Kings and Generals
Published 17 May 2020Our animated historical documentary series on modern warfare continues with a coverage of the Battles of Khalkin Gol of 1939, as the USSR and Japan clashed in Mongolia and Manchuria. Although this short war didn’t change much in the Far East, it played a huge role during World War II.
Cold War channel: http://bit.ly/2UHebLI
Modern Warfare series: http://bit.ly/2W2SeXFSupport us on Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/KingsandGenerals or Paypal: http://paypal.me/kingsandgenerals
We are grateful to our patrons and sponsors, who made this video possible: https://docs.google.com/document/d/17…
The video was made by Leif Sick, while the script was developed by Ivan Moran
This video was narrated by Officially Devin (https://www.youtube.com/user/OfficiallyDevin)
✔ Merch store ► teespring.com/stores/kingsandgenerals
✔ Podcast ► Google Play: http://bit.ly/2QDF7y0 iTunes: https://apple.co/2QTuMNG
✔ Twitter ► https://twitter.com/KingsGenerals
✔ Instagram ► http://www.instagram.com/Kings_GeneralsProduction Music courtesy of Epidemic Sound: http://www.epidemicsound.com
#Documentary #KhalkinGol #WorldWar2
June 5, 2021
Battle of Khalkhin Gol 1939 – Soviet-Japanese War
QotD: British wartime censorship
Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news — things which on their own merits would get the big headlines — being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that “it wouldn’t do” to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is “not done” to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was “not done” to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.
At this moment what is demanded by the prevailing orthodoxy is an uncritical admiration of Soviet Russia. Everyone knows this, nearly everyone acts on it. Any serious criticism of the Soviet régime, any disclosure of facts which the Soviet government would prefer to keep hidden, is next door to unprintable. And this nation-wide conspiracy to flatter our ally takes place, curiously enough, against a background of genuine intellectual tolerance. For though you are not allowed to criticise the Soviet government, at least you are reasonably free to criticise our own. Hardly anyone will print an attack on Stalin, but it is quite safe to attack Churchill, at any rate in books and periodicals. And throughout five years of war, during two or three of which we were fighting for national survival, countless books, pamphlets and articles advocating a compromise peace have been published without interference. More, they have been published without exciting much disapproval. So long as the prestige of the USSR is not involved, the principle of free speech has been reasonably well upheld. There are other forbidden topics, and I shall mention some of them presently, but the prevailing attitude towards the USSR is much the most serious symptom. It is, as it were, spontaneous, and is not due to the action of any pressure group.
George Orwell, Unpublished Preface to Animal Farm, 1945.
April 22, 2021
The Winter War
In Quillette, Sean McMeekin outlines the disaster of the first Soviet offensive against Finland in the opening battles of the 1939-40 Winter War:
While Finland, with a tiny population of scarcely 3.5 million, could hardly have threatened the Soviet colossus, it had fought fiercely for independence during the Russian Civil War, conquering Helsinki in April 1918 and dealing the Reds a series of painful blows. The Finnish White Guards — as the Bolsheviks referred to the forces then commanded by the redoubtable Gustaf Mannerheim — had also, Stalin remembered, worked with German troops and collaborated with the British Baltic fleet. Had Mannerheim’s connections with the Germans not been so strong, the British might have lent his Finnish guards more support in the critical days of fall 1919, when Petrograd nearly fell to the Whites. But this was small consolation to Stalin, who mostly remembered the humiliation of losing Finland and Finnish double-dealing with outside powers. The fear that Finland might once again invite in a power hostile to the USSR, whether Britain or Germany, was never far from Stalin’s mind.
When Molotov summoned a Finnish delegation to the Kremlin on October 12th, 1939, Stalin made a personal appearance to heighten the intimidation factor, and he handed the Finns a brutal ultimatum demanding, among other things, “that the frontier between Russia and Finland in the Karelian Isthmus region be moved westward to a point only 20 miles east of Viipuri, and that all existing fortifications on the Karelian Isthmus be destroyed.” Stalin made it clear that this was the price that Finland had to pay to avoid the fate of Poland.
Aggressive and insulting as the Soviet demands on Finland were, Stalin and Molotov fully expected them to be accepted. As the Ukrainian party boss and future general secretary Nikita Khrushchev later recalled, the mood in the Politburo at the time was that “all we had to do was raise our voice a little bit and the Finns would obey. If that didn’t work, we could fire one shot and the Finns would put up their hands and surrender.” Stalin ruled, after all, a heavily armed empire of more than 170 million that had been in a state of near-constant mobilization since early September. The Red Army had already deployed 21,000 modern tanks, while the tiny Finnish Army did not possess an anti-tank gun. The Finnish Air Force had maybe a dozen fighter planes, facing a Red Air armada of 15,000, with 10,362 brand-new warplanes built in 1939 alone. Finnish Army reserves still mostly drilled with wooden rifles dating to the 19th century. By contrast, the Red Army was, in late 1939, the largest in the world, the most mechanized, the most heavily armored, and the most lavishly armed, even if surely not — because of Stalin’s purges — the best led.
[…]
Just past dawn on November 30th, Stalin’s undeclared war against Finland began with a furious artillery barrage on all fronts, followed by the scream of warplanes overhead. The only difference between the bald acts of territorial aggression in Finland and Poland was that the Soviet blitzkrieg was less efficient. Soviet medium bombers — mostly SB-2s cautiously dropping one-ton payloads from heights of 3,000 feet or more — weren’t especially accurate. In Helsinki, Russian bombers failed to knock out a single docking bay, airfield runway, Finnish warplane, or oil tank (although one airport hangar was destroyed). A stray bomb hit the Soviet legation building. According to eyewitnesses, Red fighter pilots strafed Helsinki suburbs as well, “machine-gunning women and children who had fled their houses to the fields.” Similar scenes of horror were repeated in Viipuri (Vyborg), as well as in provincial towns such as Lahti, Enso, and Kotka.
Meretskov’s landward assault on the Karelian Isthmus fared poorly. During the interval between the border incident of November 26th and the Russian onslaught early on November 30th, Mannerheim had wisely evacuated most of the civilian population. A series of clever booby traps were set for the invaders, including “pipe mines” — steel tubes crammed with explosives buried in snowdrifts and set off by hidden trip wires. The most effective defense of all was the Molotov cocktail, first used in Spain but ingeniously updated by the Finns, who would fill liquor bottles with a blend of gasoline or kerosene, tar, and potassium chloride. In fits of derring-do, Finnish soldiers on skis would drop these into the turrets of advancing tanks, ram branches or crowbars into the tank treads, or slice holes in the ice to sink them. Despite boasts in the Russian high command that the campaign would be over in 12 days, by mid-December, most of the Soviet Seventh and Thirteenth Armies were still blundering along short of the Mannerheim Line. On December 17th, in fact, the Thirteenth Army actually went into reverse, retreating after bloody losses in a clash at Taipale. By then, even the tiny Finnish Air Force of old Dutch Fokker fighters had joined the rout, knocking down Soviet bombers — one Finnish ace took out six in four minutes — and doing wonders for the morale of the Finns below. Further north, the Soviet Ninth Army was nearly destroyed in a battle near a burned-out Suomussalmi on December 9th. One Finnish ski sniper, a farmer named Simo Häyhä, personally killed, according to (improbable) legend, more than 500 Russians[*]. Wounded Russians overwhelmed the hospitals of Leningrad. One overworked Soviet surgeon complained in early December that he was dealing with nearly 400 wounded Red Army soldiers every day.
* The story of Simo Häyhä was set to music by Sabaton in their song “White Death” on the Coat of Arms album. Indy Neidell discussed the history behind the music in a Sabaton History video in 2019.
December 16, 2020
The NKVD: from Pen-Pushers to Communist Hit Squads – WW2 Special
World War Two
Published 15 Dec 2020The NKVD started out as your regular old Ministry of the Interior. But over time, they grew out to a hugely influential and highly lethal weapon for some of the Soviet Union’s leaders.
Join us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/TimeGhostHistory
Or join The TimeGhost Army directly at: https://timeghost.tvFollow WW2 day by day on Instagram @ww2_day_by_day – https://www.instagram.com/ww2_day_by_day
Between 2 Wars: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list…
Source list: http://bit.ly/WW2sourcesHosted by: Spartacus Olsson
Written by: Joram Appel and Spartacus Olsson
Director: Astrid Deinhard
Producers: Astrid Deinhard and Spartacus Olsson
Executive Producers: Astrid Deinhard, Indy Neidell, Spartacus Olsson, Bodo Rittenauer
Creative Producer: Maria Kyhle
Post-Production Director: Wieke Kapteijns
Research by: Joram Appel
Edited by: Miki Cackowski
Sound design: Marek Kamiński
Map animations: Eastory (https://www.youtube.com/c/eastory)Colorizations by:
Klimbim – https://www.flickr.com/photos/2215569…
Mikołaj Uchman
Julius Jääskeläinen – https://www.facebook.com/JJcolorization/
Dememorabilia – https://www.instagram.com/dememorabilia/Sources:
Picture of Lavrentiy Beria in court, courtesy of Фотограф – Ист.доки https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi…
Yad Vashem 1019-2, 143EO1, 55AO6
IWM HU 106212
USHMM
I.M. Bondarenko
from the Noun Project: border police by IcoLabs, fire building by dDara, Police by Cuputo, Skull by Muhamad UlumSoundtracks from the Epidemic Sound:
Reynard Seidel – “Deflection”
Johannes Bornlof – “Deviation In Time”
Farrell Wooten – “Blunt Object”
Andreas Jamsheree – “Guilty Shadows 4”
Fluow – “Endlessness”
Johannes Bornlof – “The Inspector 4”
Gunnar Johnsen – “Not Safe Yet”Archive by Screenocean/Reuters https://www.screenocean.com.
A TimeGhost chronological documentary produced by OnLion Entertainment GmbH.
From the comments:
World War Two
2 hours ago
We have been talking about the NKVD a lot in our War Against Humanity episodes and in several Between Two Wars episodes. If you found this video to be interesting, I can highly recommend you try our B2W episode on the Great Terror and Military Purges in 1938. It provides some crucial context that we couldn’t expand on in this special episode. You can find it right here: https://youtu.be/MNnK0LAoyMo
Cheers,
JoramOther videos about the NKVD we mentioned in this special are:
– War Against Humanity episode covering the Katyn Massacre: https://youtu.be/gd5YhhNcC44
– War Against Humanity episode covering the Great Prison Massacre: https://youtu.be/kykPusygzOw
– Biography episode on Richard Sorge: https://youtu.be/fn9NyRfbSOo
November 8, 2020
November 4, 2020
How Mighty is the Red Army? – WW2 Special
World War Two
Published 3 Nov 2020Hitler and German High Command had expected the invasion of the Soviet Union to be an easy victory and for the Red Army to quickly collapse. Yet here we are, with millions of Soviet soldiers captured, wounded or killed and the Red Army still holding fast.
Join us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/TimeGhostHistory
Or join The TimeGhost Army directly at: https://timeghost.tvFollow WW2 day by day on Instagram @ww2_day_by_day – https://www.instagram.com/ww2_day_by_day
Between 2 Wars: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list…
Source list: http://bit.ly/WW2sourcesHosted by: Indy Neidell
Written by: Francis van Berkel, Ian Irungu, Shaun Harrison, Dennis Stepanov
Director: Astrid Deinhard
Producers: Astrid Deinhard and Spartacus Olsson
Executive Producers: Astrid Deinhard, Indy Neidell, Spartacus Olsson, Bodo Rittenauer
Creative Producer: Maria Kyhle
Post-Production Director: Wieke Kapteijns
Research by: Francis van Berkel, Ian Irungu, Shaun Harrison, Dennis Stepanov
Edited by: Karolina Dołęga
Sound design: Marek KamińskiColorizations by:
– Klimbim
– Norman Stewart – https://oldtimesincolor.blogspot.com/
– Julius Jääskeläinen – https://www.facebook.com/JJcolorization/
– Carlos Ortega Pereira, BlauColorizations – https://www.instagram.com/blaucolorizationsVisual Sources:
– Mil.ru
– ANRM, Fototeca, 24945
– Map from December 1941 provided with GNU Free Documentation License by WikimediaArchive by Screenocean/Reuters https://www.screenocean.com.
A TimeGhost chronological documentary produced by OnLion Entertainment GmbH.
September 20, 2020
September 13, 2020
August 23, 2020
August 1, 2020
QotD: Voluntary self-censorship
Obviously it is not desirable that a Government department should have any power of censorship (except security censorship, which no one objects to in wartime) over books which are not officially sponsored. But the chief danger to freedom of thought and speech at this moment is not the direct interference of the M.O.I. [Ministry of Information] or any official body. If publishers and editors exert themselves to keep certain topics out of print, it is not because they are frightened of prosecution but because they are frightened of public opinion. In this country, intellectual cowardice is the worst enemy a writer or journalist has to face, and that fact does not seem to me to have had the discussion it deserves.
Any fair‐minded person with journalistic experience will admit that during this war official censorship has not been particularly irksome. We have not been subjected to the kind of totalitarian “co-ordination” that it might have been reasonable to expect. The press has some justified grievances, but on the whole the Government has behaved well and and has been surprisingly tolerant of minority opinions. The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary. Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news — things which on their own merits would get the big headlines — being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that “it wouldn’t do” to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralized, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right thinking people will accept without question. It not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other but it is “not done” to say it, just as in mid‐Victorian times it was “not done” to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.
At this moment what is demanded by the prevailing orthodoxy is an uncritical admiration of Soviet Russia. Everyone knows this, nearly everyone acts on it. Any serious criticism of the Soviet regime, any disclosure of facts which the Soviet Government would prefer to keep hidden, is next door to unprintable. And this nation-wide conspiracy to flatter our ally takes place, curiously enough, against a background of genuine intellectual tolerance. For though you are not allowed to criticize the Soviet Government, at least you are reasonably free to criticize our own. Hardly anyone will print an attack on Stalin, but it is quite safe to attack Churchill, at any rate in books and periodicals. And throughout five years of war, during two or three of which we were fighting for national survival, countless books, pamphlets and articles advocating a compromise peace have been published without interference. More, they have been published without exciting much disapproval. So long as the prestige of the U.S.S.R. is not involved, the principle of free speech has been reasonably well upheld. There are other forbidden topics […] but the prevailing attitude toward the U.S.S.R is much the most serious symptom. It is, as it were, spontaneous, and is not due to the action of any pressure group.
The servility with which the greater part of the English intelligentsia have swallowed and repeated Russian propaganda from 1941 onward would be quite astounding if it were not that they have behaved similarly on several earlier occasions. On one controversial issue after another the Russian viewpoint has been accepted without examination and then publicized with complete disregard to historical truth or intellectual decency. To name only one instance, the B.B.C. celebrated the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Red Army without mentioning Trotsky. This was about as accurate as commemorating the battle of Trafalgar with out mentioning Nelson, but evoked no protest from the English intelligentsia. In the internal struggles in the various occupied countries, the British press has in almost all cases sided with the faction favored by the Russians and libeled the opposing faction, sometimes suppressing material evidence in order to do so. A particularly glaring case was that of Colonel Mihailovich, the Jugoslav Chetnik leader. The Russians, who had their own Jugoslav protégé in Marshal Tito, accused Mihailovich of collaborating with the Germans. This accusation was promptly taken up by the British press: Mihailovich’s supporters were given no chance of answering it, and facts contradicting it were kept out of print. In July, 1943, the Germans offered a reward of 100,000 gold crowns for the capture of Tito, and a similar reward for the capture of Mihailovich. The British press “splashed” the reward for Tito, but only one paper mentioned (in small print) the reward for Mihailovich; and the charges of collaborating with the Germans continued. Very similar things happened during the Spanish civil war. Then, too, the factions on the Republican side which the Russians were determined to crush were recklessly libeled in the English leftwing press, and any statement in their defense, even in letter form, was refused publication. At present, not only is serious criticism of the U.S.S.R. considered reprehensible, but even the fact of the existence of such criticism is kept secret in some cases. For example, shortly before his death Trotsky had written a biography of Stalin. One may assume that it was not an altogether unbiased book, but obviously it was saleable. An American publisher had arranged to issue it and the book was in print — I believe the review copies had been sent out — when the U.S.S.R. entered the war. The book was immediately withdrawn. Not word about this has ever appeared in the British press, though clearly the existence of such a book, and its suppression, was a news item worth a few paragraphs.
George Orwell “The Freedom of the Press”, 1945 (written as the introduction to Animal Farm, but not published in Orwell’s lifetime).
July 31, 2020
July 15, 2020
June 23, 2020
June 21, 2020
May 14, 2020
Three reasons the Western allies fail to fully acknowledge the efforts of the Soviets in WW2
Arthur Chrenkoff suggests three major reasons for why many Russians and other Soviet-nostalgics feel the west is wrongly denying the Soviet Union full credit for the defeat of Nazi Germany:
But while the Russian – or, more correctly, Soviet – role in defeating Hitler is beyond question and deserves wider attention and recognition, there are several reasons why the Western acknowledgement of the eastern front will always remain qualified and somewhat ambiguous.
Firstly, while Russia continues to variously deny, downplay or excuse the fact, the Soviet Union was the initial co-aggressor in World War Two and for the first two years a Nazi ally and collaborator. Stalin might have had legitimate realpolitik reasons for the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, in effect sacrificing Europe to win more time to prepare for the inevitable war with Germany (nice in theory, the gambit in any case did not work out in practice), but the fact remains that in concert with Hitler, Stalin invaded Poland and was rewarded with its eastern half, subsequently also helping himself to Bessarbia, annexing the Baltic states and invading Finland. In turn, the fact that Hitler assured himself he would not be facing a war on two fronts, which doomed Germany in World War One, allowed him to successively snatch Poland, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Yugoslavia and Greece, giving Germany a complete dominance over the continental Europe from the Atlantic to the Bug river and the Arctic Circle to Crete. And while Great Britain stood alone against Germany for a year from mid-1940 to mid-1941, Soviet resources and produce kept flowing in, feeding and arming the Nazi monster. This makes Stalin’s subsequent anger over the Allied delay in launching the Second Front in the West quite hypocritical – where was the Second Front in the East while Luftwaffe was blitzing Britain and its troops were battling Italians and Rommel in north Africa?
Secondly, without in any way diminishing the German barbarity in the east, a significant proportion of the Soviet military and civilian casualties were unnecessary and resulted from the communist government’s complete and utter disregard for the lives and well-being of its subjects. Stalin fought the war as he fought the peace at home. The man who prior to 1941 had managed to send somewhere upwards of 15 million of his own people to an early grave, clearly wasn’t going to spare the long suffering population when faced with an external existential threat. The Soviet Union might not have (at least initially) had much else, but it certainly had people, and they were sacrificed in obscene numbers by the man in the Kremlin and his minions on the ground. For most of the war, several Red Army soldiers were dying for every one German, while obeying absurd orders to stand ground or frontally attack in total disregard for the local circumstances or for that matter any reasonable tactical and strategic consideration. When Eisenhower and Zhukov caught up some time later in the war and the conversation turned to the best method of clearing mine fields, the Russian astonished the Allied Commander-in-Chief when he nominated simply sending the infantry through as the easiest and the cheapest method. This wasn’t a joke either; it was the way the Red Army fought from the first days of Barbarossa all the way to Berlin, even though the eventual overwhelming material superiority did save many an Ivan’s life in the later stages of the conflict. Not enough, however, to wipe out the entire generation of men born in the mid-1920s.
Thirdly, while the Red Army did indeed end the brutal Nazi occupation of the Central and the Eastern Europe, it did not bring freedom in any meaningful sense of the word, except perhaps (in most cases) freedom from sudden death. Debates about similarities and differences between the two totalitarian systems will no doubt continue well into the future. Unquestionably, for an average Slav, the Soviet domination was a better option that the Nazi one. Nazis, by and large, considered Slavs to be subhuman (though making some allowances, often quite significant, for their Slavic allies, like the Slovaks, the Croats or the Bulgarians), fit only to be initially enslaved and eventually exterminated. This was the far deadlier and much more ideological continuation of Germany’s 1000-year “drang nach osten” or the “civilising” mission to expand into the fertile east. Particular hatred was reserved for the Poles, who stood as a barrier for most of that millennium, preventing the dream of lebensraum from being realised. Russia was a much more recent enemy, having overlaid its Slavic barbarity with a Bolshevik malignancy. Even the initial Nazi plans called for starving between 25-30 million Belorussians, Ukrainians and Russians in order to free up food and resources for Germany. Communists could be deadly too, of course, and both the Reds and the Blacks were fond of decimating the local elites and intelligencia, but the Soviets at least did not see their Slavic brethren as subhumans but as proletarian masses to be converted to the glories of Marxism-Leninism.
Be that as it may, the Soviet liberation did not bring liberty or independence to the people of Eastern Europe. That had to wait until 1989-91.