David Kennedy, Andrew Roberts and Stephen Kotkin Discuss the Big Three of the 20th Century
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 06. 2024
- Recorded on July 18, 2019.
What did Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin want at the beginning of the Second World War? Peter Robinson starts the discussion by why the “big three” came together as allies in response to Operation Barbarossa during the war. What did the leaders of the “grand alliance” of Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union want? What were their national interests?
Robinson asks Roberts if Churchill aimed to preserve the British Empire. Roberts explains that Churchill’s interests were just in national survival. As Britain was under the threat of massive invasion from Germany, he wanted to make sure that the Russians stayed in the war until the Germans were wiped out completely. Roberts also notes that Churchill wanted Russia to ensure that the Americans, when they did finally enter the war in December 1941, were guided toward a Mediterranean strategy.
Kennedy discusses Roosevelt’s motive for joining into an alliance in the aftermath of Operation Barbarossa, before officially entering the war. Kennedy says that Roosevelt wanted to make the world safe for the democratic practices and institutions that had already been established, but he did not seek to expand democracy throughout the world. Next, Robinson asks Kotkin about Stalin’s aim for allying with Britain and United States as well as why Stalin did not quickly respond to Hitler’s actions in Soviet Union despite having one of the biggest armies in the world. Kotkin replies that there was misinformation that made Stalin think that Hitler would not actually attack, that Hitler was only amassing the troops to blackmail Stalin into giving up Ukraine and other territories without actually having to fight. Lastly, Kotkin explains, Stalin also joined the grand alliance for national survival.
Robinson then continues the discussion with Roberts, Kennedy, and Kotkin by asking how things turned out for the three allies after the war. They examine who won and who lost over both the short term and the long term, as well as how the postwar world set the stage for the emergence of new strong powers, particularly China.
This event addresses these and many other important lessons and questions:
• What happens when an international system that is supposed to keep the peace among nations breaks down?
• How do nations deal with the breakdown and rebuilding of international order?
• How can Western civilization remain strong?
• What are the defense resources required to protect free countries from unpleasant predators in the world?
For further information:
www.hoover.org/publications/u...
Interested in exclusive Uncommon Knowledge content? Check out Uncommon Knowledge on social media!
Facebook: / uncknowledge
Twitter: / uncknowledge
Instagram: / uncommon_knowledge_show
![[柴犬ASMR]曼玉Manyu&小白Bai 毛发护理Spa asmr](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0TsXQ7z2Dh4/mqdefault.jpg)
Came here for Stephen Kotkin. Free education is amazing.
It is, it truly is, I feel ya
an absolute super scholar!
Amazing to find an Ivy League professor who has no illusions about communism.
Not really free, taxpayers paid for most of those people's education.
Kotkin is AI. Amazing historian... great discussion gentlemen, thanks.
"He never gave in." You could hear the reverence that Roberts holds for Churchill as he spoke that sentence.
This type of content should be on mainstream tv and taught in all schools 🙏🇬🇧🙏
Andrew Roberts is such a class act.
Mr. Kotkin brings clarity to each situation he talks about.
I can’t get enough of Professor Kotkin! Kudos to you, Peter!
Brilliant conversation by top historians, thank you very much.
Excellent! What a privilege to hear that discussion.
Peter Robinson is such an excellent moderator, I love how he conducts himself and enjoys and is interested in the actual subjects he is discussing with the lecturers/speakers. I also of course am an incredible fan of Stephen Kotkin and his entire body of work as well as his interviews with Peter Robinson at the Hoover Institution.
What a great group of historians to get together.
I'm a simple man. I see Mr. Kotkin- I press 'like'. Finally proper video! Fantastic discussion, great guests. Thank you Mr. Robinson and thanks HI for making this and PLEASE invite them again, maybe drop professor Victor Hanson and somebody focused on Germany here and there to spice it up- so many things I'd like these people to talk about together. Valuable, informative and amusing- a great joy to watch!
Kotkin is the star of this show. His original research on Stalin gives him a huge insight and advantage in discussions of this kind. I found this discussion to be very informing, thankyou Hoover.
Thanks to Andrew Roberts for pointing out the victory at Tunis. One of the greatest allied victories of the war, and completely forgotten by most historians.
I joined for Roberts (and the topic, and the host). I will be looking for more Kotkin.
I love all four men and greatly enjoyed this!
Stephen Kotkin's take on Stalin's approach provides clarity to enigmatic. Andrew Robert's encapsulation of Churchill, perhaps, the greatest of all life's lessons. Thank you.
That was fantastic presentation of knowledge, history and wisdom!
Loved it :)
It seems finally, we're getting more of the complete picture of these three war leaders. A powerhouse of an event.
I wish this video went on for a couple more hours...great stuff!
With the overwhelming amount of gobbledygook content thats out there, this is gold! I feel smarter because I watched it (twice). Stay Golden!
26:17 Keeping Britain in the war with its mighty navy was an imperative. It keeps Germany in a two-front situation and allowed the U.S. to deploy our navy in the Pacific. Keeping Britain in the war entailed helping it protect it's oil and food supply from the middle east/India. This is the Mediterranean Strategy.
I only came here for Stephen Kotkin.
Excellent discussion. Three fine historians at the top of their game. (UK)
I love Joe Pesci
Yea! I didn't know he knew so much about History.
Best historian ever
I loved him in Home Alone
I often describe Stephen Kotkin as the Joe Pesci of Stalinist Russian history. I slow clapped when I saw this comment. Thank you for your service.
And he keeps it coming to them again and again and again...
A nice conversation between winston Churchill, FDR and joe Pesci
Wonderful insights, so intelligently shared, very well set up and really well facilitated by Peter Robinson, I have to say.
Great program, thank you for producing and sharing.
Worth every second of my attention...great discussion.
Kotkin rules:) every comment is on target and he represents Stalin/Soviet that took out 4/5 of german soldiers... If that is not enough he's taking this talk in to the present with his analysis of China. You can see the others just listen in awe when he gets to talk. Fascinating.
Beautiful. I almost feel like the great three are in the room!
Read both volumes of stalin by Kotkin, so so good. Anxiously awaiting volume 3 to learn about Stalin at war. Looks like it’s expected this November, can’t freakin wait.
Interesting talk. Two points. First, the 1942 cross channel invasion envisioned by Marshall etc was conceived of only as a desperate measure in case it appeared that the USSR was in danger of imminent defeat. (The fact that Stalin had any idea that this was an ironclad promise either results from bad allied policy or Stalin misreading the situation.) The reason that Marshall and Ike didn't like Torch was that they knew that all of the shipping required to build up the Med strategy would make it impossible to launch a cross channel invasion in 1943. We'll never know what would have happened had the West attacked in 1943 - it would have been a risky move, and the situation in 1944 - as events developed - was much better. But that was the real equation - Torch in 1942 meant no cross channel attack in 1943. A turning point no doubt. Second, Torch did leave many of the vast forces building in the USA after mid-1942 without immediate purpose. They couldn't all be shipped to England, and why should they be if they were only to prepare for 1944? This is what Admiral King observed continually after the Torch decision. The result was that many US Army Divisions and and portions of the increasingly large USAAF were sent to the Pacific. This, for instance, allowed MacArthur to have enough men to move quickly through New Guinea. It also gave the US Marines major support for a drive through the Central Pacific. Ultimately, this infusion of American resources into the Pacific meant that Japan capitulated in 1945 - only four months after Germany. No one saw this coming. As late as early 1944, even King assumed a Pacific campaign would extend into 1946. And if you had looked at the Pacific War between 1942-late 43, it was easy to think that it was going to require a huge blood tax and extended fighting. Hence the desire on the part of FDR and others to get the USSR into the Pacific War - ironically, in retrospect, long after they were needed. There are a lot of variables here and no self-evident pattern, but I think the decisions made by FDR concerning Torch proved instrumental in the destruction of Germany and Japan almost simultaneously. When judging wars, outcome does take precedent. When judging war as an engine of history, duration is often almost as important. The mind reels when considering a Japanese defeat in late 1946 - would this have meant a Soviet occupation of Korea? A Soviet zone of occupation in Japan? More Soviet influence in Central Asia? There was was so much going on in 1945-46 that it's no accident that some very bad things were going to happen. Task overload multiplied by confusion and divided by serious inherent differences of policy between the "Big Three" equals the Cold War (and add the atomic bomb). It could have been worse.
Intersting
Man I love these lectures. He heirs of Herodotus and Thucydides have done the tradition proud.
It's a privilege to hear from these great minds.
It's a shame the audience looks like a retirement community. This is such a statement of what the actual attractiveness of such intellectual entertainment is. I am 29 and this is as interesting as things get, but an actual understanding of WW2 is something a minority tip-toe up to and the vast majority rejects.
What a shame as WW2 laid the groundwork for what we as habitants both physically and metaphysically of the West call reality, in every way.
Each generation knows it's own sufferings. Whether self-inflicted or inherited.
Make sure your reality includes that the USA never won their first war. We became the pawns of Britain and the Monarchy along with their Banksters and Barristers.
This was awesome!! These guys are rock stars!! Appreciate the upload.
What a great talk
Such a interesting debate and so informative and insightful about these 3 leaders
Now two years +, later, global pandemic, and a European war(Ukraine), wondering about a folllowup interview with these 3 major historians to discuss events in perspective…..? Any chance?
Thank you so much for this very enjoyable, illuminating lecture.
Thank you for producing this.
Kotkin (and the other two) almost seem to take on their respective characters. Kotkin is the best though. He bullies them like Stalin did.
Seems like all the best historians prefer liberty, capitalism, and democracy.
Every good series needs three main characters
I love that these three historians have been brought together. But, i feel the conversation should have been left more free flow. The moderator bottlenecked the conversation into Poland multiple times. I understand Polands importance as the flashpoint of the war in Europe though it is often a subject that many are familiar with. I would have loved more focus on east asia and middle eastern policy as decisions there have had massive reverburations up until today. A historian familiar with China would have made a great addition to the discussion.
"never gave in"
I really enjoyed this talk.Thank you.
Brilliant discussion. Learned a LOT. Thank you Hoover Inst.
Superb. Love it. Mastery in action . Thanks
Simply superb!
love that your vid has spot-on subtitles. thank you.
1:06:19, Best moment. Thank you Stephen.
Excellent program. Thank you.
What a Superb program !
great program. i thought a few more historians representing Japan, and Germany would have been good. stephen kotkin is a superstar. great job to all.
More like this, please.
"Lomborg was an undergraduate at the University of Georgia, earned an M.A. degree in political science at the Aarhus University in 1991, and a PhD degree in political science at the University of Copenhagen in 1994" A true scientist and climate expert indeed.
thank you for this beautiful lecture
Great video
Thanks
I simply have to agree with Andrew Roberts - and Winston Churchill - about the Mediterranean first strategy.
The Axis suffered immense casualties in N Africa and Italy, twenty five first class German divisions were drawn towards that theatre that could have been used to fight Overlord, the US 15th Airforce was provided with air bases in Foggia that were used to bomb the Reich, US 8th Airforce bombers flying from England could bomb Germany and carry on to land in Italy rather than fly back to England, Italy was knocked out of the war, the Allies gained valuable experience in amphibious operations in Sicily, Anzio and Salerno, and so on.
Kennedy is simply wrong here.
Sir Andrew seems to have the tightest grasp of the historical detail as well its future implications
"never gave in" tremendous!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Great video top scholars perfect watch for a quiet morning.
Mr Kotkin, you are a nobody. Why? Because nobody is perfect. Another masterpiece of fascinating history, well told with humour. Thank you. And the other guys were good too.
Great discussion!
Very good
Stephen Kotkin is an amazing man with an amazing historical knowledge. He is cool, calm and wiser than all of any our modern day strategic gobshites in the pentagon. USA needs to bow their heads, make peace in Middle East, All of Africa, Russia and stay well clear of China. Protect your domestic borders, get national security in check and stay out of Europe, Africa and Asia. None of these Continents have any dangerous borders next nor near the USA. Take your troops home and keep them safe. Thank you.
Wonderful discussion.
Fantastic!
Brilliant!
brilliant
Wow. Amazing.
Andrew Roberts is a favorite of mine, but I notice that British authorities, including him, call any American an Anglo- phobe who thought that Japan ought to be first in our sights. I think he called Admiral King a rabid Anglo- phobe.
Simply excellent .
Brilliant
With VDH, this would have been perfect
Who?
Great. Thanks to share with us. (U.K)
I just keep coming back!
I appreciate this debate......
Amazing...watch Prof. Kotkin "biding his time" before commenting on who won WWII--and he is the expert.
At 30:08
"They were naive".
Excellent.
Only a fool would have believed that the "great democrat Stalin", who was such a fan of freedom, liberty and democracy (lol) would honor free elections in *any* sphere of influence granted to him by mutual consent.
Stalin was never one to stick to honor or treaties signed.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Polish_Non-Aggression_Pact
Not only during WW2 or after. Our leaders were foolish in trusting a man who was a proven mass-murderer, and bank robber.
In 1939 he simply ignored a non-aggression pact he had signed with Poland.
Fools are those who think that a person who deceives and cheats, *only* deceives and cheats others, but of course never oneself...
How did it come about that Communism looks on a map like the Soviet Union won WWII and the Allies lost it. Later the same goes for China and Mao,
Loved Stephen Kotkin's comment re China at about 1:13 mark :)
I can only say one thing about Yalta: The one which is not afraid of war wins.
100,000 views and only 800 likes? comeon guys we can do better than that
69 dislikes are all from Polish bus drivers
Just did a brief search... I don't suppose there's any chance that the Hoover Institute would see any value in creating a transcript that those of us who are interested could read and switch back and forth through while thinking about the fascinating perspective these scholars have offered?
I don’t think STALIN WAS BEGGING 🤣🤣🤣 twisting history here.
At 34:00 mins
Chamberlain tried to avoid another continental European war.
He knew for a fact that it would mean yet another war between Germany/France/Great Britain, and could only have ONE outcome....that those powers "waiting in the wings" so to speak, would benefit.
Another European war would mean the end of the Empire, and that the USA and the SU would be the real "winners" of such a conflict, and that the British Empire would get ground up between the SU and the USA.
Fast forward to the Cold War.
How right he was.
In 1938 an opportunity arose for Hitler to implement a limited war against Czechoslovakia. Moscow was occupied by a border conflict with Japan in the east (Lake Khasan/July 1938), and a silent threat hung over London/Paris, by the presence of the Legion Condor (Gibraltar). An army of 15,000 men, with tanks and air support....
That window however, closed as quickly as it had appeared when the battles in the East did not result in a full-scale war, and Hitler grudgingly accepted Chamberlain's offer to negotiate a settlement (since he had already started brewing trouble with Heinlein in the May Crisis).
The threat of a 2-front war for Stalin not materializing in 1938 (war with Japan) was *the* determining factor for Hitler to accept talks about the future of Czechoslovakia.
Hitler didnt have a choice but to dump Case Green (Invasion of Czechoslovakia). *Hitler* chickened out at Munich, NOT London/Paris...
Oh, and that "I saw my enemies at Munich", and "they are worms".
LOL, just the typical face-saving tough talk of a despot who feared losing respect from his assembled "yes men". He voiced these opinions to his inner circle, as a way of covering his obvious embarrassment of having to bow to the "soft talking", but "big stick carrying" man with an umbrella....
That military historians would simply ignore the fact that in 1938the Legion Condor was still in Spain, with 15,000 men, tanks and aircraft, and could have been directed at Gibraltar in a jiffy...
Secondly.
How come the Maginot Line is (in hindsight), generally accepted as folly, and giant mistake?
But the conclusion is that "Czechoslovakia would have held out for months" (sic.).
Fact is, *both* "fortress France", *and* "fortress Czechoslovakia" were folly.
Jesus, that was fantastic
Churchill didnt like Roosevelt so much at first because he wouldn't commit America to war until England was all in first.
Stephen Kotkin outsmarts the other two obvioously.
Peter Robinson is a little too quick with his questions at times,He stated that Churchill and Stalin met only three times during the war,in fact it was four times...in order ...Moscow,Tehran,Yalta and Potsdam
HOW CAN I GET ONE OF THOSE UNCOMMON KNOWLEDGE COFFEE MUGS??? YOU GUYS NEED TO SELL THEM!!!
All Star Panel
The "Polish" (many had only Polish names) communists were so popular, that for the first comp[e of years the NKVD was running the country. To say that Poland was "complicit" in the communist takeover is extremely offensive. Now we do have communist offspring, especially in the law courts, but that was not the case in 1945.
The dame with România, brother. At the end of 1944, the Comunist party had 1200 members.
The fact they miss out Chiang Kai-Shek in this is quite disgraceful.
3 great historians "refighting" the war with 20/20 hindsight....;
Roosevelt was more interested in seeing the end of the British Empire which he did!
FDR: "Nothing he did worked."
Rome did not fall.the grman withdrawel was negotieted to avoid the useless destruction of roman heritadge.
Yalta😢😢😢😢😭😭😭😭😭they consigned half of Europe to dictatorship and poverty.
They had little option. Churchill wanted to fight the Soviets but no-one else did. They would have been unlikely to win. It was really risky.
We don't live in a perfect world, and it's very easy to condemn people in the past when we know more than them and have the luxury of not sacrificing anything with our theorising. But we can't know what would have happened. We can only know what did.
And! Stalin lied and they did not know how much of a liar he was.
From 15:00 minutes. Excellent summary.
Because Churchill was a *terrible* strategists. The "periphery picking" nothing else but another name for the ridiculous "soft underbelly". Obviously Stalin knew that only soldiers and tanks created *facts* . The reds would storm into Berlin (capturing rocket and jet technology, scientist, Sarin/Tabun plants, and hundreds of factories, etc., etc., etc., etc.)...
Stalin said "thank you so very much", and would use this technology to kill our soldiers in hundreds of proxy wars during the Cold War.
Our heroes sold half the world to commie crook Stalin, and we spent 50 years after WW2 to fight him in the other half...