regia.
2) The word "slave" is actually based *on* the descriptor that the Slavic people used to identify themselves: "Slowian" comes from "Slowo" - translating literally to "word", as well as "slawa" meaning glory. Esentially, the Slavic tribes called themselves "Those who speak words" or "The glorious ones/ones being praised". It was later corrupted into the greek "sklavenoi" and latin "sclavus", later associated with slavery due to the south-western tribes being a major source of slave labour, both as capturees and (more often) participants in the slave trade.
Yes, most of the people fall in this Folk-etymological explanation, when actually Slav- means "word, speech". This is reinforced by the application of "dumb" to Germans (Nemecky) speaking people.
@@pierocavolino1057 "Mute" rather than dumb, but the point stands.
@@GFortz dumb sometimes means mute, not just low in intellegence
he_absolutely_does_not_care.exe
🤓☝
6:50 The "taiga" is neither "arctic", nor "uninhabitable". You're mixing up the Taiga with the perfmafrost "tundra" region, rookie mistake.
He's clearly aware of the tundra since he put it on the map.
@@spoonerreligionandpolitics apparently not since in one of his next maps he puts "Siberia" above the "Steppe" and labels all of Siberia "uninhabitable" in brackets.
@@4grammatonit may be habitable, but it’s inhospitable for agriculture. So yes, basically uninhabitable.
@@TaylorWilmes Interesting, you learn something new every day. I didn't know as a Finn that even though basically our entire country is made up of taiga and is sub-arctic that we haven't had agriculture here for thousands of years.
@@AttilaKattila Don't worry about it. That ignorance is why they constantly attempt to invade Russia and help fertilize our black soil belt.
The civilization of the single most wasted potential of a country ever.
what else do you expext from an inferior race?
Agreed
Everyone knows you don't go up against a Sicilian when death is on the line, and you don't get into a land war in Asia. Ps Joe Biden is a f*ckin idiot.
Joint most wasted nation along with China
Brazil in second
I'm also from Nebraska. When Dad and I read about Stalingrad, we kept thinking the land and climate sounded like home
when i passed this region on a train i kept thinking this looks just like america and now i see why
I never realized we were so similar. now i wanna go visit.
What part of nebraska?
@@maniac50ae14 north of Omaha by Fremont
Nebraska is a wonderful state with so many beautiful landscapes and wonderful people. It is definitely a place worth visiting.
Slave developed from slav, we call ourselves Slované (and variationas) it means something like "Word people" since we could understand each other and why Germans are called Němci by all slavs, literally "mutes"
That's basically every single human group ever. The insiders are "humans", the aliens are "barbarians". And it's usually related to language; the outsiders don't "talk", they "bark". Like dogs. Gaijins, gentiles, barbarians.
Slave in Swedish is just slav no difference in pronunciation or spelling. because that is what they were for the longest time.
and the word Russia comes from the word Ryssland translated means ruffly the people that attack without thinking it thru
@@antonsamuelsson1317Russia comes from the word Rus', which in turn is derived from the Norse word for rower or rowman, dumbass. It's cognate with Roslagen, which is the area where the Rus' Varangians intially came from.
It stuck to Germans but niemcy started as umbrella term for non-slavs
@@antonsamuelsson1317 I thought that "Rus" was the Old Norse word for "the men who row."
"There is more Russian money outside Russia than inside it."
Somewhere in Douglas Smith's "Former People: The Final Days of the Russian Aristocracy," he states that Russian aristocrats were very patriotic during the First World War, keeping and even repatriating their funds back to Russia from abroad.
Which hurt them big time after the war, when the Bolsheviks easily confiscated all that wealth that had been so helpfully brought back to the country.
So now when I hear about Russian oligarchs keeping their fortunes abroad, it makes a lot more sense. Lesson learned, I guess.
Still not patriotic though and should be discouraged.
@@Katsura-San124 Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
I love oversimplified history.😂
lol in your sad fascist world everything is Russia's fault no matter what. In reality you simply stole Russian funds through "Russian" oligarchs that you installed in 1953-1991.
Russians never learn ANY lessons. That's why they're still Russians.
Do more civilization videos. They're goated. Do Japanese, Jewish, Tibetan, Iranian
Wasn't he working on a Jewish civilization video?
@@duncanharrell5009 I hope so.
Ethiopian would be interesting too.
@@Mbrace818true, to me is one of the most confusing civ
@@Mbrace818 Yes absolutely.
"Let's talk about cultural influences that shaped historical russian lands"
"Oh you mean the norse legal code, byzantine traditions, dutch innovations and french court-"
"Mongols. I will make 12 more videos on this subject."
I still don't get why so few people care about its Byzantine traditions, the Tsars literally proclaimed Russia the 3rd Rome by virtue of sharing the Greek orthodox church with them
@@alexer52Orthodoxy is Russia. It is essential to what makes Russia Russian and not something else. The country may try to reject this, but that doesn’t make it not so.
@@wolliveryoutube exactly, that's what I'm saying. I still don't get why so many people overemphasize the place of the Mongols in Russian history and overlook this
It's really funny youtube westerners trying to explain slavic/eastern history. I'm Bulgarian I remember reading a book on the Ottomans by the best French academicians saying the Ottomans never leveled any fortresses when conquering the Balkans, which is COMPLETELY untrue as ottoman historians themselves wrote that Bulgaria had the strongest fortresses on the Balkans and you can walk through the ruins in so many cities. They'd dismantle the fortresses as they didn't want a strong place for the population to go to if they rebel.
Reading a ton of stuff like this over the years made me really cautions when reading western stuff on non-western countries. Also makes you think if he missed so much essential stuff in this video, what his other videos are missing.
@@wolliveryoutube How is Russia rejecting orthodoxy?
I think it’s a misnomer to describe Siberia as undeveloped, sure in comparison to more temperate Europe, but in comparison to Canada, Siberia is arguably more developed, ignoring the differences in living standards. They both have roughly 40 million people. Furthermore Siberia is crucial to Russian history in the fact that Siberian furs financed Russia’s imperial rise. Many people make the argument that without Ukraine there is no Russian Empire, however it is really Siberia that fuels Russia’s strength. Without the natural resources of Siberia Russia would’ve never had the finances to conquer Ukraine from the Polish Lithuanian commonwealth in the first place.
I will concede that Russia’s far east/pacific coast is hugely underdeveloped and can easily support a larger population, but the rest of Siberia is fairly well populated, considering how far north it is.
Novosibirsk (55°03′N): 1,635,338
Yekaterinburg (56°50′08″N): 1,539,371
Krasnoyarsk (56°00′32″N): 1 196 913
Chelyabinsk (55°09′17″N): 1,182,517
Omsk (54°59′N): 1,110,836
Tyumen (57°09′N): 855,618
…
Surgut (61°15′N): 396,443
Yakutsk (62°01′48″N): 361,154
…
Norilsk (69°20′N): 174,453
In comparison the northern most major city in North America, Edmonton, is only at 53°32′04″N at 1,010,899 people. If you consider Anchorage a major city, it’s at 61°13′00″N but with only 287,145 people.
I do think he means the southern, fertile bits of siberia. especially far eastern siberia. afterall its something he like to highlight when ever he covers russia.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 where do you think those 1 million plus cities I just listed are located? In the southern fertile regions. Novosibirsk is the third largest city in Russia. That being said, I did mention that I concede that the Russian far east/pacific coast is very underdeveloped/underpopulated. Vladivostok with a population of only 597,237 should have a population that is easily twice as much for being the major pacific port.
From a lecture by Russian-born professor: they expanded into siberia (colonising and later forcefully russifying local people) because they killed all local animals and there were no more animals for fur
@@wayhome5 yes, Russia colonized Siberia in a similar manner to the way the French and British colonized Canada, and in the same time period. Quebec was first settled in 1535 and then founded in 1608. Tobolsk was founded in 1587.
@@wayhome5 it should be understood that this is a different type of colonization.
There are many swamps and forests here.
Russians were interested in rivers as highways and until recently they didn't care much about what was in the depths of the forests.
The steppe fertile lands of southern Siberia were inhabited by nomads. The same European Buddhist republic of Kalmykia is the people who were given this land for nomadism. Russia also provided the younger zhuz of the Kazakhs with lands between the Volga and the Ural River, where there were no Kazakhs.
In the Republic of Buryatia, many European Russians understand or speak the Buryat language.
The lands of Siberia were colonized by all the peoples of Russia, including Estonians, Germans, and Mordvins. The situation is not that Russians came, but that everyone had to switch to some one language and become Russian-speaking.
If we talk about the fact that the Russians drove the small ones to the inaccessible north, then this is not entirely true, because before that the Turkic nomads had already tried hard.
The word "slave" is actually based on the descriptor that the Slavic people used to identify themselves: "Slowian" comes from "Slowo" - translating literally to "word", as well as "slawa" meaning glory. Esentially, the Slavic tribes called themselves "Those who speak words" or "The glorious ones/ones being praised". It was later corrupted into the greek "sklavenoi" and latin "sclavus", later associated with slavery due to the south-western tribes being a major source of slave labour, both as capturees and (more often) participants in the slave trade.
Russia not only has so much natural wealth, it has produced some of the most talented minds in history. It is hard not to lament what it could've been under a decent government.
When you say this you think of countries perhaps like Germany or Netherlands, but Russia is different. It is too big to be a minor partner in the western project and Ukraine war has put an end to any such ideas. Russia's current standing has nothing to do with the government type but rather the power distribution between civilizations (and empires).
After the dissolution of the soviet union, contemporary Russia (former world power) has lost almost all of its soviet manufacturing capabilities and was assigned a resource extractor role in the global distribution of labor, akin to the african dictator states. The oligarch class who took control of the extracting industries has sold their resources to the western states and/or China and moved all profits to the imperial core (mostly London and Switzerland). This was quite profitable for the western world, but it was not satisfied because Russia has not overgone its political transformation to 'demoracrcy', which would destroy Russia's great power aspirations for good. The idea was to capture control over Russia and to chop it down into smaller pieces until its great power status would be completely lost (Chechen wars as a clue). When the first plan did not work, they started focusing on the color revolutions schemes which had occured in all post-soviet countries in the periphery of Russia, even in Russia itself in 2011.
It's a long topic and it can be debated whether Russia has chosen correct strategy and whether their current decoupling would lead to a better future ... or not. But in order to have this discussion, both parties need to be open minded and not to spew ignorant nonsense like "government bad, corruption bad". Real life is 1000000 times more complicated than that.
That's the part I can't get over. The music, literature, science....
how so? all famous "russians" were foreigners
If "decent government" means Pro-Western, liberal then I think most Russians have pretty strong views on that topic.
And they left if they could. It is a cruel, sick, evil culture, where casual violence is laughed at. Picture blood, pain and laughter by tormentors, egged on by onlookers.
I think there are few point that should be made in regards on your stance with Russia.
1. "Russia will be done in 5/10/15/50/insert-your-number-here years" is somewhere in the same cohort with: "Sanction will kill Russian economy. Any second now!". Broad, over-generalized, overdone. Its far from the most likely outcome for the very reason you've well-described in this video. Sheer tenacity of Russian mindset that basically goes: "Screw it! We'll pull through odds be damned!" is enough reason to doubt purely catastrophic outcome. Rallying behind flag and going on in spite of pressure is what Russians are good at. And current international climate all but ensures the pressure won't recede.
2. As you've pointed out, Russia currently exists in kind of idea vacuum. There are some nascent ideas floating around, sanity of which is varying, as well as traces of both Orthodoxy and Communism (the latter is diminishing though). And Russia is under pressure from inside and outside. This means two things:
a) the rallying behind the flag becomes an idea enough due to pressure alone;
b) it fastens the process of ideological development. We are yet to see its fruits, since its still developing, but some things can be seen emerging even now.
And now to a part most will find surprising. Putin's clique in power is probably the best possible outcome we ALL can hope for. Which is ironic from Ukrainian, but I'll explain. The ideological vacuum in Russia will most likely be filled with some Christian-leaning right-wing ideology, radicality of which is yet to be defined. Outside pressure from the war and sanctions as well as inside pressure from migrant crisis pushes Russia right. Rallying behind the flag is intuitively easier when the flag is shared between at least likeminded individuals, if not outright members of the same nationality. Hence the almost inevitable hostility towards outsiders. There lies a real possibility of outright right-wing Russia, and none of us will want it, trust me. It may not be overtly xenophobic, but it will no doubt be imperial to the max - and very aggressive.
3. One of the reasons the abovementioned scenario is possible is general disenchantment most Russians feel towards the West. Pro-Western people are now a dying breed there - and largely not because of state censorship, but because less and less people see the point in following the West. Get woke get broke? In more ways than you'd think. Current western ideas are no-sellers abroad. Even a complete fool could point out sheer idiocy of what people in the West engage in nowadays - and the fact the West is literally not breeding anymore. More and more people see the West not as kind of promised land, but as a land with no future. And who in their right mind would wager their future on following someone who looks like an idiot slowly destroying himself? People laugh at new BRICS members, pointing out how those countries have too little in common and how their economies are meager. Yet many ignore the fact that those countries were the same who followed West for decades - but less so now. And people in Russia are no different. Many may not like Putin, his clique, his actions - but less and less people like the West. For an average Ivan modern West is a bunch of nosey cretins who gone down the crazy alley with the stuff like LGBTQ+, radical ecologism, the way racial topic is handles nowadays, general anti-natalism and the tendency to meddle with everyone everywhere. Not the icon of progress it once was: a kind of fallen hero, a soured greatness, the mighty who grew senile and weak - at best. People are growing hostile to the West - and to its ideas.
Which is good. I am one of those people who no longer see the the West as an idea to follow. More of a warning on what not to do with your society. We need new ideas, so desperately you can't even express it in words. And I really hope anyone would come with something worthy - be it Russia, Latin America, Africa, Iran, Israel. Just anyone with good explanation on what to do with this world except gorge yourself on your own whims and call it a day.
I generally agree with your first point. Although temporally there might be a rapid collapse, but that doesn't mean that Russia will disappear as a country or civilization.
I completely agree with your third point. I am a Pro-Western Russian, but even for me modern Western civilization looks failing. I hope it will recover from this some time in the future, but right now it doesn't look great.
But I have a lot of doubts about your second point. As far as I can tell, Christianity (Orthodox or otherwize) isn't that popular in Russia, and ideological vacuum is filled with lots of different ideas from Communism to Libertarianism and from Nazism to Islamism (and with weird mixes of those ideas). It is very hard to predict any future development, but both a pluralistic parliamentary democracy and a civil war among many different parties seem more likely than a unified Christian empire.
@@АнтонОрлов-я1ъ People mistake faith and allegiance. Orthodoxy is part of nation's cultural code. Even people who do not count themselves among the faithful may still align themselves with the people and the Church because it still speaks to them. They may not visit churches every Sunday, but still at least have respect for the faith and its tenants. Orthodoxy seats too deep in our cultural code to ignore it. So deep, in fact, we rarely even notice its influence. But do say - how often when you see some outright lunacy in the West, something stirs deep in you? Calls to you in terms and emotions not quite rational or secular? Have words like "blasphemy", "sin", "ungodly" or "immoral" ever crossed your mind when you see something like a girl aged 28 deciding to get euthanasia with full state approval? Or just raw emotions of wrongness or revulsion that would perhaps be more fitting for someone living in times of Crusades who had in-hand experience of religious exaltation? It certainly crossed mine.
As for the different ideas - with things the way they are now, Fascism will win most likely, I think. Not ru-propaganda or soy-people kind - the OG one: "power to the state - power to the people" kind, which had less to do with nationalism and more with sheer authoritarianism. You can see it - it defines everyone pro-current course. Some lean right, some lean left, all lean imperial. And Christianity would be a good fleur for them.
Besides, if the Big Guy goes, who replaces him? Schmele, who unironically went: "finish off the survivors!" in his rhetoric?
There are no noticeable non-imperial figures either among officials, or activists. When the liberals waste their time on stuff like: "lets beat the casseroles at 10 am or something", right and left have actual fighting squads with now years of experience. And if Prigozhin showed us anything, is that little to no one wants the boat rocked. So I won't count on infighting either.
Simply put, the bellicose imperial course suits everyone with balls, organization and manpower to be worth accounting for. Yes, there are other ideas and other people, but sludge hits the fan and they won't have firepower or manpower to do squat.
Too much text to Say You are a far right conservative that admires Putin and Russia because gay people there can be imprisoned or forced to live a "quiet hidden" life and feminism is not tolerated. You could have just said it..
@@mauser98kar Very true, the creator of this video does this often and says that despite westerners not being very practicing protestant tradition still lives on but he refuses to do the same for the much more conservative societies of China and Russia
@@apator2 It is true, he has this tendency as much of westerners I've heard. Though we must admit - he has good reason in this specific case. Commies in China and Russia did their best to destroy preceding culture and replace it with their own ideas, which clashes with original culture and still linger to some degree. And it is a weak point and a constant source of squabbles, at least in Russia.
But people often make a mistake of exaggerating the weight of these squabbles. I think there are more people in Russia interested in arguing their favorite anime title versus which is better: orthodoxy or communism. And what many fail to notice, WhatIfaltHist included, is that even those people who do argue, are more interested in fighting Ukraine, NATO and whatnot, rather than each other. They have common imperial interest that goes beyond their squabbles.
When they captured Lisychansk, on its administration flew flags of Chechen squads, commies and the Imperial Tricolor (white yellow black). Just to paint a picture.
So, WhatIf's (and most westerners') error is mistaking differences for fractures. Iran is prime example of this approach, with so many people going somewhere around: "oh, but it has so much minorities, it must mean it will fall apart any moment!". Failing to realize that dealing with those minorities and keeping the country united is basically the entire history of Iran.
I believe it is also important to add the Napoleonic Era, because it is rather important for most modern states:
1) Prof. Lieven writes that Russia had the best horse industry and logistics at that time.
2) It is also the time, were Russian warfare started to deviate from Western Europe's, by focusing more on attrition (see Clausewitz).
3) Lieven also explains why the Czar's power was only absolute on paper: because if the Czar thought he can do whatever, like Paul I., he got a knife in his back. The Czar needed the aristocrats for the bureaucracy, military and courts. If the Czar ruined his relationship with the aristocrats, they would not implement his orders, collect taxes, recruit peasants etc. And often one aristocrat had multiple tasks.
4) The reason why peasants were in the army for live was that these people were given to the army, because they were a mouth too much too feed. So even after they served their time and returned home, they would not be very welcomed. So most stayed in the army.
5) Regarding the Russian nobility speaking French: Russia's first university was founded in the 18th century, but by then you already needed higher education as officer. So Russia imported Western professors who ofc spoke French, not Russian. Additionally the Czar had to promote non-Russians into higher positions to keep the loyalty of certain population groups. For example the army had 7% Baltic Germans, who kept the Baltics under control. Those non-Russians also spoke French, but even though the Russian nobility, including all the non-ethnic Russians, did not speak Russian, most were loyal to Russia and the Czar nonetheless.
You know the feeling when you know more than the average person on a specific topic and that said person gets half of the stuff completely wrong, and that makes you question everything they've been saying on other topic you're less informed of, well this is the video lol.
Agreed, my thoughts exactly.
Yeah. 13:40 in, keeps conflating Slav with Russian and Russian with the Medieval Rus.
I could spend a good 13+ minutes doing a bullet point type outline of all that's ass backwards and/ or modern Soviet-Russian Histriography( Moscow approved mythical Ethno-Genesis/ Propaganda) but doing so would waste another full 30+ minutes of life.
Whatifalthist is more a big picture guy. Ask him to describe a forest, and he can tell you which way it grows. Ask him to describe the trees, and many things he says will contradict what you have read in books.
Then again, history is a debatable topic; written by the victors, and interpreted by the ivory tower who are funded by the powers that be. And that is true in academia in general.
For example, in the last ten or so years, due to changes in who funds them, scientists are now saying biological sex does not exist. Even though scientists knew ten years ago that a body that ever produced seed is unambiguously male and a body that ever produced eggs is unambiguous female. That is all down the drain because that offends people.
Because this guy is usually just basing all of his views on vibes and massive generalizations. He doesn’t actually know what he is talking about
Yeah
What a treat, 2 uploads in such a short time! Feels like Christmas
Depends on how you look at it. One is a look into a culture and history. The other is an exemption on why dudes can't score.
It looks like an educational informative treat!
Makes you wonder why he gets so desperate about the upload order.
@@onionfarmer3044LMFAO
I get it now.... he tells me all the reasons I'm single and mad (society) and drops a banger on the history of Russian culture. Priceless 😂😂
"Slavs didn't do much trade in antiquity"
completely omits the Amber Road
Wasn’t more of a german thing?
@Leo-ok3uj it was only a German thing in the German lands to to the south
It was baltic-germanic trading network, slavs only occasionally were a miniscule part of it
Baltic-bizantia trade route, actually. I dont know how you history books call it, but it was economical incentive for the fist russian cities to grow.
@@Leo-ok3uj
Depends on the period of antiquity. The earliest periods certainly went through Germania, but there was an increasing push to use the river networks of Russia, especially as the land fell into the hands of more cohesive authorities like the Goths.
28:07 Rudyard: "The great difference is that freedom eventually won out in America."
I think the jury's still out on that one chief.
We're just in the next round.
There is no such thing as freedom, there is only the length of the leash the central authority gives to the individual.
For a brief period, I'd say.
I mean yeah, but if you want to maintain an empire and country as big as the US you'd need some form of authoritarianism to be involved. Every massive country needs this authoritarianism in some form to exist, but the main concern of everybody is what it is used for exactly.
@@zmajooovGreat Quote
Haters will say this is just a summary of Putin's interview with Tucker
That’s why greatest enemy of politicians are historians
The interview was just a propaganda piece with partial takes on the Russian perspective WHICH ULTIMATELY GIVES NO RIGHT FOR THEIR RECENT ACTIONS. The Putin regime has to lose, simple as.
Except he argues why Kievian Rus should win over the Muscovites.
@@EarthForces Ukraine had been ethnically cleansing Russians in the Donbas for years. To say there is no reason is NPC-level ignorance.
@tterp4228 nice propaganda talking point we got there. It's not like the fatality counts were recorded to like 25-27 deaths per year on that 8 year period. Holodomor on the other hand is a myth while the population count of having at least 3 million less people after it, checked out. Dear vatnik. 🤡
1. The author’s idea that slavery in Russia was stronger than slavery in the USA is erroneous.
Serfdom in Russia became a form of slavery only after the adoption of a set of laws (the “Conciliar Code”) in 1649.
Until 1649, peasants who were serfs, once a year, every year, had the right to change their master ("St. George's Day")
Only after 1649 did the peasants become the property of the nobles.
Thus, serfdom in Russia lasted from 1649 to 1861. 212 years old.
In the United States, slavery existed from 1619 to 1865. 246 years old.
If we are talking about the equality of all people before the law, then in Russia, people received universal equality in 1917.
While in the USA, universal equality came only after the abolition of segregation among the black population. This is the year 1964-1968.
Of course, if we consider freedom from the point of view of opportunities for the elites (white elites), then in the USA there has always been more freedom than in Russia.
However, if we consider freedom in terms of opportunities for the people as a whole, then until ~2010, Russian society was much freer than American society.
2. The author’s idea of the Russian Tsar as an absolute monarch is also completely untenable.
The Russian monarch had less authority and power than the monarchy in the British Empire.
Russian tsars were killed, overthrown, and even elected during popular assemblies.
3. Russia did not gain independence “at about the same time as the United States.”
The author confuses the proclamation of the Russian Empire (1721) with the beginning of the history of the Russian state.
The beginning of the history of the Russian state begins in 862.
This date is enshrined in all Russian chronicles.
From this moment Russian statehood begins.
If we are talking about the date of the end of the Tatar-Mongol yoke, then this is 1480. 241 years before the proclamation of the empire.
4. It’s also amazing how the author paints the entire period of communism in Russia with black paint.
It's funny. It's worth stopping at this picture:
35:58
Yes, Stalin “destroyed” all the officers. After which the USSR won the greatest war in human history, winning the largest and most monstrous battles in history.
Don't think, trust the author.
Yes, Stalin “destroyed” all scientists. After which the USSR developed some of the most advanced weapons of its time, was the second in the world to develop an atomic bomb, the first in the world to launch a man into space, the first in the world to launch a satellite into space, and the first in the world to build a nuclear power plant.
After all, other countries did the same thing, right?
Yes, Stalin “destroyed” all farmers. As a result, Russia from an agrarian power became an industrialized society. The most reading nation on the planet with free medicine and education.
And much more.
The author also uses the thesis that the Russian Empire developed rapidly while the development of the USSR was “arithmetic”
Here's what it means:
Conventionally, in 1905, there was 1 factory in the Russian Empire. In 1906, there were 2 factories in the Russian Empire. Growth 100%
In 1923, there were 10 factories in the USSR. In 1924, there were 15 factories in the USSR. Growth 50%
Author's conclusion: "The USSR developed less! Its development was arithmetic, not literal"
If you have even a little brain, you understand that in this case, actual growth (arithmetic) is more important than percentage.
The fact that the USSR built many times more factories, factories, and machine tools than the Russian Empire is undeniable.
There is much more that could be commented on, but I have already written too much.
The author did not understand anything.
Well, he is an American with a strong tendency to babble about topics he knows nothing about so... unsurprising.
Так работает западный институт манипуляцией информацией, делай ложь истинной чтобы истина стала ложью
"Slavs from word Slave" - man, are you serious? Not to mention that in that time there was no word "slave" among neither swedish, nor slav population, from which we can trace direct correlation, but more over, Romans the one who calls barbarians on the east of germany and nort of daccia "Sklavs" or "Sklavens", by the name of they'r tribe.
He got it backwards lol
With due respect, you could not legally kill a serf as their master. But if you had ordered to lash your serf and they died on the next day, you wouldn't be responsible for their death. For example the Saltychiha who self handedly killed hundreds of her serfs, ended up imprisoned for life, but as long as "killing wasn't the intent", you wouldn't suffer any legal consequences as a master. Also Poland never in its history conquered Russia. Its true, that a polish nobleman was the Russian emperor, but he was crowned as the Russian emperor, not and in fact was supposed by a large chank of Russian nobility as the empress recognized this polish dude as miraculously survived her deceased son. So Moscow nobility did believe he was Prince Dmitriy. In Russian history this man is called False Dmitriy 1. There was a second pretendor, who also claimed to be prince Dimitri (False Dmitriy 2, but he didn't have as much luck
Western absolutism, French and Spanish monarchies, and Hitler, Mussolini and Franco dictatorships are laughing together at your argument about “authoritarism and dictatorship is only in Russia, we are very democratic in the west bla-bla”. Dude, history and mentality is not your subject))
Not the first time he has made such outrageous claims.
He reads random popbooks and makes assumption. I mostly follow him because of the discourse and topics. He's unable to stick to one subject and research it deeply.
Yeah, those were embarrassing claims, don't like to think he's for real with them as he's usually so penetrating on social issues.
the point should be that in western europe dictatorships are either episodes or they interleave with other systems while in Russia from the start till today till the the forseeable future there are no episodes of non-dictatorships taking place, and here it is unique
@@gabbar51ngh
one way or another, we can consider this a schizo run.
but you can still find interesting dependencies and data from him, if you don't dig into the details and his personal attitude to communism or something else for the sake of the big picture.
We'll make a discount.
He has the most knowledge and insight on America, and to a lesser extent the broader Anglosphere. When he ventures outside that, he makes a lot more mistakes.
Oh Lord, where to begin to deconstruct your regergitation of every western stereotype.
Lets start with, slavs were not the most primitive, a pure lie. We were town and city builders long before the Germans settled.
We were not colonized by scandanavians, they were never more then 10% of thr population.
The Slavs in the east were not in most of present day Ukraine, actually only northern edges. NW Russia is much older slav areas and that was in no way under the steppe, it is deep forest. Murm is 14-1600 years old. Psvkov, Ladaga and other cities are as or much older. Novgorod is from the 9th century.
The Khazars were not all jewish, only the aristocracy the populations were heavily mixed.
The steppe were not colonized until the 1600s.
Russian peasants had property ownership until serfdom came in in 1500s and left in 1851.
The Village allocating land to the residents was a system that operated between 1851 and the 1900s. Stolipen ended it.
Russian rulers were never fully autocratic. It is absolutley ignorant to say that thr Church was not a seperate power centers or that guilds and towns werent either.
Furthermore, all Velikii Knyazi and then Tsars had a Boyars' Duma (House of Lords) operating parallel. Only Peter the Great disbanded it. So for 150 years there was no parliament.
The Mongols did not colonize us, there was not a single Mongol settlement within Rus lands. Rus was vassal states, sent taxes once every 5-10 years and soldiers to fight .
That process was already cracking by the time Dmitry Donskoi defeated Mamayav.
The princes of Moscow, Tver and Ryazan all completed for premecy at head of Rus under the Mongols.
I stopped listening at this point. I've heard all your rehashed stereotypes a thousand times from westerners Westplaining our history to us.
yeah, this dude is just a blabbering imbecile
"What I remember about the rise of the Empire is... is how quiet it was. During the waning hours of the Clone Wars, the 501st Legion was discreetly transferred back to Coruscant. It was a silent trip. We all knew what was about to happen, what we were about to do. Did we have any doubts? Any private, traitorous thoughts? Perhaps, but no one said a word. Not on the flight to Coruscant, not when Order 66 came down, and not when we marched into the Jedi Temple. Not a word." - Operation: Knightfall "Knightfall" - Star Wars Battlefront II (2005)
Bro is telking the 501st journal 🗿
"It's a good thing we were wearing helmets because none of us could bare to look her in the eye."
Imagine if WIAH did a video titled "Explaining civilization during the Clone Wars"
@@retromountains
Explainig Courosantian
Explaining Corintian
Explaining Hutt
Explaining Sith
@@SolarDragon007 and she was a good friend
Please do an “Explaining Mormon Culture” video. Considering how much religion influences culture, I think such a video would be very interesting.
Knowing betters video about that is very interesting.
That would be an interesting one, lol.
Magic underwear
I can explain it. Some christian guy got mad he couldn't have multiple wives because of his religion and cultural attitudes, so he invented a brand new version of Christianity so he could bang multiple women.
@@darksu6947 almost makes me want to become one myself
“Most of America doesn’t have an interconnected river system.”
Wutt
The Mississippi River and its connected tributaries are indeed massive but limited to the eastern side of the US.
@@RealLifeIronMan First of all, that alone makes the US far, far more interconnected by waterways than Russia.
Second, that is only the beginning.
Zeihan shakes his head. “You have destroyed Torah.”
i think he said that "inland water system in America don`t connect to each other without canals".
@@АлександрДаминин Tomato, tomato.
It's interesting that he painted European Russia as having super interconnected waterways, when there are really several large rivers, none of which are connected naturally (meaning, they would require canals to be connected). He doesn't mention that they're connected by canals, though. It is very important to point that out for America, but completely unimportant for Russians, apparently.
But even that leaves out three important points:
(1) In the image he used in the video [12:43], three of the rivers have never been part of Russia, while five others exist in Ukraine, Belarus, Poland, and the Baltic states, but not Russia proper.
(2) Among the remaining three river systems, two are indeed connected by canal, while the third one has a blue connecting line representing.... I have no idea what is supposed to be there, but there is no canal (to be fair, he does not include a canal that actually does exist, connecting elsewhere--I guess he's just hallucinating like a GPT).
(3) None of these rivers can be put in the same category as the Mississippi, Missouri, or Ohio rivers in drainage basin, navigability, carrying capacity, or harborage. If you combine all of European Russia's river systems together, they miiiiiight come close to the Ohio alone.... maybe.
(BONUS POINTS) What body of water does the Volga empty into? The Caspian Sea (inland). Does St. Petersburg count as a warm water port? Not really. Does the Don river have a decent port? Not really. How much of modern Russia is covered by the drainage basin of all of these river systems combined? About 17%. There is no meaningful river system connecting Russia on either side of the Urals, and the places where building rail is possible in Siberia... that's mostly permafrost... which thaws in the summers and turns boggy. Maintenance and upkeep is not an easy task.
If they ask me what superficial knowledge multiplied by youthful idealism and the idea of American exceptionalism is, then I will give them a link to this video)
I don’t criticize, I don’t insult, it’s purely your creativity and freedom of expression... but just as you have the freedom to speak, so I have the freedom to comment
Chess is a lot about patience, predicting behavior, and knowing how and when to sacrifice pieces to trap your opponent and make a decisive move. Aside from simply the geographic origins of the game likely allowing it to reach Russia sooner, if you’re describing Russian culture as one about bearing hardships, sacrifice, and still viewing yourself as a victorious people, seems to me to fit right in
You should do an “Understanding Zoroastrian Civilization”
I.e. what was Ancient Persia (550 BC - 651 AD) like as a civilization.
It is a nice idea
Honestly seems like something he'd go for, I know I would.
Extremely difficult to research I think
That would do very poorly tbh. Videos about past civilizations aren't what draw views.
No one would care except for some second-third generation iranian refugees from the iranian revolution who now larp over worshipping fire (Zoroastrians) instead of Allah and try their hardest to connect Iran and Europe because they wish they were white (even though they are brown, on par with indian).
What a russobhobic idea of 'russia is like a mongol empire". It is incredibly reductionist.
Prove it isn't
But it's close to it.
As russian historical you made a lot of popular mythical mistake. Like Slavic from slave, all land was communal, all nobility appointed from Tsar. All of it is wrong or refers to a certain times, not all russian history. And im not really sure that white russia can be better than red, even if as a russian its really easy hate soviets and communism, and i do hate. You are smooth talker but you ignoring facts that don't fit your agenda, no offense
I want to ask: you talk about how much whites of Russia were bad. What aspects of them are bad specifically? I just know Russia became communist as a reaction to serfdom. Also, I can’t blame the uploaded for getting things wrong. I am Chinese and understand the culture and some of our ancient cultural books and texts relics are untranslated to other languages so no foreigner can truly understand stuff that we can understand.
Slav is not related to "slave". It is derived from the Slavic linguistic root "slov" (pick a vowel for o) which relates to the modern Russian word "slovo" (word). Slav derives from the concept of "people who are intelligible"
Compare to the Russian word for Germans ("nemets") which has the original meaning of "mute", relating to how those people were unintelligible.
It is related to slave. They are a nation of skates to their tyrannical government.
Yes, it is definitely related to "slave" in most Western European languages. It's just that the word "slave" originated from "slav" and "slovo" rather than the other way around.
@@pikulisСлово "раб" произошло от иудейского саклаб (шеклеб), от шекель (сикль), человек на продажу. Потом то ли кретинизм западлян, то ли их русофобия сконтаминировали по случайному созвучию "склаб" и "Склавин".
Теперь у нас, ввиду наработанной ответной нелюбви (мягко скажем) к Западлу (западу) идёт примерно такой же процесс: шотландцев именуем скотами (от Скотт), англичан нагличанами (наглецами), русофобских поляков подляками (подлецами), русофобских украинцев руинцами (от слова Руина), или украдинцами (от слова "украсть"), западных людей в целом - западлянами (от слов падло, западло), ну и т.д.
А американусов называют в обиходе так, что и сказать нельзя (Ютуб моментально банит).
Но когда-то сказалось злобствование Запада против Славян (возможно, ввиду схизмы: католичество отпало от истинного Христианства, и стало клеветать, как и полагается изменнику).
As a huge enjoyer of Russian history, there are a few inaccuracies I want to clear up. First, the Russia (as a whole) does not have good soil for farming. The area around Kiev is very rich, but most of Russia has poor soil. One of the popular farming methods involved burning the trees in the vicinity, using a the ashes as a fertilizer, and farming the land for the next 2-3 years while the soil remained nutrient rich. Another issue is the temperature. Russia is incredibly cold, so most grains cant survive. America was able to capitalize on its temperate climate by farming wheat, which is a very productive grain. Meanwhile, Russia was forced to farm Rye, which is the only grain that would grow in Russia’s harsh climate. Rye is far less economical, but it is certainly a very robust and durable option. I haven’t gotten too far into the video, but those are some of the reasons why Russia lagged behind their neighbors in terms of food production.
Did bro just say Kiev is part of Russia?
Then how did Tzarist Russia and later the now Russian Federation become such huge wheat exporters?
@@virn333Yes. Questions?
Dude thinks Rus and Russia are the same thing 🤡
The concept of European development was based on robbery. Because she could afford it. All coastal countries within the reach of European ships were controlled (to varying degrees, of course) by Europeans. As the capabilities of the Europeans grew, they moved deeper into the continents, and in a number of regions they retain influence to this day. In its justification, it must be emphasized that it was an economic necessity. To behave differently would create too many risks. There is also a threat of death in case of unfavorable conditions. There is also a threat from neighbors who will not behave well; they will bring resources with which they will prepare a strong army and capture you. There is also a banal lag in the civilization race, which you will get if you do not export resources from the colonies for your development. Therefore, Russia was constantly losing civilizationally, because we could only obtain additional product from our own economy.
That part about Russia being expanded by Cossacks escaping the government, then the government moving in, enserfing them and establishing little incentives for development reminded me heavily of Argentina.
The way into Patagonia was paved by Gauchos, many of whom lived semi-nomadic lives. When the government moved in it basically forced the Gauchos into conscription in the military or into underpaid rural labor under rich landowners that divided the newly conquered Patagonia amongst themselves after virtually exterminating the Indians. Despite all its profitability, Patagonia today is terribly underpopulated, with the entire territory having less population than the city of Buenos Aires (2,7 million to 3 million)
One day he explains why young men are single and angry, the next day he drops a BANGER on the history of Russian civilization. It's society's fault I'm single. I'm not a nerd 😂
What do you mean?
@@belroise they are insinuating that his video about the 'incel revolution' is personal cope about being a nerd resulting in being single. MyronT3 is infact the one coping, ignoring the massive undeniable trends.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 I see... The most sad of this it's that I saw the other video and WhatIfAltHistory was complaining about the lack of empathy and the use of certain word to attack everyone who talks about male problems
Be a nerd doesn’t disqualify you to marry in a promarriage society.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 HAHA bro. i have a gf. it was a joke
“There are at the present time two great nations in the world, which started from different points, but seem to tend towards the same end. I allude to the Russians and the Americans. Both of them have grown up unnoticed; and whilst the attention of mankind was directed elsewhere, they have suddenly placed themselves in the front rank among the nations, and the world learned their existence and their greatness at almost the same time.
All other nations seem to have nearly reached their natural limits, and they have only to maintain their power; but these are still in the act of growth. All the others have stopped, or continue to advance with extreme difficulty; these alone are proceeding with ease and celerity along a path to which no limit can be perceived. The American struggles against the obstacles which nature opposes to him; the adversaries of the Russian are men. The former combats the wilderness and savage life; the latter, civilization with all its arms. The conquests of the American are therefore gained with the ploughshare; those of the Russian by the sword. The Anglo-American relies upon personal interest to accomplish his ends, and gives free scope to the unguided strength and common sense of the people; the Russian centres all the authority of society in a single arm. The principal instrument of the former is freedom; of the latter, servitude. Their starting-point is different, and their courses are not the same; yet each of them seems marked out by the will of Heaven to sway the destinies of half the globe.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
That didn't age well...
Now this plot has a lot of holes in it, akin to swiss cheese. Nice fantasy though.
It was published in 1835. It's really good. You should read it. I think, yes, it reads differently today now that the US is in steep decline, but during the 1950s for example, it would have been a shock to come across that.
But the Russian half the the text certainly jives well with the video. He's read it I'm sure.
You know, it does starts to make more sense after a while. USA has a different approach, always at a war (military intervention they call it), trying to topple democratically elected goverments, does that make them a better civilization?
Freedom won over slavery in US so much it was abolished 4 years LATER then serfdom was abolished in Russia. Also you have missed near 300 years where russian emperors were russo-germans. Peter the Third who did the most for serfdom was german
In the United States slaves were only a fraction of population which were ethnically African and overwhelmingly lived in the South. In Russia it was the other way around the majority of population of Slavic peasant serfs were controlled by a small class of nobility of many different ethnic origins (Russians, Poles, Germans, Tatars etc.)
@@mastersafari5349 serfs were 40℅ at the moment of cancellation of serfdom which it substantial but not a majority
@@zagadkazakafresko5409 And yet the US never had 40% of it population as serf or slaves. Certainly not as late as the 19th century. Interesting. Must mean Russia was far more progressive.
@@mastersafari5349the “fraction” in question was 1/7th (4.5 million out of 31.5 million), and 1/9th of the slaves actually lived in the north, where slavery was still legal until December 6, 1865, more than six months after the war’s end (ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment).
@@RealLifeIronManfunny you were still segregated until the 60s. So much freedom in yank land lol
Lucio Caracciolo, an Italian expert of geopolitics, says that to know a culture one must read its classic authors. Reading Tolstoj, Dostoevskij, Gogol etc. gives a good glimpse on how Russians see themselves, life and what they think of the rest of the world.
Are those classic authors recent enough to understand current day Russia?
@@mesa9724 knowing some Russians, I would say that the foundational traits are there. Like reading 1800 American literature still gives you glimpses of American people's mind and attitude today.
You have to skim the details and keep the core, tho.
@@leaningtoweravenger Yes, I can’t see it for Russia because I don’t know much about them but that is certainly true for Americans 👍
Nah, mainly focus on communism, and so he misses the boat.
Good suggestion on authors.
30:47 - BTW: Moscovia is the political and geographical name of the Russian state in Western sources, used with varying degrees of priority in parallel with the ethnographic name Russia. Initially, it was the Latin name of Moscow (for comparison: Latin Varsovia), later in a number of states of Western and Central Europe it was transferred to a single Russian state, formed around Moscow. Various researchers believe that the use of this name was facilitated by Polish-Lithuanian propaganda, which deliberately preserved the terminology of feudal fragmentation, denying the legitimacy of the struggle of Ivan III and his successors for the reunification of the lands of Rus'. The Latinism Muscovy was not used as a self-name.
Egypt came up on a poll a while back but it got beat out by something pretty nutty. I’d love to hear your run down on it, considering the civilization is so old and shrouded in an aura of mystery
Fall of Civilizations did an excellent one on the collapse of Ancient Egypt. However, modern Egypt since 12-13th century is basically just another Arab state right? Pretty boring actually?
28:06
Russia abolished serfdom 2 years earlier than US abolished slavery. What are you talking about?
You also said previously that Europe has freedoms for womens while Russia doesn't. Russia gave womens right to vote earlier than US, France, Germany, UK, Italy, Spain and so on, actually it was almost first in Europe (only Denmark was ahead)
And your atempts to tie everything to mongol invasion is kinda cringe.
It's like writing that Kim Jong's Korea abolished slavery two years earlier
the Germans also abolished what not change the fact that later they built extermination camps and practiced colonialism
absolute rulers in Russia abolished because they needed cannon fodder for colonial wars
Feudalism itself in Russia mentally is very strong to present day and manifests itself in obedience to the authorities that use violence against citizens and the system of oppression.
@@yep3793 keep listenin to those youtube experts, who passes history tru crazy biased lense and make up shit to understand literally nothing lol=)
In poland, as the king was elected by vote, prospectibe kings promised the nobility more and more privileges. Weakening the power of the king and worsening the situation of the farmers.
As mostly foreign nobels were elected as kings, most of them weren't interested in the country and let the nobility do as it pleased.
hey bro, it was Koneczny (Konechnee)
Yea he also wrote that the best civilization is Latin (Western) and Poland is the highest form of it lol :D
But many people on polish right like to refer to his theories.
Based Konieczny
Everybody likes to think of themselves as the center of the world. Everybody with ambition, at least
And The current situation proves Koneczny right. Not with Poland being the highest form of the Latin civilization, but with Latin being the best civilization and Russia being Turanic.
Almost thought this was a history 102 channel video lol. Appreciate the quick uploads
Im drinking coffie and watching this, giving creator virtual marks for understanding the subject. Sometimes good, sometimes bad. I am a russian
It's hard to find any works of history about Russia written by Russians that have been translated to English so we only hear what the West thinks about Russia and that's an echo chamber. There were some published during the time of the USSR but they had obvious biases. The only way I got some idea of what Russians were like was from being raised with Russians and treated like family. I was lucky. They don't treat many Americans like that and I suspect that no Western "Russia expert" was ever exposed to the real life of a Russian family.
There need to be more and better translations of Russian history works. My fiancée is originally from Russia and there doesn't seem to be any other Russian speaker here in a town of 30 000. We both listen to conversations at the store, and there are a lot of different languages spoken, but we haven't heard any Slavic language. The lack of direct knowledge of Russians is crippling the US.
The Late Russian Empire had the most potential of any state in human history. Absolute tragedy what happened to it.
with 40% literacy - no
The Soviet Union became the second most powerful nation in history in less than a century, going from wooden plows to launching the first satellite in just thirty years, that'd be unthinkable in any other nation. everything only fell apart after the USSR collapsed.
Doubt it, Orcs and good don't mix.
Yep that's why the communist were used aginst Russian culture more than and before all other's. God willing they find a way to free at least a part of themselves.... God willing America does the same I believe we will at least parts will. I hope Russia can.
@@jeckjeck3119nobody asked
Those river systems freeze over a good portion of the year, and are super dangerous when they melt causing big floods. Not good for trade or even settling on the banks
I mean they are 'good' for trade compared to alot of alternatives, just not as great as river systems found in say western europe. its not like african river systems which are basically useless for practically the whole year and even more dangerous.
Next Video "How Incels will revive Russian Civilization"
Смерть вагинокапиталистам!!!
Don't leave out weebs and furies from the equation!
Billions must rebuild the Empire
a'sabia means "anger" in arabic
calling russia "too angry to die" is so hillarious to me and i got no clue why, but i love it
My father was a cartographer at Defense Mapping Agency. I used to be fascinated by the maps he brought home, especially the topographic maps. I think your maps are well done!
Hello, St. Louis.
Do one explaining Jewish Civilization pls
We don’t need Rudyard permabanned for saying the wrong words.
Jewish history is already well understood. Outside of former sultanates, at least.
Judaism and its followers began as a branch off of the Caanite peoples. They worshiped the caanite god El (later known as Yahweh). Their sect spread (often through conquest), and Yahwehism became the predominant religion in the Levant. Then Babylonia conquered them. Then Assyria conquered them. Then Rome conquered them. Then they scattered all over Eurasia and northern africa. Then, a branch of messianic Judaism became the state religion of Rome. That is the history.
What is Jewish civilization? Never heard of it.
you can read qoran for that.
Civilization? They have only attached themselves to already exsiting civilizations
Biden, Blinken, Sullivan, and Harris need to watch this video.
"Falling Down the rabbit hole with Rudyard and Friends," I like it
11:25 the word slavs might not come from slaves, but from the word slovo, which means word, so thus slavs means people who can speak or understand
Well, slave does come from slav because of how many slavs were enslaved in the middle ages. They were the last to convert to Christianity and the Christians are only allowed to enslave non Christian pagans (ofc they would ignore that rule in the early modern period). And islam forbid enslaving Muslims, it must only be non Muslims. So the word definitely comes from there. But the word slav itself does come from слово, as you said, meaning word, as in the slavic tribes can understand each other as слово is where the words for hear слышать, слышал and слушание and so on are derived from.
People in Russia are also fairly worn out by bloodshed from past revolutions and other related events. Even if it’s the case that majority of Russians were tired of their government, they’d rather not try anything in order to avoid millions more dead.
They don't seem worn out, look to the numbers that volunteered for the latest war/operation. Them being the sick man of Europe doesn't fly well.
@@The_Custos *whoosh*
Would be interesting to see an understanding of British Civilisation - I notice stuble similarities between Britain (or at least Modern Britain) and Russia as presented here.
Yeah we need a video just on Britain alone
I liked one idea which you mentioned that reform for autocracies are the worst things you could do. I kind of see it in perspective now. The 90s were very terrible time, we didnt know neither how capitalism works nor democracy for that matter. And that is the tragedy of it all because people have an opposite reaction now to these forces. I maybe could argue against such an idea but it really fits here at least
Russia got exposed to those ideas while being looted by the West which gave them a better perception of what the West is like than we allow ourselves.
Taiga uninhabitable? I disagree. I've been grown and raised in it. It's habitable. Only there's one growing season so you have to store grain instead of using it all at once.
There is little to no collectivism in russia. It is EXTREMELY individualistic right now with anyone but your closest friends and family being outsiders not to be trusted. Don't listen the nonsense russian government is spreading about traditional values and collectivism.
Yeah I got a good laugh out of collectivism claims
As a Russian, that's true - both sadly and thankfully.
you are right about individualism, but I haven't heard any claim from russian government that russian society is collectivistic from. Usually it comes from the west, and this is because majority of people in the west (video's author incldued) know very little about Russia
"anyone but your closest friends and family being outsiders not to be trusted" very typical of collectivistic societies
Then why are they allowing an individuals ego to throw away the few remaining young men Russia has? The Russian people will likely never recover from losing 300+ thousand young men to Ukraine because they have such an abysmal birth rate and are an undesirable country for immigration, and yet, they let it happen and even support it.
“There is no justice in this world, and the borders of a country belong to who can conquer them”
THANK YOU!!! This is exactly the point I have been trying to get across when arguing the Ukraine war with people. In geopolitics, there are no good guys and no bad guys (to be honest, they are all a bit scummy in their own respective rites). Just geopolitical interests and the means to achieve them. Be they economic, diplomatic, or military.
But as you may have already guessed, I am constantly accused of being a Putin apologist and Z-patriot. Rarely do I have anyone who tries to actually counter the substance of my arguments.
I deal in facts, not propaganda.
Agreed for instance upper and lower Egypt were totally different and had different Gods.
We'll, the Ukrainian nation didn't fully form until the end of 19th. In mid 19th centuries when the government decided to find out the ethnical composition of the empire about 20% of people in mosern Ukrainian borders answered that they were "locals" and about 30% when asked about their nationality named a close large city, so they had more attachment to the people of one land, than the people of one nation. In the end of 19th century most claimed they were Ukrainians.
Those commies granted a bunch of Russian lands to UA. Z SMO is undoing that
Ukranian nation never were formed. Attempts at creating it only started appering after soviets collapsed. And even now, still, ukranian identity is weak, couse it's formed not on traditions common along the people living on ukranian lands, but on "anti-russia" principals. That's why they failing and that's what ultimately coused the war.
@@retineyzer1670 well, if you didn't open Russian history book at school, then you should give it a chance, just not the garbage written by Medinskiy. Ukraine is not anti- Russia, Ukrainians are a nation which started forming in 19th century and fully formed in 20th century. It was called Russia minor (Малороссия) which means that is the place or Russian origin. Also if there were no Ukrainians, then who created the Ukrainian rada in 1917 before Lenin took power and later who created USSR (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic?)
@@vladislavshevchenko634 Consequences of ww1 and civil war in Russia, that is what created Ukraine as we know it. It was highly influenced by Galicians, who were heavily simping for everything western (austro-hungary and germany alike) and were basically infiltrated by their finance and influence. Bolsheviks then made a small re-conqista, but Lenin was too liberal to just straightforwadly annex Ukraine back and established the lands of Galicia, Malorossia and others as Ukraine's socialist republic.
@@retineyzer1670 well, by the time of WWI Ukraine already had a national language, a national culture and you'll be surprised, but in the eastern Ukraine there were many people identifying themselves as Ukrainians, than in the West. Most people in western Ukraine identified themselves as poles, Romanians, Ruthenians (ethnic group living in Poland), Jews, germans, Hungarians. If you can read Russian language, you could read (Малороссия в свете данных общеимперской переписи 1879г.) (Russia minor in the light of imperial population census1879) and see that already in 1879 most population, especially in the the east considered themselves either Ukrainians or malorussians, which is the same. In the west Ukrainians were fewer than all other nationalities combined, but still larger, than any single one of them.
12:40 This is a Ukrainian painting based on a poem that literally starts "Love each other, dark-browed, but not with Muscovites", which depicts a Ukrainian girl getting dumped by a Russian imperial soldier after she got pregnant.
It's called "Kateryna" and it was made by Taras Shevchenko - a foundational artist and poet of Ukrainian national self-identification and anti-Russian sentiment, and here it's being used to illustrate the point about how great Russia (Medieval Rus, Russia emerges later) was being perceived by Europe.
There's definitely more intricacies you will discover as you research the subject of Russia deeper.
hey did ur most recent vid just get striked?
Damn. This man speaks some facts.
As a russian myself I often see westerners try and fail to understand us, but this video is 100% true. Your conclusions towards the end about the enormous potential of russia being tragically destroyed multiple times by our own governments are so true that it breaks my heart.
The fact that we as a society still exist despite countless threats to perish should mean something. I want to believe that russia can achieve greatness in the future but the modern political tendencies prove my belief wrong. I think only if we as a society can deeply understand our past mistakes and try to unite in the face of authoritarianism we will create a better russia. But… it seems really improbable.
Up next please explain Iranic civilization. Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Iran. Including other iranian peoples like Pashtuns, kurds, baloch etc. i think its very unique and distinct from turkic indic and Semitic civilization despite the Islamic nature.
Iranics have had influence from Catalonia in spain all the way to Indonesia. They had an empire in north africa (rustimids), and a once had a decent population in hungary. Theres also a massive amount of persian speakers in Uzbekistan. They have influenced india to a massive extent that most of north Indian peoples like urdu speakers can understand Persian decently if they tried. They have influence iraqi and omani Arabic, and even influenced the north Caucasus, with the Alans and tats. And ofc you can talk ab the Persian empire and other iranics like the scythians and sarmatians and later khwarezmians.
Quite a lot of Iranic cultural dissemination came with the help of Turkic peoples. Indeed, the Khwarazmian Empire was Turkic-Persian, along with the Ghaznavid Empire and the Safavids. But indeed, Iranic peoples have an impressive spread; don't forget the Ossetians of the Caucasus, too.
@@SacClass650agreed 100%. And yeah I mentioned the Alans of the Caucasus who are the Ossetians.
@@SnowLeopard-lt1vf Forgive me, I scanned through and missed it!
@@SacClass650it’s okay lol
The Indo-Iranian civilizations should be analyzed together. Buddhism and Manichaeism for example were spread by these people to almost all of Asia. Central Asia and Afghanistan were interesting places of merger of the Indo-iranian civilization. The Indo-Iranian civilization had a huge impact in history. Lesser known civilizations like the Kushans and Sakas are also interesting.
The Indo-Iranian people also had a huge role in the ethno genesis of the Turkic people. The earliest Turks for example the Xiongnu (Huns) and Gokturks both had heavy Indo-Iranian paternal lineages (haplogroup R1a). This means that the iconic Turkic nomadic pastoralism (which the Mongols alsorelied upon) was spread to Asia by Indo-Iranian people like Sakas. Their genetic contribution is still evident in Turkic peoples like Uighurs and Kyrgyz
For what they achieved, and their exploits in general, the Turkic people are criminally underknown in the West - for example, the Mongol Empire could accurately be called a Mongolic-Turkic Empire given the amount of Turkic peoples crucially involved in it.
Then Jenk Ugar and his nephew Hasan ruined the reputation of Turkey.
I dont think these steppe peoples are underknown at all amongst people in the west who are interested in history. Ofcourse the general population whose knowledge of history ends short of what they were tried to be taught at school knows nothing of the history of any people or nation, they mostly know some fables about the nazies and ww2.
I was surprised to learn that todays Tatars are descendants of the Mongols? I'm an American who learned Turkish while teaching in Istanbul in the '90s. When I visited Ukraine in 2016 I was pleasantly shocked to find I understood Tatar language/dialect. Its basically Turkish with some Slavic loan words and accents, just like Uygur is basically Turkish with some Chinese loan words and accents.
@@juniorjames7076 not really, but close. Also they were basically a core population of a former mongol empire.
Tatars are turkic, they were fighting mongols in the past@@juniorjames7076
I disagree with the Slav-slave etymology more in line with Sklabenoi, and also with the emphasis of Norsemen on the generation of that population too.
Two videos in two days is damn near a record
It goes to show how much quality and effort he puts in
@@yanbarbosa8092 lol, tru tho
Looks like the previous video got taken down or is now private. Hopefully just a copyright issue and not a censorship issue from RUclips.
The word slav is not related to the word slave, its only a coincidence. The word slav comes from the word slovo (which in old slavic languages meant word (so slavs are the ones that could use words, or the ones that mutually understood eachother)), and the word slave comes from latin esclavus (which meant slave).
Thanks, sometimes I wonder if people never heard of the term "False Friends" before. It's like arguing "In medieval times paper in Germany was very expensive so Germans only wrote brief letters and that's why letter in German is called brief."
The word slav also could have come from the word slava - means glory in a lot of Slavic languages.
I dunno man it seems complicated.
Well, slave does come from slav because of how many slavs were enslaved in the middle ages. They were the last to convert to Christianity and the Christians are only allowed to enslave non Christian pagans (ofc they would ignore that rule in the early modern period). And islam forbid enslaving Muslims, it must only be non Muslims. So the word definitely comes from there. But the word slav itself does come from слово, as you said, meaning word, as in the slavic tribes can understand each other as слово is where the words for hear слышать, слышал and слушание and so on are derived from.
@@SnowLeopard-lt1vf wrong. First, slavs weren't last to convert (all slavic nations converted by the end of 10th century) but the baltic nations like pussians, lithuanians and latvians, who converted in the 13th century. Secondly, slavery never really was a thing in the middle ages Europe (in the early middle ages there were some remnants of slavery dating back from the times of antiquity and roman emipre but rather soon it vanished). Main slave traders and slave owners back then were Arabs. And thirdly, logic behind statement that slavs were slaves so the word slave must come from the word slav baffles me. Not all slavs were slaves, nor all slaves were slavs. I would even argue most of the slaves of arabs werent slavs but other christians from the middle east, spain, southern italy, or subsaharan africans. And besides, there is so much better etymological explanation with the latin word esclavus.
Russians are good at chess because.... what else is there to do during long winters? 😂
ice hockey？
seggs?
Screw
I very much appreciate the unbiased, concise deep dive into Russian history. No western propaganda, just sheer knowledge.
You my friend are a true historian.
loooool
What happened to the incel revolution video? Glad I watched it twice before it disappeared.
Whatifalthist please make a video on the future of space travel.
Heck yeah I want him to study how civilizations will handle space colonies and what new civilizations will rise.
That'd be highly, highly speculative.
It will be most likely the founding of united states part 2 space boogaloo. But with the potential of earth getting destroyed. 😂😂😂
First we colonise the moon, then we start extracting resources from asteroids and refining them on the moon or in space, then we build a Dyson swarm, we use the energy from it to colonise Mars and Venus. Then after that perhaps we colonise the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. Then once that’s done we become an interstellar civilisation and expand outwards towards other star systems.
In short, there is no future. The vast distances are physically insurmountable. That's why every sci-fi requires literal magic as it's basis. Whether that be Star Trekkian warp drives which just outright ignore physics, or completely different planes, like 40k using hell itself as a highway.
Even if we could overcome the vast distances with some sort of warp technology, what would be the point? There's so little out there that is usable. The myriad of things that had to happen in perfect unison to make the earth happen, would reach odds in the 1 in a billion range or more. The idea, that a perfectly sized planet (thus have the correct gravity) would be a perfect distance from it's sun (so that temperatures would be livable) and have the perfect mix of gasses in it's atmosphere (for heat retention, radioactive protection, and breathability) alone are so astronomically rare, if we looked hard, maybe, just maybe, we could find one planet that wouldnt just immediately kill us in the entire galaxy. Finding one single sign of "earthlike" just isnt going to cut it, if it's gravity is 10 times that of earth, or it's temperatures reach near boiling during the day, or -100c during the nights, or it's atmosphere is 80% ammonia... then we can do nothing with it.
And dont even try to think we could build atmospheric domes or space ships/stations to support a population for any length of time. We cant even build bridges to last more than a couple decades let alone intricate electronics and machinery that could survive a year or two without a catastrophic failure. I mean have you even seen how temperamental a modern automobile is? ...and we've "mastered" those. It would take centuries of the harshest eugenics plan to breed out enough human falibility to find a work force capable enough to build and maintain any sort of colony ship that would leave the earth completely bereft of any capable people which would immediately descend into chaos and starvation when those "perfect" workers flew away.
This is all why modern NASA is just used as a pet project to keep a few women employed doing ridiculous busy work.
The incel video is now missing ! It was my favorite!
The word Slavs does not come from "slavery". It's a derivation from slovo ("word/letter"), originally denoting "people who speak (the same language)", meaning "people who understand one another".
Did they delete his video about the incel revolution?
Who else came here to ask where did the Incel Revolution video go? I was half way through when it got removed.
Do Ethiopian civilization.
yessir, muh brotha
He said he was going to do it a long time ago I think, though this is not the first time I thought that and couldn't find him saying it in the old videos. Mandela effect is real. But I always imagined he said that in a vid where he introduced Orthodox Civilization and that Ethiopia needs its own vid.
This is the best of your last 3 imo bro
Hey man, thank you for your insight.
On the subject of Scandinavians colonizing the river trade routes, the theory is quite dated and likely exaggerated by the Germanic intelligencia that dominated 18th century Russian academia; the prevailing theory is that the river routes were controlled by Slavic rulers, while the norsemen had to dock their drakkars (optimized for sea travel) in a port town near the mouth of the Volkhov river called "Staraya Ladoga" (which they called "Aldeigja") where they boarded Rus' lodyas (smaller vessels optimized for river travel) that sailed all the way to Persia and back along a route called "from the Varangians to the Persians". The norsemen tried to take the town on numerous occasions but failed to do so, and eventually many of them relocated to the town and integrated into the local population (which is how Ryurik ended up there in the first place).
That being said, the overwhelming majority of the trade (at least in the pre-Ryurikid era) along this route was carried out by Slavic merchants, which would explain the massive cultural and architectural influence that the Indo-Aryan civilization had on the eastern slavs, plus the plethora of Persian/Turkic words in org old and modern Russian; the most notable examples, IMHO, are the terms used to refer to some articles of clothing: a traditional fur-lined men's coat is called a "kaftan" (from the Turkic "quftan"), while a traditional women's dress is called a "sarafan" (from the Persian "sarapa"), indicating that these types of clothes were initially brought to the region from Persia by merchants.
I would recommend checking out Yegor Kholmogorov's lectures on the subject matter if you understand Russian.
0:21 this somehow not only perfectly sums up russian history but also how most people probably saw the russian kid in their school.
Do the Imperium of Man.
This video is about emerging Imperium of Man lmao
Seconded
Nah bro we all know how that fake dune rip off works
W40k factions:
- Imperium of Mankind - Russia;
- Eldar - European Union;
- Dark Eldar - Great Britain;
- Chaos - USA;
- Orcs - countries of the Arab world;
- Tyranids - China;
- Necrons - Japan;
- Tau Empire - India.
@@Chaldon-hl6yk I would put the Arabs as the Necrons, they have infighting, but not in the barbaric way the orcs have, no civilisation has that (that's why it's called 𝗰𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗹isation).
Could you please reupload "The Coming Incel Revolution"?
Lots of stereotypes. Dude, you really don’t know or understand what Russia is. If you are really interested, then ask me, I will recommend books to you and tell you a lot.
Great job as always my friend!
I have some suggestions:
1- Please put the RUclips adds only at the start and end of the videos as they are really big distractions and mess with the continuity of the video. Also they are annoying. I know you have to make money but your videos will be flawless without adds in between.
2- Please also make a video about Iranian/Persian empire. As an Iranian I think we cannot fully understand both western and eastern civilizations without understanding the Persian culture and its vast influence on other cultures through trade,art,war and religion.
Thanks for your great work and helping us better understanding the world around us.
Agree on the 1st point.
I thought this must be an old video when it autoplayed. I was pleasantly surprised when I realized that you uploaded twice in a week. No pressure of course. Take all the time you need brother.
Where did the Incel Revolution video go?
He deleted it, I didnt see it either
Or it got reported into oblivion, that could be probable as well, I hope he addresses it if thats the case
Wayback machine bro, its there
YT deleted it
I saved the link to the video. It got copyright striked by someone named Sigmund Ehrlich
What I never understood was why US foreign policy is so antagonistic towards Russia since the fall of communism. After 9/11 we should have embraced Russia as allies against radical Islam because they had/have the same problems with Islamic terrorism. But no. We have to expand NATO right up to the borders of Russia. This would be like if the Soviets added Mexico to the Warsaw Pact. Nothing antagonizes a country like having a hostile alliance right on your doorstep. The State Department acts like it is still 1965 and the Russians are an existential threat to global democracy. They are not. I fear that opportunity has been squandered forever.
Many Russians still believe you qill sober someday, and especially Russian rulling class dreams about it with Surkov's "Global North" idea.
True, poor sad Russia. Why can't it create ceasefires around it in peace. ;_;
The US didn't "add" NATO membership to countries, nor did it invite them. They, being free nation states, applied to join. They applied because of the history they'd very recently shared with their large Eastern neighbour, and they did not want that kind of abusive relationship again. Ukraine has proved them right.
@@richardsandy6080 Nothing happens in NATO without US approval. To think otherwise is incredibly naive. Aslo, the US had an agreement with Russia after the USSR fell that NATO would not expand East. We have continuously broken that agreement. I think everyone can agree that expanding a hostile alliance up to the border of Russia is antagonistic, at best.
The USA can't intervene in every single regional conflict on the planet. It is just not possible. I feel bad for the Ukrainians, but risking a hot war with Russia is just plain dumb. Especially for a country that has zero strategic importance to the USA.
@@richardsandy6080 Russia explicitly said in 2008 [after NATO (US) INVITED(!!!) ukraine and Georgia to join them] that this would be unacceptable and they will response militarily.
American with Russian/Eastern European heritage here, you did a swell job. I can nitpick and say some things, but I can't dislike. I really appreciate honesty on this topic, and actually comprehension, not simply "understanding". One thing though:
It's Volgograd, not Stalingrad. I got a good laugh out of that. The naming war in the ongoing Russo-Ukraine War is also hilarious, because the naming patterns are contradictory to both sides.
What's with the name war?
Your comment is cringe and doesn’t make any sense.
@@zombopanda Identity markers. Ukraine wants to change names of cities/streets to either pre soviet (example Bakhmut) or new (city of Dnipro), Russia want to return to the Soviet idols.
I’ve done a decent bit of travelling and always been scared of going to places like china and Russia, it’s weird, but now, of all times, I feel more inclined to visit just to see what it’s actually like
Why China? Chinese neighborhoods in the West are low crime
also are you ever going back to Alternate History or not??
I mean, we've diverged onto the "clown world" timeline. You go back to 2004 and explain 2024 and people wouldn't believe it at all. We're living in one of those moments where history is in flux, where you branch off "alternate historys" from. So the Alt history is "what branch will history follow from here?". It's a pretty interesting time to be alive, living during one of these "crux" points in history, where humanity is at a crossroads.
@@Lusa_Iceheart It's becouse globalist elites failed in their strategy, that's why world seams so "clownish". In 10-15 years everything will be normal
@@Lusa_Iceheart Yep, I agree
>talks about the communism in Russia
>doesnt name the jew
bruh
He doesn't want the video to get demonetized. We all know who to name
My guy drops two vids so close to one another. One before and after my birthday, lucky me 🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽
29:39. One note on cossacks is that there were different types of them. The idea was the same: search for land without your government.
The picture you chose represents Ukrainian(Ruthenian) Cossacks, who rebelled against Polish, not Russians. These cossacks claimed that they were rightful nobles, descendants of Kyevian Rus(Ruthenia), and wanted to restore their rights in the Polish State.
They are not the same as Russian authorities, which were in Moscow. Mainly because of cultural isolation. The same applies to rural people, in other words, not all Eastern Slavs are the same.
Later Ruthenian rurals joined Cossacks to fight Polish religious(possibly not only) oppression.
There also were Don Cossacks, for example, which did not share territories with Ruthenians.
If you seek for further proof, there are subsrantial differences between Rural Eastern Ukrainian people's language(close to standard Ukrainian) and rural people in Don Cossack territories.(similar to Russian language, but featuring some words, which can slightly remind you of Ukrainian)
You really hate communism and USSR, do you? That blinds you when you try to understand it. There are layers and layers of what you don't see.
Pinko
In that he's right, thankfully.
Oh ffs. I was about 3/4 of the way through your Incel Revolution video (JUST got done reading the text wall explaining why clubs/bars are popular, especially for the women that attend) when the video got removed “due to a copyright claim by Sigmund Ehrlich”
I will add, while I’m here, if you edit the video and re-upload it, could you leave out the B-roll of the lesbians kissing? Doesn’t bother me, but I want to show this this to my Boomer parents. They are VERY against such taboo (especially my mom lol) and a simple 4 second clip like that would simply invalidate everything you said in the video.
Love your content man, can’t get enough of it. Really appreciate you speaking up for us young men who are struggling so heavily
i'm on the same boat, was cleaning up the house while suddenly the video cut off... Who the hell is this "Sigmund Ehrich" person anyways
@@TheLemming1337 I'm not suprised it went down so fast. Politicians would prefer to stick their heads in the sand and pretend this shit isn't happening.
Where is the young men rebel video uploaded on April 9th?
Its on the wayback machine
How to access? What the heck is a Wayback machine??
@@andylu6150 Manually copy and paste the link, the video is there
@@andylu6150 1. Google "wayback machine"
2. Copy paste the link from his channel
I searched “Thrones of Decay” and this video was the tenth search result