We were issued these in the US Airforce in the early 1990's in the northern tier areas. A major from my squadron wore his every day in the winter. With his rank badge attached to it i had to do a double take everytime I saw him because he looked like a Soviet officer. This was when the cold war was still hot and we occasionally had Soviets visiting our base for treaty verifications. Nothing like seeing Soviet bombers landing on US soil to disconcert you.
If I'd've been you (I speak Russian), I'd've fucked with them by telling them "Sorry, guys, but your navigation is wrong; you're in Uzbekistan (also a USSR territory) and we're just hosting the Americans."
I actually bought one on Amazon because a friend had one and I tried it out for a day. If you live in an area where your winters can get to -4 degrees Fahrenheit, this will keep you very warm.
People who see the Ushanka as nothing but a stereotypical Russian hat have never worn one when it's nasty and freezing out. Then you realize it's one of the best designed winter hats of all time and realize why it's so synonymous with a country that's got a cold climate. It took me exactly one winter with a surplus officer Ushanka, and it's been what I wear in winter ever since.
I had an uncle who was in the U.S. Army Air Corps during WW2. He remembered training in Central Texas during the summer, then being shipped to the Dakotas in the middle of winter. When the train arrived at the base, they were greeted by someone wearing a big hat with big earflaps. To a man the recruits thought it was the funniest thing they had ever seen. Then they got off the train, the cold hit, and any and all exposed skin turned beet red. And suddenly, the funny looking hat with the big earflaps didn't look funny anymore. In fact, not only did it look desirable, but essential.
My friends joke on me because I use one in winter, but when we have to go out, the thing changes, as my hat is warmer and more comfortable than the average wool hat. I don't even consider a hood a decent winter clothing.
@@Fred_the_1996 Ushankas from that era should not be too bad, those may not have seen a single second of use. Soviet equipment from that era is of good quality (for soviet standards) and not too expensive
This hat was previously, and no suprise there considering its roots, in use in several uniformed state organizations here in Norway (such as armed forces, police, civil defence and such). I had one, and it was a very good piece of equipment. They were probably called "hat, winter" or something like that in official documents, but we all refered to it as the "BF". BF stood for "bjørnefitte" which means "bear pussy". Yep, when you hold the opening together, that is sort of what it resembles. We unfortunately had to turn in ours and we got issued with some sort of shell mountain cap instead. It's not bad, but it's no BF either!
@@Stargazer80able quite the contrary-as a highly bureaucratized state, it kept meticulous records on everything, almost as much as Germans did. Availability of those records for public research is another matter tough, for various political reasons. Most likely figures are 140-170.000 dead and missing.
Hi, US Sailor Here, The only cold weather headgear we get is a pair of earmuffs and a watch cap (a beanie thing) and we can only wear it utilities.... one of those would work 1000x better than our watch caps
I have my grandpa's old Finnish army Ushanka he used as his work hat while working on the Russian border. The Finnish ones are quite similar to the Russian ones, but they, of course, have a different badge on the front flap.
can you please explain more.. is it offensive to wear an ushanka i’m russian living in the us and i’m talking about the one with the symbol..? Also the hamer and sickle flag is that offensive or bad aswell??
Chfhcjfhryryr Hdhdydhxbuf sorry this is a late reply, but you will get weird looks and if a former military veteran sees you wearing it he may come up to you, but for the most part I think you will be fine, there are a lot of socialists in America. (I’m not saying you are one, I’m just saying that the hammer and sickle symbol can get all sorts of reactions depending on where you reside in America)
I very much enjoyed both this and the previous video about 'budenovka'. You could consider making a similar one about the various Polish 'rogatywka' style hats, since they have both a rich history and a quite distinctive look. They also influenced the headgear worn by the uhlans/lancers formations across Europe.
I bought one with a red star on it for the memes, not it has become my main headwear for winter, its just so effective. However I do sometimes get weird looks for the soviet symbol on the front. (but I dont care about that cause my head is warm and theirs isnt)
@@Oaksley Yeah it's a black one. Although I did buy it in a store in Prague when I was there in 2016. Aside from the black that I bought they also had White, brown blue and grey.
Most ushankas are made of artificial fur, some cheap ones from rabbit. I have tried one made of beaver and one made of sea otter which was the warmest of all.
The US Army Korean War version was the Cap, field, pile M-1951. They were in use until the Army updated its cold weather equipment in the 1980s. I always found them quite effective but you needed to make sure they stayed dry.
I've seen photos of American soldiers wearing them, especially in Korea. What's the US designation? They are also known as 'bomber hats' in civilian circles.
@@petesheppard1709 I don't know but I'm pretty sure the hats they wear are a slightly modified Ushanka common in America and Canada called a "Trapper Hat".
Finnish Defence Force does of course issue them as standard winter gear to be used, only used when not in the field (in garrison and when going on leaves). Offical term is Karvalakki "Fur hat" but it also has the mostly used term of "Norsunvittu", meaning "Elephants Fuck"
Depends on what you classify as winning. Finns kept their independence, Soviet Union got its original demands, but did not fully annex Finland. So in my oppinion Finland did win.
@Dwarov 1 _(Edit: added little edits in brackets to specify things in response to the comment below to avoid writing a whole new essay and potentially needlessly escalating an already dumb argument.)_ And yet we know that Stalin himself has stated at the beginning of the war in a conversation with Voroshilov and Isakov that "We shall have to resettle the Finns... the population of Finland is smaller than that of Leningrad, they can be resettled" _(edit: either Voroshilov and Isakov remember the quote incorrently or Stalin indeed was referring specifically to Finland and not just the occupied territory, the area of which wasn't even known at this point of the war and thus the whole comment would've been completely unnecessary),_ and that a document approved by Zhdanov, Molotov, and Kuusinen in 1939 stated that the finnish political system was to be changed by establishing a people's republic after a soviet occupation. The whole existence of Kuusinen's finnish puppet government _(edit: established 30th of november 1939 and formally announced to the world by Molotov on 1st of december 1939, absolutely did not exist in 1917 and claiming otherwise would imply either delusion on ignorance. It was specifically established for the war)_ strongly suggests that USSR very much intended to take over Finland atleast in the beginning of the war, especially considering the fact that they recognized Kuusinen's government as the only legit finnish government during the war _(edit: as we can see from Molotov declaring to the league of nations during the war that there is no state of war between USSR and Finland (Terijoki government) so there is nothing to discuss [about such a war], which further demonstrates the credibility of Molotov's statements as a historical source)._ In addition to these facts _(edit: if you seriously believe these are indeed not facts, you are either delusional or ignorant, though it is to be noned that none of this is absolute proof of USSR's intentions, as such proof does not exist, these facts merely strongly suggest what the intentions most likely were),_ the secret protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact stated that USSR would get to have the Baltics and Finland _(edit: -within the soviet sphere of influence. the, only area mentioned in the protocol to be included in the sphere of influence that USSR did not occupy was Finland, which suggests (but again doesn't prove) what "sphere of influence" actually meant)_ though admittedly this doesn't mean USSR would be obligated to take Finland, but why wouldn't they considering how easy it should be? Either way Finland was met with the same demands as the Baltic states were, only Finland refused the demands unlike the Baltics, which all ended up occupied as a result _(edit: if you believe everything in the presented demands was to be actially respected to happen with no unmentioned intents, you'll be dissapointed to find out that Estonia was actually annexed despite the agreement that Estonia signed clearly stating that Estonia's independence would be left completely unaffected, kinda like Finland in the presented demands huh? In addition to that Finland couldn't accept the demands (regardless of what we were to get in return, that was irrelevant to Finland relative to what we'd give up) due to the entire Mannerheim line being left behind the new suggested border, which was simply not an option no matter what we'd get in return. So no, the demands were absolutely not considered fair in Finland)._ I find it hard to believe that USSR would've treated Finland any different for no particular reason. It's quite safe to say USSR never intended to only take the land they had demanded, since that absolutely didn't end up to be the case with the Baltics. However once again it's hard to say for certain, but a planned occupation objectively appears as the significantly more likely scenario judging by what we do know. The only sources we have from the era _(edit: I specifically say from the era, you can list book sources of historians presenting their own speculation supporting your ideas all you want, I could do that too and I still wouldn't prove anything. If you've spent time reading history books you'll understand that historians generally do not agree on controversial topics such as this or for example the war of 1812 in similiar sense. We also have historians talk about how historians in general are biased often relative to the era they live in, coming into completely different conclusions as the political climate changes, which is especially noticable in soviet era literature)_ that directly oppose the idea of a full occupation are Molotov's public statements, who we all know _(edit: as previously pointed out, claiming anything else is once again either delusional or pure ignorance)_ is notorious for his lies during the war and thus it's safe to say his official statements hold absolutely zero factual value as it was his job to spread propaganda. Especially considering he personally approved a document directly contradicting with his public claims in this very case _(edit: if you consider "Molotov" to cover "all soviet sources" then thats your problem, but when I say "Molotov", I'm absolutely not referring to soviet sources in general (never even brought them up), I'm referring to Molotov)._ But why didn't USSR then end up occupying Finland despite the very real possibility of succeeding in that by the end of the war? Likely for multiple reasons. First of all the war had already been dragged on for significantly longer than planned (we know for a fact that the original plan was two weeks, that's also for how long the red army was issued supplies for, which ended up being a problem issue) with significantly higher losses than expected. USSR had already lost their face internationally and was treated as the evil aggressor even by the western allies, which brings us to another potentially even larger reason. UK and France had promised to aid Finland in the war if Finland just kept holding on for a bit longer. We know today that while France and UK didn't actually plan on sending genuine help to Finland but to merely use this as an excuse for taking hold of Norway before the Germans by claiming they're merely transporting troops to Finland via Norway, Stalin certainly wasn't aware of this _(edit: but we know soviet intelligence had convinced him that 50 000 troops would be sent to Finland by the UK if the war kept going)_ and to him a war with UK and France was starting to look more and more likely the longer the war dragged on. Dragging the already disastrous war (and it indeed was disastrous, Khrushchev commented on the soviet victory by stating that it was "-in fact a moral defeat. Our people certainly never got knowledge of it because we never told them the truth.") _(edit: for the war to have been a success for USSR rather than a disaster, the plans USSR had for the war would've had to include the following: get kicked out of the league of nations; lose international reputation as a capable power and have your own allies turn against you; demonstrate Nazi Germany what a mess the red army is and encourage Hitler into thinking you're a joke; test how well the tactics used in Poland work out in Finland and then perform a complete reform of the military after concluding nothing is working out and instead you're suffering massive casualties; force Finland to surrender without occupying the entire country, leaving the nation bitter about the defeat and extremely capable of taking action against USSR in the future, almost certain to ally with Germany against USSR in the future if Germany was to attack USSR, effectively rendering the entire aftermath of the Winter War harmful for USSR in the long run)_ any further than necessary was simply way too big of a risk to be anywhere near worth it. My personal view is that a full occupation would've certainly made more sense than just hoping to grab a bit of land to secure Leningrad, because why stop there when on paper you should be able to easily take all of Finland, which they very likely could've actually done had they gone with the original spearhead plan from the very beginning. Also remember that Stalin expected the former reds (from finnish civil war era) to join the soviet cause and turn against the former whites, which would make a full occupation seem even easier. Stalin had this idea due to poor soviet intelligence completely failing to see that Finland had already united by now and that a fight against a foreign invader would easily trump any ideological differences between the people. In summary, we have very few sources suggesting no planned occupation, but quite a number of sources and facts hinting towards and even directly suggesting that a full occupation was indeed very much the plan. It's up to you do you hold soviet war time propaganda by Molotov _(edit: again, Molotov's propaganda does not cover all of soviet sources, I've no clue why would anyone think that)_ in high enough value as a factual source that you can happily accept it as the truth, or will you try to look deeper _(edit: again you can list fancy book sources and prove nothing, when we can easily list equal number of book sources claiming the exact opposite. In addition to that it helps to mention what the sources are specifically actually saying or the sources cannot even be addressed and can only be left ignored. It also does not help make the statement of "you clearly didn't do any research" something to be taken seriously when you begin by claiming the Terijoki government existed already since 1917, which is already before the red guard even took over the government during the civil war. Nice research skills there, got me good)._
I used to wear one of these back home, for hunting in the winter and it 100% helped you keep it folded up when youre hiking to a spot so you dont sweat and fold it down when u get where youre headed so you dont freeze
I had one once that made it I to a surplus pile for $5.00 a piece. Best hat I ever had! It was authentic and surprisingly exceedingly warm yet humble. It stowed well and or held other gear as well. Could be used as a pillow too!
Really good general overview of the Ushanka's long history. Especially impressed with the deep, well-researched and broader historical narrative-driven dive into Ushanka's development from historical predecessors... PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE retain this element for future episodes!
John Konrad Thank you, it is fun going back to the origins and we will definitely try to keep that focus where possible. There are a topics that work well doing a sort of deep historical dive. Others though such as camouflage patterns or specific jackets etc can only be covered up to an extent before it jumps into a long bit of backstory that gets to general and would have to have tons of elements brought up. This kind of leads to losing the main focus of the video.
Definitely hear ya there, always a balance between subject and the suitable amount of background explanation surrounding the topic at hand. Still, really appreciate the effort in tracing historical patterning. As a historian here, it's really good to see, especially when I've seen so many others will indulge in unsourced speculation on uniform patterning. I'm quite looking forward to your next series of videos
Thanks to this video I now want to get an ushanka although it never really gets that cold down here in SoCal. But if next year's winter is anything like this year, an ushanka might not be too bad.
I ski. My ushanka styles (I have 2) even the less insulated one, are just too warm with heavy activity (skiing) over 20 degrees or so. They are too good. You are, of course moving around while skiing. For skiing, it's best when in single digits or below, I'm sure if doing something like sitting around (football game) it could be useful at higher temps.
As a Swede I never thought i would defend Finland but here we go. Finland won the winter war, they even managed to take over parts of Russia that historically had been a part of Sweden and Finland. The reason why Finkand had to give up some areas after the war was because Finland was allied with Germany , and therefore lost ww2 but they did not lose the winter war.
we have an issued version of the ushanka in the canadian army. its ordered through the same system as our dress uniform parts. iv never seen them used on parades though. occasionally iv seen individuals wearing them on winter ex's. the only time i have used mine was at home during a week long power outage a few winters back.
Truly interesting. Great job. I've been highly curious about such hats for pretty much all of my life since first seeing these on black and white TV in the early 1970s when it was Russia evil, USA good. About to order one.
this hat is a really cool thing, especially when you're standing guard at -30. Of the minuses - when the unit is on the march, especially running, the head sweats.
i thought they were silly as a child (i was born in 97) but now i think they’re super cool. i thought i would educate myself on its history. it’s super warm.
Favorite part about fall and winter in the midwest is being able to wear my various ushankas without being constantly asked why and "isn't your head hot?"
I wear one in the winter and it's fantastic. There are literally no warmer hats in the universe. The only problem is I don't want people to mistake me for an ancom or something.
Ancom? You're wearing a tankie hat, if you want to be mistaken for an ancom you should wear a black bandanna over your face and sunglasses, also carry around a few molotovs.
I had the USAF one in Germany in the late '70's. With the Flap snaps sitting the ears to flop a little so the covered our ear tips we called that mode puppy dog ears. Were good for the cold German winters but had to be dry cleaned.
Im a teenage civvy who has had a regular ushanka for a couple years now and just last year getting a smaller one for days I don't feel like getting out the black one. Because of their design they are very utilitarian for the American Midwest and colder states where temperatures can change nigh rapidly.
I have one in black fur that came from Russia some years back. If it is above about 10 deg F, it's way too warm to wear with the flaps down. Best winter hat ever.
Didn't the ancient ushankas had the ability to flip the front flap downward, turning the hat into a cap? I remember coming across on numerous occasions of people wearing replicas of their culture's version of the hat having this ability. When I looked at later more modern ushankas I realized they retained the flap but it no longer is used for the head brim roll anymore. It is just sown in on the head.
No trip to Moscow is complete without a visit to one or more of the flea markets scattered around town. Kremlin-Izmaylovo or just "Izmaylovo" is one of the best. That's where I picked up a hand-made ushanka made of black rabbit fur. I can attest to it's being warm... even hot in the well heated metro! There's enough cool stuff to give any guy a fun afternoon of shopping while his wife flits around looking at whatever it is that women like so much. I always thought ushankas were like anise-flavored liqueur... every culture's got their version. Even the traditional Minnesota farmer with his checkered shirt and folded down earflaps is such a common look I thought it was a uniform, don'cha know? If you do get to Moscow, do visit Izmaylovo... it has its own Metro station... and speaking of which, I'd rather spend time looking at the incredible beauty of their Metro stations than about any museum in the city... stunning and incredibly clean. Jeez... I'm getting all overwhelmed by the sheer beauty of Moscow... and its women. There are two types in Moscow... one that stepped right off the cover of a fashion magazine only looking BETTER, or the four foot tall bundle of rags begging at the entrances of the Metro stations muttering "pozhaluysta, pozhaluysta" with at least three medals for service in the Great Patriotic War. I'll never know what they do in between.
The modern one from the emr08 ( digital) is especially good... it is not only really warm, but you can hear pretty good because of the ear holes ( the little flaps cover them) and the best thing... they are water resistant and you can wash them like clothes And they are pretty cheap and look great
One correction that needs to be made though, according to the treaty of moscow, the one that the finn's we're forced to sign, the soviets won the winter war.
Much like the "trapper" or "Yukon" style hat worn by the RCMP. Not sure how far they go back, but similar hats were worn in northern Canada in the 1800s.
The Swedish armed forces has a similar hat in service. It comes in two colours, OD-green or navy blue. It's usually prohibited to wear it until it's like -20°C and you're usually not allowed to fold down the earflaps until you've already frozen to death. Oh yeah, and the local nickname for is is "the bearcunt/bearpussy".
The first time i learned USSR lost the Winter War. So gaining the Karelia and meeting all the objectives is considered losing in modern western history science?
@@artiombeknazaryan7542 But they did not take the whole country over . Plus the red army poor performance was one of the reason Hitler thought operation Barbarouse would work . Just because you meet your objectives does not mean you won .
@@treerat7631 they had no intention to conquer Finland. The goal was to push the border from Leningrad. They even proposed Finns to exchange some territory. Finns refused to give up Karelia. So Red Army just won the war and pushed the border further to north. Poor performance of Red Army is an overstatement used by western historiography. Sure the begging of the war was unsuccessful due to poor command and lack of officers. But later in the war Red Army performed significantly better and Finns had no choice than to surrender. The war was a clear win for Red Army yet russophobic western media keep spreading the myth about Finns "winning" the Winter war. Again, if you think that loosing a significant chunk of own territory and accepting opponents conditions is a win... well you are definitely the guy who thinks the US won in Afghanistan 🤣
Sweden still uses pälsmössa (fur hat) m/59, which is very similar to an ushanka, but a bit slimmer and with a cap screen in the front instead of the folded-up fur flap.
I need to know definitively, did the German Heer wear Ushankas - on the Western front, WW2, after adopting them on the Eastern front? I know there is one in a French tank museum, taken from a German, but was it used widely in France etc?
I think the Soviets won that war since they achieved all their objectives. Sure, the price they paid was huge but they still got the land they wanted and forced the Finns to give them all the concessions they wanted and pay for reparations. That's a pretty clear victory for the Soviets in my book.
Budenovka hat, is the one for Gangstas. The NKVD's had a brass Hammer and Sickle, and a Brass Spike, brass fixtures, and the rest was thick cotton, Khaki color... I can see it in the mirror every time I eat Senna
