Why didn't the USSR annex Eastern Europe after World War 2? 

Hello Knowlegia!

@@abrahamlincoln8037 Hello Kennedy. How are you?

Hey knowledgia, idk if you've done this already, but can you do a video abt how the romanian states defended themselves from the ottoman empire ? Im new to ur channel so if youve done this im sorry

@@Knowledgia I am fine sir!

Hello knowledgia I love your vids

True

100% true

I thought it was because he couldnt get core in the provinces lol

@@gabrielbernardes9290 yeah as an eu4 player it's obviously because he would have gotten to much overextension

@@rickbergolla4055 A Vic 2 player may said infamy and militancy.

Summarised the video. Good job n

It anyways did

Or he didn't want Resistance levels going through the roof.

To understand what Red or Tsar or current Russia empire is exclude slavic countries like Poland, Ukraine and Belarus and baltic countries like Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Finland from a Moscow empire, and you have an empire which is the permanent enemy for Europe for centuries, something that inherits Hazar or Kipchak khanates, Chinggis Khan empire... and others non European civilizations, Eurasian lands, 100+ non slavic or non baltic ethnicities, non European religions including multiple pagan one, 100+ non slavic and non baltic languages/dialects, myriads alien traditions and so on, almost nothing in common with Europe.

I edit videos with subtitles in 3 different languages for old songs of different nations. You are also invited. :) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Xdbtg_l9cB4.html

Why didn't the USSR annex Eastern Europe after World War 2? Short anwser: Because they already annexed parts of Eastern Europe before and during World War 2. They annexed Poland land. They annexed Lithuanian land. They annexed Romanian land. They annexed Estonian land. They annexed Ukrainian land. They annexed German land. They annexed Latvian land. They annexed Finnish land. And they gave their newly formed puppetstates annexed lands from other nations taken during the war. They reason why they simply didn't annex the rest was because the UK, USA etc were already contemplating whether to push the Soviets, together with the Germans, since they didn't really liberate Europe. The Soviets knew that they would push their luck and had to rebuild a devastated Europe and homeland. The US on the other hand was ready to take on any enemy. They were untouched, not affected by enemies and a had nuclear arsenal. They had the bigger industry, they had way more manpower, they had access to more resources. The Soviets would've won the land battles early on but they wouldn't win a potential post-world war 2 war with the US (not taking into account the other Allies, the Germans and anti-soviet factions in East-Europe) so soon.

Concentrate development ;)

@@sifuhotman1300 One little nitpick, the Soviets had complete dominance over not only the US but all of the Allies by the end of WW2. We were completely dwarfed by Soviet manpower. Not only that, but we had to cross an ocean just to get there while technically, the Soviets could walk there. This is the credited reason why Churchill reluctantly shelved Operation Unthinkable. The numbers as I can tell were that there were 4.5 to 5 million US troops in uniform in Europe in August of '45. The Soviets had 6.4 million troops in uniform on the Eastern Front. They had millions more in the far East. The US had 11 million soldiers ready to call to arms and 8 million total troops at that time. The Soviets had an additional 36 million in uniform already. No clue on their reserves. Those numbers combined with their advantage in armor, it was forcasted that we'd be forced out of Europe in less than a year. Besides the nuclear advantage, the Royal Navy, the USN, and USAAC and RAF would have been huge factors. We know today how crucial air supremacy is to winning on the ground. And we had the two best navies able to support the effort. And obviously, we wouldn't Lend-Lease the Soviets anymore either. And that may have been the deciding factor. Despite what Billy Mitchell stated, Truman did not want to use any more nuclear weapons. Key word is 'want', he made it clear he would if needed, but he didn't want to normalize nukes as just another weapon of war. The best nuclear weapon is one you never use as deterence and MADD is far superior. And Truman may not have needed to deploy any either. US Lend-Lease is often spoken of but still downplayed. The Sovieta did not have the ability to machine parts finely enough, nor make the metals tough enough to make their tanks and mechanized forces without amble US resources but also, critically US expertise. And we weren't special in that regard, it was simply the fact that Stalin had purged the poor souls who had known how. Then there was the fuel. The Soviets could not get the fuel powerful enough to run tanks and planes. They were stuck at around 70-74 octane fuel while anything made after 1939 needed 80-90 at a minimum. The Soviets could only fund 4% of their economical needs with their own capabilities and 0% of war machine. The oil and American/British oil techs were the key. Remove those and the Soviets are a lot less threatening. They would still human wave us out of Europe, but eventually troops need food and supplies. With no trucks to bring food and their agriculture annhiliated by the war, the Soviets would have been kneecapped from the beginning. Just some interesting food for thought. Well, interesting to me haha, and hopefully you. Also, please don't take this as a mean spirited critique, you were 99% correct. Just thought you might find this additional info interesting!

@@TheLoneTerran well written, i enjoyed reading all of it!

Yes, and it would be too much agressive expansion as well

Yea this. They functionally had local communist party's that answered to USSR, they could have the cake of dominating over the nations as much as did own people, while having extra seats in the UN, and general boasting on world stage. Its also in way not that different then what USA does just USA is nicer and kills less people usually. Or maybe a better way of saying it, how can you say they didn't do it? When Hitler took over France he had Vichy gov run it. Are people going to argue "why didn't hitler annex europe into germany"

There is an other very important reason. Stalin stated that the USSR will never be couth offgard again. By keeping the Estern E as satalites rother then internal territory , he created a buffer between USSR and the west. Pretty much if you want to invade the USSR , you have to go true the sattelites and thus give the USSR enaugh time for response.

@Safwaan The Soviets gained *all* of the advantages of annexation, while avoiding *all* of the downsides. The ComBloc satellite nations were effectively controlled by Moscow, but officially (and legally) were entirely independent nations, allowing Moscow to claim greater international.support for Soviet positions, and providing officially deniable options if the Soviets needed to do something, but didn't want to take full blame if it went sideways. It also (as noted by others) permitted the Soviets to utilize the Warsaw Pact nations as expendable buffer states - sure, they were "allies", but losing ground in, say, Poland or Czechslovakia, was not the same thing psychologically to Soviet citizens as losing territory considered part of "Mother Russia". The Soviet border would be *directly* against NATO.

@Safwaan these gains were either before WWII or in case of eastern Poland at the very begging of the war in collusion with Germany. There was no threat of a western intervention. None of that applies to 1945 and people seem to forget USSR was devastated by the war. Peasants lived in dugouts and workers in wooden barracks. There was barely enough food to avoid widespread famine. There were civil wars in Baltic republics and in western Ukrainians, also.in subjugated Poland. Stalin made many grave mistakes but he was cold headed and calculating and certainly not suicidal.

"Given how the UN was organized, " Where do you people come up with this crap? Murderous dictators with veto power in UN don't give a crap about UN.

Nah, you get Recources and Factorys i am annex mostly, only time i am not annexing is when i dont have manepower

@@Justin-sk3qz but if you puppet you get free factories and cheap rss plus free manpower

Annexing decreases lag, tho. I ussualy do a bit of both.

Criiiinge

@Pinned.by.. Knowledgia someone ban this guy

Nah puppets are temporary, annex and colonize

I just shadow puppet them in the peace deal so I can annex most of Europe

no, it really not worth after update made it possible to increase compliance of occupied territories.

It's good to have buffer state

I edit videos with subtitles in 3 different languages for old songs of different nations. You are also invited. :) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Xdbtg_l9cB4.html

I call that the Finland strategy.

What is H014???

@@RealAlbo4life Hearts of Iron 4, a WWII themed grand strategy game.

@@CaptainAhab117 do you have to pay for that??

@@RealAlbo4life 39.99 USD on Steam.

I edit videos with subtitles in 3 different languages for old songs of different nations. You are also invited. :) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Xdbtg_l9cB4.html

Definetly not in economics.

Yes comrade officer, this imperialist comment right here.

1984, knocking at your door Would you let them in Would you let them Run your life

Are you an employee of PIA?

I edit videos with subtitles in 3 different languages for old songs of different nations. You are also invited. :) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Xdbtg_l9cB4.html

Je l' to ono beše 3. u Evropi hahah

The Western world can't even maintain one country with actual religious, lingual and ethno diversity, and you preach to the rest of the world. Meanwhile other places with more diversity have at least survived.

Also, the experience with the Baltic "Forest Brothers" made the Soviets foresee what would happen if they extended their direct rule to the East-European countries... The USSR was not afraid of the Western countries, USA included... the Eastern Europe was just beyond their reach... Simply, the Russian policy was always to surround themselves with friendly buffer countries (case in point: as soon as the Ukrainian government turned away from being pro-Russian, they lost Crimea, the most strategically important peninsula in 2014 ...) So Stalin played the move that made the most sense by obtaining the best results with the least involvement/effort...

Ure wrong in nearly everythig you said. Yugoslavia WAS part of eastern block and thus under (atleast some) Stalins influence until Tito-Stalin split and it never had 6th army in the world not by any stretch of emagination, it was simply product of Yugoslavian propaganda... YPA was never even in top 10 armies in the world by any parameter, let alone size...

@@CountingStars333 100%. Sometimes we are very hypocritical.

ok this must be a parody, cant be real

@@hannibalburgers477 It's funny because Orwell wrote 1984 based on having worked alongside the communists in Spain.

​@@ZeroNumerous look around. There's no communists, but why we're in 1984 right now? You cover your webcam with sticker and think that your privacy is not in danger? We all get context adware. Ever thought, how do they know, what to advertise specially for you? Randomly, or they have all your life in one big data list and sell to whoever wants. Big brother is watching you, is he? This is not a crazy conspiracy theories, this is the reality you can check yourself any time for 5 min. Look at the Edward Snowden's biography, check Julian Assange fate. If you start to dig and bother to the top business, you end like them. So: "war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength"

@@hannibalburgers477 the poster says 2+2+enthusiasm of the workers = 5. The meaning was to motivate working collectives to accomplish 5-year plan by 4 years.

@@ZeroNumerous yeah while shooting those same Communists because he was an Anarchist too

"Ah yes. I too eat words"

@@rommelcandiani6358 I guess that Ol' Georgian Dude took the phrase "Make you eat those words" too literally.😂

@@rommelcandiani6358 Wait a minute... I think we have that in the real world actually... It's called Alphabet Soup? Also, chicken nuggets in the shapes of letters?🤔

In Russia sharp sickle and hammer eats you

@@jeromeakar2246 What sort of hammer? Small and light or Big and heavy?

Stalin was definitely interested about expansion. Before Germany attacked him the only thing he did was annex all the tiny lands (Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, All the « stans » countries, Tannou-Tova, a part of Romania, the Baltics countries, etc..)

Stalin was more of a nationalist bent on growing his own power and that of Russia. Trotsky was the one who encouraged the spread of communism around the world and in the end wanted the world to be comprised of several "Soviet Socialist Republics". This made him and Stalin natural rivals and if he had become leader instead of Stalin the start of the Cold War might have gone somewhat differently. He would probably, for instance, been more adamant on supporting China and Korea and fostering relationships with these other Communist states.

@@striker8795 Ukraine is many things. Tiny aint one of them.

@@striker8795 Tiny lands ? Ukraine is massive ! 2x the size of Germany and 2nd biggest country in Europe

@@striker8795 Be that as it may most of those territories you mentioned had historically fallen within the ambit of Old Imperial Russia(Baltic states, all the Stans). I think what he meant is Stalin wasn't interested in expanding beyond that.

The huge difference is that now in the Eu they have representetives, voice and some influence to form Eu policies. And top of that these countries are receiving tons of funds to develop, not like in the Soviet times...(fx. Hungary had to pay war reparation after WW2)

@@Robert-te2yy I wonder why Hungary was not part of Austria after WWIII? It was part of the Austria empire. Do you know?

@@Haijwsyz51846 It was not part of Austria but part of A-H empire (Austria was part as well). Hungary has tottaly different language, culture,..., just like other countries that used to be part of that monarchy...

@@Haijwsyz51846 BTW, Hungary (and others) parted after ww1 (treaty of trianon)

And Stalin didn't want another Yugoslavia, he even had to intervene with tanks and crush rebellion in Hungary...

What ethic… what can be more than Sons of Tartaria from Space ?

So you don't think Armenia, Kasarkhstan, Estonia, Usbekistan e.t.c. differ from Russia culturally and ethnically?

@@Laname-Destupid I'm not sure about the caucuses but by 1917, the countries of Central Asia had been a part of the Russian Empire for a long time. Many people there already spoke Russian and adopted many Russian traditions, even today they have a mostly Russian-speaking population.

@@kommag2763 I'll still insist that the Polaks have a lot more in common with the Russians, than Turkish tribes do.

@@Laname-Destupid do you know the population of these countries? With the exception of Ukraine which is half Russian anyway, not one of them exceeds ten million. Poland has 40 million, romania 30 million, yugoslavia 20 million etc. Controlling all of this would have been impossible, particularly as these nations never had a strong history of Russian collaboration like Ukraine or Kazakhstan.

There is no such thing as unified Germany - it is a scam - Germans are so divided that living in peace is not possible

Yup, true. However, it's also important to state that the political rift between Stalin and Tito happened in 1948, and that at the end of ww2 Tito was politically aligned with Stalin (though independent). That said, the video plays it fast-and-loose with the facts here.

Not exactly true. The Red army helped the yugoslav partisans to liberate Belgrade and much of Serbia in late 1944

Steve P....Albania was the only European country to free itself without red army or allies help ...it is no coincidence that after their invasion of Czechoslovakia Albania left the Warsaw Pact kicking the Soviets out of our military bases taking with force the four whiskey class submarines in the Pasha Liman Base conflict between the Soviets and the Albanians in 1961..

You go to germany?

@@nocive7381 I was born in Czechoslovakia but present Slovakia so the closest was Austria.

Poseidon has won this one.

@@dapizzasnake8462 i guess they shouldnt have followed jesus👀

Due to debt , Greece was completely deleted from the map

You’re dark

@@Fallout3131 that's what a city said

I edit videos with subtitles in 3 different languages for old songs of different nations. You are also invited. :) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Xdbtg_l9cB4.html

To be honest Romania was clever as fuck, because Romania would be "puppeted" by Soviet union no matter what it did, so you chose to be puppeted as winner rather then as loser.

You made the right choice. The communist Ceausescu was a great patriotic leader, who even dared to criticise Soviet Tanks in Czechoslovakia. He wont bow to no one.

@@davidias9020 Ceaușescu wasn't the first communist leader though. It was Gheorghiu Dej that took the leash but even so, he managed to convince a drunk Khruschev to pull all russian troops off Romania.

@@tiagorodrigues179 It wasnt much of a clever choice, seeing how Mihail I. got exiled after he pulled Romania out of the Axis

@@elseggs6504 He was forced to exile by the communists after the war ended

I edit videos with subtitles in 3 different languages for old songs of different nations. You are also invited. :) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Xdbtg_l9cB4.html

> "for Stalin that not incorporating the future Warsaw Pact saved money, influence, and increased time to respond to an invasion" Author ot the is like Jon Snow, he know nothing. Argument about saving money in cetral planed eccomy is naive.. at best. Invasion argument is same story in central planed word it changed nothing. More over wester coutries had plan of invasion on soviet union, and plan was as follows: "Any kind of fast win can be achived only by luck. We should have defence plan insted." That was their invade plan. XD More true reason why he made a pupets is fact that Russia and Stalin personaly learn the hard way, that courtries outside their "culture zone" are very likely to up-rise over and over again, while pupets are stable. Any argument like "saving money" at best naive.

Saving money is quite dubious though given that the Warsaw Pact countries heavily relied on Soviet subsidies for many years and basically constituted a huge burden to the Soviet budget. Considering awareness, probably they were: Czechoslovakia participated in the discussion and was about to become a major investment recipient along with other Western European nations, but refused it in the end under Soviet pressure.

No they didn't

😪

There's a difference between occupy and annex. To occupy means to assert temporary control over a region without any formal declaration of sovereignty, which they did. To annex means to establish control intended to be permanent and claim sovereignty over an area, which they only did with the north half of East Prussia, the rest of the lands you mentioned were governed by puppet governments.

Do you even know what annex means?

My man thinks taking Berlin after a 4 year long war equates to annexing Germany... lmao.

They did annex practically half of Poland and the Baltic countries. They annexed practically the whole of Eastern Europe.

Crimea-Russia

Also West did nothing when Poland and Germany occupied Czechoslovakia in 1938, and the West did nothing when Poland invaded Russia and Lithuania in 1919

@@thejudge6453 Are you the king of fake history? Actually in 1919/1920 a number of mercenaries from the West were helping, especially defending Warsaw, when Soviet Union (not Russia) was expanding its territories towards West.

They declared the war to Germany basically

I edit videos with subtitles in 3 different languages for old songs of different nations. You are also invited. :) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Xdbtg_l9cB4.html

You know nothing, Jon Snow. In central planned point off money doesn't matter, What do matter are "real" values, like steel, food, resources, manpower, technology. That's why e.g. China is slowly outplaying USA, because China is focused on collecting REAL potentials, while the USA is focused on collecting "points" called money. In central planned communism country you don't have to send money and resource to poor parts of ur country. Actually you can drain out resource from one part, use them to develop other part. You can even in slave or starve people - why not? That's exactly how industrialization was made, in Soviet Union, by making poor poorer. So the argument about sending extra money is stupid, and you must know nothing to make it. More over Russia was and still is poor country, every and each puppet was richer than Soviet Union. In fact puppets were sending resource(mOnEy) like food, coal, machines to Soviet Union. This only make this argument more dumb. >Also, getting out of a war that decimated about ehh 4% of your country, expanding your territories with troops still not up to fighting would've been a huge dumb mistake It is also "you know nothing scenario". Why? Because soviet troops were already there. Puppet territories were conquested in the act of war, so it doesn't really matter. The real reason why puppets were puppets is "mix of politics negotiation with west and fact that "nationalities" by and large don't like occupation, and it's simpler to make puppets. as they're less likely to revolt. @"Ax Astro"

Ronania was forsed to give those lands away befor the ribbentrop-molotov-Treaty that One just made germany recognise it

Rthe soviet took it in 1928

@@lordunhold5381 not at all, search a bit before you write

@@DonDux-nk1ht nah you right the soviets tried and failed in 1928

@@DonDux-nk1ht still the nazis had bo authority over romania .... also bukovina was not supposed to go to the soviets acording to the r-m-t

kings and generals made a great video about skanderbeg

@@pegazin7196 Yes, I have seen it. Even though it was a little bit short, it was great nonetheless. It would be really amazing if more big historical channels would include Skanderbeg in their projects too!

The script is done, it's in the process!

@@Knowledgia Nice to know! Thank you! :)

@@Knowledgia i dare you to do it! xD

Yes, even so Yugoslavia was communist and Stalin didn't like Tito.

Red Army helped Yugoslav partisans to liberate only part of Yugoslavia (Serbia with Belgrade fortress) while other parts of the country was liberated by Yugoslavs. So basically Red Army left Yugoslavia in winter 1944-45, but Yugoslavia and USSR was allies untill 1948, when conflict between Tito and Stalin occured.

@@dragosstanciu9866 Socialist not Communist

@@natashat.8455 Dude, Tito was in the Red Revolution and then joined the *Communist* Party. You think Socialism was his end goal?

Yugoslavia was Under Control of the USSR For a Long Period, The Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia (1945-1963) was Established by the Government of Ivan Ribar until Tito Succeeded his Position and took Moscow's Power off Yugoslavia Establishing the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Tito was a Rare Kind a Dictatorship Yes but Yugoslavia was far Greater under His Control Yugoslavia was rather More Open, De-Centralized and Less Repressive then the Other States but it also led to its Downfall due to the De-Centralized Government many of the States would be necessary to Vote but after the Death of Tito many disagreements occurred and it de-stabilized the Country

Greece was never under Soviet influence

Nor was Western Europe but they’re still included. As well as Turkey and the Nordics

🇬🇷Shhhh! They'll find us.

I edit videos with subtitles in 3 different languages for old songs of different nations. You are also invited. :) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Xdbtg_l9cB4.html

True.

I edit videos with subtitles in 3 different languages for old songs of different nations. You are also invited. :) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Xdbtg_l9cB4.html

@@oguzhantekden2 Ooo

The problem it's who their satellite was expensive to the ussr

Lepers commies! But it's customary to talk about the fact that the Balts and Romanians were initially on the side of the Germans

how was the ethnic difference between slavs lead to WW1?

Hmmm? The ethnic differences between the Slavs didn't cause WW1. Serbian anger at Austro-Hungarian expansion (headed by an Austrian monarch, who was an ethnic German) into Bosnia is what caused WW1. Austrians aren't Slavs. Germans aren't Slavs. "Ethnic" differences between Slavs caused the breakup of Yugoslavia however but that was 80 years later.

TITAS SAMANTA...slavs are not an ethnicity

Thank you.

@@titassamanta6885 Thank you to who? And also the Slavs are an ethnicity. A quick Google search will show you that

Yes, but this exchange wasn't equal. Poland lost more land on the east, than got on the west.

@@konanpl8936 Yea you are right. Poland i think lost an area the size of the Czech republic in the difference from what Russia took versus what they gave of Germany. But also because of it Poland now has more coastline and the German areas they have now where a lot more developed than the easter part of Poland. Honestly man at this point shits too messed up and people are to emotional and lack nuance understanding of this issue that I don't think anything about that will change unless from something stupid like war. I guess the circle pf hate all our peoples have been in is going to keep going around.

@@konanpl8936 Indeed, Poland gained more than it lost, due to the fact that its Eastern territories were of mixed ethnicity, with Poles being in the minority in many rural areas, and the German territories being much richer and better developed. Only 3 to 4 million Poles were expelled, compare this to the 8 million Germans that had to make room for them. This imbalance was even noticed by the British at Potsdam, but then it was already too late and the murder and ethnic cleansing was already ongoing.

Puppeted

You mean fascist collaborators?

@@aitorherrera5937 The forest brothers were the only time when people across the political spectrum worked together to fight the soviets. So yes some were fascist but also some were communist, liberal, anarchist, maybe social democrat, nationalist, etc.

@@aitorherrera5937 The hungarian revolution was mostly anti soviet socialists and communists. some were liberals and even far right but not all of them.

De facto annexed, just like today but the Soviets gave more internal freedom than the w*sterners

@@user_____M ? " the Soviets gave more internal freedom than the w*sterners " Examples, please

@@DerDop socialism always gives its citizens more freedom. Guaranteed housing and jobs is freedom. Individualism is like anarchy.

Communists were always bloody pigs. They killed their own intellectual people and people from occupied countries.

@@andreav318 amazing. I live in former communist country and I'm in my 40"s. Please tell me more.

Geographically. But they were considered part of the Eastern Bloc. Which was often synonymously used with Eastern Europe.

@@joshuacondell1686 Ask anyone from this countries if they think they live in Eastern Europe. No one will say yes. People that invented and used this nomenclature were the people who sold us to Stalin in Yalta and Potsdam in 1945.

@Minas Mzk Even if someone doesn’t consider Russia as part of Europe there is few countries between them and the ones I mentioned earlier, i.e. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova

it'll be another generation or so before we update our geopolitical software en masse, and get over the 1980's Cold War paradigm. Few Americans, and even Europeans, are vaguely aware of the East-West Church schism. Central Europe was communist for some 40 years... it'll be 40 years before people forget about that

All the ex communist countries are considered as eastern European countries.