What Went Wrong At The Yalta Conference

[@nickcurran3105]

Imagine being able to say, “I talked to Churchill about it…” Incredible

[@karlforster4907]

Agreed.

[@draoi99]

Yeah, I never knew he met Churchill and I was a little amused at how he just slipped that fact in.

[@karldelavigne8134]

Why shouldn't he have spoken to Churchill? He was vice-president when Churchill was still prime minister, and Churchill lived until the mid-1960s.

[@lesterstanden2435]

He died before I was born, but I've talked to someone who talked to him.

[@nickcurran3105]

@@karldelavigne8134 Who said he should not have? I know when Nixon was VP and I know when Churchill died. I just think it is fascinating to hear an interview from whenever this was recorded and have Nixon casually drop in "I talked to Churchill about it". I think it is very cool, that's all.

[@rolandnelson6722]

“The fact he (Alger Hiss) was there was not reassuring.” Masterfully understatement.

[@CarlGerhardt1]

The leftists are still seething about how Nixon uncovered that Alger Hiss was a Commie agent. (Maybe we need a new House Un-American Activities Committee to uncover who is carrying water for the CCP today.)

[@gregorymilla9213]

The beef between Churchill and Roosevelt had nothing to with Hiss

[@vincentdow5899]

diplomatic

[@jonnyd9351]

That's ridiculous, because their 'beef' came about from FDR's advisors and friends being communists with Soviet infiltration of the administration.

[@rd9793]

Indeed

[@samcotten2416]

This guy was a genius who understood geopolitics and other world leaders on a deep level. His legacy deserves to be rehabilitated.

[@jordanzdebski5132]

golden standard tells you anything, watergate?

[@voidwalker9223]

@@jordanzdebski5132so? He’s still a genius. Corruption is a pretty standard trait for rich powerful people

[@obijoel4209]

This man was brilliant. Nothing publicly said about him today is true. He was a master of foreign affairs. He worked with the best, and he himself, rose to become one of the best. Yet all his wisdom is discounted because of one single window of his career - and that's sad.

[@raymondfrye5017]

​​@@obijoel4209I agree, but take exception to your secod point. What happened to Nixon was he became paranoid about his administration being subverted by Jews. It was classical.Just like in the Bible when Nebu-Kadnezzar was fearing plots on his life, and yet Kissinger was his main advisor.

[@HisAssholiness]

@@obijoel4209 he took america off the gold standard , making the currency valuless and causing rampant inflation and normalized relations with china , allowing american manufacturers to take advantage of cheap labbor without providing tarriffs to protect manufacturers in america , who chose not to throw their employee's under the bus , lowering the standard of living of everyone in america except the hyper wealthy in the process , so under his watch , america went form being the worlds leading manufacturer to aiding china to become the same ... congrats , he's a real hero

[@aa697]

I always listen attentively to President Nixon as he discusses the history of foreign affairs. It's always a great history lesson.

[@marlboro-manmat295]

I agree. Nixon was amazingly well educated in history and foreign affairs.

[@Zanduras1]

Citation needed.

[@bfc3057]

Did you listen to him went he said after Operation Homecoming "they're all home" - you shouldn't have.

[@williestyle35]

​@@bfc3057 yeah, I have that blatant lie. His own intelligence services told Nixon there were still live American P. O. W.'s being held in North Vietnam...

[@wwynhout]

Why is everybody talking about an alleged agreement with Russia that NATO wouldn’t expand to the east, but nobody talks about the actual agreement that Russia would allow Poland free elections after the war ?

[@magazine6293]

Roosevelt was weak physically (illness) and Churchill was weak politically. Stalin took advantage of both of Them.

[@skipperclinton1087]

@magazine6293: Roosevelt as well as Eleanor were socialist. SCOTUS overruled most of his "New Deal" legislation calling it "unconstitutional". Then he tried to pack the SCOTUS to get it pushed through.

[@bluemarlin8138]

Roosevelt was also far too trusting of Stalin, owing to both a lack of information and to his surrounding himself with Soviet sympathizers.

[@DRourk]

Both Roosevelt and Churchill were puppets of the banking cartel. That cartel also put Stalin in power.

[@kristine6996]

Stalin was Stalin. That was the problem.

[@avae5343]

Nothing to take advantage of. Roughly 100 Western divisions against over 400 Soviet divisions. Forget it.

[@johnl5316]

The opened Soviet archives and the Venona file reveal several thousand people in Roosevelt's administration who WERE working on behalf of thee USSR

[@BGNOLA]

yeah I was about to say Nixon died before Venona was released; if anything he was optimistic about FDR.

[@MrKlemps]

He was perhaps too positive in his assessment of Roosevelt but he was not "optimistic". Roosevelt had died long before this interview took place. (And he remained dead.)

[@bobanderson6656]

@@tedthompson1065 ...and what would he find different in the 'right' books? The US government and the American left generally was chock full of people naive, to say the least, about the Soviets. FDR and Elenore even called Stalin "Uncle Joe". There were spies throughout government, many we will never know about. I seriously doubt thousands is an exaggeration.

[@stephannaro2113]

@@tedthompson1065 "Do your own research!"

[@BGNOLA]

@@tedthompson1065 not several thousand, but it got into the hundreds.

[@guydreamr]

Nixon kept his eye on the ball here - the importance of realism over naivety about your opponent, rather than where you or your advisers happen to be on the political spectrum at the moment.

[@جنگجو_پارسی]

We Iranians love Nixon the most because he supported the Shah of Iran 😢❤

[@67nairb]

I'm assuming you were pro-Shah.

[@IslamicGoku]

The shah was so popular in Iran that when we let him into the US the Iranians spontaneously threw a multi-year party for the US embassy staff.

[@jejejeje4491]

If shah was so popular than why did the Iranian people over threw him. BTW who is we? 😂

[@marklittle8805]

Well getting rid of the Shah has worked so well after all.....ya...not a good thing.

[@jejejeje4491]

@ it worked…going 50 years strong 💪🏻

[@جنگجو_پارسی]

During President Nixon's time, US-Iran relations were very good 🇮🇷💔🇺🇸

[@Persian_rcn]

True 🇺🇸❤🇮🇷

[@brownlettuce1810]

The Persian people would be happy to show the ayatollahs the door.

[@markpiersall9815]

Then you will have pornography shops, package liquor stores, Narcotics Trafficking Brothels and Pervert Bathhouses.

[@MD-lf3gt]

And also the relations between the CIA and the Savak

[@HisAssholiness]

yeah well when america did a coup detat and put a defacto leader in charge in 1953, one could expect relations favorable to america

[@robertphillips6296]

"Trust, but verify!"

[@Gablesman888]

We really need a President like this today.

[@jeff-ds2pr]

One that isn't headed to a nursing home? Yes, I agree. Fortunately that problem will be fixed in a few weeks.

[@user-rl3iv2jk9q]

7Jan25: I agree with you .

[@JohnCampos-uw1rh]

We’re about to have an even better one

[@Devinthedrummaster]

Hate to tell you nixon had a brain. Unlike your next pres. Who picks fights with canada and gets along with north korea. ​@JohnCampos-uw1rh

[@67nairb]

@@jeff-ds2pr what did you think of the late Jimmy Carter's foreign policy?

[@NigelDeForrest-Pearce-cv6ek]

Marvelous Insights!!!

[@mees.wijnants]

If you said Roosevelt was under serious communist influence today you would immediately be called out as a Conspiracy Theorist by the Media

[@KevinBalch-dt8ot]

Or if you said Biden was in serious cognitive decline.

[@mees.wijnants]

@@KevinBalch-dt8ot or if you said they are all under serious jewish influence

[@thisismyname3928]

Rightly so.

[@mikeg2491]

@@thisismyname3928we went to war with Hitler just to give up Eastern Europe to the Russians, if it wasn’t sympathizers in the admin it was definitely naive rubes in charge of our policy.

[@StatmanRN]

…who are communists themselves.

[@TheUsonian]

I'm certainly no statesman or geopolitical expert to be frank, but I would add that another dimension to the misguided optimism that contributed to the final agreements, was that not too many American officials had a good amount of experience dealing the Soviets. Up until the latter part of WW1, the U.S. maintained fairly good relations with the Russians when the Russian Empire existed, but after the Bolshevik Revolution and the establishment of the U.S.S.R. (which the U.S. wasn't supportive of and attempted to an extent to prevent by participating in Allied intervention efforts during the Russian Civil War), the U.S. and the new Soviet Union really didn't interact with each other much at all during the Interwar period. It wasn't until both states found themselves against the Axis that they started to have any meaningful relations with each other. This could be a signifcant part of why Roosevelt seemed lenient and hopeful of the Soviets. I would imagine him and quite a few American political and military officials may have at least tried to cooperate with the Soviets similarly to how they would've with the Russian Empire, and they didn't fully understand how different of a beast the U.S.S.R. had become.

[@weirdshibainu]

The West was woefully ignorant of the who Stalin was as a leader and the USSR as an entity prior to WW2. I would like to know what FDR and Churchill thought when Hitler and Stalin carved up Poland. At some point after 1941, did Stalin fool them into thinking that he did it only to buy time for what he saw as the inevitable war with Fascism? In fact, Stalin had thought that Hitler was good for his word and had no designs on the USSR. He detested the Western European democracies ( especially England) and anything that Hitler inflicted on them was fine with him. So..the million dollar question is...if FDR and Churchill could have had a crystal ball moment and witnessed how Stalin would behave post WW2, what would their strategy have been pre -1941? Would England have sued for peace? Would the U.S. have opened diplomatic channels to keep out of the European theater?

[@dukecraig2402]

"...which the US wasn't supportive of... and participated in an Allied intervention..." Exactly, so why are you trying to put it off on the US? What was your country's part in it? Why just name drop the US and not list the other countries involved or just say "the Allies"? Yea, everything wrong with the world since July 4th 1776 is America's fault, sure thing.

[@dukecraig2402]

​@@weirdshibainu Well you should try learning history, try looking into Secretary of State George Marshall's efforts with the Soviets after WW2, then you'll know better than to throw around your nonsense version of history. You guys are something, trying to put Stalins actions on the US, Joseph Stalin did what he did because he was Joseph Stalin, the fact is George Marshall tried everything in his power to change their policies, he had countless meetings with them and proposals including his traveling to Moscow in an attempt to cool their heels, he offered them money from the Marshall Plan the condition being that they withdraw from the countries they occupied after the war, but Stalin had his designs about a Soviet dominated Europe that went back to before the war, and that's on him, nobody else, and certainly not America, but like everything else you people would just squawk about it anyway and accuse America of running a scam like you do about Lend Lease and the Marshall Plan, 90% of Lend Lease debt was forgiven, the Marshall Plan was a gift with the only condition being that the money couldn't be used for trade with our enemies and you people spin that like it was a scam, yea, billions of dollars gifted and America only wanted that the money didn't go into our enemies economies, so what? Seriously? That's supposed to be some kind of unacceptable trick that was played on everyone, yea right, not wanting our own money used to pump up our enemies economies, how unreasonable, you know, the economy of the very same power that you're blaming their actions on the US, oh yea, that's not spin, certainly not.

[@TD321a]

Stalin and the Soviets were in a strong position to make demands. Britain and Churchill went to war to protect Eastern Europe but the United States never did. There would have been little support for a prolonged war to defend Poland's right to democracy, and there was no promise was made of war if self-determination was violated, which tells you all you need to know - they extracted a weak promise from Stalin because it was all they could get to save the barest amount of face.

[@67nairb]

@@weirdshibainu Churchill was more wary of the Soviets and its bloodthirsty leader than Roosevelt who was a dying man by the time of Yalta.

[@karlforster4907]

Enlightening. Seems, Mr. Nixon knew foreign affairs

[@DwightStJohn-t7y]

Foreign affairs was really his thing: Kissinger brought in, opening China.

[@groverw7507]

Nixon was up against USSR at the height of the cold war, his foreign policy (half Nixon/half Kissinger) produced Detente with Soviets, the Sino-Soviet split with the opening of China, the world's first Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty, the end of the Vietnam war (and the draft). The world was a much safer place as a result.

[@fldon2306]

Plenty of “Useful Idiots” in Washington DC right now and the near future….😂😂😂

[@jkrasney1]

@fldon2306 - Absolutely, especially regarding the MidEast and how Israel should respond to terrorism & terrorists, as a means of survival. Seemingly, every "soft" option the Biden Administration instructs Israel to apply is not only dangerous, but also, damaging to Israel's well-being. "Useful idiots," indeed.

[@victorsamsung2921]

Useful idiots have been in Washington DC for a long time and many decades lol

[@johnbodnar201]

Nope, they're soon to get the boot

[@jonnyd9351]

The Zionist lobby has ensured MANY will stay.

[@TehKarmalizer]

The first half of that phrase is dubious.

[@wpariah]

This is so prescient with respect to the current war in Ukraine. Any cease fire/peace deal with Russia must be 100% enforceable (unlike the Budapest Memorandum of 1994).

[@KevinBalch-dt8ot]

There is no need to expand NATO to Russian borders. NATO should have been abolished with the Warsaw Pact. It is a tool of US ambitions much as the Delian League was for Athens. At least the Athenians got money out of the deal. We actually lose money.

[@LA_Commander]

There were two peace treaties and it was Ukraine who broke them. Not Russia

[@meteorknight999]

Neto is good for uniting europ while alionating muerica it helps in their unieonization while the muerica 💲💰 is going 💥

[@meteorknight999]

​​@@KevinBalch-dt8otNeto is good for uniting europ while alionating muerica It helps in their unieonization while the muerica 💲💰 is going 💥 . Great outlook eh

[@MidnightatMidian]

@@meteorknight999 I can barely understand what you are writing. Please learn English before writing nonsense.

[@TheMasterTeddy]

Churchill himself made several mistakes at the Yalta Conference: out of pure ego, he insisted on having the French at the negotiating table, even though they had lost the war. This not only led to more political chaos but also allowed Stalin to give Churchill something without losing anything: the French mandate territory came out of the British occupation zone in Germany, not the Russian one. In return, Stalin was able to secure the tripartition of Germany and the expulsion of Germans beyond the Oder-Neisse line, as well as the Poles from their eastern territories.

[@PJ2437]

What are your thoughts on FDR's role at Yalta?

[@niccolorichter1488]

Not out of pure ego , France just like UK was an eropean colonial Power , they shared the same interest , Churchill find it imperative ( and so did most of UK politicians ) that they heve a another great Power on theyre side after the war

[@johnlenin830]

“Ally” of the USSR, Churchill planned to attack Soviet troops in Poland, and these plans were developed on his orders in the spring of 1945, when Soviet soldiers were still fighting the Nazis.

[@michaelbowes9894]

Stalin was a beast who was pitiless and who had no qualms about making and breaking agreements. The Allies should have been warned by his conduct in joining with Hitler to invade Poland, but Rooseveldt thought he could handle him. Nobody could handle Stalin.

[@martthvdb9701]

FDR clearly must have forgotten about John H Van Vliets 1943 MIS-X reports about Katyn while dealing with Stalin in Yalta for some kind of weird reason. What a great statesman he was.

[@67nairb]

He insisted that the Russians did not commit the Katyn massacre of Polish officers.

[@martthvdb9701]

@@67nairb And then in the same year, all of a sudden, a plane went down killing all but one nearby Gibraltar. It must me coincidence, don't you think?

[@BannedHistory]

FDR knew what the Soviets were all about when he chose to officially recognize the Stalin regime in 1933 right after they had intentionally starved millions of people to death. US policy during WW2 was the most evil and disgraceful episode in the nation’s history.

[@KevinBalch-dt8ot]

@@martthvdb9701 - The Soviets actually tried to charge Germany with Katyn at Nuremberg. I think we knew the Soviets did it nearly from the beginning.

[@adamchurvis1]

People look at Kennedy and see themselves as they'd like to be. People look at Nixon and see themselves as they are.

[@quicktastic]

FDR was naive about Russia. George Patton knew, they weren't listening to him though. I think Eisenhower knew as well.

[@meteorknight999]

Not listening what ? Entire cold war happened so what should they listen from patton ? Ally with "nasi"zs to push back ? Listen to that ?

[@FxreverNxthing]

Well because FDR was pretty much a Communist. Everyone knew who the real enemy was, yet we aided them. FDR probably let those Communist spies, go anywhere they wanted.

[@adude8046]

I think they were just so focused on ending Germany and Japan that they didn't care about details that could break the alliance. They figured they would be worked out during rebuilding and a long peace. I guess 50 years of cold war was better than having another World War and eventually Communism fell as it should. Guys like Churchill and Patton were right but all they would have done was extend the war and not lay the ground work for the UN and NATO. The big leaders were thinking long long term.

[@Joe-Impera7]

George Patton was born into wealth family, he was an entitled stuck-up snob. Narrator/Historian on TV - refers to him as a California hothead that was unable to work with other allied generals and was renowned for throwing temper tantrums. George Patton like so many here in the USA was NAZI sympathizer/glorifier/idolizer

[@gregorymilla9213]

@@quicktastic Naïveté had nothing to do with it . Russia got the land in conquered as a result of war . Russia agreed to stay out of Greece, Turkey and withdrawal troops from Iran. The conflict between Churchill and Roosevelt stemmed from the fact that Churchill did not want to extend independence to their colonies and Roosevelt was pressuring him to do so . Communism is just a trigger word Nixon uses to pull the wool over your eyes.

[@majorrgeek]

Yalta was not just about an agreement to divide post war Europe between USSR and West but FDR and Churchill both knew they would require Soviet to join in the Pacific war to secure a speedy surrender with less American casualties - Truman later thought he could achieve this without the Russians but with his new Atom bomb but when the Japanese still resisted his unconditional surrender terms he had to modify a speedy Byrnes Note conditional surrender in order to prevent USSR from not only taking China, Manchuria, Sakhalin and Kuriles which they took but also Hokkaido - this would have totally besmirched USA had Stalin completely outwitted Truman over Japan. Unfortunately the old fox Stalin was far too smart and outplayed Churchill and FDR at Yalta and Churchill and Truman at Potsdam

[@Piotrogrud]

Yes, it was tragic. This tragedy lasted for 50 years, impacting a significant portion of Europe, and we are still facing the consequences of Soviet domination

[@guyosborn615]

Nixon is such a breath of fresh air when compared to modern politicians. Nixon or Trump better? Hahahahaha!

[@goranrask7458]

Imagine if todays politicians had half the knowledge and intelligence of this man.

[@republicofhandball8815]

What went wrong at Yalta? It's that meeting took place 6 months before USA throwing the atomic bombs in Japan. The soviets needed 4 more years to create their first atomic bomb. USA, by sending its president in Crimea, to meet Stalin in his own lair, was a humble position by default.

[@schafer18]

Stalin didn't travel far because he felt the Soviets had been hit the hardest of the 3. He also had them land at an airport far away so FDR could see the destruction while they drive by.

[@MarkAnderson-ng8vc]

Which was Stalin’s own fault. He aided the Nazis as much as he could right up until the summer of 1941. They built their empire with Russian oil and Russian metals. Then the US kept them alive for 4 years. The Soviets had no right pretend like they had some sort of victimhood credibility in all that. It’s an embarrassment that Roosevelt ever bought into that bullshit. He should’ve treated Stalin like a supplicant.

[@republicofhandball8815]

@@schafer18 Actually it's because Yalta the Soviets were allowed to keep all the lands they grabbed in WW2, that's why Ukraine is so big, when Lenin created the Soviet Union, Ukraine was half in its later size. A smaller Ukraine (20 millions instead of 40millions, and that half being in the East, where there are many ethnic Russians) would have made Ukraine impossible to resist. In fact, probably the Soviet Union would have never collapsed at all, if Ukraine hadn't been so big and strong. Kravciuk the first leader of Ukraine was the man to persuade Eltin to dissolve the Union. All other former soviet republics followed, but obviously, without Ukraine no one would have dared to leave the union.

[@schafer18]

@@republicofhandball8815 I don't know about that, I was responding to your statement about why they all traveled so far. This is a good documentary about it. Cheers kzbin.info/www/bejne/m3m1fqBjbaxod7Msi=oLXFgqj3PS2VNshL

[@jonnyd9351]

Well your comment is under the assumption that Stalin gets to decide it all...

[@SanderBessels]

This is very good advice for the upcoming peace negotiations between Ukraine / US and Russia. Agreements need to be self enforcing and that means security guarantees (NATO members or similar).

[@67nairb]

The reasons the Democrats replaced Henry Wallace with Harry Truman as FDR's running mate for the 1944 presidential campaign was because the former was too chummy with the Soviets; the latter would prove to be tougher. And in 1948 when Truman was running for reelection as president,( actually, he finished out FDR's term when the latter died on April 12, 1945 and was being elected in his own right), Wallace ran against him with his own opposition group the Progressive Party, a party that wanted to return to the New Deal policies of Roosevelt and accused of souring U.S.-Soviet relations after WWII. Apparently, Wallace was not hip to the evil nature of Josef Stalin.

[@niccolorichter1488]

In 1950 tho Wallace said that he was a naive idiot and change his opinion tho ( they kicked him out of the Progresívne párty after he supported openly Korean War) , Truman later said that he and Wallace were friends Wallace had a good relationship with Einsenhower during his presidency ( even endorsed his 1956 campaign ) and even had a correspondence with Nixon himself . He later was at Kennedy inaguration in 1961 and had correspondence with LBJ about farming and rular stuff ( he endorsed him in 1964 tho privetly criticized his escalation in Vietnam )

[@67nairb]

@@niccolorichter1488 well good for Wallace. Josef Stalin was elected Man of the Year by TIME magazine twice for 1939 and 1942 what a tragedy. But then again the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran was elected Man of the Year for 1979 and look at the crimes he committed. But unlike Hitler, Stalin's and Khomeini's images were on the front cover of TIME. Most Americans didn't know how savage and murderous Uncle Joe was until after WWII. Not only that, membership in the American Communist Party plummeted when the truth about Stalin's crimes came to light after his death in 1953.

[@niccolorichter1488]

@@67nairb i think you are confused about what Time ˇs men of the Year is . Its not a support for the man on the front page , its about the man who dominated discusssion in that year , Also Hitler was on cover too

[@someonethatwatchesyoutube2953]

@@67nairbThey might have dropped their membership but they were still Commies through and through. Now they’re called “democrats” in the USA.

[@67nairb]

@@niccolorichter1488 I know what TIME'S Man of the Year is about. It wasn't about supporting the man it was just about who dominated discussion in that year. But it's strange that Josef Stalin would become man of the year twice in 1939 &1942. One would think that TIME's Man of the the Year for 1939 would be Hitler as he was for Man of Year for 1938. After all he started World War II by invading Poland in 1939 thus forcing Britain and France to declare war on Germany. It could've been at least Winston Churchill who though only an ordinary MP in the House of Commons during 1930s had predicted war was coming. Most Americans knew nothing about Stalin, Hitler was the center of attention during the late 1930's. Stalin shocked the world in August 1939 by signing a non-aggression pact with Hitler, his ideological archenemy. Hitler's image did grace the covers of Time magazine during the 1930's and 40's but not as Man of the Year for 1938. All that people saw that winter of 1938 on the front cover of a copy of Time was a little man whose back was against the reader playing a pipe organ with four wretched people being tortured on some wheels as the man played the organ. That Man of the Year was TIME's first magazine issue for the year 1939. Who would've thought that eight months later the world be at war again because this funny looking man with a Charlie Chaplin moustache invaded Poland. Stalin's atrocities were in the millions by 1939 while Hitler's were in the mere hundreds; millions died because of his Five Year Plan which caused a terrible famine and his bloodletting purges of Red Army officers during the 30's. But most Americans, in fact most Westerners didn't know or didn't care what was going on in Russia. Hitler as I said before was always in the news.

[@jean-pierrelaugier6627]

Nixon really had a high level of understanding of foreign affairs ! My opinion: His comments on Stalin lying to naive West fully apply today. Putin was lying in Minsk's treaty, swearing to protect Ukrainian & Belarus' borders, in exchange of taking back Ukrainian's nuclear weapons 😞

[@jstasiak2262]

No. Putin fully abided by the Minsk agreements. It was the Ukrainians that didn’t honor their obligations under those treaties and the Germans (Merkel) and French (Hollande) who cynically failed to enforce those treaties.

[@jstasiak2262]

If Nixon were alive, he would certainly be appalled and disgusted with the abysmal quality of American foreign policy over the past 30 years, especially during the Biden administration. It is not a matter of “trusting” the Russians: it is a matter of formulating agreements that are mutually beneficial and self-enforcing. Ever since the second Clinton administration, the US has been expanding its sphere of influence in Eastern Europe at the expense of Russia under the guise of expanding NATO. This was always going to lead to trouble. Nixon would have seen NATO expansion as counterproductive and inimical to American security interests. Nixon famously drove a wedge between the USSR and China. By using Ukraine to attack Russia and weaponizing the US dollar, the Biden administration has undone Nixon’s work and made Russia and China allies. Nixon would have worked hard to prevent a third world war. World War 3 looks all but inevitable now.

[@espinosaparide4394]

​@@jstasiak2262Absolutely not. Neither Ukraine nor Russia respected the Minsk treaty

[@jean-pierrelaugier6627]

@@jstasiak2262 Dictator Putin invaded Ukraine ! Putin's colonial invasion tries to change Ukrainian borders... US, UK, Germany & France respect Ukrainian borders !

[@Munciboss]

The Minsk's treaties and the one regarding the Soviet nuclear weapons left in Ukraine after the dissolution of the USSR are two different treaties. The former was agreed upon by Putin in 2015 and the latter just after the Ukrainian independence when Putin wasn't even in power yet

[@JGD185]

>Started WW2 over protecting Poland >Ended up giving Poland to Uncle Joe

[@KevinBalch-dt8ot]

Bingo! The irony is …. well, ironic.

[@gvibration1]

What could they have done?

[@SewayPL]

​@gvibration1 insist on pre-1939 borders

[@PaulV.]

>Destroyed the British Empire as the end result. The man was really a strategic genius as historians are telling us, no arguments here.

[@KevinBalch-dt8ot]

@@SewayPL - The pre-1939 borders arguably were the reason for the war. If an ethnic group is divided by a border established by outsiders, it WILL create a problem, particularly where that ethnic group is made a minority by that border.

[@richardgreen7811]

No question ... Nixon was the greatest student and spokesman for democracy in the political spectrum. Left alone, he would have been the amazing emissary for a free society on the world's stage. Unfortunately the socialist media had a zeal to emasculate anything democratic in America. It's only now that we recognize Nixon's contribution. Not to worry though ... WE THE PEOPLE are destined to repeat this event. Vote democrat and watch your children's future go down the drain.

[@harmen4436]

Trump would call Nixon a pro war Rino who will sellout the US to China

[@jonnyd9351]

At least more people are waking up. We can only hope things continue

[@richardgreen7811]

@@jonnyd9351 Ya think they will wake up "now" ? Think the stupidity will stop. Just watch ... Grabem($) Newsom will be the next democrat nominee for president and Kramala Harris will be the next alleged governor of Clownifornia. LA is burning and Newsom is playing the fiddle.

[@65if2007]

Nixon fascinates me because he was such a brilliant man who got so much wrong. It's easier to listen to him talk about his view of world events from the vantage point that he had than to contemplate his own foreign policy. If Watergate was overrated as a scandal -- and it was -- then I think that it's equally true that Nixon's foreign policy accomplishments are overrated. The China trip was supposed to have been his shining accomplishment, but it looks much worse now. In retrospect, it seems to me that we would have been better off leaving China isolated. But again, it's still fascinating to hear him talk about what he saw and heard.

[@CanadianMonarchist]

Nixon’s overtures to China were to cut down the international influence of the USSR.

[@stevens1041]

When Nixon met with Chinese leaders, Japan had just surpassed Germany to become second largest economy on Earth. The apogee of Japanese economic power would come in 1995, shortly before the Asian Financial Crisis. China was an extremely poor, economically insignificant country until around the year 2000. The point of meeting with China wasn't only to balance Moscow--there was a clique of people in Washington that was increasingly worried about Japanese economic power in Asia and what that could potentially mean.

[@cragnamorra]

I'd agree that from today's perspective, the luster of Nixon & Kissinger's China rapprochement has indeed dimmed. But that's 50+ years ago. In the context of the time, I perceive it was still a brilliant stroke (and largely mitigated - even negated - the disaster of Vietnam, at least from a geostrategic perspective.. no doubt the domestic social and cultural harm from that war are still very much with us today). If there was a time when US foreign policy regarding China started "going off the rails", I'd have to say it was later than 1972. Perhaps 1990s? Post-Tiananmen?

[@65if2007]

@cragnamorra Excellent observations from both of you. Yes, I get that the China Gambit looks better from a 1971 perspective than it does today. It is certainly possible that in a theoretical world where Nixon could have continued to govern, he would have made the rapprochement with China more hard-headed than it subsequently became.

[@DwightStJohn-t7y]

@@cragnamorra I met my wife T. Sq. day in Canada and by 2000 at the world oil confeence in Calgary we were laughing at China. We ain't laughing now. Man, that was a FAST recovery. My son is now a "typical" young man in Vancouver: speaks, writes four languages including French, but in 1990 most HS's were still all white!

[@Symon_Musician]

Living in Belarus and being a historian I have to declare that Pr. Nixon in 100% right. Signing a deal and following it is not the same in Russia. P.s. It could be a great advise for Trump and his advisors.

[@acote5020]

My view is that Yalta proves that those who successfully occupy an area make the rules. In reality could the West have forced the Russians to do anything? Other than the atomic bomb, which came later, what advantage on the ground did the West have?

[@ShawnKennedy-w2i]

Israel agrees.

[@jonnyd9351]

What Yalta proves is that FDR had communists in his ear that absolutely tricked him into believing whatever they wanted. FDR was either a useful idiot or had secret motives because no normal human could have believed what he was made to believe.

[@stevesteady603]

You said it yourself, the bomb. By 1945 usa knows it could blow Russia off the map

[@RichardSchiffman-m8v]

Nobody could hold a candle to Nixon when it comes to foreign policy. I could listen to Nixon speak about world affairs for hours and hours. He was simply brilliant. The most interesting man to occupy the Oval Office over the last century imho and it’s not even close

[@drivesafely12]

Yes, he's quite correct about Churchill who was very unhappy with Yalta but tried to put on a brave face. And of course Churchill was right.

[@grahamwebb3880]

The black letters read "foudnation" instead of "foundation".

[@DwightStJohn-t7y]

someone is typing really fast, but media need to proof read their own stuff. One guy posting i'm pretty forgiving. Media post miss spelling is just lazy or stupid.

[@phav1832]

Listen to Nixon talk about history and issues, and then compare him to any of the last 4 presidents . . . no comparison about breadth of knowledge and the ability to articulate his ideas.

[@georgesouthwick7000]

It was obvious to Stalin that Roosevelt was dying and he took advantage of it.

[@williammerkel1410]

Most of my family were ethnic Germans that had long lived within the borders of the old Russian empire and later the USSR, Yalta made it official that all of those who had not emigrated to North America were the walking dead by handing over ALL former Soviet subjects back to them and into their tender mercy. None of my relatives survived. All 3 of them were monsters for either carrying it out or supporting it.

[@irish89055]

A woman I know wrote a book here called DP, about displaced persons.. her father being German was murdered I Believe by the Russians cuz they lived in that area you just mentioned. But she survived being killed and her mother

[@mikeg2491]

We also sold out the Cossacks and other Russian POWs held in the west too

[@williammerkel1410]

@@mikeg2491 supporting opperation keelhaul was one of our darkest moments, after seeing what the soviets did to them we shouldn't have given up anyone, but from my understanding the ruskies were prepared to withhold allied pows that they had.

[@totallybored5526]

Ethnic Germans? You really are American 😂

[@noone-kk2zs]

​@@totallybored5526 Where's the problem? Are you denying that germans are a ethnicity?

[@TarpeianRock]

You can say what you want about Tricky Dicky, he was made for foreign politics.

[@rainbowseeker5930]

Moscow's Kitchen Debate...1958

[@NicolasJimenezBarea]

And south amerocam coups (to Ceasar what's to Ceasar, though)

[@smallworx]

Paperback Book " Victims of Yalta " was published in 1987. Yes, TRUSTING the Russians.

[@tonyclifton265]

i always liked nixon. history has been unfair to him. i think his reputation will be revised and rehabilitated one day

[@rainbowseeker5930]

He lost forever the day he went on national TV to debate with JFK ...That was his most painful defeat and he never quite recovered from it.

[@nobodyisbest]

There is an argument to be made that the Western Allies should have made a separate peace with Germany and then to go on to defeat Russia.

[@Mustapha1963]

FDR should never have run for a fourth term. He was a dead man walking long before Yalta, and I think that his failing body also contributed to a failing mind to some extent. FDR was also far, FAR too trusting of Stalin, and Stalin played upon FDR's infatuation with Stalin to wrangle far more favorable terms for the USSR than they deserved. One could well say that the seeds of the Cold War were sewn at Yalta.

[@CarlGerhardt1]

He at least should have brought Harry Truman into the loop.

[@jonnyd9351]

His communist friends didn't want that, so it didn't happen. That simple

[@johnlenin830]

The USSR made a decisive contribution to the defeat of Germany, the USSR lost 30 million lives, most of the industrialized territory of the USSR lay in ruins, on D-Day 2\3 parts of the Wehrmacht were on the Eastern Front. Without the USSR victory would have been impossible.

[@Mustapha1963]

@@johnlenin830 Noe of which excuses their duplicity in dealing with the Western Allies and breaking every single promise they made to observe pre-war borders. The result was a Cold War that lasted almost fifty years and the virtual enslavement of eastern Europe.

[@CarlGerhardt1]

@@johnlenin830 Well, it's possible Hitler never would have launched his 'Drive to the East' or even gotten into power if it wasn't for Stalin becoming the USSR's absolute tyrant and creating the horrible Ukrainian famine in 1932. As much as he wanted 'Leibensram' for the German people, his other great cause was to destroy Soviet Bolshevism. The people of Germany were well aware of what an evil catastrophe the 'collectivization' campaign was, even if many people in America weren't. THAT is a major reason many Germans were willing to vote for the NSDAP as the 'lesser or two evils' in 1932 & 1933. (Of course, many Germans WERE Okay with the Nazi platform anyway.)

[@shahrulamar5358]

Nixon served in Pacific for US Navy during World War 2. ⛴️

[@johnkoziel789]

I seem to recall, towards the end of the war he was mostly at the pentagon, negotiating the termination of defense contracts, saving the US billions.

[@jakedee4117]

Yes and apparently made thousands of dollars there from poker. That financed his first political campaigns. Rather interesting for a man raised as a Quaker.

[@shahrulamar5358]

@jakedee4117 Thanks for info.

[@rainbowseeker5930]

So did Jack Kennedy.

[@shahrulamar5358]

@rainbowseeker5930 They survived the war and became the successfull politicians after that.

[@shahjehan]

Nixon was one of the smartest foreign policy experts the USA has had.

[@OenopionOenopion]

Whatever one thinks about Watergate or Nixon’s conduct and private conversations, he understood international relations better than any president of the post-war world. Republicans and their MAGA supporters, as well as likeminded people in Europe should pay heed to Nixon’s wisdom when dealing with Vladimir Putin.

[@boyanmarkov645]

Our society needs leaders like this right now. Richard Nixon was one of the most intelligent politics ever!

[@pauls7056]

Amazing insight into international affairs. We could learn so much from President Nixon, especially now. Thank you for posting.

[@virgilstarkwell8383]

What wrong at Yalta was that the USA had lost most of its leverage over the USSR. High tide of USA leverage on USSR was at the Tehran conference in 11/43 when the Soviets desperately needed a second front in northern Europe. That is when USA and UK had maximum power to squeeze concessions from Stalin. Instead, FDR agreed to a 2nd front and asked for virtually nothing in return. BY time of Yalta the Allied armies had established a 2nd front and so too went their biggest advantage over Stalin. To put it bluntly USA has far less raw power to bargaining with at Yalta after D Day success.

[@Dac54]

FDR's failing health probably played a not so insignificant role in his failure to stand up more forcefully to Stalin at Yalta. In fact, it was well-known in DC that he was in failing health prior to the 1944 presidential campaign and unlikely to last out a four year term. If it wasn't for the unique circumstances of the time, he would not have sought to run for a fourth term. This was the principal reason why Truman was settled on as FDR's running mate; he was from Missouri and one of the few Democrats who could thread the needle between the progressive and old southern wings of the Democrat party.

[@samcotten2416]

FDR had neither the interest nor the desire to stand up to Stalin - he was his little lap dog who was eager to give the dictator whatever he wanted.

[@brucekuehn4031]

The Yalta Conference was over on February 11th of 1945. FDR died on April 12th. He was only 63 although he looked at least 15 years older.

[@BannedHistory]

How do you explain 1933-1944 then? FDR and the other Gentiles in his machine were useful idiots and fellow travelers. The Jews running the show just viewed USSR as a weapon against the Nazis.

[@jonnyd9351]

He didn't stand up to Stalin because he had been brainwashed by his communist friends. Are you unaware that FDR said this about Stalin late in the way: “I think that if I give him everything that I possibly can and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything and will work for a world of democracy and peace.”?

[@raymondfrye5017]

Nixon,as usual, was brilliant

[@searchforthestrangler5034]

Brilliant man

[@NewtNiko]

After listening to our president elect, watching these videos is a nice breath of fresh air. I really miss competence

[@jameslu2332]

Nixon has to be the most underrated American President and he deserves to be among the top Presidents in the history of America.

[@BobBrand-z8s]

i dont think Nixon is underrated. Hes by far one of the most famous Presidents, for both good and bad reasons. Hes kind of like a Shakespearan figure in a way. Whether people love him or hate him.......they all are fascinated by him.

[@jpd9355]

He was such a smart man. I felt he was a good President. I enjoyed his talks a lot more than most.

[@trickster759]

It would be great if you could show when each of these interviews took place. Even just putting the date of the interview in the description would be fantastic.

[@KevinBalch-dt8ot]

I think they were done in the early years of the Reagan administration.

[@rainbowseeker5930]

@@KevinBalch-dt8ot - So it must have been in the early 80s...

[@RileyRampant]

Its important that RMN validates the settlements at Yalta because they were, in effect, fait accompli. As far as their lacking enforcement, that would have been difficult to accomplish as well. It could be that Nixon was speaking more for the present than the past, in terms of more current negotiations with the Soviets. He takes no cheap partisan shots. He is constantly psychoanalyzed and found wanting, but his later assessments usually have a ring of sound measured authority & wisdom.

[@BradleyParker-m4i]

As a young man it's kinda scary how he predicted world events, especially Russia and China

[@srzar]

Great man.

[@peggyelchert8340]

The seasoned, esteemed…Richard M. Nixon….

[@PJ2437]

I love Franklin Roosevelt as a president, but I don't think he should have run in '44 and lets face it, his abilities were clearly diminished by February 1945.

[@abupinhus]

The wrong way was not because Russians were ruthless agressors. The wrong way it went because Roosvelt sides with Stalin for personal stupid reasons. If insted invasion at Normandy, which was promoted by Stalin, Roosvelt agreed to attack USSR on Balkans as promoted by Chirchil - the history would complitly different. Allies knew that they are dealing with thugs, but roosvelt prefer to ignore it .And they complain that soviet do no care about fair voting! USSR murdered by hunger millions of people in Ukraine, why they should care what Polls and Cheks want?

[@frankrenda2519]

not stupid reasons more like he understood soviet power and was realistic

[@abupinhus]

@frankrenda2519 i agree to disagee. We know that he dislike Chirchil.And based on history that we know now, he clearly did not understood power of soviets correctly. He is not alone in this. Clearly for long time US establishment were significantly overestimated power of soviets.

[@frankrenda2519]

@@abupinhus thats funny the soviets beat the germans and destroyed the japanese in Manchuria something the brits and American's couldn't do

[@abupinhus]

@frankrenda2519 No it is sad, that you have so incorrect picture of soviets.Soviet beat germans after catastrofic loss to german when Soviet had 3.5 tumes more tanks, and 1.5 tumes more people. The georgraphy, climate, demography and US help - that what allowed soviets to push back germans. Stalin wrote to Roosvelt, that without help from US, soviets were prepared give accomodations to Germans.

[@vladsarghi6914]

​​ @frankrenda2519 Without lend-lease, the USSR was doomed. Also, during the war, some 85.000 Americans died in workplace accidents in military factories and about 100.000 workers a year suffered permanent partial disabilities. The North African front also sucked a huge portion of German resources and cost them 200.000 soldiers. After that, the Germans had to withdraw after the Battle of Kursk some 200.000 soldiers from the Eastern Front to face the Allies in Sicily and Italy (for comparison: the Stalingrad defeat, which was a catastrophy for the Germans, cost them 250.000 people). Also factor in the relentless Allied bombing campaigns on Germany's industrial capacities. It took an alliance of many to defeat Germany, USSR wouldn't have done it by itself.

[@67nairb]

A lot of people say that Richard Nixon was the first U.S. president to visit the Soviet Union in 1972. Not so. Franklin Roosevelt was the fist president to visit that country at Yalta in the Crimea then part of southern Russia in February 1945.

[@jonnyd9351]

If only he traveled to actual Soviet cities and gulags to realize he was being an naive idiot.

[@rainbowseeker5930]

Nixon was sent to Moscow by Eisenhower in 1958, as Vice-President, where he sustained the famous Kitchen Debate with Nikita Kruschev.

[@67nairb]

@rainbowseeker5930 that's right.

[@ColinH1973]

The Russians promised to march out of Vienna and they stuck to it.

[@vascovideo5678]

Good point. But the Russians did not trust the Germans & knew they would resist Russian occupation. East Germany had a much higher percentage of USSR troops than rest of Eastern Europe. Do you think German speakers would accept Russian occupation of Vienna, arguably city of most German culture ?

[@TheVenge]

What a clear-thinking, rational person Nixon was. Criticize the Watergate stuff, sure, but also ask yourself, would any modern President (R or D) step down with the decades of garbage going on?

[@davehopping7212]

Nixon was right about Soviet perfidy, but he's being a little tricky about FDR, who got in bed with Stalin long before WW2. If Nixon got too candid about Roosevelt and Stalin, people might start thinking about Nixon and Mao going all 68 plus one.

[@weirdshibainu]

My father was career Navy and had spent time in mainland China in 1938 and witnessed the behavior of the Japanese and the abject chaos that Chinese society was subjected to. Warlords, starvation, illiteracy, violence, drug use, corruption, no rule of law were the norm. Human life was dirt cheap. I remember watching Nixon "open" China on the CBS evening news. My day said that this would comeback to haunt the U.S. in ways unimaginable. He said the Chinese are " xenophobic, cruel and patient." Bullseye.

[@davehopping7212]

@@weirdshibainu Yup. fifty-some years on, China owns much of America.

[@iangeorge6409]

Roosevelt in bed with Stalin? Where do you get that from?

[@davehopping7212]

@@iangeorge6409 History,pal. He quacked like a Red.

[@jakedee4117]

@@iangeorge6409 Probably from the John Birch Society. The ability to secretly and invisibly puppeteer presidents from the other side of the world is a super-power possessed by Red Communists and only by Red Communists (and possibly by Catholics).

[@Jilktube]

I’m sure that Nixon would be proud to know that I watched an ad for Dominos pizza before watching this.

[@maestromecanico597]

It was February 1945. The War had been a 24/7 reality for over five years. Add the stress of Great Depression and we’re talking about sailing rough seas continuously for a decade and a half. Everybody has their breaking point. And at this point everybody wanted this whole ordeal to be over. Unfortunately it meant sacrificing Poland and the Poles would suffer for four more decades.

[@MarkAnderson-ng8vc]

That does nothing whatsoever to explain why the west yielded so easily to stalin. What a lame excuse for weak, shortsightedness

[@KevinBalch-dt8ot]

Despite the reason for the war in the first place being the freedom of Poland.

[@niccolorichter1488]

Only the Poles are worth mentioning ?

[@jonnyd9351]

That's ridiculous. So the Soviets were able to get everything they wanted because the west was too tired? The only people who were 'too tired' were western communists and FDR. Churchill wasn't too tired, Patton wasn't, MacArthur wasn't, and most of their men weren't either. You're giving the excuse written by leftist historians at the time, not actual history.

[@keldonmcfarland2969]

I'd like to know when this was recorded

[@KevinBalch-dt8ot]

Early 1980s.

[@pgr3290]

The people of Poland and Eastern Europe in general argue with the United Kingdom about Yalta because they see it as betrayal after the UK had initially gone to bat for them and joined the war in the first place. I have to point them to the fact that Nixon is raising here: there was little Churchill and the UK could have actually done about this. Churchill tried to make it clear to Roosevelt that the USSR was a serious threat in Europe and the U.S should be tougher. It was not the UK's or Churchill's fault that Europe was carved up in this manner.

[@martinstent5339]

But the most important thing was to have any agreement at all. Draw the lines in the sand, this is yours, this is ours, and move on from there. No agreement would have meant continuing the conflict, and nobody wanted that.

[@jonnyd9351]

That's a ridiculous statement. That war killed more people than any other event in human history up until that point and to now. The aftermath of a war like that is massively important and directly led to our modern geopolitical and financial systems.

[@DwightStJohn-t7y]

As a serving Navy officer, Nixon came out of the war with 65,000 in cash playing poker. then went on to Whittier College and the debate team. One Professors proudest stores was her getting clock cleaned by Nixon in academic debate!

[@bevally1533]

Watergate has clouded the legacy of Richard Nixon. He should be applauded, appreciated and recognized for his brilliance and insightfulness in foreign affairs. He opened the door to China.

[@PrimarchMatterion]

There is an old Vulcan Proverb "Only Nixon could go to China". He was a brilliant leader and a great President and what he was accused of happens daily in politics now.

[@warpspeeed6345]

Ive been to that place outside yalta , its a very nice white palace. The courtyard has 3 bronze statues, seated, like in the famous picture..pretty cool Also, Yalta is very nice for vacation, id recommend the Yalta hotel...

[@Zyzyx442]

A true statesman, agree or disagree with him politically.

[@MarkMcCullough-y5s]

I heard somewhere that Stalin never bathed and when negotiations weren't going his way he would lift his arms and Churchill and Roosevelt would just say, " okay whatever you want".

[@MadiBendy]

I will say this; despite everything in his presidency Nixon was one of the best politicians that we’ve had recently in the office, he really took the time to understand politics and what makes politics work. I love listening to him speak about topics he cares so deeply about

[@tedosmond413]

anyone know what churchill was advising to do? what his position on critical issues was/were?

[@jonnyd9351]

He thought FDR was being naive and idiotic when working with Stalin. History of course proved Churchill correct. If you want more of an explanation just ask and I'll give you a FDR quote that exemplifies this.

[@tedosmond413]

@@jonnyd9351 ok, give the quote...

[@rainbowseeker5930]

@@jonnyd9351 - Churchill foresaw that the Soviets would enslave half of Europe if the West opened a second front in France...he wisely wanted it to be on the Balkans. Roosevelt sided with the dictator and sealed the future for the next 50 years.

[@jonnyd9351]

@tedosmond413 FDR said this about Stalin after he had been warned many times by both diplomats to the Soviet Union and military officials of what Stalin truly wanted and who he was: “I think that if I give him everything that I possibly can and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything and will work for a world of democracy and peace.”.

[@tedosmond413]

@ is that a quote of fdr or churchill?

[@Sutter635-jk4td]

What went wrong ? A 100 soviet divisions how were the Americans and British expected to eject 2-3 million russian troops from Germany and central Europe..

[@shermanowens1225]

Facts on the ground. The Soviet Union had lost ~25 million people.

[@steamer2k319]

It was a few months after Yalta but General Patton described it like this in his private diary (which has since been published): "I have never seen in any army at any time, including the German Imperial Army of 1912, as severe discipline as exists in the Russian army. The officers, with few exceptions, give the appearance of recently civilized Mongolian bandits." ... "In my opinion, the American Army as it now exists could beat the Russians with the greatest of ease, because, while the Russians have good infantry, they are lacking in artillery, air, tanks, and in the knowledge of the use of the combined arms, whereas we excel in all three of these. If it should be necessary to fight the Russians, the sooner we do it the better." ...and in a letter to his wife: "If we have to fight them, now is the time. From now on we will get weaker and they stronger." ...and to the Secretary of War: "I understand the situation. Their supply system is inadequate to maintain them in a serious action such as I could put to them. They have chickens in the coop and cattle on the hoof - that's their supply system. They could probably maintain themselves in the type of fighting I could give them for five days. After that it would make no difference how many million men they have, and if you wanted Moscow I could give it to you. They lived on the land coming down. There is insufficient left for them to maintain themselves going back. Let's not give them time to build up their supplies. If we do, then . . . we have had a victory over the Germans and disarmed them, but we have failed in the liberation of Europe; we have lost the war!"

[@KevinBalch-dt8ot]

The Soviets were largely dependent on US Lend-Lease aid which should have begun to be cut back a year earlier. Actually, we should never have offered it to them.

[@Sutter635-jk4td]

@@KevinBalch-dt8ot at the time fighting the Nazis and beating them was priority over any poss future trouble with Russia. That's the facts.

[@jaystrickland4151]

Nixon was the one that caught Hiss by reviewing FBI documents while on the House Unamerican Activities committee.

[@XavierKatzone]

The Yalta Conference (Russian: Ялтинская конференция, romanized: Yaltinskaya konferentsiya), held 4-11 February 1945, was the World War II meeting of the heads of government of the United States, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union to discuss the postwar reorganization of Germany and Europe. The three states were represented by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and General Secretary Joseph Stalin. The conference was held near Yalta in Crimea, Soviet Union, within the Livadia, Yusupov, and Vorontsov palaces. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yalta_Conference

[@gerhardbenade5869]

Nixon did not understand that it was not the "Russians" at Yalta but the Soviet Union. Russia was only one of the republics of the USSR. Josef Stalin wasn't even a Russian himself. He came from Georgia.

[@jakedee4117]

I think Nixon understood that very well. Russia and the Soviet Union often get confused but I'm sure Nixon understood who was in the driver's seat.

[@brucekuehn4031]

Before the breakup of the USSR at the end of 1991, the use of the words “Russians” and “Soviets” were commonly interchangeable. Nixon understood, without a doubt.

[@LA_Commander]

Correct. And the next two leaders after Stalin were Ukrainian

[@rainbowseeker5930]

@@brucekuehn4031 - Not so much...In America, at least, most people talked of "the Soviets" during the cold war...Even in the early 90's, after the fall of the Soviet Union, a lot of people kept calling them Soviets when referring to the Russkies.

[@petr7694]

Soviet Evil Empire was a Russian imperial project. Hitler was Austrian. What's your point?

[@bobloblaw10001]

What is the date of this interview?

[@user-iy6rm6pm4j]

Ironic because Nixon hailed the ridiculous Vietnam Paris Agreement LOL as "Peace With Honor", knowing perfectly well the Viet Cong would wipe their bazoos with it as soon as U.S. troops withdrew. Neither Nixon nor Kissinger were naive. The Paris Agreement LOL was just a fig leaf over U.S. unconditional withdrawal. How much of the Yalta baloney on Poland was just for diplomatic show?

[@victorwilliams1304]

Many forget what the Soviets had endured prior to this meeting. Remember, this was before D-Day.

[@Joe-Impera7]

It was very important/beneficial for the allies to delay D-Day as much as possible, ~ even though the Soviets had been pleading for a second front to ease their sufferings. The Nazi's were encircled and defeated at Stalingrad (known to Historians as the turning point of the war) from there onward it was a retreat back to Germany. D-Day happened when the Nazi's were retreating.

[@rainbowseeker5930]

They were kept alive by the West opening a second front...otherwise, the Wehrmacht would have swallowed them in the end.

[@johnthomas7038]

Are you saying that the Yalta Conference (1945) was before D-Day (1944)?

[@Joe-Impera7]

@@johnthomas7038 check the bottom line in my comment - it says "D-Day happened when the Nazi's were retreating"

[@victorwilliams1304]

@@johnthomas7038 You overlooking the Meeting in Tehran November of 1943 that had the three leaders.

[@adamesd3699]

The idea that the United States keeps to the spirit and letter of agreements is laughable. Ask anyone in the Global Majority countries about the US keeping promises. Heck, ask the native Americans about that.

[@adamchurvis1]

One of my fellow alumni from Marine Military Academy was one of Nixon's pall bearers.

[@LA_Commander]

The Marines do not have their own academy. They use the US Naval Academy

[@adamchurvis1]

@@LA_Commander YT didn't let me post the web address, so search for "Marine Military Academy." I was Class of '79 (before it went soft, in my humble opinion).

[@rd9793]

RN was one of the smartest of our presidents and had a real grasp of geopolitics.

[@IchDienn]

I wonder if the British today still think Church was a hero😂😂😂😂

[@Joe-Impera7]

We're all sure that just like Stalins legacy has been trashed ~ Churchill's will follow soon be by the waste side, since he was a divisive character from the colonial era.

[@williamgill_esq.6487]

Lesson for Trump and his team: never trust the Russians.

[@rts9423]

Repeat and repeat until trump hears it

[@JGlennFL]

Can ANYONE honestly imagine Trump having this conversation? He wouldn't even know what Yalta was.

[@trojanthedog]

Maybe, yes, maybe no. But by God, he would get a better deal than Winston and Rosy did.

[@michaelmatheny3927]

Now do you really believe that? Really? Trump's head or heart is not really allegiant for any country or for what's better in any given territory or th globe. And honestly, I think th paramount question here is: Is he really for th United States? I mean, are we the people, on th presipice of th greatest compromises, and conflicts of interests, and military strategies, never before dreamt of by any human on Planet Earth? He's done more for th Soviet Front than Robert Hansen could have ever aspired of doing. What, pray-tell, is this crap about annexing Greenland, Canada, and th Panamanian Canal? He's not already in some kind of a damn pissing contest, or showing solidarity with Putin, is he? And capital hill ain't some kinda damn reality show where he's always saying "yah firuhd, yahfiruhd, yah firuhd.". @@trojanthedog

[@LA_Commander]

Funny you don't even bring up Joe Biden

[@thenneklkt7786]

"I don't think it went well" Yeah no shit Winston, you've given the Americans everything they wanted and you literally have no bargaining power left.

[@frederickanderson1860]

Russia had the advantage of defeating the German advance by huge losses and sacrifices.

[@MarkAnderson-ng8vc]

After allying with a Germany for the first 2 years of the war and helping them subdue all of Eastern Europe. It was their own fault. But it’s an impressive feat of propaganda that the Russians convinced the world to pity them for a war they helped start. Oh poor Russia, her stupid, evil decisions came back to bite her in the ass, let’s console her by letting her oppress half of Europe for 50 years.

[@skipperclinton1087]

@frederickanderson: Much like the same tactics they're using today against Ukraine!

[@KevinBalch-dt8ot]

No sympathy at all since they helped rearm Germany even before Hitler.

[@rainbowseeker5930]

The only reason the USSR survived the war was because of the huge Western help sent in convoys to Murmansk of ships full of tanks, planes, artillery, etc, PLUS the distraction of numerous German Armies in North Africa, Italy, the Balkans, and the Atlantic Wall... All this kept the Soviets breathing...otherwise... !

[@BanjoLuke1]

This man's views are a valuable part of the picture. This is a part of much extraordinary footage of him (and some even more revealing audio). But... His legacy is profoundly and rightly tainted by his corruption, his paranoia and his lies.

[@MGTOWforthewin]

Simple, none of the three authoritarian statists in the front were successfully assassinated when the picture was taken. 😂

[@marcostesta6541]

My view...my opinion...although Foreigner as I am ...and It may tarnish my value in serious American debates . . Nixon was (along wt three other PotUS) Stellar.... Top three American Presidents...I wish you Americans could at that time, suport his Office during the diffamation campaign....America would have a stronger stance today