Stalin at War - Stephen Kotkin

Hahaha I knew this guy looked like someone!

@@arturogal4505 Sounds like him most of all.

This is the best KZhead comment ever. And neither can I.

THAT'S who he looks like - thank you!

Who the fuck is Joe Pesci

Spends half the lecture, "We will not be talking about x,y,z." XD

My Grandfather also fought at Stalingrad, Hungarian second army, was lucky to survive.

My grand-uncle was at Stalingrad, too. Spanish Divisíon Azúl, came home with an Iron Cross ;-)

ქართველი ხარ? ბაბუაჩემიც იბრძოდა ლენინგრადის ბლოკადაში იყო, მერე ბერლინამდე ჩავიდა

Thanks to your grandfather for his service. Lest we Forger

@Joseph Stalin gulag him hard mr stalin!

Yes, and now you can experience right here at home in DC with Beijing Biden!

@@1940limited Trump this Biden that. Take your nonsense somewhere else, this is not Fox News's comment section. The world is a more complicated place. If you read Stephen Kotkin's book about Stalin and if you weren't such an illiterate you wouldn't be making this type of low IQ trolling comments.

@@bayron45 Another hate-filled, ignorant comment from a Biden lover! You guys are all alike. If you weren't such an ignorant fool you'd keep your insults and stupid replies to yourself. BTW, I'm familiar with Kotkins, have read his works and seen some of his lectures. Nor do I watch Fox News! So go to hell. You're the ignorant one.

@@1940limited Wait, are you saying Biden is a communist? Lmao I wish he was, but as a communist myself, I can assure you he's not 😂

@@Sean-xy4hk you are a communist? If admitting to absolute foolishness and ignorance on a public forum is your thing, go ahead and spread the word, otherwise go take a few economic classes and books (preferably of the Austrian school). I bet that you have no idea what you are supporting (and what you are opposing too)!

He has to sell his book

He always does this .

purely Socratic. he is making you see the light, instead of just giving you the stuff

but he knows where the light is.

I imagine having the fate of the entire slavic race and Eastern Europe on your shoulders if a pretty understandable reason to snap

@@gg2fan I don't think Stalin gave a shit about anybody unless it involved his own career and in the system he had created, his life as well. So by default he carried the fate of the Slavs on his shoulders because if too many of them died he would lose the war and probably end up murdered or executed.

Nervous breakdown? The Man Of Steel, the revolutionary who was preparing the USSR for the war for 10 years? Don’t let morons brainwash you.

Everyone faces challenges and everyone falters at least once in their life. So it's not a question of maybe, it's an assurance that you are human and most definitely okay even when you encounter setbacks. That being said, Stalin didn't breakdown upon Nazi invasion. Whatever your opinion of Stalin, and he was no Saint, to suggest that he wasn't a brilliant military leader is just false. Especially if you compare him to Churchill and Roosevelt. During the Civil War, when Russia was invaded by foreign advisories, Lenin always dispatched Stalin to take control of the battlefield when they faced impossible odds or when they were losing ground. It was Stalin's experience during the Civil War that made him the tactician he was during WW2. Russia and it's people, led by Stalin, were the reason the Nazis were defeated. All the Allies played a role in their defeat, but it was Russia that tipped the scales. The world owes Russia and it's people a great debt. Without their bravery and sacrifice, I don't even want to imagine the world we would be facing now.

@Sam Rocks true

ultra was not yet active

the thing that the USSR had plenty of was man [& woman] power and it was their extravigant expenditure of this 'resource'which eventually helped them to their victories.

@@dickyt1318 This was good propaganda. As the war progressed the Soviets became much more conservative of their manpower. Note that their ground attack aircraft were very well armored. They did not take the same tact at all as the Japanese. The Caldron tactics of the Germans that worked so well for them, was imitated by the Soviets. Those tactics worked well for the Soviets.

But those tanks were made for Russian's tough climate, terrain, not the Germans and that became and issue.

Do you know when the release date of Stalin At War???

Vlad Tokarev kotkins tells what we know. “Mostly. But he talks mostly bollox

@@gaygambler for example?

@@thecrow4840 Grover Furr tears Kotkin apart my man.

@@samueldyer4100 in what sense? Elaborate?

Thats an obvious bullshit. Crack for western hearer that anticipate something stuff to hear. I'm not a Stalin fan boy totally but I never heard about such stupid 'humor' from any real historians. It must be taken from some fictional novell

@@JoeDraiser Yes. But it's funny.

Read Viktor Suvorov, ex-GRU intelligence officer, for a true history of WW2. He has been sentenced to death in absentia. His most comprehensive work is " The Chief Culprit".

@@leomarkaable1 Суворов иуда

It's called "apophasis".

shut up

@UN KNOWN Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

"should we do a 2 camera setup just in case we need to edit or wanna make the talk a bit more dynamic?" "nah, client said 1 is fine."

Behind The Urals by John Scott is a great book by an American who worked there

I don't know how these authors stay sane writing about all this hideous stuff. Probably know when to take a break and have a beer.

@@squamish4244 John Scott was a socialism fanboy, aka "tankie" by modern lingo. A couple of years in the USSR healed that problem

@@Sputnikoff Well, I mean, how do all the writers who deal with Hitler and Stalin and what happens to everyone else when two disgusting people butt heads using human lives as their weapons. I can only take so much of this stuff before it starts screwing with my head so I don't know how they have the stomach to go back to the well repeatedly. E.g. Simon Sebag-Montefiore said that while he was writing 'The Court of the Red Tsar' he had horrible nightmares about people being tortured and beaten.

@@squamish4244 I suppose that it depends on the individual. Some people are capable of experiencing hell and returning to some semblance of normalcy. It’s definitely not the norm though.

LOL, very good. He's just trying to amuse us... like a clown.

Yes yes Love from SWEDEN ❤

Its because theres a heavy cold-war anti-soviet bias that has been heavily integrated into the study of the subject, oftentimes leaving out much of the nuance and objectivity because it doesn't serve to demonize the USSR.

@@fellowtraveler2251 Communist ideology, and USSR as an embodiment thereof, was widely regarded as an existential threat well before the cold war. Imagine how the only "great power" that didn't suffer at all from the Great Depression looked like to the powers that be (or the masses) in 1930s.

You got to give him that. He was a vicious bastard, but he did organise the defeat of Hitler.

Very well said. Stalin is the greatest leader in history. The odd thing is he was a hero and “Uncle Joe” for the US and two times man of the year in Times magazine before 1945 and then suddenly the US realized he was in fact a bloody dictator. Quite schizophrenic, don’t you agree?

@@user-hz5wy5vx1k He was a bloody dictator. That only bothers America when it's not convenient.

@@bozo5632 Well, America’s beliefs/ concerns/ demands are less and less relevant. And the truth is out there for anyone with more than 2 brain cells to see.

@@borbo23 It depends how you define 'dictator,' but if Stalin wasn't a dictator then who was? Stalin aside, the USSR was dictatorial. It was also bloody, and not only during the revolution. I would describe the uncontested (and uncontestable) ruler of a bloody dictatorship as a bloody dictator. Hitler was also popular, and chosen through some process, and also a bloody dictator. If Stalin wasn't one, then neither was Hitler. If they don't count, then has there ever been a dictator? The czars and feudal barons before Stalin were bloody dictators too. So the revolution can be justified, and thus the (sometimes bloody) results of the revolution can perhaps be justified, or at least (perhaps) excused. And it's much better now as a result, so maybe you can justify all of it that way. So maybe you can justify Stalin's bloody dictation (joke), but it is what it is. You can argue that it's a damned good thing that Stalin was Stalin. The results of the revolution might have been worse without him. Certainly ww2 might have been worse without him, especially for the Soviets. (Not to mention millions of Soviet Jews.) How Stalin is remembered will be an accident of history, and forever in flux. It will not be an objective, impartial final judgment. Depends on who's writing the history and how they want it to look.

You needn't be subject to the volume offered to you, just run the signal to a stereo and you can have it knock you off your chair if you like.

Download it in RealPlayer, then play it back on VLC Player, turn it up as loud as you like on your PC or smartphone or whatever.

@@eamonngaines9887 this is not my problem.

Your computer has a volume control, you stupid bastard. Use it!

Nothing wrong with my volume here. Maybe your hearing aid batteries need replacing?

I agree; Kotchin makes the subject something worth listening to! Most lectures are boring, but not S.Kotchin's!

The man is a McCarthyite lunatic that literally advocates nuclear war.

Nikola Avramov literally? I’m genuinely curious, do you have the source to back up this claim? I’d like to hear his arguments for advocating nuclear war.

@@newmillennial4248 50:00 kzhead.info/sun/l9Wiobmsm3ifZYE/bejne.html He's literally advocating for starting of World War 3 'cause "that'll show 'em". The man's insane and should be banned from public platforms because he's literally lobbying for the planet's surface to be scorched in a nuclear exchange. 'cause that would happen if his wish would come true.

McCarthyite lunatic, for one talking about the Soviets the way he is I do not think I would be referring to him that way. McCarthyite would be doing the opposite, and would not be speaking highly of the Soviets.

I discovered professor kotkin recently I'm hooked he is a very brilliant historian

@@TheWersum I watched the entire video, but I didn't hear him say the French and Brits did everything right. In fact, he didn't even refer to Western strategy at all. I really don't get what you're trying to say. Is the question of whether the Soviets committed stupid blunders contingent on whether the Western Allies did likewise?

He's a McCarthyite warmongering lunatic, but ok.

You like liars? Listen to Grover Furr

@Larson Oppenheimer In his speeches he is openly agitating for an escalation of war between two nuclear superpowers. That's insane in itself.

@Larson Oppenheimer 48:58 kzhead.info/sun/l9Wiobmsm3ifZYE/bejne.html Right here he makes that case. Even though it would literally instantly lead to a nuclear war - he doesn't care, 'cause he's insane. Study or observe McCarthyism and you will notice a particular brand of bloodlust that he is drawing inspiration from and practicing himself.

Barabim-baraboom!

Indeed, a good fella!

Haha, so true.

nope, we have starmedia brilliant documentaries

@Alexis Z. ??? Did you saw the movie?

@Alexis Z. what propaganda are you talking about?

He reminds me of a certain actor but I can't put my finger on it

Vinny / Pesci

Hyman Roth from The Godfather! 😂

I love Joe Pessie....Didn't know he had a doctorate in history, best selling author.....It might be the Keystones Talk'n but I learned something today.

@@TheWersum idiot, yes, you!!!! Germans were winning at first. Then the idiots thought that they already won the war & started to enslave & kill civilians. So, the people got pissed & kicked zee German arse. First two years of the war, more than 50% of the local population was pro Hitler. Than everyone learned the truth about zee German superiority. . ......

@@TheWersum Soviets were outnumbered? Check your data

​@@TheWersum ????? Kotkin didn't mention Dunkirk, logical and smart or non of the crap you talked about. Nobody mentioned a piece of nazi propaganda here. What are you even talking about? How does that relate to anything in the comment? Fucking lunatic

@@TheWersum Dude i think you need to account for soviet reserve divisions which overall would still give USSR the numerical advantage in WWII.

I understand it's expected in October.

and he mentioned it’s taking longer than expected during a recent CATO lecture...

I think during autumn this year

@@ffleischer Indeed, I believe his wording was "years away."

Scott Hanlon thank you, how do you know? They are extraordinary.

Welcome aboard.

It's a rhetorical device.

He does it all the time.

the worlds premier Soviet scholar carries around a sackfull of caveats

read the books....3 of then ...big

yes. he lost the weight and hair got white. ww3. no chance

But he still uses old fake stories in these lectures.

Oberstein's always creeping around.

The gulag archipelago aleksandr solzhenitsyn

@@adriandelgado6122 What is your source on this?

It's a good question.

So if you appreciate him, why be a pop culture dope and reference that? Because you must, because you are a completely propagandized TV addicted American who sings ad jingles and buys brand names and only knows how to refer to pop culture?

Kotkin was amazing in the Irishman

John Smith yeah, i also loved him in goodfellas

Yeah. It's too bad that when you check his sources, the entire second book seems to be dishonest. Which is a bummer, because the first one was pretty good.

I really loved how he pointed out the skewed misconceptions of the war in favour of *both* Nazi Germany and the Soviets. So often you here either the one narrative or the other. Truly a breeze of fresh air.

@The RightStuff sorry! You're absolutely right. what I mean is that kotkin, even as ideologically motivated as he is, and even as much misleading language as he uses, was over all correct on facts throughout the first book, and if you check his sources against what he says, they generally check out (going back to primary sources). The second book, forever, feels like he lets his research assistants run wild or something. I personally checked 8 claims and by the secondary source, all 8 did not match up to what kotkin claims they do in the book. 3 of those led directly to hearsay that was debunked (one iif which was debunked over a decade before he wrote it), impossible to verify stories that are written as if they are facts. For all of the historical integrity of the first book, it seems to be missing completely in the second. Another historian in this field wrote an entire book debunking kotkin here. Grover furr. The book is called "blood lies"

@The RightStuff No problem! It's just really a shame that this stuff doesn't get more widely circulated. Kotkin's popular, but the debunking of the second book? It's been pushed down and down and down. As for bias... Kotkin? He's a conservative. Ideological bias isn't really a deal-breaker, though. As we saw with his first book. It dispelled many misconceptions and myths about the Soviet Union and Stalin and focused on history for the most part. Knowing a bias is a good thing for understanding language use, but we should never use it the way people in media teach us to use it, to dismiss something that might challenge our preconceptions. We have an entire field (historiography) that wouldn't exist if we did that, you know?

@Kit yeah. So... for source discrepancies, it's a far far far more labor intensive way of getting at the deception. If you check any random grouping of, let's say a dozen of three footnotes against the sources they cite, then check that source against what it cites, etc, down to the "primary source" (and this is something even first year college students are taught to use, primary sources), you will find at least 10, if not 11 or 12 of them have misrepresented something somewhere, sometimes going so far as to outright make things up (the story about the ukrainian/ grave, for example - made up). The misleading language example: use of the word "dictator" to describe Stalin. Just one off the top of my head. It's been a while since I watched this. If you'd like, I'll give it another watch and give a bigger list, but I hope this is good to get you started. There is a good book called "stalin: waiting for the truth" that exposes a LOT LOT LOT more. (There are free pdf versions online and the author has put most primary source evidence on his website for people to verify)

What historians fail to see - it was not just Stalin. Stalin just took the attitude of Russian people of those times. Emperors of Russia failed to see it cause they lived in their aristocratic bubbles. Open a video called "The Romanovs. The History of the Russian Dynasty - Episode 6" and just listen from 35:00 to 35:20. Modern Russian and world mindset is different. Thats why researchers point at Stalin as an explanation.

Did the founding fathers give a shit about the Indians. Did the plantation owners give a shit about the slaves that made them profit. Did the French give a shit about their colonies in Africa and Indochina. Did Churchill give a shit about Chinese, Arab and Indian life.