That always bugged me about my history class. Our teacher told us something along the lines of: "The USSR tried to station nukes in Cuba and thereby risked escalating the cold war to a nuclear armageddon. In order to deescalate the US agreed to withdraw its' missiles from Turkey" Which, you know, kinda weird not to mention that the nukes in Turkey were there first? Edit: Seems the cold war continues in the replies to this comment :)
I think you could argue that there were already nuclear weaponry in European countries, so stationing them in turkey didn't threaten the ussr more than nukes in the UK or France did. On the other hand Cuba is much more close to the US then the ussr was before
Nazi US history classes love to favor the capitalist fasicst system over the rightful socialist state. It would look bad if the us were the aggressors. Which in every Cold War scenario, they were. They prompted dictatorships everywhere while the USSR was on its backfoot
@@smilingearth5181 That's not it. Turkey was a member of USA's nuclear program (and still is) which allows USA to station nukes there by request of the government in turkey. Most NATO countries did that, nothing out of the ordinary for cold war europe
Placing missiles in Cuba was their reaction to the US placing missiles in Turkey and Italy. Kruschev says in his memoirs that they were impressed and scared by how the US panicked due to the cuban situation. To the soviets, the US placed nukes around the USSR; so, the USSR would place nukes around the US. This was just assuring the ballance of power, which was far from being a new concept back then. The US almost invaded Cuba, which would have been a very agressive and messy movement, as it could have easily gone wrong in so many ways.
@TheHighwayman Just like with Hong Kong, China's government wants absolute control over its territory, and for decades China has considered Taiwan part of its territory. The only thing that stopped China decades ago was that most of their fleet was controlled by the Nationalists that fled to Taiwan. Ever since they fully modernized they've been cranking up the pressure, and only American guarantees stop them from actually trying something.
@TheHighwayman screw you, just because Taiwan has peaceful connection with PRC. Doesnt mean PRC will do nothing to Taiwan Damn PRC also claims SCS islands. Even protesting Indonesia drilling oil in Natuna. PRC also sent fishing boats guarded by PRC coast guard to ilegally fish in non PRC water Are we SEA nations just an ant in your eyes? An acceptable casualty to jack off to the thought the US is always bad?
The simple difference was that the Soviets could control public opinion while the Americans were held accountable by it. If the American public did not like the idea that nukes were in Cuba the Kennedy Administration was obliged to do whatever it took to get rid of them even if it was a fair and rational response to the missiles in Turkey. The idea of not being able to control the narrative by jailing dissidents and journalists was terrifying to the Soviets. Even now the concept of public accountability is a major stumbling block in international relations with totalitarian regimes like China. Despite funding billions into outreach programmes Chinese diplomats just cannot handle being asked unscripted questions by journalists who can simply fact check the responses and ask why are they lying.
Potentially underrated factor was that USSR leaders came to realize the Cuban leadership was way too eager to attack the US, and the Soviet Union was alarmed at their enthusiasm.
@@Hypogean7 Yeah they didn't give a fuck because they would be in another part of the world while the bombs destroyed their own country. They couldn't care any less about their people if it meant that the US was blown to ashes and they were both safe somewhere where the fallout couldn't harm them. yay, communism
Also, another reason that the Americans agreed to remove the missiles from Turkey was that the first Inter-continental ballistic missile submarines had been developed (The first American ICBM submarine, the USS George Washington completed its first cruise in January 1961). This meant that the missiles in Turkey were now not that strategically important, since the Americans would soon have submarine fleets capable of launching missiles in every ocean around the USSR.
Such submarines did indeed make static nuclear launch sites less important, however due to Turkey’s extremely strategic location (soft belly of USSR, Iraq, Syria and Iran) it still is a headache for modern Russia. The black sea also cant be legally entered by any non Turkish navy since a year because of the Ukrainian war.
Turkish people didn't even know there were nukes in Turkey. The government simply agreed to deploy nukes in Turkish soil and didn't bother to let people know.
Video suggestion: Why is Valga divided? A video about the history of the border between Latvia and Estonia. As a Brit, I was astonished to find out that, somehow, this one was us too, despite Britain never really having too much to do with north eastern Europe.
Well, splitting some cities after WW1 when ethno-states arised and population split was problematic to do it cleanly isn't that rare. There was similar case between Poland and Czechoslovakia. And the referendums to set the borders were absolute mess with everyone cheating as much as they could.
Yeah, there was a British guy living for some time in Valka. So, he took part in the commission. Latvian side didn't demand much, so they basically gifted their town to Estonia. Moral of the story: if you don't properly declare your demands, you will not receive much.
You don't forget that Latvian government was in debt of honour to Estonia for their help with getting rid of both Bolsheviks and German Landeswehr. In the school this was usually mentioned as the reason for this partition when I was studying there (2005--2009)
It's always irked me how this aspect of history was taught here. The US stationing missiles on the Soviets' doorstep was clearly provoking a similar response. In my American history classes, they conveniently glossed over the stationing of nukes in Turkey, and focused instead on the "Soviet provocation". Because clearly, we have to omit details to make ourselves look like the good guys...
Easy; US was in a position of power and yet didn't abuse it. USSR in contrast abuses it relentlessly; so by default they're the bad guys. Or something like that.
A lot of US history and actions are taught in this way; it's the most common spin in western history. That said, once you start asking the other side for their own history, you'll find that they have their own spins (some rather silly and obvious, like North Korea's :p)
this is why the internet educating the new generation will be monumental in the worlds development imho. the internet literally created a dawning of a new age for information sharing .___.' for better or for worse but im hoping its overall for the better
@@LHSMeleeClub No it won't. Only Westerners bother doing this thing; most stick with their national narrative and justify their brutality and imperialism.
@@maazkalim To do the lame thing and explain the joke: In the Warhammer 40K universe, there is a race called the Orkz. Whatever they believe becomes reality if they believe in it hard enough; and all of them believe that painting something red will make it go faster... and because they believe that, it's made true, and objects that are painted red and piloted by Orkz can go at ludicrous speeds they otherwise should not be able to.
Please do videos on the following subjects: 1. Why did the People's Revolution of 1848 fail in the Gernanies and Spain? 2. Why do people drive on different sides of the road in different countries?
Nikita Khrushchev:You know if you just remove your missiles out of Turkey, we remove ours from Cuba. John F Kennedy: yeah that sounds good to me. Later* Robert McNamara: Prime minister Castro, this missile crisis has been he last straw. We almost blew ourselves up! Now we invited you here in good faith to sort this thing out
Think about it. If the USSR was to call out the US for putting missiles in Turkey, they would only really scare people without having a legitimate strategic response. But when the US did the opposite, they already had their missiles in Turkey, so it's not like if Moscow said "no" Washington couldn't transport their own missiles closer to be on the same level.
Video Idea: Why was Khrushchev removed from power? Most of the answers will say it's because of the Cuban Missile Crisis, but after seeing this video, it seems that "USSR had more in 1962, than it did in 1960", so I think it's a pretty interesting and complex question.
In politics, perception is more important than reality. Someone will get way more support for looking successful than quietly being successful. Even though the USSR benefitted it still looked like Khrushchev got pushed around by the Americans so he lost support.
The key issue for Kruschev, was that the USSR censored the news about the missiles in turkey, while the americans cried to the winds about the missiles in turkey. In the end, from the soviet point of view, it seemed as if the USSR had backed down and got nothing in return. Or in other words: many times winning and crying is the best strategy.
The Cuban Missle Crisis result looked like the USSR backing down internationally. Ask anyone today about the crisis and hardly anyone will know about the removal of missiles from Turkey.
@@icecold1805 yeah but is far more complex than that, Kruschev had a lot of opposition for more hardliners and he even did try a early perestroika, it backfired by KGB interference, he had major support of zhukov, but Kruschev mislead the man and ended without him, his position was weak and stable trying to succeed Stalin. There was also the Fallout with china... Little nicky try it's best but was unsuccessful in the end in trying to modernize URSS and avoid the stagnation.
It's important to note, the Turkey missiles were removed secretly 6 months later. It looked like Khrushchev had just gotten the guarantee from the US on Cuba, and that was purposeful. JFK wanted to remove the nukes from Turkey, but he couldn't be seen as abandoning them to save the US or he would have been sunk politically. So to everyone else, Khrushchev basically folded.
As Sergej Khrushchev (Nikita's son) said it, those missiles just replaced other threats that the Russians were used to have on their doorstep; French armies or Turkish armies... It wasn't such a big shock to them as having missiles on Cuba was to the Americans.
Yep, sounds about right. The Soviets were long used to having powerful neighbors ready to invade their nation. Hell, that happened when they were also the Russian Empire. To the officials in Moscow the movement of missiles to Turkey just seemed normal. But the Americans had long been used to "splendid isolation," surrounded by weak neighbors they could easily bully around. A powerful nation placing their nukes right next door was too much and they freaked the f*ck out, almost dragging the world into nuclear armageddon. The Soviet miscalculation was in believing the Americans thought exactly like the Soviets with regards to national threats.
@@pdruiz2005Lmao. The Russians drifting in tanks, wrestling bears, living in - 60 temperatures and casually prepared for armageddon, wondering what all the fuss is about.
Funny theory my history teacher brought up back in the day, but the USSR might very well have voluntarily let the americans spot the missiles by placing them on the boats' decks rather than inside said boats (which is verifiable given the missiles were spotted by spy airplanes), specifically in order to get those turkish missiles removed by essentially blackmailing the USA. They didn't plan to actually attack the USA, hence their "let's not do that" reaction to Cuba's enthuisasm at the prospect. In that sense, the USSR was the true winner of the Cuban missile crisis, being the only nation that actually got anything from it.
1. No russians there 2. Didn't want the headache rioting Finn's would cause if they would be suppressed 3. Large Swedish pop and their own language 4. The fact that their "government" worked and they were relatively ok with the Russian overloads.
If I recall correctly, the Russians took Finland from Sweden. That means that the Finns were mostly fine with autonomy and thus didn't really try to separate. If they tried to govern Finland directly, there would be resistence.
@@lukasschmitz7231 why? i mean arm races have existed since the half monkey humans learned to put rocks on their sticks... the cold war was like any other arm races, but because it was the never weapons people got more scared (as always)
The problem was that the whole thing made Khrushchev look weak which was why he was deposed soon afterward. There was a plan to leave the battlefield nuclear missiles for the Cubans but when the Russians realised that Castro was bat crap crazy and that if they left them there Castro would use them they quietly shipped them back to Russia.
@@Darkfawfulx He did the right thing in the end, after a couple of years doing the wrong thing. He was very foolish to treat JFK as a young whippersnapper he could bully.
Castro was absolutely not crazy. The US had invaded like a year prior and had tried to kill him multiple times. He also did not desire nuclear or conventional war with the USA, as a small island nation directly adjacent to the worlds foremost military, nuclear and economic power would surely beat the snot out of Cuba. Do people even think when they make statements like these? Like what on earth would Cuba stand to gain from war with their superpower neighbour?
@@thecuddlyaddict From Wikipedia: "A few weeks after the crisis, during an interview with the British communist newspaper the Daily Worker, Guevara was still fuming over the perceived Soviet betrayal and told correspondent Sam Russell that, if the missiles had been under Cuban control, they would have fired them off.[184] While expounding on the incident later, Guevara reiterated that the cause of socialist liberation against global "imperialist aggression" would ultimately have been worth the possibility of "millions of atomic war victims"." So by their own words, yes, they were zealous nutjobs ready to start WWIII.
I very appreciate the constantly improving quality, like that first page of Pravda fully filled with text at 1:45. "All expenses paid happy camp" is definitely one way to put it 😅
I think an important unexplored factor here is the role of Turkey (and Cuba) in all this. Part of the reason the USA stationed nukes in Turkey, I'm assuming is that the Turks wanted it, and without the American Nukes as a "shield" would have instead developed their own nuclear weapons. Stationing American nuclear weapons in such countries is a method by the USA to prevent nuclear proliferation and maintain good relations with countries under their umbrella. The same is true of Japan, which is perfectly capable of also creating their own nuclear weapons, but because of the American nuclear umbrella do not feel the need to. In discussing the cold war, it's important to realise that there wasn't just two players, the USA and USSR, but that all the other countries in their respective blocs were also pursuing their own interests (though far less so on communist side, as most of the regimes were de facto soviet puppets, with the notable exceptions of Yugoslavia, Albania, China, Cuba and Vietnam)
In fact there are 50 NUCLEAR BOMS in TURKIYE withc AMERICA is holding in INCIRLIK and if AMERICA try to take them then TURKS will make there own NUCLEAR WEAPONS so this is way AMERICA still have NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN INCIRLIK
It should be noted that while the video shows the Cubans happy about war being avoided, they weren’t. Castro and Guevara both wanted and pushed for WWIII during the crisis, and thought the Soviets were cowards for making a deal.
No. they were suicidal idiots for not knowing what would happen to Cuba. They could literally wipe out the entire Island and not leave a living soul alive. Castro himself would have been dead and his Island with him. The Cuban people were probably relieved.
That's a weird interpretation of it lol. Castro was willing to use nukes in case of another US invasion of Cuba. Khrushchev was on board with this, as preventing another US invasion was the reason the Soviets sent nuclear weapons to Cuba in the first place.
@@kingdedede333 Castro publicly expressed outrage when the Soviets came to a deal with the United States. They absolutely wanted a war over giving up the nukes.
This is only partially true. They did not want WW3. Yes they felt betrayed by the Soviets because they were sure without the Nukes the US was going to invade them. The nukes in Cuba were never meant for attack.
This is a question I've been asking for 35 years, and I have successfully annoyed people by calling The Cuban Missile Crisis "The Turkish Missile Crisis" and equating it to The U.S. being terrified of an even playing field. In fact, I'm going to continue doing that because this video essentially supports that analogy.
Never was an even playing field, supposedly while the US had reliable long-range ICBM’s, Soviet Union didn’t and Soviet missiles took helluva long time to launch
Because the USSR was no better than Germany had been just a few years earlier. They murdered tens of millions of people and invaded everyone around them who wasn't allied with the US and/or UK. IDK why people seem to think there is some sort of virtue to agreeing to be equal to your enemy, instead of trying to overcome them without having to nuke the world.
I'm sure you don't wonder why Turkey and Eastern Europe would push so hard for stronger US security guarantees and missile and base placements. Definitely not because the USSR had carved up and ruled parts of Europe with an iron fist and pointed their own nukes at the rest. This is why the USSR crumbled and overall lost the Cold War. Failure to learn that lesson is why Socialists will continue to lose
As an American, why were we never told this? Everything I've ever seen here on the Cuban Missile crisis conveniently leaves out the fact that we did it first.
Could you please explain why the Federal Republic Of Central America (FRCA) dissolved? Counting that nowadays the people in the former territory of the federation seem pretty positive with the idea of unification, and the president of El Salvador has shown interest in the topic, why didn't the federation succeded?
@@ARG0T Give a point. The US has fought to remove Latin American leaders that weren't US-friendly leaders, every fucking person knows this. Look up Salvador Allende.
The Soviets also knew that the Atlases stationed in Turkey (by Eisenhower) were scheduled for planned obsolescence by '65 already, and were not nearly the threat that B-52s were (even before cruise missiles). Fun fact (admitted years later by... I think Andrei Gromyko?): the Soviets had both strategic (missile-based) and tactical (bomb) nukes in Cuba. Khrushschev made a big deal about no longer stationing those, but never said a mumbling word about the bombs. And he may have done this as an ace-in-the-hole However, when advised that the Americans would go to war if they found out about them later on, he tried to call them back -only to have Castro inform him that he considered them ‘gifts’ and would not, in fact, relinquish control. There was some delicate diplomacy to get them out. Between that, and the revelation to the Politburo during the actual crisis that the Soviet ground commander had been given independent launch authority directly by Khurshchev WITHOUT informing the rest of the military… well, Khrushchev was a bit of a loose cannon, and there were reasons he was removed from power.
@@secretname4190 overstate or not, their alliance was quite critical for keeping Portugal independent as forming Spain meant that kings had serious aspirations towards taking Portugal. And Spain and UK were competing colonial powers so checking Spain in control just made a lot of sense.
@@Toonrick12 The english helped us a lot and we still take our alliance seriously :P but we also had a brilliant tactician called Nuno Álvares Pereira who was undefeated while all his battles were won outnumbered often 1 to 5 or more, i think it would make an interesting video
mostly because of theultiple indepencence wars that made it too costly to annex... also after a few problems during the rise of portugal the portuguese court started getting more hostile towards castillian influence in the court
Honestly while people are pointing out "Lol not so much the good guys USA" I do want to point out kennedy getting ready to offer the withdrawal of missiles from turkey that he decided against the second Khruschev demanded he leave Berlin or else it would be war...... Like I didnt fully understand before this video why the Soviet leadership blamed Khruschev for the crisis, but honestly after hearing that bit I see why they did
*P.S.* So you got perfectly nothing, then? Alas.. That means your "no good guy" theory even it comes to the U S of A's criminal culpability after its role becomes undeniable, only reveals your own kin-selection bias.
I'm glad you made this video. Everyone knows about the Cuban Missile Crisis, but far fewer know about the shady, backroom deals and what we gave up to get those missiles out of Cuba.
The Russians used Cuba to get the missiles removed from Turkey, but in the process there was almost a nuclear war. For those that don't know, there was a Russian submarine with nuclear missiles on standby in case the Americans sank the ship which was carrying the nuclear missiles that was going to Cuba. For some reason communication was caught off between the Russian submarine and the Russian command center and people in the submarine thought that WW3 had started and were debating if they should deploy their nuclear warhead. Usually, for such a decision there are 2 people responsible and both would have to agree in order to deploy the nuke. That day, both people responsible for the deployment of the nuke were in favor of deploying it, thinking that WW3 had already started. Fortunately, that day there was a high ranking official that happened to be in the submarine and the decision for the deployment of the nuke also fell onto him and all 3 of them would have to agree. If it wasn't for that high ranking official that HAPPENED to be in the submarine that day, the submarine would have fired the nuke and would have started WW3.
Also that submarine in question underwent what appeared to the crew to be depth charge attacks against it. They weren't, they were training charges being used as a warning or whatever, but they had no way to know that.
Comms between the sub and the Soviet command was cut because the US Navy was chasing it and hammering it with training depth charges. These weren't enough to sink the sub but enough to keep rattling the crew. The sub desperately needed to resurface to recharge it's batteries but doing so would expose them to the US surface fleet. As carbon dioxide built up in the sub, the submarine captain became increasingly unstable and believed nuclear war had already broken out and wanted to fire the nukes. Saner heads amongst the officers prevailed and in the end the submarine gave up and surfaced and was then escorted out of the area by the US Navy.
The entire world's destruction was risked that day in a game of brinksmanship punctuated by a destroyer depth charging a Russian submarine, an act of war, that was carrying nuclear tipped torpedoes carried for the specific purpose of destroying the fleet that was attacking it......and we somehow have fashioned this into the Americans being the sane good guys.....hmmm?!!!
If there was nuclear war from it, the US would have been the ones to start it. The nukes in cuba were defensive, and it was the US that was willing to lash out for it. The US wouldve started WW3, not the USSR. This was an aggressive initiative by the US.
Except that it almost caused WW3. Krushev severely miscalculated here. He himself very much regretted the decision. We are lucky that himself and Kennedy were the respective leaders at the time because it is really the two of them that prevented WW3 from happening.
@@Suksass missiles removed from turkey is a very well known fact from what i know but the us plays it like "bc the us is SO NICE they removed the missles from turkey in exchange for the ussr to remove theirs from cuba" never mentioning the US started that lil war lol
@@yoloswaggins7121 i don't think anyone on this planet has the balls to starts ww3 since for the first time in known human history if a word war started the people doing the dying would not be the poor but the rich who will get their fucking home turned into a big crator, poor people would be scatered but spared (except for the one living in the cities) so that thing you know WAR which is in every human and is innevitable no matter what, suddenly became evitable once poor people where not the only one at risk uwu
@@Koupip It's well know fact today. Wasn't as well known back then, making Kruschev look weak. Also, USSR started that little war by being imperialistic bastard.
USA still has around 50 nukes (B61) in Türkiye and back in 2001 it was around 90. Right now they're at İncirlik Airbase located in Southeast Türkiye. The thing is spesific warplanes of USAF have been rejected and not allowed to land on İncirlik, which means USA can't use those nukes in need according to politic treatment. However for some reason Turkiye has special air squadron that capable of carrying nuclear weapons.
I live in the city in Turkey where the missiles are deployed (Izmir). Frankly, these missiles were very old and no one was even sure they would work. The biggest fear was that it would explode during the launch phase and directly damage the city. Therefore, we can say that the missiles were deployed only as a threat and not for use. If the Soviets also had intelligence on this issue, they may not have taken it very seriously. But when the Cuban crisis broke out, the missiles in Turkey must have become a matter of prestige for the Ussr due to reciprocity.
Aahhh... The military-industrial gaming complex. Gotcha'! Thanks for chipping-in o/b/o "the OP", assuming you are not "her" one of alter-egos, "@@ihysro404". May you have a blissful future with good-health and all the success in your [egalitarian ]endeavours[ ahead].
Despite being a net gain for the USSR, Khrushchev was seen as a weak and terrible leader by the Soviet politburo after the Cuban Missile Crisis and it effectively ended his career as Premier and ushered in Brezhnev.
“One of the most famous events in the Cold War was the Cuban missile crisis, in which a crisis occurred, concerning missiles” This is exactly the kind of outside-the-box, in-your-face perspective that I’m here for
@@Toonrick12 The USSR had negotiated a pretty sweet deal about The Straits in 1936 and had no real beef with Turkey. It's true Stalin did make some aggressive noises in the 1940s, and as a result Turkey joined NATO in 1952.
Afaik Kennedy only agreed to the deal by demanding USSR to remain silent about removal of Nuclear missiles in Turkiye. Deal was off it were to became public as Kennedy wouldn't be able to back down publicly. Also, Khrushchev threatened US they'd attack Turkiye if they were not removed and Turkish public had no idea that they were under a nuclear threat. Having nuclear attack capability is something but having it at a short distance, leaving little time to respond for your adversary is entirely something else.
I suspect on the US side, the general view of the US having a sphere of influence in the Americas dating back to the Monroe Doctrine coupled with the American feeling that there are oceans between us and our enemies, made the idea of missles being 90 miles away as being unacceptable. However, Russia and Turkey have been getting into it for centuries, so a potential threat in Turkey was nothing new. My understanding is that the US and Nato viewed a nuclear deterent as necessary because Soviet conventional forces were so much larger. I've read that the Soviet army's ability to overwhelm Nazi Germany by shear numbers created an intimidating factor in the West. The American forces in Western Europe were a tripwire for a Soviet invasion, just meant to buy time. I do recall reading a news story back in the 80s that stated the Soviets had huge numbers when reserves were factored in. Looking at it today, its worth questioning how effective the Soviets would have been. The Falklands and the Gulf War demonstrated how much a difference a highly trained professional military with cutting edge technology can be.
It sounds like the west or a bunch of sore losers that resort to nuclear weapons because they can't win conventionally. The West vaporized two Japanese cities as a message telling Stalin to fuck off. only for Stalin to have the rational response of "I want those toys too"
That would be very interesting. I’d imagine that France would have been a little upset that it couldn’t use the Auld Alliance threat anymore. 😂😂 I’d also want to know how Europe reacted to the Glorious Revolution.
Well the French were annoyed because traditionally, Scotland had been their ally against England. It was known as the Auld Alliance. With the English and Scots on the same side, the English could now always focus all their attention on France during a war rather than having to keep an eye on the north. After the Union, the French looked to Ireland to take that role. ... The Irish always came off worse...
This is what we can call a pure negociating leverage. Soviet Union had no interest in placing missiles in Cuba since there was no plan to use them, but it allowed them to put pressure in USA government who had to give things in return because it HAD to calm down its public opinion
Another video about Africa would be nice. I have a few ideas: 1. Why did the union between Senegal and The Gambia fail? 2. Why did Tanganyika and Zanzibar unite? 3. Why did Sudan split into two? 4. A video about the Algerian War of Independence 5. Why was Haile Selassie I overthrown?
@johnwilliamson3752 There are no sudanese arabs, they're muslims which is a true fact and they're either sudanese or nubians, if they were arabs they would have lived under a tent taking care of goats
why don't we ever ask the missiles where *they* want to be based?
people always ask "where are the missiles?" but never "how are the missiles?"
The missiles already know where they are based.
They know this because they know where they aren't.
By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is greater), it obtains a difference, or deviation.
Self-identity hadn't been invented yet.
Missiles are based
-Sun Tzu....probably
That always bugged me about my history class. Our teacher told us something along the lines of: "The USSR tried to station nukes in Cuba and thereby risked escalating the cold war to a nuclear armageddon. In order to deescalate the US agreed to withdraw its' missiles from Turkey"
Which, you know, kinda weird not to mention that the nukes in Turkey were there first?
Edit: Seems the cold war continues in the replies to this comment :)
I think you could argue that there were already nuclear weaponry in European countries, so stationing them in turkey didn't threaten the ussr more than nukes in the UK or France did. On the other hand Cuba is much more close to the US then the ussr was before
To borrow from another series of animated history shorts: "because that's not how 'victim mentality' works".
Nazi US history classes love to favor the capitalist fasicst system over the rightful socialist state. It would look bad if the us were the aggressors. Which in every Cold War scenario, they were. They prompted dictatorships everywhere while the USSR was on its backfoot
Because that would make America look bad. You probably also weren't told we knew where most of the USSR's ground-based silos were.
@@smilingearth5181 That's not it. Turkey was a member of USA's nuclear program (and still is) which allows USA to station nukes there by request of the government in turkey. Most NATO countries did that, nothing out of the ordinary for cold war europe
Placing missiles in Cuba was their reaction to the US placing missiles in Turkey and Italy. Kruschev says in his memoirs that they were impressed and scared by how the US panicked due to the cuban situation. To the soviets, the US placed nukes around the USSR; so, the USSR would place nukes around the US. This was just assuring the ballance of power, which was far from being a new concept back then. The US almost invaded Cuba, which would have been a very agressive and messy movement, as it could have easily gone wrong in so many ways.
Not almost invaded, they did invade, but it end up in disaster for USA
If the USA didn't respond as they did, then that would politically kill the Kennedy administration, and could've fragmented NATO.
@TheHighwayman Just like with Hong Kong, China's government wants absolute control over its territory, and for decades China has considered Taiwan part of its territory. The only thing that stopped China decades ago was that most of their fleet was controlled by the Nationalists that fled to Taiwan. Ever since they fully modernized they've been cranking up the pressure, and only American guarantees stop them from actually trying something.
@TheHighwayman screw you, just because Taiwan has peaceful connection with PRC. Doesnt mean PRC will do nothing to Taiwan
Damn PRC also claims SCS islands. Even protesting Indonesia drilling oil in Natuna. PRC also sent fishing boats guarded by PRC coast guard to ilegally fish in non PRC water
Are we SEA nations just an ant in your eyes? An acceptable casualty to jack off to the thought the US is always bad?
The simple difference was that the Soviets could control public opinion while the Americans were held accountable by it. If the American public did not like the idea that nukes were in Cuba the Kennedy Administration was obliged to do whatever it took to get rid of them even if it was a fair and rational response to the missiles in Turkey. The idea of not being able to control the narrative by jailing dissidents and journalists was terrifying to the Soviets.
Even now the concept of public accountability is a major stumbling block in international relations with totalitarian regimes like China. Despite funding billions into outreach programmes Chinese diplomats just cannot handle being asked unscripted questions by journalists who can simply fact check the responses and ask why are they lying.
Potentially underrated factor was that USSR leaders came to realize the Cuban leadership was way too eager to attack the US, and the Soviet Union was alarmed at their enthusiasm.
That was something Khrushchev really should have considered.
His whole plan was very much a "bright idea".
Ah yes! Remember when Cuba invaded US in the Bay of Pigs.
@@ДмитрийФилиппов-в3н Castro and Guevara were more than willing to start WW3 if it meant the end of the USA. The USSR didn't want to start WW3
@@Hypogean7 Yeah they didn't give a fuck because they would be in another part of the world while the bombs destroyed their own country. They couldn't care any less about their people if it meant that the US was blown to ashes and they were both safe somewhere where the fallout couldn't harm them.
yay, communism
@johnwilliamson3752 вторжение - это помощь местному правительству? США вторгались в Украину?😊😊😊
Fun fact:
The US and USSR avoided nuclear war due to the skilful diplomacy of James Bissonette
Of course! It all makes sense now!
*bribery**
Along with Vasili Arkhipov, a naval officer in a nuclear submarine who refused to push the big red button.
I KNEW HE WAS INVOLVED
casual James Bissonette moment
Also, another reason that the Americans agreed to remove the missiles from Turkey was that the first Inter-continental ballistic missile submarines had been developed (The first American ICBM submarine, the USS George Washington completed its first cruise in January 1961). This meant that the missiles in Turkey were now not that strategically important, since the Americans would soon have submarine fleets capable of launching missiles in every ocean around the USSR.
Very important point the video didn’t mention. The missiles in Turkey were largely redundant at that point.
So Turkey just let US missles be placed inside them?
@@Shaykh-Waleed-WhiteTurkey is a NATO puppet, what do you expect?
Such submarines did indeed make static nuclear launch sites less important, however due to Turkey’s extremely strategic location (soft belly of USSR, Iraq, Syria and Iran) it still is a headache for modern Russia.
The black sea also cant be legally entered by any non Turkish navy since a year because of the Ukrainian war.
@@Shaykh-Waleed-White why not lol. we still got 99 b61 nukes ''nato share''
USA: Places nukes pointed at USSR
USSR: Places nukes pointed at USA
USA: *Panics*
Lol exactly bullies
They were only in turkey because before Russia had aimed and caused the euro missle crisis
@@deprogramm LOL
You're forgot what USSR say what don't send missiles to Cuba. USA get missiles officially, USSR as always lies about it.
@@deprogrammhow dair they place missilesc in their home country
All I can imagine is Turkey sitting in the corner with a smoothie as the US and the USSR argue whilst Cuba is just like 'Can I have a smoothie too?'
Turkish people didn't even know there were nukes in Turkey. The government simply agreed to deploy nukes in Turkish soil and didn't bother to let people know.
The government of turkey was overthrown in 1960 and a military junta in effect. Hence people not in the military didn't know.
@@berkdikmen95 I think there still is American nukes in Turkey.
No not a smoothie..
Something more crunchy like popcorn
@@TIME12308 buttered popcorn
Video suggestion: Why is Valga divided? A video about the history of the border between Latvia and Estonia. As a Brit, I was astonished to find out that, somehow, this one was us too, despite Britain never really having too much to do with north eastern Europe.
Well, splitting some cities after WW1 when ethno-states arised and population split was problematic to do it cleanly isn't that rare. There was similar case between Poland and Czechoslovakia.
And the referendums to set the borders were absolute mess with everyone cheating as much as they could.
Yeah, there was a British guy living for some time in Valka. So, he took part in the commission. Latvian side didn't demand much, so they basically gifted their town to Estonia. Moral of the story: if you don't properly declare your demands, you will not receive much.
You'd think it would have been Napoleon
You don't forget that Latvian government was in debt of honour to Estonia for their help with getting rid of both Bolsheviks and German Landeswehr. In the school this was usually mentioned as the reason for this partition when I was studying there (2005--2009)
And also for them hosting the "North Latvian Army" led by Col. J. Zemitāns.
It's always irked me how this aspect of history was taught here. The US stationing missiles on the Soviets' doorstep was clearly provoking a similar response. In my American history classes, they conveniently glossed over the stationing of nukes in Turkey, and focused instead on the "Soviet provocation". Because clearly, we have to omit details to make ourselves look like the good guys...
Easy; US was in a position of power and yet didn't abuse it. USSR in contrast abuses it relentlessly; so by default they're the bad guys. Or something like that.
A lot of US history and actions are taught in this way; it's the most common spin in western history. That said, once you start asking the other side for their own history, you'll find that they have their own spins (some rather silly and obvious, like North Korea's :p)
this is why the internet educating the new generation will be monumental in the worlds development imho. the internet literally created a dawning of a new age for information sharing .___.' for better or for worse but im hoping its overall for the better
@@LHSMeleeClub No it won't. Only Westerners bother doing this thing; most stick with their national narrative and justify their brutality and imperialism.
Oh yeah because the Soviets were so much better than the Americans. 🙄
I love this channel because of all the Easter eggs. 0:50 they painted red stripes to go faster. Love that 40k reference
What's that?
@@maazkalim To do the lame thing and explain the joke:
In the Warhammer 40K universe, there is a race called the Orkz. Whatever they believe becomes reality if they believe in it hard enough; and all of them believe that painting something red will make it go faster... and because they believe that, it's made true, and objects that are painted red and piloted by Orkz can go at ludicrous speeds they otherwise should not be able to.
Please do videos on the following subjects:
1. Why did the People's Revolution of 1848 fail in the Gernanies and Spain?
2. Why do people drive on different sides of the road in different countries?
Fun fact: same reason!
@@adamcetinkent huh? wait how
@@lmaousack2993 Some former French artillery leutenant called Napoleon Bonaparte.
2) because everyone is too stubborn to just do it correctly like the English do.
@@sybrandwoudstra9236napoleon was dead by 1848?? Ofc napoleon the third rose to power from the 1848 French revolution
I love the added detail of a flash outside Khrushchev's window
what’s that about?
@@Taukingur it's a nuclear explosion
You meant the one at 0:43?
@@maazkalim yes
“Bad news”
Nikita Khrushchev:You know if you just remove your missiles out of Turkey, we remove ours from Cuba.
John F Kennedy: yeah that sounds good to me.
Later*
Robert McNamara: Prime minister Castro, this missile crisis has been he last straw. We almost blew ourselves up! Now we invited you here in good faith to sort this thing out
And the world breathed one gigantic sigh of relief, except for one guy, who was bloody livid
That's a quote from Oversimplified, right?
Phew let's hope that's the biggest crisis of my presidency
@@hafizhhadiawan4507 His presidency was to end with one…
COD Black Ops Zombie mode.
Of all the history channels on RUclips, this one is the best.
Consistent hilarious history
Think about it. If the USSR was to call out the US for putting missiles in Turkey, they would only really scare people without having a legitimate strategic response. But when the US did the opposite, they already had their missiles in Turkey, so it's not like if Moscow said "no" Washington couldn't transport their own missiles closer to be on the same level.
Video Idea: Why was Khrushchev removed from power? Most of the answers will say it's because of the Cuban Missile Crisis, but after seeing this video, it seems that "USSR had more in 1962, than it did in 1960", so I think it's a pretty interesting and complex question.
In politics, perception is more important than reality. Someone will get way more support for looking successful than quietly being successful. Even though the USSR benefitted it still looked like Khrushchev got pushed around by the Americans so he lost support.
The key issue for Kruschev, was that the USSR censored the news about the missiles in turkey, while the americans cried to the winds about the missiles in turkey. In the end, from the soviet point of view, it seemed as if the USSR had backed down and got nothing in return.
Or in other words: many times winning and crying is the best strategy.
The Cuban Missle Crisis result looked like the USSR backing down internationally. Ask anyone today about the crisis and hardly anyone will know about the removal of missiles from Turkey.
@@icecold1805 yeah but is far more complex than that, Kruschev had a lot of opposition for more hardliners and he even did try a early perestroika, it backfired by KGB interference, he had major support of zhukov, but Kruschev mislead the man and ended without him, his position was weak and stable trying to succeed Stalin.
There was also the Fallout with china... Little nicky try it's best but was unsuccessful in the end in trying to modernize URSS and avoid the stagnation.
It's important to note, the Turkey missiles were removed secretly 6 months later. It looked like Khrushchev had just gotten the guarantee from the US on Cuba, and that was purposeful. JFK wanted to remove the nukes from Turkey, but he couldn't be seen as abandoning them to save the US or he would have been sunk politically. So to everyone else, Khrushchev basically folded.
As Sergej Khrushchev (Nikita's son) said it, those missiles just replaced other threats that the Russians were used to have on their doorstep; French armies or Turkish armies... It wasn't such a big shock to them as having missiles on Cuba was to the Americans.
Or German armies
@karaqakkzl I don't get it.
Yep, sounds about right. The Soviets were long used to having powerful neighbors ready to invade their nation. Hell, that happened when they were also the Russian Empire. To the officials in Moscow the movement of missiles to Turkey just seemed normal. But the Americans had long been used to "splendid isolation," surrounded by weak neighbors they could easily bully around. A powerful nation placing their nukes right next door was too much and they freaked the f*ck out, almost dragging the world into nuclear armageddon. The Soviet miscalculation was in believing the Americans thought exactly like the Soviets with regards to national threats.
@@pdruiz2005Lmao. The Russians drifting in tanks, wrestling bears, living in - 60 temperatures and casually prepared for armageddon, wondering what all the fuss is about.
Today, n*zis and nato are the threats
0:44 soviet technology has gone too far, they can censor glass now
You ask every time if we enjoyed this episode, dude we enjoy EVERY episode.
I concur
I love this channel!
Holy hell are you the real James Bissonette?
@@Planet.Xplor3r I feel pretty real
The man of legend!
It’s him!
I love you
1:11 "Brand new, not shot, President John F. Kennedy". Too soon.
1:47 "but we can hide in the Urals so we'll be fine" kek
Funny theory my history teacher brought up back in the day, but the USSR might very well have voluntarily let the americans spot the missiles by placing them on the boats' decks rather than inside said boats (which is verifiable given the missiles were spotted by spy airplanes), specifically in order to get those turkish missiles removed by essentially blackmailing the USA. They didn't plan to actually attack the USA, hence their "let's not do that" reaction to Cuba's enthuisasm at the prospect. In that sense, the USSR was the true winner of the Cuban missile crisis, being the only nation that actually got anything from it.
But But But it makes John F Kennedy look weak! We can't have that!
I'm sorry which country was threatening nuclear Armageddon if the missiles weren't removed from Cuban soil in a matter of days?
@@richardthomas5362Cia got him tho
2:30 "Oh lawd they comin'." This guy kills me!
1:20 I love how Cyprus is now a part of Austria
The Austrian empire rises again
Dear God, they own the clouds too...
0:36 this image taken out of context could start a war in the comment section
Video idea as a loyal Patreon supporter. Why was Finland 🇫🇮 given autonomy in the Russian Empire ?
Bro stfu ur always making the same comment.
That would be nice. To me, Finland is one of the countries in Europe whose history should be explained more often.
1. No russians there 2. Didn't want the headache rioting Finn's would cause if they would be suppressed 3. Large Swedish pop and their own language 4. The fact that their "government" worked and they were relatively ok with the Russian overloads.
If I recall correctly, the Russians took Finland from Sweden. That means that the Finns were mostly fine with autonomy and thus didn't really try to separate. If they tried to govern Finland directly, there would be resistence.
A comment isn't ðe best way to communicate your suggestion ðo
1:19 Cyprus is now rightful Austrian clay.
10th Bundesland
half is turkiyes land tho
us: places missiles near turkey to try and hit the ussr
ussr: places missile near cuba to try and hit the usa
us: NOOO YOU CANT DO THAT
True Hypocrisy
Summs up American foreign diplomacy perfectly. Just look at Ukraine lmao
@John.Mcmillan say you don't know American foreign policy without saying you don't know American policy
are you unironically supporting the Soviet union in this
@@siyacer why not.....they stopped neaclear war and saved Cuba from tearning into Vietnam with just diplomatic efforts
"Why wasn’t there a Turkish Missile Crisis?"
Because having two crises with a 50% chance of nuclear war each is supposedly unhealthy.
SpongeBob: Barnacles! What could be worse than a missile crisis?!
Patrick: Oh, I know! *Blows Bubble* Two missile crisis's!
SpongeBob: NOOOOOOOO!!
looking back at the cold war era, i really do believe that both the ussr and the usa were ruled by spongebobs and patricks
@@lukasschmitz7231 why? i mean arm races have existed since the half monkey humans learned to put rocks on their sticks... the cold war was like any other arm races, but because it was the never weapons people got more scared (as always)
@@lukasschmitz7231 Seems to be a long tradition of great powers. But yes, they definitely were.
@@elephantman6117 crises*
Learn English.
The problem was that the whole thing made Khrushchev look weak which was why he was deposed soon afterward.
There was a plan to leave the battlefield nuclear missiles for the Cubans but when the Russians realised that Castro was bat crap crazy and that if they left them there Castro would use them they quietly shipped them back to Russia.
Seemed like he did the tight thing here though.
@@Darkfawfulx
He did the right thing in the end, after a couple of years doing the wrong thing.
He was very foolish to treat JFK as a young whippersnapper he could bully.
Castro was absolutely not crazy. The US had invaded like a year prior and had tried to kill him multiple times. He also did not desire nuclear or conventional war with the USA, as a small island nation directly adjacent to the worlds foremost military, nuclear and economic power would surely beat the snot out of Cuba. Do people even think when they make statements like these? Like what on earth would Cuba stand to gain from war with their superpower neighbour?
@@thecuddlyaddict He berated the Soviets for making a deal and continuously called for war against "imperialist powers" lol
@@thecuddlyaddict From Wikipedia: "A few weeks after the crisis, during an interview with the British communist newspaper the Daily Worker, Guevara was still fuming over the perceived Soviet betrayal and told correspondent Sam Russell that, if the missiles had been under Cuban control, they would have fired them off.[184] While expounding on the incident later, Guevara reiterated that the cause of socialist liberation against global "imperialist aggression" would ultimately have been worth the possibility of "millions of atomic war victims"."
So by their own words, yes, they were zealous nutjobs ready to start WWIII.
TLDR: The USSR knew and got used to it and used it as a leverage to remove the Turkish Missiles for in exchange for the Cuban Missiles
It's only a three-and-a-half minute video, mate. TLDR seems a bit extreme.
@@adamcetinkent Attention spans don't exist in today's world.
I very appreciate the constantly improving quality, like that first page of Pravda fully filled with text at 1:45. "All expenses paid happy camp" is definitely one way to put it 😅
I think an important unexplored factor here is the role of Turkey (and Cuba) in all this. Part of the reason the USA stationed nukes in Turkey, I'm assuming is that the Turks wanted it, and without the American Nukes as a "shield" would have instead developed their own nuclear weapons. Stationing American nuclear weapons in such countries is a method by the USA to prevent nuclear proliferation and maintain good relations with countries under their umbrella. The same is true of Japan, which is perfectly capable of also creating their own nuclear weapons, but because of the American nuclear umbrella do not feel the need to.
In discussing the cold war, it's important to realise that there wasn't just two players, the USA and USSR, but that all the other countries in their respective blocs were also pursuing their own interests (though far less so on communist side, as most of the regimes were de facto soviet puppets, with the notable exceptions of Yugoslavia, Albania, China, Cuba and Vietnam)
In fact there are 50 NUCLEAR BOMS in TURKIYE withc AMERICA is holding in INCIRLIK and if AMERICA try to take them then TURKS will make there own NUCLEAR WEAPONS so this is way AMERICA still have NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN INCIRLIK
0:31 - I love the Scorpions reference here.
0:04 the reporting we don't deserve; the reporting we need
✊
Such a lost opportunity for Italy to change sides as a prank.
Lol XD the news paper at 1:45
The detail put into these videos is amazing!
It should be noted that while the video shows the Cubans happy about war being avoided, they weren’t. Castro and Guevara both wanted and pushed for WWIII during the crisis, and thought the Soviets were cowards for making a deal.
Apparently Castro and Guevara were almost eager for a fiery death for the glory of communism, but Soviet leaders were far more pragmatic.
No. they were suicidal idiots for not knowing what would happen to Cuba. They could literally wipe out the entire Island and not leave a living soul alive. Castro himself would have been dead and his Island with him. The Cuban people were probably relieved.
That's a weird interpretation of it lol. Castro was willing to use nukes in case of another US invasion of Cuba. Khrushchev was on board with this, as preventing another US invasion was the reason the Soviets sent nuclear weapons to Cuba in the first place.
@@kingdedede333 Castro publicly expressed outrage when the Soviets came to a deal with the United States. They absolutely wanted a war over giving up the nukes.
This is only partially true. They did not want WW3. Yes they felt betrayed by the Soviets because they were sure without the Nukes the US was going to invade them. The nukes in Cuba were never meant for attack.
My high school US history teacher couldn't answer this when I asked the same question. Thanks for posting!
Your high school history teacher probably thought President John F Kennedy was a great man. Answering that question would end up making him look weak.
Way I've always looked at it is that the Cuban Missile Crisis was the Turkish Missile Crisis.
Exactly.
Should be called the "Turkish-Cuban missile crisis".
Both sides bickering over where they should be able to put their toys
Amazing as always and pausing to read the newspaper always bringns me joy.
Fuck i didn't notice them all these years.
when you're located so near to the middle east everyday feels like a crisis.
This is a question I've been asking for 35 years, and I have successfully annoyed people by calling The Cuban Missile Crisis "The Turkish Missile Crisis" and equating it to The U.S. being terrified of an even playing field. In fact, I'm going to continue doing that because this video essentially supports that analogy.
Never was an even playing field, supposedly while the US had reliable long-range ICBM’s, Soviet Union didn’t and Soviet missiles took helluva long time to launch
Because the USSR was no better than Germany had been just a few years earlier. They murdered tens of millions of people and invaded everyone around them who wasn't allied with the US and/or UK.
IDK why people seem to think there is some sort of virtue to agreeing to be equal to your enemy, instead of trying to overcome them without having to nuke the world.
@@JuanchoGamexstill an ICBM is kinda big deal
@@Tundrawrath True, but they weren't nearly as good or reliable as the US'
I'm sure you don't wonder why Turkey and Eastern Europe would push so hard for stronger US security guarantees and missile and base placements. Definitely not because the USSR had carved up and ruled parts of Europe with an iron fist and pointed their own nukes at the rest.
This is why the USSR crumbled and overall lost the Cold War. Failure to learn that lesson is why Socialists will continue to lose
Great video as always.
"Why is the DelMarVa peninsula split between three states?" Would be a good video next I think.
Calling Khrushchev "Khrusha" in the newspaper was the funniest thing I've seen in ages 😅
As an American, why were we never told this? Everything I've ever seen here on the Cuban Missile crisis conveniently leaves out the fact that we did it first.
Propagandist education. Like in any other country.
Could you please explain why the Federal Republic Of Central America (FRCA) dissolved?
Counting that nowadays the people in the former territory of the federation seem pretty positive with the idea of unification, and the president of El Salvador has shown interest in the topic, why didn't the federation succeded?
Same reason why Gran Colombia didn't succeed either: geography and politics...
@@theotherohlourdespadua1131 More detail, please?
@@Desmaad Simple answer: It would threaten US hegemony in the region.
@@Planet.Xplor3r HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
@@ARG0T Give a point. The US has fought to remove Latin American leaders that weren't US-friendly leaders, every fucking person knows this. Look up Salvador Allende.
History Matters: Answering the questions that I never thought to ask.
USSR: leave Berlin or face war
USA: you know what I'm gonna stay in Berlin even harder now
Germany: do I get a say in this?
USA/USSR: No
Germany: ok
They eventually did.
"Brand New Not Shot President Kennedy"
This one hits harder than the bullet
0:04-0:10 me trying to reach the 1000 words requirement.
The Soviets also knew that the Atlases stationed in Turkey (by Eisenhower) were scheduled for planned obsolescence by '65 already, and were not nearly the threat that B-52s were (even before cruise missiles).
Fun fact (admitted years later by... I think Andrei Gromyko?): the Soviets had both strategic (missile-based) and tactical (bomb) nukes in Cuba. Khrushschev made a big deal about no longer stationing those, but never said a mumbling word about the bombs. And he may have done this as an ace-in-the-hole However, when advised that the Americans would go to war if they found out about them later on, he tried to call them back -only to have Castro inform him that he considered them ‘gifts’ and would not, in fact, relinquish control. There was some delicate diplomacy to get them out. Between that, and the revelation to the Politburo during the actual crisis that the Soviet ground commander had been given independent launch authority directly by Khurshchev WITHOUT informing the rest of the military… well, Khrushchev was a bit of a loose cannon, and there were reasons he was removed from power.
"why was spain never able to annex portugal permanently?" please make this
Mostly because of the English/British.
I think spain having all the other parts of the country under control is the fascinating thing
@@secretname4190 overstate or not, their alliance was quite critical for keeping Portugal independent as forming Spain meant that kings had serious aspirations towards taking Portugal.
And Spain and UK were competing colonial powers so checking Spain in control just made a lot of sense.
@@Toonrick12 The english helped us a lot and we still take our alliance seriously :P but we also had a brilliant tactician called Nuno Álvares Pereira who was undefeated while all his battles were won outnumbered often 1 to 5 or more, i think it would make an interesting video
mostly because of theultiple indepencence wars that made it too costly to annex...
also after a few problems during the rise of portugal the portuguese court started getting more hostile towards castillian influence in the court
"Not shot John F. Kennedy" made me laugh more than it should've. 😂
0:49
I've just noticed that the missile has a small spoiler on the end of it. Priceless.
Honestly while people are pointing out "Lol not so much the good guys USA" I do want to point out kennedy getting ready to offer the withdrawal of missiles from turkey that he decided against the second Khruschev demanded he leave Berlin or else it would be war...... Like I didnt fully understand before this video why the Soviet leadership blamed Khruschev for the crisis, but honestly after hearing that bit I see why they did
The fact people are asinine enough to make this a "good guys bad guys" thing is silly on its own. People just have agendas to push.
Well..
That's precisely the case with the escalation of Russo-Ukraine conflict with pundits( read "experts") nowadays, so.. - Mr "@@johnroscoe2406".
@@maazkalim 1. That is wholly irrelevant
2. Just say you like Putin
Okay.
...And?
*P.S.* So you got perfectly nothing, then?
Alas..
That means your "no good guy" theory even it comes to the U S of A's criminal culpability after its role becomes undeniable, only reveals your own kin-selection bias.
I'm glad you made this video. Everyone knows about the Cuban Missile Crisis, but far fewer know about the shady, backroom deals and what we gave up to get those missiles out of Cuba.
The Russians used Cuba to get the missiles removed from Turkey, but in the process there was almost a nuclear war. For those that don't know, there was a Russian submarine with nuclear missiles on standby in case the Americans sank the ship which was carrying the nuclear missiles that was going to Cuba. For some reason communication was caught off between the Russian submarine and the Russian command center and people in the submarine thought that WW3 had started and were debating if they should deploy their nuclear warhead. Usually, for such a decision there are 2 people responsible and both would have to agree in order to deploy the nuke. That day, both people responsible for the deployment of the nuke were in favor of deploying it, thinking that WW3 had already started. Fortunately, that day there was a high ranking official that happened to be in the submarine and the decision for the deployment of the nuke also fell onto him and all 3 of them would have to agree. If it wasn't for that high ranking official that HAPPENED to be in the submarine that day, the submarine would have fired the nuke and would have started WW3.
Also that submarine in question underwent what appeared to the crew to be depth charge attacks against it. They weren't, they were training charges being used as a warning or whatever, but they had no way to know that.
Comms between the sub and the Soviet command was cut because the US Navy was chasing it and hammering it with training depth charges. These weren't enough to sink the sub but enough to keep rattling the crew. The sub desperately needed to resurface to recharge it's batteries but doing so would expose them to the US surface fleet. As carbon dioxide built up in the sub, the submarine captain became increasingly unstable and believed nuclear war had already broken out and wanted to fire the nukes. Saner heads amongst the officers prevailed and in the end the submarine gave up and surfaced and was then escorted out of the area by the US Navy.
The entire world's destruction was risked that day in a game of brinksmanship punctuated by a destroyer depth charging a Russian submarine, an act of war, that was carrying nuclear tipped torpedoes carried for the specific purpose of destroying the fleet that was attacking it......and we somehow have fashioned this into the Americans being the sane good guys.....hmmm?!!!
Vasily Arkhipov 🔥🔥🔥
If there was nuclear war from it, the US would have been the ones to start it. The nukes in cuba were defensive, and it was the US that was willing to lash out for it. The US wouldve started WW3, not the USSR. This was an aggressive initiative by the US.
Love your videos and artstyle
im reading more news papers in these videos than actual news papers, because yours are just legendary
Your next video should be on what happens to embassy personnel when their countries go to war.
honestly, putting missles next door to your enemie to get them to remove their missles from your doorstep is some pretty amazing manuvering
True, but brownie points get removed for not ensuring removal is known world wide and looking like weak leader.
Except that it almost caused WW3. Krushev severely miscalculated here. He himself very much regretted the decision. We are lucky that himself and Kennedy were the respective leaders at the time because it is really the two of them that prevented WW3 from happening.
@@Suksass missiles removed from turkey is a very well known fact from what i know but the us plays it like "bc the us is SO NICE they removed the missles from turkey in exchange for the ussr to remove theirs from cuba" never mentioning the US started that lil war lol
@@yoloswaggins7121 i don't think anyone on this planet has the balls to starts ww3 since for the first time in known human history if a word war started the people doing the dying would not be the poor but the rich who will get their fucking home turned into a big crator, poor people would be scatered but spared (except for the one living in the cities) so that thing you know WAR which is in every human and is innevitable no matter what, suddenly became evitable once poor people where not the only one at risk uwu
@@Koupip It's well know fact today. Wasn't as well known back then, making Kruschev look weak.
Also, USSR started that little war by being imperialistic bastard.
USA: *puts nuclear missiles in turkey*
USSR: *puts nuclear missiles in cuba*
USA: you weren't supposed to do that!
USA still has around 50 nukes (B61) in Türkiye and back in 2001 it was around 90. Right now they're at İncirlik Airbase located in Southeast Türkiye. The thing is spesific warplanes of USAF have been rejected and not allowed to land on İncirlik, which means USA can't use those nukes in need according to politic treatment. However for some reason Turkiye has special air squadron that capable of carrying nuclear weapons.
That's what happens when you put a Muslim extremists in charge of Turkey
I already knew the answer was gonna be “lol we can’t do nuffin’ ‘bout it” but this is more eloquent
I live in the city in Turkey where the missiles are deployed (Izmir). Frankly, these missiles were very old and no one was even sure they would work. The biggest fear was that it would explode during the launch phase and directly damage the city.
Therefore, we can say that the missiles were deployed only as a threat and not for use. If the Soviets also had intelligence on this issue, they may not have taken it very seriously. But when the Cuban crisis broke out, the missiles in Turkey must have become a matter of prestige for the Ussr due to reciprocity.
"Cuban Missile Crisis" just sounds better than "Turkish Missile Crisis".
As a Turkish, this was one of the few things that our name wasn't mentioned within a crisis.
...
So thanks History matters.
Turkish Missile Crisis sounds much tastier!
Cuban-Turkish missile crisis
The USSR was happy enough to leave alone if it meant they could get Sokolov back. C’mon guys, MGS3 made this easy to understand.
“MGS3”???
@@maazkalimmetal gear solid 3
Aahhh...
The military-industrial gaming complex.
Gotcha'!
Thanks for chipping-in o/b/o "the OP", assuming you are not "her" one of alter-egos, "@@ihysro404".
May you have a blissful future with good-health and all the success in your [egalitarian ]endeavours[ ahead].
I don't know, whatever that sokolov guy was working on must have been so important enough if they were willing to withdraw missiles from Cuba
Despite being a net gain for the USSR, Khrushchev was seen as a weak and terrible leader by the Soviet politburo after the Cuban Missile Crisis and it effectively ended his career as Premier and ushered in Brezhnev.
Awesome as always!
2:28 made me chuckle... Carry on, General. :D
“One of the most famous events in the Cold War was the Cuban missile crisis, in which a crisis occurred, concerning missiles”
This is exactly the kind of outside-the-box, in-your-face perspective that I’m here for
You forgot the important part: it was in Cuba!
what happened to the dude at 1:00?
You would’ve thought the Soviet Union would jump at the chance to invade turkey for the billionth time
Nah, they had enough birds after 1917.
They should have so we would not have to have them as the leech they are in nato
@@Toonrick12
The USSR had negotiated a pretty sweet deal about The Straits in 1936 and had no real beef with Turkey.
It's true Stalin did make some aggressive noises in the 1940s, and as a result Turkey joined NATO in 1952.
@@Toonrick12turkey didnt have enough yet huh
soviet union helped turkey be an independent country as it is, what the hell are you talking about
Afaik Kennedy only agreed to the deal by demanding USSR to remain silent about removal of Nuclear missiles in Turkiye. Deal was off it were to became public as Kennedy wouldn't be able to back down publicly.
Also, Khrushchev threatened US they'd attack Turkiye if they were not removed and Turkish public had no idea that they were under a nuclear threat.
Having nuclear attack capability is something but having it at a short distance, leaving little time to respond for your adversary is entirely something else.
I suspect on the US side, the general view of the US having a sphere of influence in the Americas dating back to the Monroe Doctrine coupled with the American feeling that there are oceans between us and our enemies, made the idea of missles being 90 miles away as being unacceptable. However, Russia and Turkey have been getting into it for centuries, so a potential threat in Turkey was nothing new. My understanding is that the US and Nato viewed a nuclear deterent as necessary because Soviet conventional forces were so much larger. I've read that the Soviet army's ability to overwhelm Nazi Germany by shear numbers created an intimidating factor in the West. The American forces in Western Europe were a tripwire for a Soviet invasion, just meant to buy time. I do recall reading a news story back in the 80s that stated the Soviets had huge numbers when reserves were factored in. Looking at it today, its worth questioning how effective the Soviets would have been. The Falklands and the Gulf War demonstrated how much a difference a highly trained professional military with cutting edge technology can be.
It sounds like the west or a bunch of sore losers that resort to nuclear weapons because they can't win conventionally.
The West vaporized two Japanese cities as a message telling Stalin to fuck off. only for Stalin to have the rational response of "I want those toys too"
What the heck country is that supposed to be an outline of at the upper lefthand corner at 1:30 of this video??
Looks like North Vietnam.
North vietnam
Should do a video on the 1983 war scare, less known but even more dangerous than the 1962 crisis
I very much enjoy the topics that you present.
Thanks for the videos man, you educate us with no agenda except just history as it happened
can we just appreciate the news paper he makes for us?
I don’t care how much I am enjoying the video, I always freeze it to read the paper fully before carrying on.
Yes we can. Why are you asking permission? Have confidence in your opinion.
It's like he puts as much effort into a 2-second freeze-frame as he does an entire minute of the rest of the video. And we all love it.
Did you have the US air force paint the missiles red because "red makes things go fasta"?
How did Europe react to the formation of the U.K next please always wondered how everyone reacted when Scotland and England unionised.
That would be very interesting. I’d imagine that France would have been a little upset that it couldn’t use the Auld Alliance threat anymore. 😂😂 I’d also want to know how Europe reacted to the Glorious Revolution.
Well the French were annoyed because traditionally, Scotland had been their ally against England. It was known as the Auld Alliance. With the English and Scots on the same side, the English could now always focus all their attention on France during a war rather than having to keep an eye on the north.
After the Union, the French looked to Ireland to take that role. ... The Irish always came off worse...
@@DomWeasel I know all about the auld alliance I’m Scottish and I’m upset we ever joined England, France is still our boy 🥲
@@scottmalkinson9545 tbf the union was enacted under a Scottish monarch
@@scottmalkinson9545 I mean its more like England joined Scotland because the king was scottish lol
This is what we can call a pure negociating leverage.
Soviet Union had no interest in placing missiles in Cuba since there was no plan to use them, but it allowed them to put pressure in USA government who had to give things in return because it HAD to calm down its public opinion
US: *plants nuclear missiles along Turkish/Soviet border*
Soviet: Welp, just another day in the neighborhood.
It’s because James Bisonette prevented it
I have no memory of this
@@jamesbissonette8002 I love you
@@jamesbissonette8002 You have memories of everything
Ofcourse James funds so many organisations and nation throughout history he doesn't remember small thing's
The answer is simple, America gave back to the Soviets a rocket scientist who could a build a nuclear-equipped crab tank.
That scientists sent Yuri Gagarin into space
1:40 NEEEEEEEEOOOOOOOOOW
0:45 the tension in the room in the window tarnishing
First time getting a video about something I was actually wondering
Video idea.
Why did the Taiping rebellion happen and why was it so deadly.
This is a question I never thought about but now I'm interested. Thanks!
This channel is good at that.
@@chubbycatfish4573 I know, I've been subbed for quite a while.
This man's wit and dry humour is legendary
1:44 your "papers" are amazing lol
I love the animations you use!!!!
Another video about Africa would be nice. I have a few ideas:
1. Why did the union between Senegal and The Gambia fail?
2. Why did Tanganyika and Zanzibar unite?
3. Why did Sudan split into two?
4. A video about the Algerian War of Independence
5. Why was Haile Selassie I overthrown?
@johnwilliamson3752 There are no sudanese arabs, they're muslims which is a true fact and they're either sudanese or nubians, if they were arabs they would have lived under a tent taking care of goats
Can you do how the British colonies interacted with Cromwell’s Commonwealth?