That's the one thing that every digital platform misses. I've told people this for years. You needed a break, especially the first time hearing the abrupt ending, of "I Want You (She's So Heavy) before you can recover your senses enough to enjoy the softness of "Here Comes the Sun". I hate how 'Sun' seems to come on too soon on every CD version I have of it, including the latest Giles mixes. Maybe they could have 'pressed' the CDs on both sides or made two different ones with Side One on one and Side Two on the other. Or maybe I should just play my vinyl more!

What is strange, I took Russian history in college 1978,79. I learned everything you laid out over the 4 semesters. Shocked by all the revisionist acceptance especially after 1991. Sad history has dissolved to feelings... Humans be in denial 😮

Kraut is right, so this video and its comment section is cope. so go ahead and cope

Since Austria Hungary doesn’t have a official flag for the entire nation the I think the best flag to use is the civil enzyme

im so glad that as a 16 year old male teen that the first time I listened to this album was on the early press vinyl my grandma gave me

I've been saying this for years. Records can only squish 22ish minutes onto one side of a LP, so artists who primarily released through that format were constricted, having to keep that in mind when writing new songs. Side A might have sounded entirely different from side B, or side B could also be seen as a change of atmosphere or pace, as is the case with Abbey Road. This is why I love older records pressed way back in the 60s/70s, because you often get more songs that can fit on one side, versus modern day where only 2, 3 or 4 songs can fit on one side of an album released today, because you can get away with floating a 10+ minute song out there into the land of streaming, but if you're itching for a vinyl pressing of a brand new album... it will absolutely not flow as naturally or as satisfyingly as older records do, which from my experience, fit way more songs onto one side, because the artist isn't trying to write a 10+ pretentious song about how their boyfriend broke up with them or some shit idk. They're just trying to write 3, 4, 5 minute long songs that just work. Substance and style over quantity.

feels like kraut read stirner and took the passage about mongols seriously

Question: How was Trotsky’s “no peace but no war” faction of 16 able to succeed? Even if you combine it with Lenin’s “separate peace” faction of 15, it’s still a slight minority of 31/63 compared to the slight pro-war majority of 32/63?

I thought this was Fantano XD

What are your thoughts on the video series by "TheFinnishBolshevik" attempting to disprove the idea Bolsheviks tried to destroy Menshevik/SR-dominated soviets? [Note: I have not watched most of the series myself as it is many hours long]

I hope someone could debunk all of the mexican parts in the "tale of two colonies" series, It's fullllll of eurocentric bias, a lack of mexican sources (literaly zero) and just full of sourceless opinions that only shows Kraut's complete ignorance about Mexico and latinamerican history.

I heard this claim in one of the videos on Second Thought's channel. His videos in general are good, but when I watched the one where he made this claim about "even the CIA admitting that Stalin wasn't a dictator", I immediately got the sense that it was his association with Hakim that was starting to influence him, and pointed that out in his comments.

2:14 I get it. It’s a bad translation. Table in french is tableau, that also means chart or board.

Seekers are pathetic

great video, reminds me of all the stuff i learnt about the russian revolution at school

I would argue kievan rus was a predecessor to russia, even if it isnt inherently russian, and i would also argue that kievan rus was a "state" as in a federation of loosely connected states, nomads being "isolated" is true to an extent that most countries did not want to waste conquering the said lands, but they also controlled economic pathways, so they were "isolated" that is if isolated concerns not being bothered by war There doesnt seem to be a consensus as to novgogrods vecheys being oligarchistic or democratic, neither would they support moscow over it. Also do you have sources of veche being used in other cities too? While, yes, there might've been a vechey in 1382 in moscow according to your source, but this could very well be just a normal gathering as this was happening amidst the siege of moscow, also wym by the exogenic in 24:34 ? Kubilai Khan didn't assimilate mongols to chinese for no reason, it was because of the assimilation itself, and the pressure of the natives, that they became assimilated Although mongols socially lived decentralized, through genghis' reforms and such it has became more "centralized" as in genghis' family holds the power, also kurultais only have important people in them, about the qaraci bey part, i couldnt get the sources, imperial china did have some srot of despotism, but i really doubt the mongosl would've "transfered" it, i also cant confirm if dual administrative systems actually did exist in mongol empire or not, 31:35 why would that be so? The mongols didnt care unless they got the tax for it the civil war was about the nobles tho, not to mention, what does "regional structure" even mean? Also I think the take here was too optimistic, although, yes, these are true to some extent, duchy of moscow was much more centralized compared to western powers, and usually had strict control over these regional pwoers as well, local elites had land, but thats because of moscows policy to give them land as payment, they did not necessarily "own" the land, also, to mention, these houses do not have legitimate authority themselves, they only have important government roles in the muscovite army, not to mention the Great Zasechnaya cherta was constructed by the government themselves Well black death might be debated, so just use the comparison that the original video uses, also as far as i know the european solutions werent as drastic as the slavic ones, although full on serfdom didnt exist a feudalitic society did indeed exist. Also the argument for kholopstvo seems very weak as, most of them were captives, or criminals, neithe rwould someone want to be a slave

W as akways

The document discussed, unlike the others, which are utterly R-ded, seems pretty knowledgeable about the USSR. Besides a few points, their analysis is on the spot. But people will carry on on their R-ed mission of categorizing Stalin as a dictator.

Re wooden buildings: there simply was no reliable source of stone at the time and logistical issues didnt help for that matter. As for adoption of mongol tactics, yes there was a process of easternization in military tactics, but this was due to multitude of factors: having to fight remnants of horde (and it's hard to pursuit light cavalry without having your own), but the largest factor was economic downturn and inability to affor "classic" knight equipment, e.g. lance, armor, heavier, larger horse

i wouldn't call being against equal rights for Jews "Conservative liberalism"

This channel's focus on intensive use of proper source analysis is why I like it so much!

Fake

Omg I love niche internet drama

Can't we just analyse internal structure of soviet government? Why do all these arguments always revolve around Goebbels level propaganda or these "secret CIA reports"? Most people have incredibly warped vision of Stalin anyway.

i want to hear the exact specifics of the laws altering the Duma's election, i feel like this should have been included, i mean this is for election autists right?? i want to hear the exact weighting of the rich vote to the poor and what tax/landholding threshold one had to cross as well as the exact regions disenfranchised

I did not get this in my subscribtions.

90s period was such a turning point for geopolitics. Western countries had a chance to bring their values to Russians, but instead they focused on extracting as much wealth and value as possible before Russia recovered.

Virgin western "democratic" politicians have votes. Chad Stalin has the Mandate of the Heavens.

But but the CIA report said Tito wasn’t the real Tito

There are a lot of false things being said about Russian history, the other day I came across a video claiming that Russians had no right to the name Russia and that Ukrainians Were they real Russians??? Crazy stuff, The sad thing is that video has many views and likes

Probably tired of hearing this, but your videos are so incredibily informative, thank you so much for the russian elections series (do you plan covering other events? like the german elections of the same year, or the passage in Italy from democracy to dictatoship?) Keep it up

Two years ago this same CIA document was brought up on Wikipedia's talk page for Stalin. I wrote the following in response to those using it as supposed evidence that he wasn't a dictator: --------- the notion Stalin was beholden to a collective leadership was actually pretty widespread at the time. Truman claimed during the 1948 election that "Joe is a prisoner of the Politburo." Historians such as Oleg Khlevniuk, Yoram Gorlizki, and Stephen Wheatcroft have noted how untrue this was of the postwar period by looking at the Soviet archives. To take the case of Molotov as an example, Robert Conquest pointed out that, "It is only recently that we have had the letters written by Stalin to Molotov in 1945-46. . . We had always thought of Molotov's stance in these negotiations [with the Western powers] as the most uncooperative and hard-line conceivable, earning him the nickname of Stone-bottom. But we now find Stalin continually upbraiding him for inadequate hostility to the West. Molotov was blamed for having relaxed censorship on foreign journalists in Moscow. And in November 1945, in Stalin’s absence, Pravda had been allowed to print a speech of Churchill's praising the Soviet war effort and Stalin personally-this was 'servility towards foreigners.' And when Molotov returned to Moscow, he was, on Stalin's orders, formally reprimanded by a commission of the Politburo." (The Dragons of Expectation, p. 136) Khlevniuk writes in his biography of Stalin how Molotov was reduced to tears during this time and had written an apology to Stalin. Molotov himself, interviewed in retirement, said "I think that if [Stalin] had remained alive another year, I would not have survived." Even if one wants to assume a single document (marked "unevaluated") from the mid-50s not only reflected the consensus of "the CIA" during that period on Stalin's political role, but that this consensus was never modified in the ensuing years and decades, it isn't as if the CIA enjoys the reputation of never being wrong about the USSR. A prominent example is how its analyses made during the 80s were criticized as being overly optimistic about the Soviet economy and as downplaying the prospects of the USSR's demise (see for instance Melvin Goodman in a Washington Post article.) As TheTimesAreAChanging noted, historians evidently don't attach any importance to the document's claims of Stalin being beholden to a collective leadership, and I see no reason for it to be in the article except in the context of discussing debunked notions about Stalin which were widespread at the time, like that he married a sister of Kaganovich named Rosa (who, in fact, never existed.)

Biased video

Ok, now this is epic

Stalinists will still use this CIA document, they will still promote Grover Furr and they will still try to change the definition of Dictator and Authoritarian. 🤣 We know how it is.

What’s very telling is that this guy uses the exact same form of logic as Grover Furr but will never claim that grover Furr actually correct even though it’s obvious that Khrushchev lied about Stalin. You’re wrong. The CIA could not reliably claim that Stalin was a dictator based on the structure of the Soviet Union.

Stalin wasn’t a dictator.

The claim is very silly at face value nevertheless, literally any cursory study on any dictatorial system literally ever will immediately uncover that no "pure" totalitarianism exists and that dictatorships are managed by a close-nit group of people at the top and not a single person micromanaging the entire state like a civilization game. That doesn't make it's not a dictatorship if the dictator still serves as the fundamental nexus at the top of the hierarchy

Enjoying this video greatly, but one minor thing that a layman like myself doesn't quite get: you refer to Russia/Moscow as a vassal of the Golden Horde using a specific word... "Czeranty"? "Sizieranty"? I cannot for the life of me decipher this word as it's one I've never heard before, I'd like to know how to spell it and what it more specifically means. Would be helpful in trying to understand geopolitics of the relevant era.

I've been coming back and forth to this video, simply due to how impressive the research you've put it into! Though I'm curious if there's anyone who already debunked his video on Turkish history

I’m gonna watch this until the finale, the Bolshevik video.

Bro editing is so good I get it takes so much time to release

Ok. He still wasn't a dictator. Thanks for keeping anti communist hysteria alive though, that's so helpful.

Haha he said filacious

Good video

I think you are the role model that any independent learner of history and politics should strive to be like. I can't even fathom how long it takes you to analyze all your sources. Thank you for your hard work

Thank you for this video, I never would have thought the CIA didn't like the USSR. Glad you could clear that up

Surely one day we can simply vote Stalin out of living rent free on Twitter

This is one of the strangest concepts I have ever seen

Fantastic video! Like always.