Why didn't the USSR annex Eastern Europe after World War 2?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 чер 2024
- Try PIA Risk-Free Here : www.privateinternetaccess.com...
Why didn't the USSR annex Eastern Europe after WW2?
♦Consider to Support the Channel of Patreon and gain cool stuff:
/ knowledgia
♦Please consider to SUBSCRIBE : goo.gl/YJNqek
♦Music by Epidemic Sound
♦Script & Research :
Skylar J. Gordon - / @thursdayhistory7912
♦Sources :
www.history.com/topics/russia...
www.history.com/this-day-in-h...
♦Script & Research :
Skylar Gordon
#History #Documentary #Ussr
![ПОЛНАЯ ИСТОРИЯ ЭКЗОРЦИЗМА [Топ Сикрет]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qBySr6Bt0B8/mqdefault.jpg)
Support our channel and Try Private Internet Access Here: www.privateinternetaccess.com/Knowledgia
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
Having played Hoi4 which makes me an expert in all things history. Stalin wanted puppets to not call into the land war with NATO so he could crush the sh1tty AI - *ahem* western naval invasions
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.
Stalin had to avoid those sweet 150 % overextension so his country wouldn't shatter into pieces
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. :)
ua-cam.com/video/Xdbtg_l9cB4/v-deo.html
He wanted to dodge the 300% overextension bullet, so he wouldn't have to deal with the subsequant litteral Mongol-like invasion of rebels all over his territory, so he vassalize them all. I guess the mission tree wasn't out yet.
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
Given how the UN was organized, having friendly satellites gave the USSR more voice than if it directly annexed others in the Warsaw Pact. The UN allowed USSR to have Ukraine and Belarus to have separate representation, but such leniency would not extend to others if directly incorporated into the USSR.
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.
In HOI4, I find it more useful to create puppets than to annex non-core lands. A puppet will automatically provide you with troops and build up their own infrastructure. Annexing non-core lands forces you to keep a garrison to minimise unrest.
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
This answer is simple: It’s better to have puppets than to annex all
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. :)
ua-cam.com/video/Xdbtg_l9cB4/v-deo.html
Knowledgia: Why didn't the USSR annex Eastern Europe after WW2
Me who's played HOI4: It's better to have puppets rather than making them your people.
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.
This is all rather simplistic. The author leaves an impression that Soviet international policies were written in stone and never changed. Actually they evolved as much as Western approached. Second, the author forgets that DDR was for a long period of time not a country but an occupied territory. Even more do Austria, which remained occupied by four powers until 1955 (!), despite what shown maps suggest. In short, the degree to which subjugated countries were controlled varied greatly with time and dependent on international situation as well as internal politics of the USSR.
I edit videos with subtitles in 3 different languages for old songs of different nations. You are also invited. :)
ua-cam.com/video/Xdbtg_l9cB4/v-deo.html
Definetly not in economics.
Remember kids, if you don't want the KGB to come find you, just use Private Internet Access.
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. :)
ua-cam.com/video/Xdbtg_l9cB4/v-deo.html
Since im from Yugoslavia i could say a few things. Yugoslavia was in fact "communist" but it never was under stalins influence. It established the Non aligned movement. And it had i believe 6th largest army in the world at the time, many secret army projects were initiated for just that - soviet invasion - see Željava air base for example. So it was ready to defend itself to the last man. Defending is much easier than invading, not to mention yugo partisans were very fierce warriors. So they probably would be really fucked if they tried... In the end it was from the inside that Yugoslavia fell apart.. such a shame, it could have been such a nice country had it peacefully dissolved or even better stayed a union of countries
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.
Me: Looks at thumbnail
Me: "Ah yes. I too eat my meals using a sharp sickle and a big heavy hammer. Totally normal. Nothing to see there."
"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?
3:10 USSR predicted George Orwell’s 1984
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
I didn’t think Stalin was too interested in expansion, he was about consolidating Russia with an iron hand. Seems to be all about his own power rather than the communist ideology.
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.
Poland & Hungary would revolt as they already did, not even being half-annexed. In fact they still do that within the EU... They would oppose any foreign rule forever....
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...
How about the simple answer: they didn't want to. They had enough problems of their own with 20 million people dead to suddenly take on the responsibility of fixing what the war did to Poland and Czechoslovakia.
Also many of those countries had strong ethnic and cultural heritage that was totally separate to Russian culture.
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.
They tried to economically annex these states through the Valev Plan.
funfact: before the reunification of Germany, the uprising in the GDR against the Soviet occupation was a national holiday in West Germany. after 1989 it was reunification.
There is no such thing as unified Germany - it is a scam - Germans are so divided that living in peace is not possible
Yugoslavia? I don't think so. Yugoslavia was one country that liberated themselves. The red army was not in Yugoslavia when the war ended. It was why Tito had such a strong hand to play and started the non-aligned movement!
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..
TL;DR - Beria: Remember how Poles used to do uprising every 30 years under Tsar's? Do you want this nation of rebels in Soviet Union?
Stalin: _____________________ Nyet.
Another great video! One thing that wasn’t mentioned was that these states also acted as buffers against the West. If these nations were annexed the USSR would’ve shared a border with its (ideological) enemy.
5:23 Greece is gone and part of the sea now.
Poseidon has won this one.
@@dapizzasnake8462 i guess they shouldnt have followed jesus👀
Due to debt , Greece was completely deleted from the map
I love your channel keep up the great stuff
These maps are so dark
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. :)
ua-cam.com/video/Xdbtg_l9cB4/v-deo.html
Leo Tolstoy once wrote:
"Violence produces only something resembling justice, but it distances people from the possibility of living justly, without violence"
Thank you!!! You explained this perfectly. Just what I was looking for!
Thank you for this video!
Japanese produced extra large submarines in WWII. I have lately wondered if the western allies had considered producing a fleet of massive submarines to conduct an unexpected and undetected invasion through the south of France in 1943. As their forces raced north on the various roads virtually undetected by the Nazis by cutting the lines at every town. This would have cut off both the Nazis on the Atlantic coast and also cutting off the Nazis fighting on the Eastern front. Presumably, American and British forces could have defeated the Nazis far east of where the front would be in 1944. Though the Soviets would probably grumble to themselves about losing the chance to extend their sphere of influence, on the face of things they would need to acknowledge the Anglo-Americans as liberators. Thankfully, to those who would have been under the Soviet heel, Americans would be there to keep the communists in check until the armies of the nations of Eastern Europe could be rebuilt and then be incorporated into a NATO, which spanned much farther east than the one that really kept the peace.
Born in Czechoslovakia when I was around 7 years old I stopped with my father around the border fence and asked him who are these people behind that fence? His answer was
We are.
You go to germany?
@@nocive7381 I was born in Czechoslovakia but present Slovakia so the closest was Austria.
Nicely explained.
Your videos are very well done. You have earned one more subscriber. 👍🔔
in 1:54 worker next to Lenin showed middle finger to him
Hello comrades, as a romanian we had 2 chances in ghe war, lose with the reich, or win but giving ourselves to communism
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
Wow amazing video
*Wow that was an interesting video also thanks for the vid it's interesting*
They Didnt?
-Poland Invasion 1945?
-German Invasion 1945?
-Czech Invasion 1968?
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.
What do you mean they didn't annex Eastern Europe? They already had Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania - that is Eastern Europe.
They did annex practically half of Poland and the Baltic countries. They annexed practically the whole of Eastern Europe.
Not a very discussed topic so cool to see a video on it.
nice video'
???: Knock knock
Eastern Europe: who's there?
???: Jo
Eastern Europe: who's Jo?
USSR: *Jojo theme starts playing*
From the animation to the information, one of the best post World War Two videos I’ve seen. Keep up the great work 🔥🔥🔥
Knowledgia can we please get a series about the Albanian prince Skanderbeg?
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
I was always taught that this had the extra benefit of providing buffer states so Soviet territory wasn't the first territory invaded. I don't know if that was also part of the plan or just a..."happy bonus" for Stalin that not incorporating the future Warsaw Pact saved money, influence, and increased time to respond to an invasion.
How badly undermined was Stalin's idea when the USA started writing off war debts to the Allies and Western Europe and pumping billions into reconstruction? We're the people of the Soviet friendly nations aware of all the help Western Europe was receiving? And how much more quickly the West was back on its feet than the East? I've heard that you can still see very clearly where the division between East and West was just by condition of the infrastructure, even today.
Also, since Stalin lived through HOI4, he knew that puppeting gave access to a lot of factories, resources, and manpower for a fraction of the cost. Complete annexation will is difficult to deal with a lot of the time.
I edit videos with subtitles in 3 different languages for old songs of different nations. You are also invited. :)
ua-cam.com/video/Xdbtg_l9cB4/v-deo.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.
Short answer:
Too much troops, money and resources into the territories. How you think great empires fell? 😅
Long answer:
STALIN wouldn't have taken over the territories himself. That would've meant sending people under his rule to countries he took over, sending them troops, Money etc. 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. Especially when you got a America with nuclear weapons to being able to not being affected by war.
In the end, conquering more territories would've been a huge mistake for the USSR financially, militarily and economically.
I edit videos with subtitles in 3 different languages for old songs of different nations. You are also invited. :)
ua-cam.com/video/Xdbtg_l9cB4/v-deo.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"
The premise that the West would react if Soviets annex Central Europe (Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland are centrally located in Europe) is completely false. The West did nothing when Soviets and Germany occupied Poland in 1939, and the West did nothing when Russia annexed Crimea few years ago.
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
Nice animations and background noises! What if the USSR did annex Eastern Europe after World War 2?
So nice 👍
dunno if yugoslavia should be included there at 4.40min..it was never under the influence of the ussr
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
It actually annexed eastern Europe without annexing it😂
Puppeted
Very good Video! 😃
IDK if I wrote this script more aggressively than I remember, if the narrator is more intense, or if it's the music...but I love it LOL
As a hoi4 Player, I can Say There are two Main reasons:
1) as a communist country, USSR has cheaper puppeting during peace cons
2) it's not effective to annex non-core land
Romania never give away Bassarabia-Moldova, it was taken by Ribbentrop-Molotov treaty
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
Because Poland and the others were "liberated", as promissed by the Alies, by the Soviets who were "as good" for the task according to Alied leaders. Otherwise the cold war would have to be a real one.
Interesting points.
I'm in 1:15 and honestly it's good question but I believe it would be hard to keep them in check, if everything comes under a single banner and most likely possibly it would cost quite alot in investment to fund those policing or garrison units. And most likely due to more political reasons as well.
Anyone pointing out the fact that Greece just doesn’t exist on his map?
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 feel like if USSR tried to push for complete unification they would have to face not only the Allies, but the Axis as well. I remember my professor told me the German POWs we’re actually kept with their units in case they had to be mobilize against the USSR
Those states you are referring to would be the USSR's Western Neighbours, not Eastern ones. Good video though, very informative
in a nutshell: revolt
You totally ignored a military strategic consideration.
In 1939, one oif the reasons why Hitler wanted to have the USSR invade eastern Poland was specifically that Hitler was planning a war on the USSR, and in order to have an effective war he needed a common border between Germany occupied western Poland and Russian occupied eastern Poland. Hitlers whole objective in the years before 1941 was to have as wide a front on which his troops could be right on Russia's doorstep in preparation to be able to easily cross that doorstep with the greatest ease.
By keeping the nations of eastern Europe independent of the USSR they could be effectively used as a buffer zone should the West (or even, as Stalin very much feared, a resurgent Germany) choose to invade the USSR.
I beg to differ. The USSR was closer to the mirror image of the USA and its western allies than the polar opposite. I'm not saying they were identical, but the two empires had more in common as far as goals and methods than they had differences. Further the Russians had annexed The Ukraine, Khazakstan, Georgia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Etcetera, but they broke away. Annexation did not let them keep even such a sympathetic area as Belorus, let alone Poland, which they've been trying to annex for centuries, or Romania, or Bulgaria...
That's like occupation of Czechoslovakia by Warsaw pact
What is the back ground music called?
Short answer: because soviet union didn't want to invest money for developing other countries and because, in case of a war, they wanted to have a some puppet states wich should be attacked by the enemy, wich could take time, and this time it's necessary for mobilization of an army like red army.
Simple, you annex it, you're stuck with the daily grind of having deal with every stinking little problem that pops up which can quickly pile up.
But if you make them satellite states, then your puppet of choice has to deal with the daily grind and they have to pay you tribute
True.
I edit videos with subtitles in 3 different languages for old songs of different nations. You are also invited. :)
ua-cam.com/video/Xdbtg_l9cB4/v-deo.html
@@oguzhantekden2 Ooo
The problem it's who their satellite was expensive to the ussr
The answer you can find also in history , consider how huge was the resistance movement during ww2 in countries like Poland and Yugoslavia and how the mighty russians later lost wars with afgans and chechenya as well one time , which were much smaller. Also ussr was building up tensions between nations inside their coalition by sending forces to pacify one another in case of rebellion and by allowing to educate nationalisms in each country
The Communists had to front being "Liberators" from Germans and "Reactionary Imperialists". The Russian Empire was mostly reassembled by 1941.
@Knowledgia Not a bad video, though you could've mentioned the guerilla wars in the Baltics after incorporation into USSR, the partisan uprisings in other states like Romania and so on. Those were trouble for the USSR in this time period and Stalin saw movements like that to counteract his authoritarianism might spread/grow larger
Lepers commies!
But it's customary to talk about the fact that the Balts and Romanians were initially on the side of the Germans
Rebellion and unrest so they couldn’t vote the territory hearts of iron iv logic
At the end, discussing how yugoslavia's ethnicity problem was a worry for Stalin, he compensated for that by forced relocation of both White Russian and ethnic groups from his republics. He relocated up to 20% of populations which was a Gambit that could have backfired. However with his ruthless use of the military people stayed in line for the most part. After the fall of the Berlin Wall those former republics did break away to become their own countries once again primarily based on ethnicity. Many formerly relocated people's return to their countries of origin, but there is to this day quite a few white Russians who have chosen to stay in those former republics.
The Soviet Union did formally annex Kaliningrad ( a port city between modern day Lithuania and Poland ) in 1945. Kaliningrad cut off from the rest of Russia is a semi-exclave. It is the base of Russia's Baltic Sea Fleet and the only ice-free port the country has in Europe.
I think the second most important problem if the soviets consolidated is the ethnic variation, the first being development of infrastructure and keeping a military in the region The ethnic differences between the Slavs was responsible for the WW1.
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
Ps: Turkey joined nato cuz Stalin demands Turkish straits
I never really thought about this. Probably the answer has something to do with the focus tree.
Because annexing Poland and Hungary would be like trying to tame a wild pitbull with rabies.
5:30 ah yes , the great sea of Greece , poseidon took his revenge afterall
I edit videos with subtitles in 3 different languages for old songs of different nations. You are also invited. :)
ua-cam.com/video/Xdbtg_l9cB4/v-deo.html
The HUMANKIND game explanation would be that they reached a city cap and lacked the influence and stability to add new terrorities.
how do you make this type of animated video
My favorite videos
Overextension and not driving both Sweden, Finland, and Yugoslavia into NATO. Greece, Turkey, Spain, and maybe Israel would have for immediate membership.
What Eastern Europe?!?! Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovakia is in Central Europe!!!
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.
Good video, but the map at the beginning of the video should have included Yugoslavia and Albania.
Really, what’s the difference between annexing and satellite states? Eastern Germany industry was being shipped to Mother Russia in spades following the war so I doubt anything would have change.
I feel like the USSR definitely annexed half of East Prussia and let made Poland annex the other half. Also didn't the USSR annex 300 miles of eastern Poland and then have Poland annex 300 miles of eastern Germany?
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.
Czech Republic Poland Slovakia and Hungary are Central European countries.
Nobody cares about that
@@_utahraptor don’t speak for the others
Yes but if you're talking about Europe in terms of only East and West they fall into the category of Eastern Europe.
@@Archangel1497 This west-east division makes no point at all, europe is too diverse to just draw one line in the middle and say there are two parts only. We can’t be ignorants.
@@ssh0ck138 West-east division makes sense in the history though. Europe was split in half, western block and eastern block, Czechoslovakia and everything further was considered Eastern block. Today of course we have diversity, like Central Europe, Northern,Eastern, Western,Southern. Which is more logical, but in the old days it was considered like this, because USA had control over the western part and SU had the "control" over the eastern part, after WW2 anyway.
Yugoslavia: Ah shit here we go again
4:14 LMAO Romania didn't just gifted the land to the USSR... USSR annexed part of Romania after an ULTIMATUM
Imagine the Napoleonic Wars narrated by Knowledgia
There would be forest brothers all over eastern Europe.
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.
That Mercator projection
Another reason could be in France, Italy and Greece they had also strong communist parties after ww2. Seeing a Stalin that would destroy each country's souveraignity would have communism made very unpopular in France etc. even to the communist themself.
Look at the map of Europe before and after WW2, you'll see that it stretches from the Baltic sea to the Black sea.
Before the war the borderline went from nearby Odessa to some way west of St Petersburg, quite possibly the longest possible distance between the two seas. In the event of a war that would be an incredibly long front and the army would be stretched thin just covering it. However after the war it went from the border of Romania to Königsberg / Kaliningrad, being the shortest, thus most defensible line between the two seas.
Also consider the fact that this part of the world is flat and featureless. Aside from urban centres and easily navigable rivers, the first real mountain range in Russia that could be an obstacle to an invader is the Urals.
Russian militarism and empire-building aggression is "justified" on the basis of defence.
If they had done they would've constantly had to deal with rebellion. I give you 2 facts from my own country. The communist regime in Poland was backed up for most of the period by a red army contingent 200000 strong (on average). Second this time personal memory - as a teenager I was already involved in underground movement preparing ourselves to blow up Russian tanks when the right time would come. And I wasn't alone. There were millions of us all the way from Riga to Belgrade. But you Yanks just believe in technology and then you are surprised by Talibs.
That thumbnail did it for me
3:08
Stalin: 2 + 2 = 5
Math: *Am I a joke to you?*
I love how Yugoslavia is its own thing
8:12 ok now that's just fake news. Saying that Krushchev was dismissed because "the party hated Destalinisation" is simply dishonest and misleading.
they probably followed the ottoman logic and thought some rebellious countries are not worth the hassle