Russia was economically backward due to decades of rule by the Khan, which I believe lead to communism. Even today they are a totalitarian society. They had many great patriots, but the country was too cruel to most of it's citizens. Wasn't it the Austrians that stopped the Khan's westward drive? Of course they were allied with the French, etc., but the Renaissance never would have occurred if the Khan won.
@JBC814 When the Mongols came in 1240, the Kievan Rus, the predecessors to todays Russians, were only allied with Byzantium and perhaps Serbia. The Catholic Western Europeans despised the Kievan Rus as heretics. Europe was saved from the Khan by luck. The Mongols annihilated a combined Polish-German army at Liegnitz in 1241. Only the sudden death of the Khan Batu let the Mongols return to Asia to elect a new leader. I agree, there wouldn't have been Renaissance with a Mongol victory.
@DrGull1888 : So it's true that communism was the result of the Khan's rule. I thought the French were included somehow, but my history is lacking. Too bad Russia was left out of the Renaissance. If the Kaiser had played his cards right, he could have taken the Ukraine. He should have made a deal with Britain and France to double-cross the Czar, who was on the verge of bankruptcy. A war on two fronts was absurd, especially when Russia was ripe for the taking. Hitler made the same mistake also.
@JBC814 Communism as a result of the Khan's rule is a bit too much. The Mongolian occupation certainly affected the Russian inclination towards despotism whether it's Tsaristic or Communistic. The Communists around Lenin could prevail because they were more ruthless and aggressive than the republican revolutionaries around Alexander Kerenski.
At least there was an architectonic influence of Renaissance since the Russian rulers imported Italian architects. But no humanistic philosophy.
@DrGull1888 : I agree with your analysis, but Lenin's ruthlessness was the product of centuries of cruelty imposed upon the populace by the Czars. "Let them eat cake" is a more appropriate description of their rule.
@JBC814 Lenin had personal demons that might have caused his ruthlessness. His older brother Alexander was an anarchist and was executed in 1887. That might have fueled his hate on the Romanow and their old regime. And we still have the traditional Russian inclination towarts despotism.
You are certainly right the Tsars. Even those who made some social reforms like Cathrine the Great or Alexander II. still were despotic autocrats.
@JBC814 The Kaiser could do nothing since Fall 1916 when von Hindenburg and Ludendorf were appointed to be heads of German army. He was blanked out from political and operational decissions and Germany became actual a military dictatorship. That doesn't mean Wilhelm didn't have the presumption to demand Central Africa, the Azores, Canada and Lorraine as prize for peace. Boundless and unwordly I say. What kind of settlement could the West expect from such a monarch?
@DrGull1888 : I didn't know the Kaiser was powerless, but that was after the war started anyway. I was joking about making a deal to double-cross the Czar. Russia was allied with Britain and France, and all the royalty were related. Nevertheless, I think Pat Buchanan hit the nail on the head: the Kaiser was incensed that Germany's navy was restricted by treaty to half the size of Britain's. Hence, WWI. And why was the assassination of the Archduke Britain's fault?
@JBC814 I only recall the Anglo-Nazi-German Navy treaty of 1935.
There were several attempts between Britain and the German Empire to sign such an agreement but all failed. The last one was in August 1908 when the then Chancellor of Exchequer LLoyd George and Foreign Minister Edward Grey negotiated with the German Ambassador Wolf-Metternich but this failed on Wilhelm's rigid attitude.
Who said that the assassination of the archduke was Britains fault? It's the first trime I hear this.
@JBC814 Furthermore we shouldn't forget the treaty of Brest-Litowsk in Spring 1918 were Russia lost the best parts of it's empire to Germany. And even that wasn't enough since German troops still advanced deep into southern Russia and the Caucasus to cut out more territory, instead of massing all troops in the West.
Don't get me started on Hitler. He wasn't normal and he wasn't sane. He believed reality must bow to his will.
Yes, it was the beginning of the end of white supremacy. Nevertheless moving the Baltic Fleet around Africa towards the Strait of Korea was an impressive piece of organisation and seafaring.
I feel a bit silly responding to a 2-month old comment, but it's worth pointing out that the performance of the Russian vessels was more due to the fact that the had just sailed AROUND THE WORLD, something they were not designed to do, rather than any particularly design or command issues.
It is true that the IJN was, most likely, superior in those aspects, but we'll never really know. What killed the Russian Baltic fleet was the high command, not the Japanese.
True. And we shouldn't forget that Admiral Rozhestvensky had only limited possibilities. He couldn't sail for any harbour he wanted to coal and overhaul his fleet, especially after Dogger Bank incident and the abilities of his supply ships to keep the ships intact were also limited.
@DrGull1888 Thanks!Very good video!My grand father serve on Baltic Fieet 1904-1908,1914-1917(WW1) on board torpedo boat "Внимательный-2"(Attentive) 450 t ;2- 75 mm;2 torpedo-tube;27 knot.I`m so sorry my English.
@Bruno47602 Thanks a lot for your compliments. Don't mind your English, I've read worse. Vnushitelnyi (Внуштельный) was built in Elbing, Germany for the Russian Navy and decomissioned in 1932.
@DrGull1888 Thanks for this very interesting information, but my grand father not serve by ship Vnushitelyi.His ship is Vnimatelnyi(Внимательный).I am sorry!
@Lime12121 What killed the Russion fleet was 1) Superior ship designs, 2) Superior training, 3) Superior morale, 4) Superior leadership. Added to this, the fact that the Russion ships were so overloaded with coal that their armour belts were almost submerged. Having sailed halfway around the world without having port facilities, which was a fantastic achievement, the brave Russians deserved a better fate.
the russians had some fine battleships, but their government was very incompetent.
bombarderoazul 1 month ago
Great ! Ilike it !
ImperialRussiaDotCom 1 month ago
@ImperialRussiaDotCom Thanks a lot.
DrGull1888 1 month ago
Impressive ship with five smokestacks there...
Morcaiden 5 months ago
@Morcaiden That must be the cruiser Askold, a veteran of the Russo-Japanese War and WWI.
DrGull1888 5 months ago
This fleet was sunk by the Japanese in 1905.
alyosha24601 6 months ago
@alyosha24601 Yes and no. Most ships shown in this video were built after Tsushima.
DrGull1888 6 months ago
Very Well done, I like it.
ImperialGuard322nd 1 year ago
@ImperialGuard322nd Thanks a lot.
DrGull1888 1 year ago
Russia was economically backward due to decades of rule by the Khan, which I believe lead to communism. Even today they are a totalitarian society. They had many great patriots, but the country was too cruel to most of it's citizens. Wasn't it the Austrians that stopped the Khan's westward drive? Of course they were allied with the French, etc., but the Renaissance never would have occurred if the Khan won.
JBC814 1 year ago
@JBC814 When the Mongols came in 1240, the Kievan Rus, the predecessors to todays Russians, were only allied with Byzantium and perhaps Serbia. The Catholic Western Europeans despised the Kievan Rus as heretics. Europe was saved from the Khan by luck. The Mongols annihilated a combined Polish-German army at Liegnitz in 1241. Only the sudden death of the Khan Batu let the Mongols return to Asia to elect a new leader. I agree, there wouldn't have been Renaissance with a Mongol victory.
DrGull1888 1 year ago
@DrGull1888 : So it's true that communism was the result of the Khan's rule. I thought the French were included somehow, but my history is lacking. Too bad Russia was left out of the Renaissance. If the Kaiser had played his cards right, he could have taken the Ukraine. He should have made a deal with Britain and France to double-cross the Czar, who was on the verge of bankruptcy. A war on two fronts was absurd, especially when Russia was ripe for the taking. Hitler made the same mistake also.
JBC814 1 year ago
@JBC814 Communism as a result of the Khan's rule is a bit too much. The Mongolian occupation certainly affected the Russian inclination towards despotism whether it's Tsaristic or Communistic. The Communists around Lenin could prevail because they were more ruthless and aggressive than the republican revolutionaries around Alexander Kerenski.
At least there was an architectonic influence of Renaissance since the Russian rulers imported Italian architects. But no humanistic philosophy.
DrGull1888 1 year ago
@DrGull1888 : I agree with your analysis, but Lenin's ruthlessness was the product of centuries of cruelty imposed upon the populace by the Czars. "Let them eat cake" is a more appropriate description of their rule.
JBC814 1 year ago
@JBC814 Lenin had personal demons that might have caused his ruthlessness. His older brother Alexander was an anarchist and was executed in 1887. That might have fueled his hate on the Romanow and their old regime. And we still have the traditional Russian inclination towarts despotism.
You are certainly right the Tsars. Even those who made some social reforms like Cathrine the Great or Alexander II. still were despotic autocrats.
DrGull1888 1 year ago
@JBC814 The Kaiser could do nothing since Fall 1916 when von Hindenburg and Ludendorf were appointed to be heads of German army. He was blanked out from political and operational decissions and Germany became actual a military dictatorship. That doesn't mean Wilhelm didn't have the presumption to demand Central Africa, the Azores, Canada and Lorraine as prize for peace. Boundless and unwordly I say. What kind of settlement could the West expect from such a monarch?
DrGull1888 1 year ago
@DrGull1888 : I didn't know the Kaiser was powerless, but that was after the war started anyway. I was joking about making a deal to double-cross the Czar. Russia was allied with Britain and France, and all the royalty were related. Nevertheless, I think Pat Buchanan hit the nail on the head: the Kaiser was incensed that Germany's navy was restricted by treaty to half the size of Britain's. Hence, WWI. And why was the assassination of the Archduke Britain's fault?
JBC814 1 year ago
@JBC814 I only recall the Anglo-Nazi-German Navy treaty of 1935.
There were several attempts between Britain and the German Empire to sign such an agreement but all failed. The last one was in August 1908 when the then Chancellor of Exchequer LLoyd George and Foreign Minister Edward Grey negotiated with the German Ambassador Wolf-Metternich but this failed on Wilhelm's rigid attitude.
Who said that the assassination of the archduke was Britains fault? It's the first trime I hear this.
DrGull1888 1 year ago
@JBC814 Furthermore we shouldn't forget the treaty of Brest-Litowsk in Spring 1918 were Russia lost the best parts of it's empire to Germany. And even that wasn't enough since German troops still advanced deep into southern Russia and the Caucasus to cut out more territory, instead of massing all troops in the West.
Don't get me started on Hitler. He wasn't normal and he wasn't sane. He believed reality must bow to his will.
DrGull1888 1 year ago
And of course, it stood no chance against the Imperial Japanese Navy.
ImperatorZor 2 years ago
Yes, it was the beginning of the end of white supremacy. Nevertheless moving the Baltic Fleet around Africa towards the Strait of Korea was an impressive piece of organisation and seafaring.
DrGull1888 2 years ago
I feel a bit silly responding to a 2-month old comment, but it's worth pointing out that the performance of the Russian vessels was more due to the fact that the had just sailed AROUND THE WORLD, something they were not designed to do, rather than any particularly design or command issues.
It is true that the IJN was, most likely, superior in those aspects, but we'll never really know. What killed the Russian Baltic fleet was the high command, not the Japanese.
Lime12121 2 years ago
True. And we shouldn't forget that Admiral Rozhestvensky had only limited possibilities. He couldn't sail for any harbour he wanted to coal and overhaul his fleet, especially after Dogger Bank incident and the abilities of his supply ships to keep the ships intact were also limited.
DrGull1888 2 years ago
@DrGull1888 Thanks!Very good video!My grand father serve on Baltic Fieet 1904-1908,1914-1917(WW1) on board torpedo boat "Внимательный-2"(Attentive) 450 t ;2- 75 mm;2 torpedo-tube;27 knot.I`m so sorry my English.
Bruno47602 1 year ago
@Bruno47602 Thanks a lot for your compliments. Don't mind your English, I've read worse. Vnushitelnyi (Внуштельный) was built in Elbing, Germany for the Russian Navy and decomissioned in 1932.
DrGull1888 1 year ago
@DrGull1888 Thanks for this very interesting information, but my grand father not serve by ship Vnushitelyi.His ship is Vnimatelnyi(Внимательный).I am sorry!
Bruno47602 1 year ago
@Bruno47602 Don't be sorry. Thanks a lot for correcting.
DrGull1888 1 year ago
@Lime12121 What killed the Russion fleet was 1) Superior ship designs, 2) Superior training, 3) Superior morale, 4) Superior leadership. Added to this, the fact that the Russion ships were so overloaded with coal that their armour belts were almost submerged. Having sailed halfway around the world without having port facilities, which was a fantastic achievement, the brave Russians deserved a better fate.
futch2121 1 year ago
Unusual submarine with external torps at 2.23 Wow a lot of 4 and 5 funnel ships.
EnigmaNZ1 2 years ago
Submarine warfare was still in development. And storing torpedos on the hull instead of inside, economizes space.
Four and five funnels are beautiful.
DrGull1888 2 years ago