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

@Anyo92

Жыл бұрын

They might not have a NATO membership if they accepted.

@A.staris

Жыл бұрын

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.

@Ethan-qo9rx

Жыл бұрын

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.

@A.staris

Жыл бұрын

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.

@ebeb9156

Жыл бұрын

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

@neurofiedyamato8763

Жыл бұрын

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.

@timothygibney159

Жыл бұрын

@@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

@sunnyjim1355

Жыл бұрын

​@@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.

@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714

Жыл бұрын

So it was simpler logistics.

@timothygibney159

Жыл бұрын

@@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

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.

@-BlackMamba-

Жыл бұрын

Nah not the last one , the kingdom of bactrian was the last one which was in the area of today's Pakistan

@hanswust6972

Жыл бұрын

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.

@-BlackMamba-

Жыл бұрын

@@hanswust6972 bruh these cities , had control over Crimea and a little side of Russia which is next to Crimea

@amcespana2150

Жыл бұрын

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.

@JL-tm3rc

11 ай бұрын

​@@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

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.

@donaldmackerer9032

Жыл бұрын

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.

@user-jr5fk4nj8s

Жыл бұрын

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)

@apapa5495

Жыл бұрын

Did the khazars have something to do with the whole story?! They are and were everywhere where money talks, business talks etc

@zeldan4165

11 ай бұрын

​@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.

@donaldmackerer9032

11 ай бұрын

@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.

@spectre1849

Жыл бұрын

Of course

@revolter7094

Жыл бұрын

So was the Russian invasion.

@clouds-rb9xt

Жыл бұрын

...Maybe. I think it looks more aesthetically pleasing the other way (BUT I DON'T SUPPORT RUSSIA)

@megarboh790

Жыл бұрын

hoi4 moment

@ffff7164

Жыл бұрын

@@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!

@georgewilson9121

Жыл бұрын

populated with 95 percent russians , theres no mystery what country it should be a part of.

@stever2583

Жыл бұрын

There isn't... it's all about Russian thugs!

@MarjorieLoquet

Жыл бұрын

YOULL LESRN MORE IF YO PURCHASE MILKAIL SHISKINS BOOK FOR £18.00 HE;LL SHOW YOU EVERYTHING ABOUT RUSSIA

@MarjorieLoquet

Жыл бұрын

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

@paulgrieve7031

11 ай бұрын

Not mystery, history. Yes history is interesting.

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.

@uasite

11 ай бұрын

Yes, but you forgot that Ukraine also gifted Belgorod and Taganrog TO Russia

@Bike_Lion

11 ай бұрын

@@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."

@uasite

11 ай бұрын

@@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?

@user-rv2yt8in4s

11 ай бұрын

All conflicts have been instigated - as ever - by the slimy West. Sic transit fascist gloria mundi.

@ValeriusB

11 ай бұрын

@@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.

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.

@maxfreedom774

11 ай бұрын

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!

@justacommonman5935

11 ай бұрын

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)

@Vladimir-ui3ij

11 ай бұрын

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.

@jeccentric9952

10 ай бұрын

it was a theft, pure and simple. the whole of Ukraine in made out by illegal land grabs from other countries and people.

@user-vk8xn3ym2k

9 ай бұрын

Известная сказка о "пустынном" Крыме и о том, как трудолюбивые украинцы превратили его из пустыни в цветущий сад ))))))

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.

@Avealua

8 ай бұрын

How does it change the fact that it was man made by Russia?

@tylerdurden3722

8 ай бұрын

​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.

@makar1854

8 ай бұрын

@@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

@makar1854

8 ай бұрын

​@@Avealuaby USSR, it’s just that this reason is far-fetched, why then no “offerings” were made to other regions

@monaliza3334

8 ай бұрын

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.

@holgerkruse6035

11 ай бұрын

I had exactly the same thought after watching the video.

@andriesterpstra8796

10 ай бұрын

Completely agree. Waste of time, no answers given, lot of speculations.

@TheDavidlloydjones

9 ай бұрын

@@andriesterpstra8796 And lots of S's in USS-SSR.

@erynn9968

9 ай бұрын

Well half of youtube education is like this :)

@TheRobGuard

9 ай бұрын

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.

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.

@threetwoonego323

8 ай бұрын

which Ukraine cut off in 2014

@Kills487

8 ай бұрын

@@threetwoonego323

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.

@achatcueilleur5746

10 ай бұрын

Fictional Catherine the Great. never existed.

@SaorAlba1970

10 ай бұрын

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

@terryhoath1983

10 ай бұрын

@@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.

@greengarden657

10 ай бұрын

​@@terryhoath1983your reply is a fantastic piece of history for this area of Europe, the most accurate that I have seen. Thank you.

@j.dragon651

9 ай бұрын

@@terryhoath1983 My turn to teach you music theory lol. I am too lazy to fact check you but thank you for the post.

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.

@jolotschka

Жыл бұрын

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.

@punished4890

Жыл бұрын

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.

@churblefurbles

Жыл бұрын

Its telling that the west does this to itself now.

@roxylius7550

Жыл бұрын

not limited to dictator lol the so called democratic england, france and others did this to countless region in Africa and The Middle East

@sellogregory6089

Жыл бұрын

Russia pushed out German Occupation!

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?

@thebutcher7541

Жыл бұрын

Frr

@professionalshitposter9436

Жыл бұрын

For ethnic reasons (they were populated mainly by Ukrainians)

@antonioishere4201

Жыл бұрын

No^

@antonioishere4201

Жыл бұрын

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

@antonioishere4201

Жыл бұрын

Transnistria isn’t Moldova and Crimea isn’t Ukraine and they have never been

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."

@MoreAwsomeMetal

Жыл бұрын

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...

@redbear1935

Жыл бұрын

It doesn't matter now , Ukraine will get what they want and Russia will be shit hole for 50 years paying for all damages.

@ronramsay8587

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@MoreAwsomeMetal

Жыл бұрын

@@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...

@ronramsay8587

Жыл бұрын

@@MoreAwsomeMetal Your 'ruski mir' is not the only perspective.

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 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.

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.

@johnyricco1220

Жыл бұрын

He himself was born on the border of Ukraine, a product of the melting pot of Russian and Ukrainian identities.

@tryingtodogood

Жыл бұрын

Can you Explain

@darthparallax5207

Жыл бұрын

Was she Ukrainian born?

@tryingtodogood

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@jannakovalenko2788

Жыл бұрын

Ukraine coming to USSR without Cramia, without Donna's and Lugansk territory. That's all.

Excellent video, providing if not answers, at least a few likely premises! Thank You!

Would love to see one of these on the history of the state of Texas

@user-rv2yt8in4s

11 ай бұрын

So it is - dear lad. Texas belongs to Mexico as ever since 1848 and before that.

@margaretcaine4219

10 ай бұрын

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.

Thanks for your good works, advice and enlightment. Blessings

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

@solracer66

Жыл бұрын

Didn’t construction begun in 1957? At least that’s what Wikipedia says.

@johnsch1988

Жыл бұрын

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 .😊

@canucanu9098

Жыл бұрын

@@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!

@user-pq1fu9jj6j

11 ай бұрын

Город Севастополь административно подчинялСЯ напремую Москве! И не входил в состав Упкраины. Это была военноморская база ВМФ СССР.

@user-rv2yt8in4s

11 ай бұрын

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.

Thanks 🎉❤ for that brief history

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.

@donaldmackerer9032

Жыл бұрын

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.

@user-jk4yp6fh4h

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@renemartin5729

Жыл бұрын

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."

@renemartin5729

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@paulgrieve7031

11 ай бұрын

Cheers

Fantastic video keep it up you're doing amazing things 😁👍

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.

@s.b.6010

Жыл бұрын

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.

@lucapieralisi

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@alexk6745

11 ай бұрын

​@@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.

@laktqiere

11 ай бұрын

Exactly. Somebody with the real history. Famine was in all the territory.

@laktqiere

11 ай бұрын

@@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

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.

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 🌻🌻💕

@Stranger-rs1sj

Жыл бұрын

Don't forget about it's naval ports.

@mercurial382

11 ай бұрын

It's strategic position is the most important thing, (on a naval level that is)

@arianhrodkeltoi8104

11 ай бұрын

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.

@tonyp8995

11 ай бұрын

and a russian holiday resort where russian rats could feel safe.

@MrKlipstar

10 ай бұрын

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.

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.

@user-bi6rf4js3v

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@yaroslavsemenov5484

Жыл бұрын

​@@JoeSmith-sl9bq For a reason

@markomicovic5308

Жыл бұрын

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.

@user-bi6rf4js3v

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@ignacio4159

Жыл бұрын

@@markomicovic5308 the provoked it in the first place with the coup in 2014

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.

@user-nd1yl5ol6u

11 ай бұрын

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.

@louisecorchevolle9241

10 ай бұрын

he was ukrainian analcoolic

@andrewstepanoff5091

9 ай бұрын

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.

@alexandersergienko1098

8 ай бұрын

@@user-nd1yl5ol6u Another empty account with "analytics". Проспись, Ваня.

Nice narrator. The voice is well paced and expressive.Thanks for a nice video.

So Ukraine and Russia relationship is basically a Eastern European version of the Ireland and UK relationship

@koshchey_vg

Жыл бұрын

Yes, definitely very similar, but it can also be compared to any relationship between an imperial power and its colonial subject.

@zoknilu10

Жыл бұрын

​@@koshchey_vg So like Ireland and the UK

@caven7056

Жыл бұрын

​@@zoknilu10 😂😂😂

@anabona4764

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@TheGreatCatsby-pd2tt

Жыл бұрын

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.

But at the end of the day. But at the end of the day.

@michaelflores2509

Жыл бұрын

Thank you for noticing that. You changed my life. You gave me hope, love and reason to love again Thank you.

@ryanwatkins7924

Жыл бұрын

@@michaelflores2509 You're welcome! You're welcome!

@margbarmk2293

Жыл бұрын

@@ryanwatkins7924 , what do u mean?

@jayakadark3

Жыл бұрын

but at the end of the day, History Is obsessed.

@gabrielfranco8994

Жыл бұрын

Crimea belongs to ukraine

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.

@VajrahahaShunyata

Жыл бұрын

Im a published writer and know the history well. Youtuub is not the place for a history education unless you want to be stupid....

@johannespfurti2900

Жыл бұрын

But kruschtjew was Not Stalin!

@billybigballs5776

Жыл бұрын

@@johannespfurti2900gossips are that Khrushchev and boys assassinated Stalin,so they can gain power.

Best explanation I’ve heard to date.

Great Podcast. Quick & Simple. Thanks.

@m.dewylde5287

Жыл бұрын

What podcast?!

Great work!

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.

@laktqiere

11 ай бұрын

Washing brain program

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🤩

good information, presented very theatrical = pure infotainment-style

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

@RainerMichelle

Жыл бұрын

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

@mrparrot234

Жыл бұрын

@@RainerMichelle That's not even slightly true at all

@RainerMichelle

Жыл бұрын

@@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

@elyisusking3603

Жыл бұрын

@@RainerMichelle you're smoking crack, Russian were living there before Ukraine existed, it became a Russian majority region by the time Ukraine gained independence

@RainerMichelle

Жыл бұрын

@@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

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 ".

@TradTroII

Жыл бұрын

He just needs to spew the same stupid rhetoric to get paid, doesn’t matter how inaccurate or irreverent it is

Well done! I feel like I understand a little more now.

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.

@user-uk5qe1xn8h

9 ай бұрын

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.

@LyubomirIko

9 ай бұрын

"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?

@jaystrickland4151

9 ай бұрын

@@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.

@user-uk5qe1xn8h

9 ай бұрын

@@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.

@valenrn8657

Жыл бұрын

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.

@valenrn8657

Жыл бұрын

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.

@joeshar.

Жыл бұрын

@@valenrn8657in order to get more seats in UN, USSR has insisted UN for other SSRs too but UN has only accepter Ukraine and Belorussia.

@user-yy4wv8os9f

Жыл бұрын

@@valenrn8657 кому принадлежал Крым, когда Украина подписывала устав ООН.

@Homer-OJ-Simpson

Жыл бұрын

@@joeshar. That doesn't make the comparison to US states valid. Soviet Russia already had something comparable to US states.

But at the end of the day, at the end of the day.

@kumakohai7499

Жыл бұрын

I thought that was just my dumb brain malfunctioning, but this confirms it, I am not hearing things.

@davethomas8748

Жыл бұрын

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 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.

@louisecorchevolle9241

10 ай бұрын

an Kazakstan even worse than ukraine

@Uglovsky

6 ай бұрын

His dena was Ukrainian. You can see a photo of her in the national Ukrainian costume

Nice Man, keep it up!

If it is one country, one region can be merged with another for administrative purpose.

Well said.

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.

@katalinjuhasz641

11 ай бұрын

KI KÉRDEZTE MEG A MAGYAROKAT, HOGY AKARNAK E ROMÁNIÁHOZ TARTOZNI??? SEMMI ÖNRENDELKEZÉS CSAK LOPÁS....

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

@j.dragon651

9 ай бұрын

There probably is but I doubt Russia has a freedom of information act.

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👀

@21stEidein

Жыл бұрын

What's your point? You're on almost every history video spouting pro-turkic nonsense. Get a life 😂

@pinochetrevivalist7374

Жыл бұрын

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.

@thunderluke6432

Жыл бұрын

​​​@@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.

@jiritichy7967

Жыл бұрын

@@thunderluke6432 Although some claim that a modern version of nationalism is a recent invention, national belonging existed for centuries, if not millennia..

@soberman1520

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

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.

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

@ivanprelog1196

9 ай бұрын

and bypassed DUMA!

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.

@erynn9968

9 ай бұрын

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).

@monaliza3334

8 ай бұрын

His wife was Bandera supporter, she was from Poland.

12:17 lol

@Valdaur

Жыл бұрын

Just had to add some extra emphasis. :P

I have never heard it called "Crimerian Peninsular" before.

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.

@danielhutchinson6604

9 ай бұрын

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?

@erynn9968

9 ай бұрын

Why the much farther Kaliningrad wasn’t passed to Lithuanian SSR?

@paulingvar

9 ай бұрын

@@danielhutchinson6604 I think there was an agreement for Russia to rent Sevastopol, not to "have" it, for a number of years

@danielhutchinson6604

9 ай бұрын

@@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.

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

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.

@deguilhemcorinne418

Жыл бұрын

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.

@malfeasance62

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

@darthparallax5207

Жыл бұрын

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.

@cliffordcarrera8150

Жыл бұрын

Therefore, Crimea is part NOW of Ukraine. Therefore, the Russian annexation of Crimea is illegal.

@Breakfast_of_Champions

Жыл бұрын

@@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 had wondered as well. By the way, it's peninsoola, not peninchula.

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,

Nikita Kruschows first wife was born in Ukraine 🇺🇦 I think that was a great gift to give to her homeland.

@frankg897

Жыл бұрын

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?

@adipop

Жыл бұрын

That why !!

@gabry1346

Жыл бұрын

Homeland of nazi Ukraine now come back to Stone Age 😂

@renemartin5729

Жыл бұрын

Didn't you hear the narrator say he was Russian by birth? "Khrushchev was born in 1894 in a village in western Russia. "

@renemartin5729

Жыл бұрын

@@adipop DYOR: "Khrushchev was born in 1894 in a village in western Russia."

Stupid idea but could the answer not be in the soviet archives? And weren't those declassified after the fall of the union?

@Igor_054

Жыл бұрын

Some things are never really written down on archives. Even secret ones.

@neurofiedyamato8763

Жыл бұрын

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.

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 …

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.

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.

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

@robertcottam8824

Жыл бұрын

And?

@VajrahahaShunyata

Жыл бұрын

A Basterd always leaves you hanging....

@KapteeniKetza

Жыл бұрын

@@robertcottam8824 and what?

@robertcottam8824

Жыл бұрын

@@KapteeniKetza ...And it's a pointless comment. Best wishes, nonetheless.

@user-rv2yt8in4s

11 ай бұрын

Old glorified chatter from pre-imperialist times - with the fur louse of the eternal king and his vassals. You scattered thruppence brain.

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

@ortolitore1522

11 ай бұрын

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.

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.

Crimea has had quite a varied history.

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.

@robo__cop8154

Жыл бұрын

not at all there are many videos here on crimean tatars in crimea saying they're happy with russia

@ZOMBIEo07

Жыл бұрын

What is this propaganda?

@Manntashsh-Pyrre-tv3ox

Жыл бұрын

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.

@danmihaiescu3114

11 ай бұрын

Why not about the Greek population of crimea which was replaced by tatars.

@user-pq1fu9jj6j

11 ай бұрын

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!

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

@user-vk8xn3ym2k

9 ай бұрын

Тогда почему никому не приходило в голову подарить Калининград Литве (Литовской ССР)? ))))

@erynn9968

9 ай бұрын

Doesn’t explain why Kaliningrad (which is much farther away!) wasn’t passed to Lithuania.

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

A little precision: as of this month of April 23, France also recognizes the holodomor as a genocide. Its flag didn't appear with those who recognise it, but since recently it was corrected

@MaxymVlasov

Жыл бұрын

Recognized on 28th March 2023, to be correctly

@didierdenice7456

Жыл бұрын

Holodomor is NOT a unique Ukrainian event ! At the same time there was also a great famine in Russia AND in Kazakhstan ! So in what way, Einstein , was it a genocide specifically towards the Ukrainian people ? That doesn't make sense ! People who have no clue about History...

@kaliningradtoczechrepublic8162

Жыл бұрын

@@MaxymVlasov why so late?

@Homer-OJ-Simpson

Жыл бұрын

@@kaliningradtoczechrepublic8162 There are always political reasons to not or do recognize a genocide. Of course people will argue from the opposite side of this reason but IMO they didn't recognize it for fear it will upset Russia too much but now that the relationship is broken, there's no reason to hold France and others back. But at the same time, some countries might fear their own past will be subject to the same. It's complicated is what I'm saying.

@user-hs1og6sn3o

Жыл бұрын

Пусть Франция узнает, какой голод в эти годы был на Поволжье, в Сибири. Пусть прочитают книги Астафьева

Even tho I don't care about Europe and I don't support the Ukraine / Russia situation, I like history and this is interesting

@polarbear3262

Жыл бұрын

I can safely say Europe doesn't care about you either.

Never before I gave a thumbs up to a KZread channel that have C!A trademark of scripts 🤭👍

"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.

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

@VajrahahaShunyata

Жыл бұрын

Russhists... Nazis... The same arrogance and stupidity..

The problem with the Holodomor theory is that a ton of Russians also died from it, and the previous famine before it.

@robertcottam8824

Жыл бұрын

So the equivalence is...?

@FoxhoundAK74

Жыл бұрын

@@robertcottam8824 The soviets owe a huge apology to the Russians as well for it.

@robertcottam8824

Жыл бұрын

@@FoxhoundAK74 Who are the 'soviets' ?

@Patop2002

Жыл бұрын

​@@robertcottam8824Georgians, since Stalin was Georgian.

@robertcottam8824

Жыл бұрын

@@Patop2002 You know that to be silly. So why write it?

Right answer is - in 1951, a decision was made to build the North Crimean Canal, to simplify the document flow, Crimea was transferred to Ukraine

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.

@monaliza3334

8 ай бұрын

Sge was Bandera supporter...

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!

@markgriffin4888

Жыл бұрын

WHAT !!!!!! How's dare you state that a Russian had been drinking. 😂😂😂😂😂😂

@andycapusta7572

Жыл бұрын

Khruchev has nothing to do with this

@subz6739

Жыл бұрын

I heard that too🤣

@FiikusMaximus

Жыл бұрын

​@GENETIC BEAST Russia isn't a country. It's a husk of å fallen empire.

@pakitoxperia

Жыл бұрын

​@@MasterTBeastRuskynazi bullshit..... Ukraine is a country unlike Russia which are a bunch of underdeveloped alcoholic inhuman crappy excuse for human beings.

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

@robertcottam8824

Жыл бұрын

This is pure speciousmess.

@kerriwilson7732

Жыл бұрын

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.

@Jeyjeyanth

Жыл бұрын

Western way of propagating and altering history

@robertcottam8824

Жыл бұрын

@@Jeyjeyanth And your point is?

@Jeyjeyanth

Жыл бұрын

@@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.

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.

Thanks

@Knowledgia

8 ай бұрын

Thank you so much! Your support helps us a lot!

I AM DISAPOINTED this video doesn't mention the most important asset Crimea has for Russia. IT IS THE ONLY WARM WATER PORT HAVING YEAR-AROUND NON FROZEN WATERS WITH ACCESS TO THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA. And this is why it has the largest, most important Russian military fleet. This is really why Crimea is so essential for Russia and the reason they need to keep it.

@RainerMichelle

Жыл бұрын

this is nonsense, Russia has a huge port on the Russian side of the Black Sea coast, that is where most of their fleet has been relocated to anyway, in fear of Ukrainian missiles, it is called Novorossiysk , Crimea is part of Ukraine, Russia just wants it to invade Ukraine again and block the grain ships going to Africa and the Middle East, this can not be allowed

@mdkooter

Жыл бұрын

They can modify other existing commercial ports on the Russian mainland for that purpose if they wished. Giving them perfect year round black sea access, without the headaches of Ukraine. However, notably, large fossil fuel reserves were found within territorial waters of the Crimean peninsula not far prior to the invasion of it. Contracts with large western companies for it's exploitation were signed, hardware shipped into place. This together with other huge fossil fuel reserves near the Donbass and Lugansk regions would have made Ukraine incredibly wealthy in the next decade, and would have caused great shame upon Russia (where most of the fossil fuel funds go into oligarchy and Putin pockets, rather than benefit the people). This jealousy of their Ukrainian brothers doing better would cause internal conflict and political unrest, even regime change. Not something Putin wanted. This is all fairly well documented and simple to research and understand. 1+1...

@mindetoxx

Жыл бұрын

@@mdkooter MICHAEL SOUNDS LIKE A POLITICIAN barking about "other ports" without telling us WHICH PORTS are available for Russia in warm waters year around with easy access to the Mediterranean. GIVE US THOSE NAMES or stop barking nonsense.

@accountforcommenting

Жыл бұрын

Along with kalingadard

@megarboh790

Жыл бұрын

This vid is about why they gave it away, not why they want it back

It was a symbolic gift, since it was one country, it also had a practical, administrative side, easier and more direct management.

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.

Very interesting

00:14 Where is the Crimerian Peninsula?

@robertcottam8824

Жыл бұрын

Look at an atlas

Make a video about, "why did Stalin transfer Northern Bucovina and Bugeac to Ukraine?"

@_braileanul

Жыл бұрын

Why did stalin create Moldavian ASSR Why did stalin give transnistria to Moldova Why did stalin invent Moldovan language

@Scenariania

Жыл бұрын

why did stalin take cernăuți if it wasnt included in the moltov ribbentrop agreement? why was hertsa taken? why didn't stalin also take southern bukovina?

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.

@sandymilne224

10 ай бұрын

So it was Italian… :-)

@palar4195

9 ай бұрын

@@sandymilne224 Even more, there is some Genua fortresses in crimea, so yeah, Italy have more rights to crimea than Ukraine.

My first answer to this question is ‘because his either an idiot or he was duped’. He did used to bang his shoe on the table so it might be the first one.

The geographic reason could have been erased if Ukraine's borders were modified after WW2; like for example annexing all East Dnipro regions to RSFSR

@sunnyjim1355

Жыл бұрын

Was never going to happen... do you know nothing of the Yalta Conference?

@gillesaboubechara2978

Жыл бұрын

@@sunnyjim1355 what does the Yalta Conference have to do with the internal borders of the USSR?

@user-po1qo3ql4n

Жыл бұрын

Could…if - is not about real world. Also look at Soviet Ukraine in 1922 the “geographic reason” is not related to WW2

@gillesaboubechara2978

Жыл бұрын

@@user-po1qo3ql4n I am saying after WW2 because Stalin could have used the pretexte that Ukraine collaborated with Nazi Germany and Ukrainians were collaborators with the enemy to dismantle Ukraine. And don't say he won't do it. Stalin hated Ukraine and blamed Lenine for the establishment of a hybrid entity called Ukraine

Crimerian Peninsula 0:14

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!

What’s the name of this show?