Potsdam 1945 - Where the Cold War Started 

Meh

Hmmm, I'm going to support the channel through watching your good ( not outstanding) content. For American influenced content it is really good, but for European standards, it often falls short and could be more in depth to point out things that are not of common knowledge.

13:52 Germany as the "protagonist"?

whats a #Documentaryu ?

Watched a Mark Felton video yesterday, with many commenters saying they hated the Hunting Clash sponsorship. Not so here I see. Edit: having read more of the comments, I take my statement back.

True

The Bulldog was as much an anti Communist as Hitler. The Bulldog respected Stalin but he did not TRUST STALIN. I have been told by those who shall not be named that the.sick Commie FDR sold out the free world to ....Uncle Joe!🤔😉

@@owlnyc666 Ah yes, FDR, a communist…sure thing McCarthy…

I mean he was very much pro colonialism and keeping the British Empire together, which was totally against what America wanted, which was to break it up. And then build up its own Empire. Which it did. And now that's slowly crumbling. That's the circle of life. You crush the old order, reach a zenith of apparent might and power. Just as you are basking in that pre-eminence and self congratulation, little do you realise the rot has already started from within, slowly spreading. The year is 1999. The economy is booming. You're off the back of brokering a historic peace agreement in Ireland, and a conclusive victory in the former Yugoslavia. USA military prestige, economic and political power has absolutely no equal, not even in sight. The biggest enemy vanquished earlier in the same decade, your influence reaches around the planet. Peace, freedom and stability is restored across virtually all of Europe for the first time in literal centuries thanks largely to you. Fast forward. 22 years later. Your soft influence has rather waned. National debt is absurd, renewed challenges from serious opponents on all fronts and political division within the country itself breaking apart national unity. There's a growing wealth gap, scattershot foreign policies, serious damage to military prestige and former closely aligned allies perfectly happy to go their own way on critical matters. Seen it all before. It's all downhill from here.

No as Austrian I can say with certainty that Vienna was also like Berlin within the Soviet Sector, in the Northeast of the country.

@Jan Lenzmann It appears you're right, until 1955. A lot of maps of the Iron Curtain show Vienna on the western side, though it wasn't originally

@@Horseshoecrabwarrior Thats because after 1955 Austria wasnt split anymore unlike Germany but for the brief time it was Vienna was in the Soviet sector just like Berlin. West Germany was already independent in 49 so actually earlier. The Allies and Soviets weirdly agreed on letting Austria "loose" on the basis of her declaring neutrality, thats why Austria wasnt in Nato during the cold war and isnt now, although this isnt a rule Austria is obligated to follow or ever was and parliament can simply decide to lift its neutrality and subsequently join NATO. Although as we have already seen Russia will probably see this as Austria and Nato doing something illegal motivated by their desire to destroy Russia and they will retaliate by taking Vienna again (like how they did in WW2) and "denazifi" Austria as they have already said clearly that this is their intention on Russian State TV about Berlin after Scholz agreed to sending Leopard 2 Tanks.

Communism does not want to start a world war with capitalism. It is the British and Americans who deceive our heroes CCCP into being scarecrows.

I mean, communism can symbiotic with capitalism, but the British and Americans abducted CCCP as a scarecrow in order to achieve their world order. Their purpose is to intimidate other countries so that other countries have to listen to them.

I hope they just take the video down and reupload. I just found this channel and just started the video but am for sure no expert in the 1945 borders of Eastern Europe, with all its now non-existent countries like East Germany, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and even the Soviet Union. So maps are always helpful!

Exactly what's the point of a redo, if presentation materials are lacking.

Thank you, I just wanted to write the same thing. Also when he was talking about the division-plan of germany (and what parts of germany should be given to which country) I had to google a map of germany in 1945, so that I could follow this part.

educate yourself. its not hard.

Its unimaginable how they talk big about how much they learned and how they made this new episode better and then just forgot to add maps. Very disappointing.

Ok, I get it; I'm open to anarchism and respect Makhno. But go tell those who were set free from Nazi KZs, if they weren't liberated in the fullest sense of the word, even those who had been liberated by the Soviets...

@@stefanodadamo6809 not in the fullest sense of the word, some were later sentenced to long prison term or promptly executed by the liberators.

@@elendal All European Nazi-occupied countries executed traitors and collaborators after becoming free from Nazis. USSR is not exception.

If the Soviets were not the liberators in Eastern Europe then the western allies were also not the liberators in South East Asia

That’s really interested. Never heard about this before

I was just about to suggest that! XD

Simon Whistler just had an episode on one of his channels about the Ferdinand.. Interesting while being what I expected for a Dictator.

Later on, once this channel gets into some topics related to the 70s Cold War era.

Totally agree. A history channel ought to be a little bit more....serious? Name calling like that really doesn't belong in a video like this.

It was more like a "shot" everything at that time.

Entente fell apart at the end of WW1. Russia went soviet-communist and Italy went fascist. The alliance against the French Revolution and Napoleon was falling apart throughout the Congress of Vienna in 1815. Competing imperialist powers united only by their hatred of the French Revolution and Napoleon. The Concert of Europe was essentially a century-long multipolar cold war that could have boiled over several times, but each time either diplomacy prevailed or the war was short and involved a very limited number of great powers. France and Spain both joined the American Revolution against the British. However, within a decade France and the new USA were on the outs due to regime change and even fought a short quasi-war 15 years after the end of the American Revolution. The USA also had numerous diplomatic issues with Spain, mostly centered around Americans coveting Florida. On an internal level, the USA fractured politically within a decade of the end of the American Revolution into Federalists and Anti-Federalists/Republicans over disagreements about how the new country should be governed. Likewise, the Union coalition in the American Civil War fell apart soon after the war over issues of financial policy, machine politics, political spoils, racism, the nature of reconstruction, and war-weariness.

Many of his advisors openly admired Stalin and hoped America could become another socialist nation modeled after the Soviet Union.

@@christopherconard2831 Who are you talking about? Certainly not Cordell Hull. I mean Truman thought some of the members of that administration were soft on the reds but which ones wanted to rip the Constitution and create a totalitarian dictatorship?

because everything has to be "fair" and 50-50, "fine people on both sides", "holocaust is ok because allies did bad things too", i hate people who use logic like you

@@beepboop204 people who always want to stay "neutral" they are

@@Joshua-fq9tm (ง'̀-'́)ง

Yeah it did sound stupid.

@@Primal-Weed should have picked a cooler name like Primal Regime

Really? How was the red army going to get to the Hokkaido, much less Honshu? Drive their tanks over the water?

Unlikely, the Soviets might have a big army and had experience in land war, but they have neither the capability nor experience to conduct amphibious operations.

@@HWDragonborn they DID conduct amphibious operations, capturing the Kirill and Sakhalin islands from Japan.

@@indianasunsets5738 they're called "boats"

@@michaelwarenycia7588 they are indeed. How many did the Soviets have in the Pacific? How many carriers did they have? His many logistical ships did they have to support their other "boats"? Answers: Few. None. None. Does your mommy know you're using her computer? Isn't it your bed time?

Your usage of grammar and punctuation is wonderful! Keep up the good work.

If you wanna avoid civil wars is a good idea anyway.

In fact, Roosevelt benefited from Stalin: both the French Communist Party and the Italian Communist Party had strong armies in World War II, so France and Italy could establish socialist countries and join the Soviet Camp. After Roosevelt talked with Stalin, Stalin dissolved the Comintern. After World War II, he asked the French Communist Party and the Italian Communist Party to give up the army. Finally, France and Italy became allies of the United States.

After joining the Soviet Camp, France will make up for the weakness of the Soviet Union: the food problem. 跟读

He didn't think Stalin was a nice guy he just thought he could be bought off or reasoned with.

Well it was pretty much just accepting what the Soviets were going to do anyway. Besides when did any of the Allies ever say anything against ethnic cleansing? "Populatiom transfers" were not uncommon at all in the first half of the 20th century.

Interesting analysis. I can't fault your logic

@@michaelwarenycia7588 Thank you for the positive feedback. The essay is a part of something much bigger, which is how the world is "divided", then "ruled" over. All it needs, is as explained in the OP, a "position of superior power." *The dividers of Europeans in Washington DC found easy prey amongst the "rich, proud, hectoring, squibbling"** European nations, and their "rich, proud, hectoring, squibbling" (quote Thomas Jefferson) leaderships.* Having millions of citizens being tutored into being "rich, proud, hectoring, squibbling", means to be easily divided, in the divide and rule/conquer strategy of an outside power, the Washington DC power players. Starting around 1900, they played European leaders "like fiddles", employing mainly "favoratism" (see footnote). In case you wish to know more about the impact of divide and rule/conquer in the current and past *geopolitics and grand strategy,* please go to the "Kai--ser Wil.helm_II" video on the "Hi-sto.ry R__oom" educational channel (distorted because such messages are often autoblocked). I wrote a series of essays here, so please select the "latest comments first" by clicking on the three little bars at the top of the comments section. I also left a comment for you there, but please read as far back as you wish, and leave a comment wherever you wish. Footnote: *Divide and rule is a defined term:* "the policy of maintaining control over one's subordinates or opponents [incl. imperialist rivals], by encouraging dissent between them, thereby preventing them from uniting in opposition..." (or similar definitions) One of the key techniques is the strategy of "chosen ones" (favoratism). Note, to be clear: there was never any provable intention by Washington DC/London of direct rule over Europe. But a definition is a definition. It does not change depending on who makes the argument. It does not matter what justifications or explanations one gives for the actions or events. As long as the actions fit the definition of the term *favoratism,* any attempts at deflection, become "whataboutism." It does not matter how one skirts the issue, by jumping from one criteria to the next: words have meanings and definitions. US actions in regards to Europe "around 1900" fit the definition of favoratism/"divide and rule". It does not matter how one justifies these actions. The definition is indifferent to anybody's favorite empire. The definition does not pay heed to anybody's biases, nor cares about any explanations or personal opinions, and it does not matter which authority proclaims these. Furthermore, nobody even has to know that they've become a tool of someone else's divide and rule (google the term "useful idiot/innocent", which are also defined). A definition does not care about whether it concerns a "good empire" or a "bad empire". Look at the actions/events and then determine whether they fit the definition.

@@ralphbernhard1757 oh, an essay? Normally long RU-vid comments are boring or psychotic rambling, but you have a follow-able logic. My family is from Ternopil, which was in Austrian Galicia. Currently I live in Vinnytsia, Ukraine. So I'm familiar with the consequences of Wilson's reordering of Europe. In short, I think he was a naive and conceited fool, acting well beyond the scope of his limited intellect and the limited grasp of continental complexities which most of the Anglo Saxon elite (commercial in nature) possessed. Technology very rapidly made their assumptions false, as you point out (eg of insulation and security), and events showed the delicate internal balance in Europe which they dismembered at conference tables were not trivial, but, in fact, deadly serious.

@@michaelwarenycia7588 Yes, I agree about your conclusions. Yes, specifically Wilson, and that most US Presidents were mere figureheads, there only to fill a post while the *real* geopolitics/grand strategy decisions were made by "back rooms" (think tanks, strategic study centers, etc.). Most people are completely unaware that his "14 Points" were largely written by a think tank called The Inquiry (New York based) and that according to the rules of power, Wilson simply took the credit, while others had done the work. Also. most people don't realize that the "14 Points" *was* a divide and rule strategy, hidden behind a plethora of words. Alongside other measures, the Treaty of Versailles was a "divide and rule"-strategy, by outside powers, intent on gaining power by dividing Europeans. This simple statement or theory, can be validated by simply investigating the events around the turn of the previous century, and cutting out the distortions created by "dissention" (note: "sowing dissention" in systems, is a means used in the "divide an rule"-technique). There is a saying stating that if one cannot explain something in a few minutes, that it is probably false: *At Versailles, Europeans were "divided" with a "ruling".* The divide and rule strategy *of and over* Europeans, can be explained in three seconds... Once one cuts out all the bs. created by words, and reduces the policies to the core words, the strategy lurking behind emerges to the foreground. I wish you and your family and friends, and all citizens of the Ukraine, safety and well-being, and hope this gastly war will soon end, and the leaders get around the table and start talking. Unfortunately, Europeans have no idea how they were once manipulated by the USA and the British Empire (London), and this "divide and rule"-policy carried on after the Cold War right through to today, following the strategies of the "think tanks", in order to keep the USA position as "top dog" in the world.

@@ralphbernhard1757 I appreciate your good wishes but we must fight. The Russians are not our brothers, despite their delusions, and they never have been. They have always been our enemies and their rule has always been hated by us. My great grandfather, as an officer in the Austro-Hungarian army, fought them in ww1. He was captured and sent to Siberia. His village held a funeral for him because such a sentence was as good as death. Yet, miraculously, he wandered into the village, battered and starved but alive, some months later. He fought them again as an officer of the Polish Second Republic, when the Bolsheviks attacked in 1920 (and where the city I live in now was captured and subjected to oppression and manmade famine... thankfully Ternopil was held and did not suffer the "blessings" of Russian administration in the 1920s-30s, hence I exist). My grandfather, Zenovi Warenycia, joined the Galician SS to fight the Russians in the next war. He was wounded in the left arm near Graz. The bullet stayed with him all his life, as did the lessons he taught me about the Russian character. Now, I am here and they are coming again, with the same barbarism and authoritarianism but better PR. We Ukrainians can't let them occupy any of our territory. Any peace treaty signed before Russia is beaten and crippled economically and militarily is merely a ceasefire to allow them to regroup, and the west to wash their hands and hide from reality, before the next push. This is not a matter of academics like mearsheimer giving elegant speeches on geopolitics. We know this from our own lives, and our own reality today. Even if the US wanted to sign a treaty tomorrow, this will not end. Mark my words.if we have to do this guerilla style, well, that is what it will be. There is no "peace" with a strong imperialist Russia seeking to aggrandize itself at the expenses of its neighbors.

No Kings and Generals is their sister channel.

You’re being WAY too optimistic. 1. Even if they paradropped into Hokkaido, they would face resistance from the populace, along with traversing through mountains/terrains. 2. Paradropping on an island with no immediate land reinforcement is suicidal. Look at Crete for the Germans. How tf are they suppose to capture an ENTIRE port city or establish a beach head. If D-Day was done solely with Paratroopers, it would make history for the worst and silliest idea ever came up by Allied High Command.

@@mahari893 I mean look no further than Operation Market Garden for proof of that

I would not want to do an airborne attack on japanese home territory in WW2. On the islands the americans routinly had to kill above 90% of the defenders. Thats just not something that light airborne forces do well.

IF Japan doesn't surrender in August 1945 then after the capture of Manchuria, Korea, Sakhalian, and the Kuriles I expect the Soviets would have started preparing in earnest for an invasion of Hokkaido which likely would have been a bloodbath.

​@@jlillerThe Soviets had NO realistic way of getting to Hokaido in force unless the USN gives the Soviets a lift which would NEVER happen

Only because of the coup. To protect their bases.

"Oh SoRrY yOu nEeD to aDd a DiaGram tO yOur coMmEnt to Show yOur stUdy"