Why did Nikita Khrushchev Give Crimea to Ukraine?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 кві 2024
- Why did Nikita Khrushchev Give Crimea to Ukraine?
First, we must look at how Crimea even became a part of the USSR, to begin with. The peninsula has actually passed through many hands during history, including Kievan Rus, the Mongols, the Crimean Tartars, the Ottoman Empire, and eventually at the end of the 18th century, the Russian Empire. As such, Crimea has not always been a territory of either Ukraine or Russia, though both have a history intertwined in part with the peninsula. However, by the period of the USSR, Russia had possessed Crimea for a notable amount of time and generally considered the territory to be undeniably and unquestionably Russian. Nevertheless, the situation shifted even before Ukraine obtained the peninsula, as the USSR leadership decided to grant Crimea the status of an autonomous soviet socialist republic in 1921. This would remain the case until 1945
♦Consider supporting the Channel :
/ knowledgia
♦Please consider to SUBSCRIBE: goo.gl/YJNqek
♦Music by Epidemic Sound
♦Script & Research :
Skylar J. Gordon
#History #ussr
Fun fact: around the same time as the Crimea transfer, the USSR also tried to give the Kaliningrad oblast (East Prussia) to either Lithuania or Poland but both refused as the majority there was Russian since all the Germans who previously lived in the area were kicked out and the Poles who were there were also likely forced out as well and neither country wanted the headache of having an area with a Russian majority in their Lithuanian or Polish borders
They might not have a NATO membership if they accepted.
Only the northern part of East Prussia was annexed to the USSR/RSFSR. The southern part had already been made part of sovereign Poland in 1945 while Memel (Klaipěda) had been annexed to the USSR/Lithuanian SSR.
that is a myth. Poland has 40m people, and how many russians are there? There would be no fear of having a 'russian majority' or whatever. Lithuania was part of the USSR, the official language was russian, it was one country. They (meaning the communist regional chairman) would have accepted it gladly as it would give new land.
Unlike communist Poland, the Lithuanian SSR was part of the USSR and the determination of internal USSR administrative borders was carried out centrally in Moscow. As for transferring the northern part of ex-East Prussia from the USSR to Poland, almost a decade after Poland had already received the southern part in 1945, the story sounds a little far-fetched. Kaliningrad (ex-Königsberg) was an extremely important strategic ice-free port acquistion for the Russians and I am deliberately writing Russians, not Soviets, because there was always the possibility that the three Baltic republics would strive for restoration of their 1918-1939 independence, as was the case abroad throughout their Soviet period, and indeed occurred in 1991. The USSR made a huge effort to repopulate the territory of northern ex-East Prussia with Russians and renamed all the German place names with Russian ones. Klapěda (Memel) had already been restored to "Lithuania" (as the USSR republic Lithuanian SSR) in 1945. Huge areas of eastern Poland had also been transferred to the USSR (and incorporated in the Belarusian & Ukrainian SSRs) in Yalta/Potsdam. So the story sounds unlikely.
Russian took big chunk of Poland and increased Belarussian SSR by 50%, but sudenly felt guilty and wanted to sweeten the deal by giving Poland Keninsberg. I dont find it belivable
It was to resolve the issue of the Dnieper aqueduct system. It was easier to have one government dictating the water usage to Crimea
Another interesting reason but that alone doesn't seem convincing IMO. Sure it would help the aqueduct matter but it alone would be comparatively minor issue to justify a transfer. They could simply have a state-owned enterprise run the system cross border and solve any administrative hassle. They were both part of the USSR, so there isn't any issues with having a unified agency handling it since its just cross province/state borders and not another country.
@@neurofiedyamato8763 But were still separate entities. Look at the fight over the Lake Mead as the 500 year drought is causing the Hoover dam to fail? Ukraine wants water for its own uses and so does Crimea for its dry climate and poor farmers? The only way to get Ukraine to give it's water or pay to build and maintain is if Ukraine has to answer for Crimean farmers and the reservoirs/maintenance on the Crimean side.
Also Crimea is a lot smaller and poorer and probably the poorest in the Soviet Union while Ukraine has coal, metal works, and large fertile land for it's tax base
@@timothygibney159"Look at the fight over the Lake Mead as the 500 year drought is causing the Hoover dam to fail" One of the most ridiculous 'false analogy' I've ever heard.
So it was simpler logistics.
@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 very expensive and no one wanted to pay for it. Crimea can't afford it and needs it and Ukraine is more interested in its own people. By making Crimean Ukrainian it would now be in their interests to pay, support, and provide water and reservoirs to Crimea
In fact, the problem of territorial transfers inside ussr is not unique to Ukraine only. Central asian countries faced much more, which still is an unsolved problem that lead to local conflicts.
Yes, but you forgot that Ukraine also gifted Belgorod and Taganrog TO Russia
@@uasite - In what year was Belgorod part of Ukraine?...The only time that I'm aware of is a brief period during the first world war (a few months in 1918), during German occupation, when some local Ukrainian allies of the Germans claimed it as part of their "independent state."
@@Bike_Lion yes, it was part of Ukrainian republic for short period of time. But it was even CAPITAL of Soviet Ukrainian republic - so it wa part of Ukraine not only during Skoropadsky rule.
Moreover, you should look on Russian Empire nationality or language chart and you'll find that it was populated by ukrainians.
And about Taganrog you know everything yourself, right?
All conflicts have been instigated - as ever - by the slimy West. Sic transit fascist gloria mundi.
@@Bike_Lion not to mention that whole modern Ukraine was a part of Russia, and only thanks to German occupation in WWI the state "Ukraine" was created as a tool to fight against the rest of Russia. The vast majority of Ukranians back then were ethnic Russians, and modern day Ukranians by the vast majority are also Russians who got 100 years of brainwashing propaganda to believe that they are not Russians and have nothing to do with Russia, unbelievable. It's like Bavarians claiming they are not Germans.
My take on this has been that Ukraine was Khrushchev's power base, since he had spent his entire career as head of the Ukrainian Communist Party, which means he was functionally the President of Ukraine. So by transferring a strategically important asset (the video fails to mention that Russia's largest naval base is located there) to "his" people, he was strengthening his position relative to his rivals.
Another possibility is that he was attempting to weaken the Russian SSR relative to the other SSR's, given the obvious numeric dominance of the former. This is essentially the opposite of what the video suggests, as the video makes the presumption that Russia and USSR were equivalent, and non-Russian Soviets were captives of the Russians. In reality, Communist doctrine was very anti-nationalist, and it was something that they took seriously. They wanted Russians to think of themselves as Soviets, not as Russians, and they didn't want the Russians dominating the other nationalities. And let's not forget that Stalin was Georgian rather than Russian, and he's the one who set most of this up. The boundaries of the various SSR's were drawn somewhat arbitrarily, and I suspect that they deliberately put large numbers of Russians within other SSR's boundaries in order to balance out the sizes. Yugoslavia did something very similar to lessen the dominance of the Serb population. Anyway, it's possible that Khrushchev was just doing more of that with this transfer.
In a weird way this makes sense. Ideologically I could see the Soviet Union doing this. It seems like it would fit in with the communist ideology at the time. Now how things worked out in reality and practically i'm not sure right now. But this does seem a plausible hypothesis. However a hypothesis nonetheless for the time being.
Acctually USSR was being very anti -Russian and fought Russian shauvinism since day one the USSR establishment after Bolshevik revolution giving that the vast of majority of the Bolsheviks were Jewish and other minorities of the former Russian Empire like ( ethnic Georgians, Latvians, Estonians, Ukrainians)
Did the khazars have something to do with the whole story?! They are and were everywhere where money talks, business talks etc
@Екатерина Анатольевна pretty interesting to say that that USSR was anti-russian while the political center was still located in russia, Stalin made many russofication policies towards other republics and in the whole other world soviets were called russians and till this day associated mainly with russia.
@Zeldan Yeah that kind of seems to be the case. If I remember correctly, I think the the russian Bolsheviks and the Ukrainian bolshevicks waged war against one another. The Russian bolsheviks eventually won because of better leadership and organization in large part due to the efforts of Leon Trotsky. Correct me if i'm wrong on that part.
It was to make the map look nicer obviously.
Of course
So was the Russian invasion.
...Maybe. I think it looks more aesthetically pleasing the other way (BUT I DON'T SUPPORT RUSSIA)
hoi4 moment
@@clouds-rb9xtReally? Ignoring the politics, Crimea doesn’t have land connection with Russia. It sticks out like a sore thumb like Kaliningrad or Northern Ireland.
I didn't realize there was so much mystery behind the Crimean region. Thanks!
populated with 95 percent russians , theres no mystery what country it should be a part of.
There isn't... it's all about Russian thugs!
YOULL LESRN MORE IF YO PURCHASE MILKAIL SHISKINS BOOK FOR £18.00 HE;LL SHOW YOU EVERYTHING ABOUT RUSSIA
HE IS ALSO A CRITIC OF PUTIN AND HIS MOTHER WAS UKRAINIAN HIS FATHER RUSSIAN AND HE CANT GO HOME HE HAS A DUAL PASSPORT RUSSIAN./SWISS
Not mystery, history.
Yes history is interesting.
Khrushchev gave Crimea under the control of Ukrainians to simply restart the agriculture of the peninsula, which was in shambles. Khrushchev was very keenly aware of food production and agriculture as key element of the country itself. Ukrainians were known as effective farmers and Ukraine was a breadbasket before modern agriculture methodology and technology was developed.
since ancient wars, Ukrainians have defended Russians from the invasion of the Turks from the Crimea! He is rather Turkish, but he should never be with Russians! Where are the Russians, there is chaos!
That Bald head Corn lovers just making another Starvation,he's not trying Started another farm...if its so,How the f ckin hell he could making another starvation if he trying re-started farming campaign (of course its corn)
what you said is chauvinism, which, with the help of Western "partners", inevitably spilled over into Nazism, with the subsequent SVO, and as a result, the completion of the existence of Ukraine as a state.
it was a theft, pure and simple. the whole of Ukraine in made out by illegal land grabs from other countries and people.
Известная сказка о "пустынном" Крыме и о том, как трудолюбивые украинцы превратили его из пустыни в цветущий сад ))))))
According to Khrushchev's son, Crimea was merged to Ukraine in order to cut bureaucracy and keep reporting on the construction of the North Crimean canal (between Ukraine & Crimea) in one republic.
which Ukraine cut off in 2014
@@threetwoonego323
One thing I found interesting was that Crimea was, essentially, the last autonomous greek colony to survive. They persisted well into the roman empire's existence.
Nah not the last one , the kingdom of bactrian was the last one which was in the area of today's Pakistan
Not Crimea but some town-sized colonies on the Black Sea shore, probably no more than 1% of the peninsula.
The Goths occupied a far greater chunk of it.
@@hanswust6972 bruh these cities , had control over Crimea and a little side of Russia which is next to Crimea
It was the expulsion of the Greek population from the Crimea by the Tatars in the 1770s that precipitated the Russian intervention to oust Ottoman-Tataro power from the Crimea. These Greeks settled in the actual Donetsk region and founded cities like Mariupol and others.
@@amcespana2150fun fact the greek name for a peninsula is khersonessos which is also the name of a greek settlement in crimea. Which is also the origin name of kherson in ukraine
The Holodomor is only part of the mass famine in the USSR and not a separate event, there was also a famine in the Kazakh ASSR, the regions of the Central Black Earth Region, the North Caucasus, the Urals, the Volga region, the South Urals, and South Siberia.
How does it change the fact that it was man made by Russia?
You completely lost the plot.
It's not a difficult concept to understand.
The question is: "Why did Nikita give Crimea to Ukraine?"
One of the proposed possibilities by the narrator, is that Ukraine was targeted by Stalin with a horrible famine.
The problem with this hypothesis, that tries to answer why Nikita gave Crimea to Ukraine, is that Stalin targeted several regions during this one event.
In other words, other regions like Khazakstan would have also received an "apology" in the form of a gift if this was an an apology in the form of a gift.
Meaning, that Ukraine was likely not given Crimea as an apology.
You understand now?
When it comes to your question, it's filled with ignorance on the subject.
It's like if I asked, why do cows hunt and eat exclusively lions?
This is an example of a question that displays ignorance on the subject. A dumb question.
Here's the part you're ignorant about.
1. USSR was a country made up of many states just like the US, Germany, etc...a federal republic.. E.g. Georgia, was part of the USSR.
2. Stalin was born in Georgia, was ethnically Georgian, grew up there and everything.
He was the Leader of the USSR. A totalitarian dictator who wielded an extremely centralized form of control.
And he was ruthless, killing millions upon millions of his own countrymen.
He was already bad, but when his wife died, he became stone cold, saying this: "This warm creature was able to soften my heart of stone. Now she is gone, and with her my only warm feelings for humans. I trust no one, not even myself."
2. The Key founders of the USSR were from various regions. Stalin from Georgia, Lenin from Finland, Trotski from Russia, etc.
@@tylerdurden3722 ,,In other words, other regions like Khazakstan would have also received an "apology" in the form of a gift if this was an an apology in the form of a gift.,,
but did not receive, this argument is meaningless
@@Avealuaby USSR, it’s just that this reason is far-fetched, why then no “offerings” were made to other regions
Holido.ore was everywhere over a planet I 30s. What's your point?
This video could have been 1 minute long and still had all the information in it. Never have so many words been said about something with so little to say about it.
I had exactly the same thought after watching the video.
Completely agree. Waste of time, no answers given, lot of speculations.
@@andriesterpstra8796 And lots of S's in USS-SSR.
Well half of youtube education is like this :)
The transfer of the Crimean oblast in the Soviet Union in 1954 was an administrative action of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet that transferred the government of Crimea from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR.
I don't think that fondness or guilt are convincing reasons to be attributed to a Soviet leader.
More probably, Khrushchev saw Ukraine and Russia as indefectibly tied in the same political entity, USSR, with little difference to be made managing both population, as he himself experimented as local representative of soviet power.
So joining Crimea to Ukraine solved a lot of complication, when managing the waterways, the road net, the armed forces, and so on.
At the peak of USSR, none of the soviet leaders could have imagined something like an independent, even hostile Ukraine.
Same for the Donbass, which experimented a massive industrial development and Russian workers settlement under Stalin, yet nobody considered transferring this strategical region from Eastern Ukraine into southern Russia, in case the two countries would separate.
I think people miss the most obvious explanation. After USSR occupied Moldova in 1944, Stalin gave the north and south of Moldova to Ukraine while taking transdnistria away from Ukraine and gave it to Moldova. Why do such a seemingly nonsensical thing? Simple. In case Moldova ever reunited with Romania, the two will inherit an unsolvable problem that reflected neither history, nor geography or ethnic representation.
The same was done with Russia and Ukraine to ensure the two can never truly and peacefully separate. As we can see, this was indeed very successful. Never underestimate the deviant mind of a dictator.
British did this with India on same intent 😮. We had a teacher which said the whole USSR is a russian colonial realm. So it might had been intended by mixing up to make separation impossible.
Basserabia had a big population of ukranians in Bucovina and the south region, due to colonisation of the Russian Empire. Once Basserabia was annexed two delegations, one moldovan and one ukranian, were given a short amount of time to think of a way to transfer the ukrainian regions to ukraine, and the Moldovan region (Transnistria) to Moldova. Stalin didn't just do this by himself. Transistria was later flooded with Russian workers, Transnistria was devoleped more than Basserabia, when the USSR collapsed, the Russians in Transistria declared autonomy, then Independence, following the civil war. This rupture in the integrity of Moldova is stopping us from uniting with Romania, although, I dont think the majority of Moldovans want to join Romania, and the fact that Romania's constitution, makes Romania an undivisable country, we cant unite with Romania. While the transfer of land between Moldova and Ukraine in 1940, generally affected us, it is the fact that Transistria was colonised with Russians that fcked us over, which doesnt really make your argument true.
Its telling that the west does this to itself now.
not limited to dictator lol the so called democratic england, france and others did this to countless region in Africa and The Middle East
Russia pushed out German Occupation!
The largest city in Crimea is Sevastopol (now over a half million people) and it was founded in 1783 by decree of Catherine the Great.
Fictional Catherine the Great. never existed.
actually Sevastopol was founded by rear Admiral Thomas McKenzie , the hills/mountains around the city are named after him he founded the naval base and city for Catherine the great and and up until 1922 it was connected to Russian territory until Lenin gave away South West Russia to Ukraine as it had no heavy industry and that is why south east Ukraine from Kharkov to Odessa is pro Russian, Ukraine was the big winner of the former Soviet Union not only did it get vast Russian territory, it also got a big chunk of Poland, and chunks of land from Romania, Hungary and Slovakia, Russia was the big loser it lost vast territories to Ukraine and had to pay all of the former Soviet Unions debt
@@SaorAlba1970 Apart from what you say about Thomas McKenzie, you ranalysis is up the creek. Most of the changes were ethnic and the populations in the territories that became Ukraine in 1945 were majority Ukrainian speaking. The inter-war Polish Empire of Józef Piłsudski, a military conquest of anti-Bolshevik idealism covered nearly all of the territory of the Belarussian speaking people, and large areas of Ukrainian speakers, many of the later only too grateful that they were not in Bolshevik controlled Ukraine. There are stories of Stalin in 1945, causing mass migrations of Poles westwards to a smaller Poland and mass movement of Germans to a smaller East Germany. The only part of THAT that is true was the expulsion of Germans to a smaller Germany as punishment for the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. There was no MASS movement of Poles westwards. In 1939 the area of the Polish Empire that was seized by Stalin was Belarussian speaking using the Belorussian Cyrillic alphabet. There were less than 150,000 Poles living in that territory. Most of the Belarussians were not best pleased because although they hated the Poles, they hated the Russians more. The last remaining Poles in Belaruusia were kicked out but there weren't many of them left in 1945.
As for your claim about Slovakia. the Ultra Roman Catholic theocracy of Jozef Tiso had collapsed with Slovenské národné povstanie (Slovak National Uprising) and the German invasion in the Autumn of 1944. Tiso was nothing more than a Nazi figurehead thereafter (His neck was stretched in 1947). The Czechoslovak Government based in London never recognised a state of Slovakia. .Inter-war Czechoslovakia included the land of the Rusyns in the Far East. This territory was included in Czechoslovakia because the Polish advances Eastward just to the North made it possible for the Prague regime to establish control in what we call Ruthenia. The language, however, was and is more closely related to Ukrainian than Slovak. Ukrainian and Slovak are so closely related that, with my knowledge of Slovak I can get the jist of what Ukrainians on war videos are saying. Perhaps the most telling points are, however, the land is geographically part of the Ukraine more than Czechoslovakia and the Ukrainian Cyrillic alphabet was and is used. There was a logic that if Ruthenia was not to gain independence, it was more logically part of Ukraine. Stalin wasn't interested in the entity of Ukraine per se. He was a psychopathic megalomaniac who would do just about anything to increase his control of more and more of the World and to maintain personal control over that area by any means at his disposal including mass murder. Ukraine was just a suitable drawer into which to store Ruthenia. Remember, Stalin created more misery in Ukraine than in the whole of the rest of the Soviet Union put together. Stalin wasn't a communist, he was a Georgian recreation of Ivan the Terrible.
As for Hungary, the borders of Hungary were determined by the Treaty of Trianon (Trianon is in France) in 1921, the Hungarians as a people were punished for centuries of swaggering around, and, under the auspices of the Austro-Hungarian Empire causing untold misery in the surrounding lands. Viktor Orbán is frequently seen wearing the scarf of a Budapest football team which depicts "Greater Hungary". This includes all of Slovakia which they call to this very day, "Upper Hungary" and Romanian Transylvania. As you may imagine, neither the Slovaks nor the Romanians are best pleased about this. On my travels between Britain and Slovakia via Budapest Airport (For me it is a shorter journey than Stansted-Bratislava), I have come across nice and open Hungarians but there is a popular sentiment among many Hungarians that, one day, they will "take back" Upper Hungary (Slovakia) and help the half monkey Slovaks to evolve into human beings by teaching them Hungarian (Hungarian is a totally alien Uralic language originating in Siberia).
In short, it was not Ukraine that benefited from this administrative enlargement, it was purely a matter of tidiness for the psychopathic Georgian.
As for Ukraine getting chunks of Romania, that is also nonsense. It is true that Stalin took a chunk of Romania, an area which speaks a very closely related language to Romanian, some say it so closely related, it is a no more than a dialect of Romanian BUT IT DIDN'T GO TO UKRAINE. It became the separate Soviet Socialist Republic of Moldova, the official languages being Moldovan and Russian. Stalin moved Russians in there to queer the pitch for any pro-Romanian sentiment hence we have the problem of the wild west criminal entity on the east bank of the Dniester , its' main industry being to force local girls into prostitution, and through crime networks, sell them to Western European organised crime.
AS FOR CRIMEA, it was not Nikita's decision. The decision had already been made whilst Stalin was still alive. Nikita may have been very happy to rubber stamp the proposal. Of course, politics were involved and to increase the Russian minority in Ukraine may have been seen as a good idea, the purpose of Stalin being to oppress the Ukrainians but the decisive matter was the construction of the Kokhovka Dam, preparatory work already under way. Production of electricity was a side benefit. Far more electricity would eventually come from the doomsday machines at Enerhodar, the so.called Zaporizhzhia nuclear menace. The main purpose was to irrigate a vast area of semi desert in Southern Ukraine AND VIA THE NORTH CRIMEA CANAL a vast area of semi desert in NORTH CRIMEA. This above all, made the transfer completely logical.
As stated in the video, at that time, the break up of the Soviet Union was unimaginable. It came down to who was to be responsible for the public conveniences (they didn't have many) and who would empty the dustbins.
@@terryhoath1983your reply is a fantastic piece of history for this area of Europe, the most accurate that I have seen. Thank you.
@@terryhoath1983 My turn to teach you music theory lol. I am too lazy to fact check you but thank you for the post.
Sevastopol has been a Russian naval port for 240 years:
"The construction of the port started in 1772, while the Russo-Turkish War (1768-1774) was still ongoing, and was finished in 1783, following the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Empire. On 13 May 1783, the first eleven ships of the Imperial Russian Navy reached the Sevastopol Bay."
Basically all the cities, towns, ports, mines, industrial complexes, roads, railway tracks and airports located in eastern and south Ukraine have been Russian, built and developed by Russian, and populated with Russians since the times of Peter the Great and Catherine of Russia...
When Crutchev gave Crimea to the Soviet of Ukraine, he'd never thought that Ukraine and Russia would be one day 2 separate countries...
It doesn't matter now , Ukraine will get what they want and Russia will be shit hole for 50 years paying for all damages.
@@MoreAwsomeMetal Do you really think that Crutchev was incapable of imagining the collapse of the Russian Federation? Even he knew that corrupt empires eventually fail.
@@ronramsay8587 Maybe we was able to imagine that someday, in the following up of the decolonial movement striking the European colonial empires at this this, that Central Asia Republics, or Caucasian Republics , or even the Baltic states could take their independence in a more distant future.
I'm quite sure that for a Russian of the 50's it was however inconcevable that Belarus or Ukraine would be separated from Russia (and probably the same for an Ukrainian or a Belarussian). I mean those regions are core regions to the roots and history of the Russian world...
@@MoreAwsomeMetal Your 'ruski mir' is not the only perspective.
I thought the reason was that the Crimea is not self-sufficient. The necessities of modern life, for the numbers of a modern population, foodstuffs, electricity, water must come from the land mass to the North, Ukraine. Putin supplied Crimea as best he could since 2014, but could not replace the water from Ukraine's River sources needed for agricultural, commercial, and household/ drinking. The first thing Russian Army units did in Kherson Oblast was to open the canal and aquifers to Crimea.
Please also have a look into when Kruschev transferred the coastal regions of Moldova and the northern side of Bucovina also to Ukraine. What were the reasons for this?
Frr
For ethnic reasons (they were populated mainly by Ukrainians)
No^
The main reason behind giving Crimea to Ukraine and removing North Bukovina & Bugeac from Moldova was to destabilize the culture and identity of those nations, by giving Moldova Transnistria and Crimea to Ukraine they basically added Russian-ethnic lands to different cultures to promote russification
Transnistria isn’t Moldova and Crimea isn’t Ukraine and they have never been
Fantastic video keep it up you're doing amazing things 😁👍
Excellent video, providing if not answers, at least a few likely premises! Thank You!
Thanks 🎉❤ for that brief history
Khrushchev's wife probably had a lot more to do with it than people know. It's amazing what a person's significant other can get them to do against that person's better judgement.
He himself was born on the border of Ukraine, a product of the melting pot of Russian and Ukrainian identities.
Can you Explain
Was she Ukrainian born?
@@darthparallax5207 okay so from wiki,
Nina Petrovna was Polish born, studied in Odessa, and was close to Khrushchev from early 1920s.
She accompanied him in foreign meetings, and had full control over his private affairs.
She had more power than any other previous first ladies.
Ukraine coming to USSR without Cramia, without Donna's and Lugansk territory. That's all.
An objective video about the history of Ukraine and Russia? My word! If only more people understood this, especially in 2014, perhaps war might have been avoided.
@@JoeSmith-sl9bq How do the "little brother" cannot hate russia terrorist state, if russia kills innocent people and makes genocide? If you are saying "join the enemies", it's joining the civilized people, which helps protect them from russian terror. Seeing what is going on, it is very clear who is a real enemy and a friend.
@@JoeSmith-sl9bq For a reason
The war certainly did not have to happen, but the US did not allow peace. They have many benefits from this war, that's why they made it possible, that's why they support and maintain it.
@@markomicovic5308 Do not forget it is russia terrorist state who started the war and wanted to conquer Ukraine for several days. And do not forget that the US had nothing to do with the war since 2014 when it was started by the russian terrorist government. Now the US tries to support Ukraine to protect its rights.
Unblind your eyes, you write such things about the US only because you wanted to believe in these lies spread by russian terrorist state propaganda, which tries to justify the murdering of innocent people and terror over independent nations.
@@markomicovic5308 the provoked it in the first place with the coup in 2014
The issue of the city of Sevastopole with Russian Black Sea Naval Base has not been explored cause formaly the decree of transfer Crimea from Russia to Ukraine did not aply to Sevastopole as it was a separate administrative entity of the Russian Republic within the USSR distinct from Crimea and subordinated in administrative sense directly to Moscow.
I have to agree that that is an issue that needs to be explored and you brought up a valid point. The last thing I'd heard about the naval base at Sevastopol, was that Ukraine renewed the lease on the Russian navel base there to 2042 before the invasion of 2014. It's A shame if that was the main issue of the naval base because that would have made the invasion unnecessary. Now for the rest of it I still have a lot of research to do about Sevestopol.
@@donaldmackerer9032 In 2007 Ukraine under pro-western Yuschenko boasted that it will not prolong the Naval Base Rent Contract with Russia in 2017 when it was due to expire. Under pro-Russian Yanukovich this rent contract might have been renewd before 2014 but since the Maidan Coup has happened in Kiev and anti Russian forces seased power Russia could not trust that it's use of the Sevastopol Naval Base will be secured in the future.
Sevastopol has been a Russian naval for 240 years:
"The construction of the port started in 1772, while the Russo-Turkish War (1768-1774) was still ongoing, and was finished in 1783, following the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Empire. On 13 May 1783, the first eleven ships of the Imperial Russian Navy reached the Sevastopol Bay."
@@donaldmackerer9032 Shortly after the US-financed coup in 2014, some in the newly installed regime suggested to terminate the lease. Russia held a referendum and annexed Crimea a few weeks after that.
Cheers
Would love to see one of these on the history of the state of Texas
So it is - dear lad. Texas belongs to Mexico as ever since 1848 and before that.
Yes, that beacon of freedom and democracy otherwise known as the USA, was very fond of starting wars on flimsy pretexts, in order to win territory and expand.
Very good with a remark about the Holodomor which is how the famine went down in history in Ukraine, but the famine was not restricted to Ukraine but was widespread to several soviets republics first and foremost Kazakhstan (where it went down in history as Asharshylyk but it is not so well known as the Holomodor) where there famine caused the death of half the population. Beside that famine caused devastation and death in the soviet Russia too.
The point here is that if Stalin / soviet government was trying to kill people, they were not restricting their deadly intentions to Ukraine only but to a large swath of areas and republics within the USSR.
Ukraine was robbed of their grain by the collectors the most followed by Kazakhstan. I read a book called “Red Famine” and it went into great detail on this intentional Starvation of Ukrainians ordered by Moscow. Very tragic.
@@s.b.6010 Yes true but the soviets, ie Stalin if he was really looking for a kill it was not limited to Ukraine but this killing spree was widespread throughout the Soviet Union and if the soviet government was stealing corn and grain was not in Ukraine only but in Ukraine, Kazakhstan and even Russia.
@@s.b.6010Hey, stop saying Russians did it. Just for your info Stalin was Georgian not Russian. My great grand father was Ukrainian as his ancestors came from Ukraine. In 1932-33 the whole USSR suffered from 2 things: 1. Communists sent to Siberia all kulaks(people who actually worked well and had farms). 2 1932-33 it was dry years and bad harvest. My grand father used to live in Volograd region. He was saying It was terrible times in Volograd region and the whole USSR. So, stop saying that Russians did it on purpose against Ukrainian. It was a common problem of the whole USSR.
Exactly. Somebody with the real history. Famine was in all the territory.
@@alexk6745 it’s the discurse I don’t know why somebody want to put in our minds. Famine was in all the territories, not only Ukraine. It is part of the washing brain program and propaganda
Well another reason is the Crimean canal, planning begun in 1950 but construction begun in 1960, there were many problems by building this project in two republics, transferring the l Crimea to Ukraine solved much of those problems
Didn’t construction begun in 1957? At least that’s what Wikipedia says.
Russia was the only republic of the USSR that gave more than it received from the general budget. All these channels were built with Russian money .😊
@@johnsch1988 After you've robbed all the neighbors, give them chewing gum too! Bleahh!!! Don't you really wonder why others don't want to sit next to you?!Robbery and rape, the height of feelings!
Город Севастополь административно подчинялСЯ напремую Москве! И не входил в состав Упкраины. Это была военноморская база ВМФ СССР.
Nonsense - dear lad. The SU didn't know any kind of division. Only Moscow gave the orders. On the other hand - Khrushchev remained a hypocritical Trotskyist and traitor at heart and just looked for his own Kiev Rus ambition of rancid times against Stalin´s former politics.
Main problem from 1990 onwards is the nato and its expansion against the Russia. Actually there was no reasonable reason to Nato since 1990.
As a organise group Nato has been inwading Russia and its interests. The present war is the result of it
Pretty important historical facts about Crimea peninsula, Rússia and Ukraine. It looks like a fight to conquer a little valuable piece of land rich in natural resources and minerals. Thanks for uploading that video with greetings from the Brazilian rainforest in Manaus South America 🌻🌻💕
Don't forget about it's naval ports.
It's strategic position is the most important thing, (on a naval level that is)
But Crimea needs water supply from the Dnipro river in Crimea.
Without such water it becomes quite unproductive.
Also strategic to enclose the Azov Sea, and control over the Black Sea, that's why Sevastopol military base has been so important.
All Russia still needs, is to grab Türkye in order to control the Bosphorus Strait, and Greece, for the Summer houses 🙄
Türkye knows Russia has an eye on them for 300 years, and has attempted to invade Türkye in the past. That's why Türkye joined NATO so early, almost a founding member.
and a russian holiday resort where russian rats could feel safe.
Crimea is historical,turistic and strategical Russian peninsula.Krutchev had favoured his own republic in detriment of the historical Russian presence in 1954.Was Russian the millions of lives lost by the 19th to 21th Centuries Wars;Crimean Wars,WWI,WW2,Rus-Ukrainian War in the present day over Donbass Regions.
Thanks for your good works, advice and enlightment. Blessings
I think it was Nikita's love for Ukraine. You have to remember that it was him who was the one who gave Budjak and Bukovina from Moldolva to Ukraine SSR after Stalin took Moldova from Romania.
Нет... Я думаю это была любовь русских царей к румынам. Надо напомнить, что именно Россия освободила румынию и восстановила суверинитет после того как Османская империя оттрахала все балканы.. Все эти страны - проходной двор для оказания интимных услуг и лучшее, что есть для этих стран, это быть нейтральными - как минимум и помалкивать не привлекая внимания Ивана.
he was ukrainian analcoolic
Никто никому ничего не отдавал. Посмотрите дореволюционную карту России. Россия после революции большевиков 1917 года только уменьшилась в своих границах и ничего не преобрела. Откуда же взялись все эти так называемые "республики"? А были они созданы искусственно большевиками. Все границы были начертаны формально. Всё это земли России. А Румыния вообще молодое государство.
@@user-nd1yl5ol6u Another empty account with "analytics". Проспись, Ваня.
Well done! I feel like I understand a little more now.
Video Suggestion: Cisplatine War⚔
War between the Brazilian Empire🇧🇷 and the Reign of the River Plate (Argentina🇦🇷) over the territory of Cisplatina ( now Uruguay🇺🇾)
The war between the 2🇧🇷🇦🇷was indefinite, as neither managed to annex the eastern platinum territory as it was called due to the intervention of the British Empire
Your video would be interesting🤩
It's Ok not to know about this subject.
But to bullsit about it without even figuring the real problem is really stupid.
Author should try to find out what happened between 1944-1954 to give a solution to such a "mystery ".
He just needs to spew the same stupid rhetoric to get paid, doesn’t matter how inaccurate or irreverent it is
Love the video quality, but it's so littered with historical inconsistencies that I don't even know where to begin. There are many historians even here on youtube who explain these topics in correct context and provide sources, so it's puzzling that someone didn't bother to go through them.
Simple example on the first point of economics. This was right around the time that Crimean Canal was beginning it's construction. Crimea being part of Ukraine made things much easier both in terms of construction and then farmer settlement from Southern Ukraine. Now this is only 1 factor, but many consider it to be the biggest. Strange that it didn't even get mentioned, while tourism, virtually a non-existent industry back then being talked about.
Also, while it was very briefly mentioned, Crimea was transferred before Khrushchev centralized his own power. At no point of his career could he make a decision this monumental on his own. Like many others, this would have been debated and talked about behind closed doors and then presented as we saw as a "United decision". That's simply how the Soviet Union worked, even when Stalin was in charge.
Im a published writer and know the history well.
Youtuub is not the place for a history education unless you want to be stupid....
But kruschtjew was Not Stalin!
@@johannespfurti2900gossips are that Khrushchev and boys assassinated Stalin,so they can gain power.
Nice narrator. The voice is well paced and expressive.Thanks for a nice video.
Interesting video but why is the Belarussian SSR and other SSRs not shown on the map 11:10? It gives the impression that there was the USSR/Russia and then the Ukrainian SSR.
Washing brain program
Great work!
But at the end of the day, at the end of the day.
I thought that was just my dumb brain malfunctioning, but this confirms it, I am not hearing things.
I honestly thought I misclicked something
Quote : " The Holodomor is only part of the mass famine in the USSR and not a separate event, there was also a famine in the Kazakh ASSR, the regions of the Central Black Earth Region, the North Caucasus, the Urals, the Volga region, the South Urals, and South Siberia."
I’ve heard that the transfer was intended to make the massive Kakhovka Dam/Crimean Canal project more bureaucratically simple, i.e., coordinated by one SSR rather than between two S(F)SRs.
It is striking there is no paper record available describing how this decision was made. You would think it would be possible for historians to go back through the archives and read it
There probably is but I doubt Russia has a freedom of information act.
Everyone is so actively discussing the transfer of Crimea by Khrushchev, forgetting that Malenkov transferred the Crimea )
It was he who dominated the presidium, which gave the Crimea to Ukraine. At that time, it was the figure of Malenkov who was more influential in the USSR. Attention to Khrushchev shifted later. Partly because Malenkov's name fell into disgrace, and partly because Russia benefited from the image of Khrushchev's "prejudice" and sympathy for Ukraine.This emphasized that Russia lost Crimea unfairly.
Why was Crimea handed over to Ukraine?
Even today, Crimea cannot conduct agricultural activities without water from Ukraine (one of the goals of the 2022 war was to seize a canal to supply water to Crimea). After the deportation of the Crimean Tatars (they were the dominant ethnic group in Crimea before the deportation), the Crimean economy was in decline. Its restoration was entrusted to the republic, connected with it by economic and geographical logistics. Russia at that time had no bridge or land connection to Crimea except through Ukraine.
You failed to mention (or I missed it) that Khrushchev (was appointed by Stalin) governned Ukraine prior to becoming leader of USSR after Stalin’s death …
Best explanation I’ve heard to date.
Nice Man, keep it up!
Great Podcast. Quick & Simple. Thanks.
What podcast?!
I believe that Nikita Khrushchev was either born we lived in Ukraine for a while. I doubt it had anything to do with the famine because there were many famines all across Russia too and even at the same time.
an Kazakstan even worse than ukraine
His dena was Ukrainian. You can see a photo of her in the national Ukrainian costume
It was given simply because they could do so, for free. This is something that is difficult for capitalist to understand. Also fresh water to peninsula goes from Ukraine side. Crimea is the autonomous republic and back in 1991 should have been a referendum to stay with Ukraine or go back to Russia, but never happened. This is why Russia took it and Ukraine wants it back.
Very sensible comment about the water provided by Ukraine as a vital link for Crimea. Also, the video does not explain that Sevastopol has a special status and is separate from the autonomous republic of Crimea. This autonomous republic voted in favor of Ukraine independance, although with a lesser margin than other parts of Ukraine.
@@deguilhemcorinne418 There were 3 referenda in 1991in Crimea.
First one was on 20th of January and was about restoring Crimea as an autonomous republic of the USSR, i.e. being independent from Ukraine. The turnout was 81,3% and 93% voted yes.
Second one was on 17 of March and was about the Preservation of the USSR. I can't find the data for Crimea specifically right now and honestly i don't want to bother since it's doesn't differ from the average across USSR: ~80% turnout and 70-80% voting yes.
And the final one and the one you are talking about was on 1st of December and was about independence of Ukraine. Voter turnout was 67% and only 54% of them voted yes.
So the last one is a little bit misleading because only 2/3 of Crimea participated in it and only 54%(or 1/3 of total population) of them voted yes. If we take all 3 referenda into consideration it becomes clear that Crimea wanted to secede from Ukraine and become a separate soviet republic; it wanted to preserve the USSR so it could be independent from Ukraine as a part of it; and when it was clear that wouldn't work they gave up or were just indifferent to Ukraine in the last referendum.
Capitalists understand gifts.
However, gifts are complicated and do not remain free. So it is better to get a legal contract drawn up and inform a higher authority they need to arbitrate.
Therefore, Crimea is part NOW of Ukraine.
Therefore, the Russian annexation of Crimea is illegal.
@@cliffordcarrera8150 Never was an "annexation". There was a perfectly legal referendum just like the "West" demonstrated it in Yugoslavia. Besides, the Ukrainian regime is illegal and only came to power in a violent putsch.
I dont think that preventing this decision of Khruschev's would prevent today's war since Crimea is not the only part of Ukraine with majority of russian population
no, the Russians in Crimea are all military and their families who moved to Crimea after the annexation in 2014, they will have to leave and go back to Russia
@@RainerMichelle That's not even slightly true at all
@@mrparrot234 you can jump up and down and say "it is not true", all day long, that does not mean you are right, the people in Crimea have raised the Ukrainian flag and are waiting for their liberation and the Russians have started packing, ready to leave
@@RainerMichelle you're smoking crack, Russian were living there before Ukraine existed, it became a Russian majority region by the time Ukraine gained independence
@@elyisusking3603 no, this is a lie, there was no Russian majority till after 2014 a lot more Russian military facilities were built in Crimea, and many Russian military personnel moved their with their families, they will be all asked to leave, when Ukraine liberates Crimea
Nikita Kruschows first wife was born in Ukraine 🇺🇦 I think that was a great gift to give to her homeland.
The Lozovsky committee proposed to Stalin that the Crimean Tartars should be deported and Crimea made into a Jewish Soviet Republic within the Soviet Union. Stalin believed that the committee members were agents of American Zionists trying to create a Jewish state to eventually wrest away from the Soviet Union. Stalin had most of the committee executed or exiled starting with Lozovsky. - "Khrushchev Remembers" Page 260
Khrushchev also presided over the arrest, imprisonment, or deportation to Siberia of practically the whole of the middle and lower-middle classes of Western Ukraine. This was part of the annexation of formerly eastern Poland that Khrushchev called an act of liberation. - "Khrushchev Remembers" Introduction Page xviii
Khrushchev has a long an conflicted history with Ukraine. Was its annexation from Russia a gift, or guilt?
That why !!
Homeland of nazi Ukraine now come back to Stone Age 😂
Didn't you hear the narrator say he was Russian by birth? "Khrushchev was born in 1894 in a village in western Russia. "
@@adipop DYOR: "Khrushchev was born in 1894 in a village in western Russia."
Holodomor was invented by president Yushenko, and prime minister Timoshenko (she was put in prison for corruption for several years.) All of the middle belt of Russia (the most fertile land in Russia and Ukraine) suffered from famine in 1921-1922. It disgusts me that the Ukrainian politicians are pulling the blanket to their side, saying that only Ukrainians suffered, when all people who lived there suffered. It was not because of Communist Party's policies. Simply there was a drought, and people did not have enough to eat. Hanlon's Razor - never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
In the title is a mistake. It's not Ukraine. Ukraine did not exist in 1954 . It was former russian empire and this part of empire was decided to be called Ukrainian SSR
But at the end of the day. But at the end of the day.
Thank you for noticing that. You changed my life. You gave me hope, love and reason to love again
Thank you.
@@michaelflores2509 You're welcome! You're welcome!
@@ryanwatkins7924 , what do u mean?
but at the end of the day, History Is obsessed.
Crimea belongs to ukraine
The author told all the options except the present. Crimea was transferred to Ukraine because it has a land border with Ukraine, but not with Russia. The national composition does not matter. Ukraine is partly populated by a Russian-speaking population. Also in the USSR, a new nationality was created - Soviet, common to the entire state.
The arrangement apparently never included the Sevastopol Region or the Shipyards and support facilities.
That minor exclusion appears to be something NATO appears to overlook?
Why the much farther Kaliningrad wasn’t passed to Lithuanian SSR?
@@danielhutchinson6604 I think there was an agreement for Russia to rent Sevastopol, not to "have" it, for a number of years
@@paulingvar If you believe that shit,
you probable assumed the NAZI Guys
from Germany were just nice Folks?
Stop adjusting facts as if you were a
Wall Street Investor.....
Does the appearance of NATO Weapons
in Sevastopol,
seem like some innocent adventure?
NATO is an offensive organization.
good information, presented very theatrical = pure infotainment-style
A lot of inaccuracies, Crimea (Taurida) was not a part of Kievan Rus, it was a part of Roman Empire (Eastern) then it fell into the hands of Ottoman Empire, and only then Russia got it from Ottomans. Russian forces didn't enter Crimea in 2014, Russian forces were in Crimea because Russia rented Crimean ports for its Black Sea Navy for years after the USSR collapse. And so on.
Stupid idea but could the answer not be in the soviet archives? And weren't those declassified after the fall of the union?
Some things are never really written down on archives. Even secret ones.
Archives are massive so it can be hard to find. And sometimes the reasons may not be explicitly written down since it may have only existed in discussions. The legal proceedings don't require you to provide a reason after all.
O m g this issue about crimea is so complicated! It's hard to see who's right and who's wrong and to what degree, What's fair and what's unfair to either side. Then there are the practical issues to be considered and what would They mean to either side. Would there be any kind of possible compromise both could live with. And what about the Crimean people themselves, especially the native born ones who have been living for several generations? What do they think and feel? What percentage do they feel one way or the other? It appears they are caught in the middle here and nobody seems to care about what they think. Who knows, They may even want to be independent of both countries. At any rate all these are issues I think need to be explored.
KI KÉRDEZTE MEG A MAGYAROKAT, HOGY AKARNAK E ROMÁNIÁHOZ TARTOZNI??? SEMMI ÖNRENDELKEZÉS CSAK LOPÁS....
It was probably a culmination of all those reasons, including a few in the comments regarding aqueduct management, etc. But one more thing I'd like to point out, is that this happened not only after WW2 but more importantly, after the Soviet Union became a nuclear power in 1949, and by this time, had a growing nuclear arsenal. Why this is important is because of nuclear mutual destruction, Crimea, and more precisely, a burgeoning Black Sea Fleet was no longer a strategic necessity for the Soviet Union. On top of that, Turkey was by this time, already cozing up to soon join the EU and their choke on the Bosporus would hamper the mobilty of the Soviet Union Black Sea fleet. The cost outweighed the benefits. Add that to the mix, and it seems like a legit play by good ol' Krushy. Pacify Ukranians for the famine incident, have a strong ethnically Russian province mixed directly in the local politics and racial doings of Ukraine, alleviate the troubles of managing a satellite province, etc.
If it is one country, one region can be merged with another for administrative purpose.
For Khrushchev it was just the “furniture” being rearranged. He had no idea about the consequences of this decision. In the USSR and later in Russia they’d changed, reshuffle, merge and divide administrative borders between many different regions all the time. Often seems like for no reason just to keep some bureaucrats busy.
That’s it! No need to search for a reason, there was none. When you shut yourself from the rest of the world, you then just need to entertain yourself somehow (look at n-korea now).
His wife was Bandera supporter, she was from Poland.
12:17 lol
Just had to add some extra emphasis. :P
So Ukraine and Russia relationship is basically a Eastern European version of the Ireland and UK relationship
Yes, definitely very similar, but it can also be compared to any relationship between an imperial power and its colonial subject.
@@koshchey_vg So like Ireland and the UK
@@zoknilu10 😂😂😂
@@koshchey_vg This was a weird colony because the Ukraine SSR was richer and supplied better than Russia itself. Infrastructure, industry was built in Ukraine at the expense of Russia. Even Antonov plant was moved from Siberia to Ukraine.
No.
Ireland belongs to the Irish.
And Donbass, Crimea, and the Dnieper. This is a primordially Russian land.
And Russians lived and live there.
It's like Irish began to fight for Belfast with Britain.
To make the island united.
You left out the most likely reason. The Northern Crimea Canal construction began just before the transfer was announced. It was most likely done to prevent conflict over water between the two republics as they were both going to have significant agricultural sectors to the economy.
1. It was Stalin's plan to build The Northern Crimea Canal project of late 1940,
Stalin never planned to assign Crimea to Ukraine.
2. The head of Crimea in 1954 - Pavel Titov was fired for opposing Khrushchev decision
to assign Crimea to Ukraine.
3. There could not be any "conflict over water between the two republics" - it was one country,
with the government in Moscow.
"conflict over water between the two republics" - LOL You have to be kidding. You have absolutely no clue how the USSR function, why you comment even?
@@LyubomirIko Political conflicts within the Soviet union between Republics are well documented. Water in particular was an issue due to the rivers moved between Republics. Feel free to comment again after you finish high school.
@@jaystrickland4151 Two people already pointed you, that you are telling nonsense.
There could not be any conflicts between republics, political system itself could not allow that to happen.
These were not republics like states or countries, rather like counties or regions within one state.
@3:30 not "from Russian republic to Ukraine republic" but from "from Russian soviet republic to Ukraine soviet republic" both where soviet republics and part of Soviet Union.
Similar how territory and borders are moved inside USA between states.
Ukraine signed the Charter of the United Nations as the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic on 26 June, 1945, and it came into force on 24 October, 1945. Ukraine was among the first countries that signed the United Nations Charter, becoming a founding member of the United Nations among 51 countries.
1. US states are *not* members of the UN.
2. Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic is a member of the UN. This provided the Soviet Union (a permanent Security Council member with veto powers) with another vote in the General Assembly.
@@valenrn8657in order to get more seats in UN, USSR has insisted UN for other SSRs too but UN has only accepter Ukraine and Belorussia.
@@valenrn8657 кому принадлежал Крым, когда Украина подписывала устав ООН.
@@joeshar. That doesn't make the comparison to US states valid. Soviet Russia already had something comparable to US states.
At the past, Turkic peoples like Bulgars, Khazars, Pechenegs, Avars, Huns, Onogurs, Utigurs, Sabirs, Saragurs, Kutrigurs, Kipchaks, Cumans, Tatars, Ottomans etc. were fighting with each other for Ukraine. But now, Slavic peoples are fighting for it👀
What's your point? You're on almost every history video spouting pro-turkic nonsense. Get a life 😂
Those were all barbarian tribes who invaded and raided Russian territory for many centuries slaughtering countless Slavs and carrying many off as slaves. After centuries of struggle and fighting the Russians finally defeated these barbarians and put an end to the raids under Russian rule. Crimea is Russian. The several territorial gifts of Russian territory to other Soviet republics was in order to increase the strength of the other republics but since Russians were always a minority population in each republic as it was in Ukraine the Russians would be unable to seize control of any of them through voting. It was all to keep Russia weak.
@@pinochetrevivalist7374 Are you an admirer of Ivan Illyn by any chance? Lol, the concept of russian nationalism didn't even exist back when Russia annexed Crimea from the Ottomans.
@@thunderluke6432 Although some claim that a modern version of nationalism is a recent invention, national belonging existed for centuries, if not millennia..
@@jiritichy7967 Yes, maybe not modern national, but they had other adhesive characteristics such as language, religion, ethnicity, race, or maybe they looked up to certain leaders such as kings, emperors, warlords, etc. Since the dawn of human history, humans have always grouped to certain groups and viewed their groups as superior to one another.
Khruschev grew up and finished school (1908-1914, then was drafted to the army) in Donetsk, at that time Yuzovka. Returned in 1920 and got higher education/worked till 1929. I.e. lived 15 years in Ukraine,
I will tell you why Krutchev gave Crimea to Ukraine: he was partying his wife’s birthday he found out he did not buy her any present and he decided to give her Crimea the Jewell of Black Sea
and bypassed DUMA!
I believe Crimea was a poisoned gift. Transferring land with a large amount of Russians to Ukraine, would create much difficulty for future Ukrainian attempts to become independent. As well as the Soviet creation of the district of Nagorno Karabak, populated by Armenians but territorially in Azerbaijan.
"Divide et impera"
Divide and rule
In eastern Ukraine is the majority of Russian speaking population. When I lived there in the USSR nobody spoke Ukranian. First time I heard Ukranian was in Kiev.
During the same timeframe of the.50s, Ukraine received the Snakes Island from Romania (not part of the Soviet Union), and the southern still is today. of Moldova in the same time, Transdnistria was taken from SSR Ukraine and attached to the Eastern part of SSR Moldova, where it stilll
Moldova declared its independence in 1918 and united with Romania. The Dniester River was the eastern border. In 1924, the Soviets took a part of the Ukrainian SSR across the same river and renamed it the Moldavian ASSR. In 1940, the Soviets demanded that Moldova secede from Romania and join the Moldovan ASSR. The result was called the Moldavian SSR. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the Moldovan SSR declared independence and became Moldova again. The territory of the former Moldovan ASSR across the river (Transnistria) decided to leave Moldova, but no one has officially recognized it as a country.
Well said.
How about Sebastopol home of the Russian Blacksea fleet? If Russia did not take action in 2014, Nato warships would now have access to this port.
From the Hundred Year War to the Crimea
With a lance and a musket and a Roman spear
To all of the men who have stood with no fear
In the service of the King
And?
A Basterd always leaves you hanging....
@@robertcottam8824 and what?
@@KapteeniKetza
...And it's a pointless comment.
Best wishes, nonetheless.
Old glorified chatter from pre-imperialist times - with the fur louse of the eternal king and his vassals. You scattered thruppence brain.
Fact! In 1954 Khrushchev gave Crimea to Ukraine to be amicable since his origens was connected with Ukraine. At that time there was no difference because all was URSS. In 2014 Ukraine wanted to allow the US build a militar base in Crimea? With missels pointed to where? The population, mainly russian, expelled the americans, made a referendum and Crimea returned to Russia
I have never heard it called "Crimerian Peninsular" before.
"But at the end of the day this remains all speculation, nevertheless"
Well said.
And the most plausible reason - most plausible because it was revealed by Khrushchev's son (not grand-grand daughter😁) - was not named.
Even tho I don't care about Europe and I don't support the Ukraine / Russia situation, I like history and this is interesting
I can safely say Europe doesn't care about you either.
Great video! but i dislike how you portray Ukraine-SSR as if they were not part the USSR but rather a vassal state. Ukraine did not have any particular status in the soviet era, atleast not more than other SSR like: Latvia, Moldova, Lithuania, Turkmen etc.
Also instead of saying Russian-SSR it is better to say USSR since despite being located in the Russian-SSR, the "federal government" was responsible for all of the USSR including Crimea, Ukraine-SSR, etc. This whole Video is as if the US Congress and US President decided to merge the states of Virginia and West-Virgina to form a single state, but you somehow describes it as if the US Congress and US President are trying to merge Texas with Mexico.
In the grand scheme of things the Crimea situation did not matter as long as it remaind under the USSR, but became of importance when the USSR breakeddown
This is pure speciousmess.
That's ok.
Ukraine & her kulaks dislike how you pretend they weren't oppressed by Russia, & you imagine their subjugation was natural & proper.
Ironically Virginia & West Virginia were one state until the citizens found their values incompatible. Similarly Texas was poached from sovereign Mexico in the same way Russia has settled enclaves in neighbouring territories. A primary difference being that today, the Mexicans in Texas want to live in America; while the Russians in Ukraine want the territory administered by Russia.
Western way of propagating and altering history
@@Jeyjeyanth
And your point is?
@@robertcottam8824 what they potraying is Ukriane is an independent nation which was occupied by USSR but it was not occupied The name ukraine itself has been officialy given during USSR period .The word ukraine actually means border area of Rus. Historicalay it was part of kieven Rus and later occupied by mongols and polish lithuanian confederation. Both ukraine and Russians are ethenically Russians or Rus. Western propaganda channels are constanly working to separate Russians and ukranians because they do it for long time to take control of them.
I had wondered as well.
By the way, it's peninsoola, not peninchula.
Seems pretty simple to me; just a case of changing administration of something that is still essentially YOURS, shift the paperwork of that patch to another region, it saves some central headaches, makes you look cool and progressive without actually changing anything.
Well Ukraine should take an accurate census of the regions and just give any ethnic Russian majority areas to Russia 🪆.
This would probably end 🔚 any and all issues permanently!!!
Yes this would probably unfortunately result in Ukraine losing Eastern regions of the Nation butt it would probably result in a different and more stable country.
You are a complete and total moron. Russia has lots of Ukrainian lands like Belgorod and Kuban. And no it will not solve the problem. The problem is Russian imperialism
but they prefer to ethnically cleansing eastern regions with full support of nato block
@@palar4195 when did this happen? How many russians of Donbas were killed before russian invasion of 2014?
@@tomastomastomas1521 "how many jews was killed by nazis before 1933" - are you holocaust denial?
Crimea has had quite a varied history.
What’s the name of this show?
What Nina Khrushchev says is what was reported in the US newspapers at the time, except that, as I recall, it was reported that Crimea was *returned* to the Ukraine and that, again as I recall, Nikita Khrushchev was Ukrainian himself. At the time, it seemed to me that, since the USSR was intact, it didn't make much difference if Crimea was returned to Unkraine or not.
Sge was Bandera supporter...
I always thought the answer is pretty obvious. The administration of Crimea by Ukrainian SSR is 10x easier due to the land connection. Being controlled by the Ukrainian SSR or Russian SSR ends up being the same, even if it's historical Russian land The USSR was only one country in the end of the day
Тогда почему никому не приходило в голову подарить Калининград Литве (Литовской ССР)? ))))
Doesn’t explain why Kaliningrad (which is much farther away!) wasn’t passed to Lithuania.
Strange, in your videos you talk much about the russian population in Crimea, but almost nothing about Crimea Tatars (a native ethnic group of Crimea). The case with Cremia Tataes is they were forcibly deported from Cremia by Soviet leader Stalin, and got a chance to return to their native land only in the 1956 year. After the annexe of Crimea in 2014 the Cremia Tatars are suffering from violence from russians. Here is how russia acts, it deports native inhibitors of the land, and after that says that the territory is russian. Unfortunately, it is not often known.
not at all there are many videos here on crimean tatars in crimea saying they're happy with russia
What is this propaganda?
The reason for the resettlement of the Crimean Tatars was their massive collaboration with Nazi Germany.
For the same reason, the Chechens were deported. It is possible to treat these events differently, but it is not correct to accuse the Russians of deliberately oppressing the Tatars.
Why not about the Greek population of crimea which was replaced by tatars.
Что считать коренным этносом крыма? До татарского нашествия в Крыму жили греки, армяне, печенеги, половцы, хазары. Город Херсонес был славянским городом и частью Древней Руси, где в 988г принял крещение князь Влвдимир!
Yes, all speculation.
Maybe just use Occam's razor here:
History is packed with influential wives of rulers and leader, who have played significant and often decisive part in shaping political events.
Khrushchev's wife:
- Oh, my darling - give me Crimea as a gift.
Khrushchev:
- Any time, my beloved.
The largest naval base in Sevastopol was never transferred to Ukraine under the 1954 decree. It was always extraterritorial and always remained under the USSR command and never belonged to Ukraine.
On this time 1954 wasn't so important .. because for the soviets URSS would be for eternity , no one could imagine URSS could collapse.. just would be for 10000 years
Russhists...
Nazis...
The same arrogance and stupidity..
Crimerian Peninsula 0:14
The moment someone says that it was ONLY Khrushchev's decision to give Crimea to Ukraine, you can say that this person never really studied the case.
Just for understanding, Khrushchev was in his first year of being the leader of the USSR when the transfer happened, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet approved this action and that is about 40 people who had different interests.
You can say "Well it is USSR, they were afraid of being killed, in case they show no support", but no, Krushov was known for being soft, he was easily compared with Stalin and no one was actually afraid of Khrushchev. Moreover, the rule to give Crimea to Ukraine was signed by Voroshilov (who was the head of state of the Soviet Union) and by Georgy Malenkov (who was the head of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union). These two were as powerful as Khrushchev at that time, maybe even more powerful in some way.
Moreover, the most important reason was missed - the channel. Crime had a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE problem with fresh water supplies, add the post-WW2 consequences, and you get an almost dead agriculture sector. And guess what, till these days, Crimea can ONLY get water from Ukraine.
The presentation was dragged out at the end by needless repetition of the theories already presented.
Crimea is no more Russian than Ukrainian, it belongs to the Tatars who were for the most part, expelled by Stalin. However, at least when the USSR fell, Ukrainians granted Crimea autonomy, allowed its own parliament and even encouraged Crimean Tatars who had been exiled to return, which is much more than the Russians did or have done since its illegal annexation....
Hell naw, Ukraine firstly get crimea than russia, also a lot countries who get crimea, but russia is the last
And also Stalin deported tatars to other countries like Israel, and lot
@@TheSlavicMelodies blud learned history from russian vkus ochka 💀💀
Rumor has it he was also drunk when he gave away Crimea to Ukraine. Surprised you didn't mention this! I believe it and impeccable work, with your videos, mate!
WHAT !!!!!! How's dare you state that a Russian had been drinking. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Khruchev has nothing to do with this
I heard that too🤣
@GENETIC BEAST Russia isn't a country. It's a husk of å fallen empire.
@@MasterTBeastRuskynazi bullshit..... Ukraine is a country unlike Russia which are a bunch of underdeveloped alcoholic inhuman crappy excuse for human beings.
One of the main reasons that was forgotten in this explanation, was the guerilla led by the Ukrainian Nazis trained by the US and sent back to Ukraine from 1945 to 1954 Khruschev gave Russian territories to Ukraine as a package deal in order to sett the peace with them. In the same agreement came the amnesty to the Ukrainians Nazis for the crimes they committed during the war ( especially their contribution to Holocaust) The argument that Khruschev wanted to "decentralize" Soviet Union does not fit the facts , since Soviet Union remained , since Lenin to its implosion, a very centralized State, the "independence" of the Republics being 100% fictive. So, accordingly to the spirit of the time, Khrushchev may well have done a symbolic gesture, rather than a tangible one, Crimea, staying after all, in the Soviet Union. Impossible for Khruschev to imagine that this would feed 60 years later a new narrative with separated Ukraine and History's revision, telling that the Ukrainian Nazi during the war were the true patriots, as the Ukrainian fighting against the Nazis were the traitors.
Never before I gave a thumbs up to a UA-cam channel that have C!A trademark of scripts 🤭👍
00:14 Where is the Crimerian Peninsula?
Look at an atlas
The problem with the Holodomor theory is that a ton of Russians also died from it, and the previous famine before it.
So the equivalence is...?
@@robertcottam8824 The soviets owe a huge apology to the Russians as well for it.
@@FoxhoundAK74
Who are the 'soviets' ?
@@robertcottam8824Georgians, since Stalin was Georgian.
@@Patop2002
You know that to be silly.
So why write it?
Within another generation or so I think pronunciations like "peninshula" are just going to be standard, but that doesn't necessarily make it easy to live through the transition! :/ So it goes....
Oh, um, great video content tho!
Speaking of Crimea, in my NIV Study Bible, there is a map of the Roman Empire, around 118 AD/CE, when Rome was at its height and the Roman Empire ruled over Crimea.
A fact not mentioned in this video.
So it was Italian… :-)
@@sandymilne224 Even more, there is some Genua fortresses in crimea, so yeah, Italy have more rights to crimea than Ukraine.