instead, he sent his deputy general gil gisele cove, on the other end of the line, joseph stalin gave the order bring the politburo to the kremlin. faced with danger, stalin reacted predictably with repression. he ordered, members of the top leadership arrested, then shot for having failed to prevent the german offensive to better manage the troops. starlen assigned members of the secret police for n k v d. to each military unit. the official line was that this would boost the morale of the troops in reality, however, in k, the d members were tasked with reporting any misconduct, no matter how minor the goal was to purge the ranks of everything from treason to defeat. isn't the soviet union had already seen this kind of thing in its short history? something similar happened during the civil war that broke out after the october revolution. when civil war broke out in november 1918 vladimir lenin appointed left of a dove, which bronstein better known by his revolutionary nom de gurley on trotsky as war. commissioner, trotsky had no military experience, but had demonstrated great talent

joseph stalin, that winston churchill on july 26th at lee the war time alliance was the an order. it's been to systems and capitalism and war under the marshall plan that i did economic assistance in countries, the base by the red army rom fluency earns of occupation berlin. ah ah it in which style and trying to invite all supplies came official of europe. continent in 2 blocks, loo gripped and died general corners of the empire to better who had ruled over them for years. derushia royalty owner of the n k the day and the organized the funeral which laid a ship that c o. x island, the urals, and passcode 55 g o. the beta fence tree arctic war would be 56 o v at union, nicky delivered what became no brit speech but i just now a c p o w i element restored soon leaked a viet block. oh 056 and blend it and protesters food blue tin, the red army to ah 56 brutal f explained, he said mid november the shed and were wounded. and that the uprising and it proven itself in order and in his aim to d. o. military modernized, it's free to compete with sin weaponry to compete with arsenal. had re

the potsdam conference in july 1945 brought together joseph stalin, the new u. s. president harry s truman and british prime minister, winston churchill on july 26th, churchill, was replaced by the newly elected prime minister clement atlee. this last major conference of the war time alliance was intended to amicably settled the terms of the post war european order. instead, it marked the beginning of a clash between 2 systems, communism and capitalism, and the start of the cold war. under the marshall plan, the truman administration ultimately provided economic assistance to 16 western european countries. the countries that had been liberated by the red army remained in the soviets own of influence. germany was divided into full zones of occupation as well as the capital berlin after an 11 month blockade in which stolen tried to cut the western zones at berlin off from vital supplies. the division of germany became official. as did the division of europe, an iron curtain divided the continent into, into east and west blocks. the cold war had the world firmly in

they also remember joseph stalin in the early 1930s sealing off the border of ukraine. and it causing 3 million to 4 million ukrainians to starve to death. it was a systemic starvation, systemic genocide. and, you know, this happened when your mother was alive. when -- this happened when other people -- i just say that to say that there are people alive in ukraine right now who were alive when joseph stalin engaged in mass starvation tactics. so we wonder why the ukrainians are fighting so hard. it is not just because of what has happened since following the soviet union, but they know what russian tyrants have done to them in the past and they won't threat it happen again. >> and what is also frustrating is that for all of these years, the world has been dependent on russia for energy, and that dependence keeps us in this situation at some point. >> and they are moving away. europeans especially say that they are planning to move away from that dependence. >> it will be difficult. >>> turning now to this development out of washington as first reported by nbc news, ivan

this is an early picture of truman, president truman with churchill, winston churchill and joseph stalin, the world leaders, the global leaders at this point. and looking vet happy at the ends of the war although we knew trouble was brewing certainly before the ends of the war. george kennon wrote the long telegram, a famous document studied and is worth studying many times over. and he wrote it from russia. and it is called long, the long telegram, because, indeed, it's very long for a telegram, spanning soviet culture and other issues. it became the basis for what was called the containment theory of dealing with the soviets. in other words, if you contained the soviet union, because of the nature of the people, indeed, the entire culture and political system would implode. it was known as the containment theory. however, if we read the document there is lots of information about culture, about peoples, and even about the threats to americans via women -- religious organizations, labor unions, all of which we see in these cards. so truman articulated who was called the truman doctrine.

shortly after, joseph stalin started taking over eastern europe. he feared the west would come in and attack from the east. so he turned it into a buffer joan. the west was focused on security which led to the founding of nato. there were four founding members. more countries would join over the year. when west germany joined, they formed the warsaw pact to answer. it put europe on edge. symbolized about it were lingual. nato adopted a massive retaliation doctrine warning they would respond with an all-out nuclear war if attacked. nato would conduct several missions and operations over the years. including entering afghanistan after 9/11 and invoking for the first time in history article 5. allies agreed an attack against one was an attack against all. the new slimmed down russia after the fall of the soviet union, nato expanded closer to their border. former warsaw pacts were given admission. the question now, will vladimir putin be the first russian leader to attack a nato nation. if so, the world will see how this 30-nation alliance shifts from

they tear down the statue of joseph stalin. in 2003 when american forces arrived in fact dead one of the first things that happens is the tearing down of an enormous statue off saddam hussein. i'm not by any means going to say i'm so sorry we don't have a statue of joseph stalin or saddam hussein. i think we are a better planet without them but how do we arrive at decisions for people who are representative by statues that have only been around for 150 years or 200 years is something like that? it's more for process than i have seen in some of the latest waves of statue toppling since statue removal so we developed a decision tree which basically said let's ask a series of questions. depending on the answer that first question would go to the second and depending on the answer the second to third and so forth. now there's no guarantee in this decision tree. there's no guaranteed result. it's not intended to produce a certain result. what it is intended to produce as we have throughout through this. we have looked at this logica

only the most feared and despised remain around putin's giant table: joseph stalin's mustache, the guy who killed john wick's dog, shake from "love is blind," "bridgerton's lord featherington, the mypillow guy, but, of course, putin's cruelest adviser... is potato. ( laughter ) ( cheers and applause ) speaking-- long walk. long walk. >> jon: ♪ i'm walking, yes indeed. >> stephen: speaking of couch potatoes: netflix. today, their stock price dropped over 35% after they announced they had lost 200,000 subscribers. that's a lot! explains why they've changed their pop-up message from "are you still watching?" to "come back! please! i can change! do you want dvds again?!" ( laughter ) netflix is blaming the loss of subscribers on a combination of factors, like the growth of competitive services. yeah, they're not the only game in town anymore. it used to be just "netflix and chill." now you can "hbo max and relax," "hulu and woo-hoo," and "peacock." ( laughter ) ( applause ) netflix, used to-- used to go-- really? really? i'm surprised. slightly surprised. netflix used to be the go-to spo

each with veto power as joseph stalin himself insisted. the world has changed, but the council remains largely as it was 77 years ago, that is, russia has the power to veto any resolution it opposes. it's like giving a senator on the floor a veto over any legislation without any -- >> exactly. what we're seeing is when there's a fundamental disagreement among the permanent members, nothing happens. >> reporter: suggestions to reform the council by adding more permanent members or removing vetoes all together have been nonstarters. as form er u.n. ambassador bill richardson points out, it's all about keeping power. >> i'm being honest with you. i don't think anyone's going to want to give up their veto. >> reporter: and russia is not about to vote itself off the security council either. although weeks ago, it was condemned twice by the u.n. general assembly, but those were in nonbinding resolutions. russia was also thrown off the human rights council, but even that wasn't a unanimous decision. >> here's the real headline. a majority of the

stalin. the idea was that elon musk was not a fan and there were ideological differences. there was a concern about content moderation on the platform. he would expect that to start. guy: why is the stock at 47, not 54? ed: the market being sanguine. the market not jumping the gun. i'm referring to the text of the letter that elon musk sent to twitter. he says if the offer is not accepted, this is his best and final offer. if it is not accepted, i would need to reconsider my position as a shareholder. it seems like every possible outcome is still on the table. this is the problem with the situation. if we are going on the regulatory filing, he says this is his final offer. what role is the s.e.c. going to play in this? this is the problem with how elon musk operates. there are notes that have come out very quickly. everyone is split. others think he is lowballing the price, that he will come back with a higher offer. a lot of people think it won't because of the complication of the deal going

each with veto power as joseph stalin himself insisted. the world has changed but the council still remains largely as it was 77 years ago. that is, russia has the power to veto any resolution it opposes. it's like giving a senator on the floor a veto over any legislation without any overriding? >> exactly. what we're seeing when there is a fundamentally disagreement among the permanent members, nothing happens. >> reporter: suggestions to reform the council by adding more permanent members or removing vetoes all together have been non-starters. as former u.n. ambassador bill richardson points out, it's all about keeping power. >> i am being honest with you. i don't think anyone wants girlfriend up thundershower veto. >> reporter: and russia is not about to vote itself off the security council either, but though weeks ago it was condemned by the u.n. general assembly. those were nonbinding resolutions. russia was thrown off the human rights council, but that wasn't a unanimous decision. >> here is the headline. a majority of the members of

but they are reminisce nt, of course, of the great famine of the '30s under soviet leader joseph stalin after millions of people stole crops from ukrainian farmers. well, feed production, of course, is one of the reasons why the war is sending shock waves through the global economy. for more on that, i am joined by an economics professor at the university of california berkeley. thank you very much, yuri. let me pick up on that that we just heard, ukrainian side saying russian forces are robbing wheat from parts of the country. i believe kherson is one of those most affected. what does this mean in reality first on the -- >> i don't think in the immediate future, is going to change because ukraine has a lot of rain and food products. but if this pain continues at this scale, then we should seriously think about starvation on the ground and this is really very close to what we had in the 1930s. millions of people perished because the soviets [ inaudible ] from peasants and they had nothing to eat. >> we are seeing it now and i suspect -- and i am pretty sure that you can correct me -- wh

stalin, the soviet dictator, pushing the secret head of police, jack dorsey, into a river. all we ever have to go off with elon musk is cryptic tweets and memes. but you read into that that perhaps elon musk does not have the best opinion of the current twitter ceo. we have not had a response from twitter yet, by the way. that is what one action could be , raising the question of leadership in the company. guy: there are others that want to build social media platforms. this is a buy, not build strategy. donald trump wants to build. what does it mean for his spac? ed: the spac taking donald trump's media company public is down pretty significantly this monday moaning. there's news that two executive directors of that spac have resigned. but it is interesting, much like trump that criticized mainstream media, musk has chris sized mainstream media. -- musk has criticized mainstream media. he has criticized jeff bezos's ownership of "the washington post," for example. so this is trying to affect some kind of change in the media landscape, and similar to what trump was trying t

he is depicted as joseph stalin pushing the head of security into the river. the inference that drawn by the media and some investors was that he had an ideological difference over content moderation on the platform, which ties to freedom of speech. matt: why is that? has twitter censored some of elon musk's tweets? i've never been censored on twitter, i don't know any people who have read are they stopping people from doing much more than yelling fire in it crowded theater? ed: if you compare for example to facebook, the obvious comparative platform, twitters content moderation rules are more codified then facebook is. facebook's issue has always been, is an up to moderate content. one of the rules we have -- twitter has policies in place. jack dorsey defended them at the time they removed trump from the platform. one idea is that perhaps he doesn't agree with the rules. matt: that is a good point. they did take the former president off the platform. thank you very much for joining us. ed ludlow out of san francisco talking about a story that is really taking

in 1936, 1937, 1938, joseph stalin decided he was going to consolidate his power, consolidate his hold on the soviet union, by executing everybody he thought was in his way. it's now known as the great purge, the great terror. and it wasn't just like eliminating other political elites he thought might be in line for his job, stallen ordered the killing of hundreds of thousands of people by some estimates more than a million people, and thanks to the records, historians started to get access to, right after the collapse of the soviet union, in the mid to late '90s, historians were finally able to pinpoint a previously unknown site inside russia, in northern russia where as many as 9,000 people had been shot in the great purge and buried. just a huge site. an unmarked site. with hundreds of burial pits, 236 different pits, containing more than 9,000 bodies. every one of them shot, all the bodies just stacked on top of one another, in these 100 pits. all buried on-site in this place that was unmarked and unmemorialized for 60 years. they didn't find it until the summer of 1997. once they

., france, the uk, china and russia, each with veto power as joseph stalin himself insisted. the world has changed, but the council still remains largely as it was 77 years ago, that is, russia has the power to veto any resolution it opposes. >> it's like giving a senator on the floor a veto over any legislation without any over-rise. >> zaexactly and we're seeing wn there's a fundamental disagreement among primary members, nothing happens. >> reporter: accounts by removing permanent members or vetos all together have been nonstarters as former u.n. ambassador bill richardson points out it's all about keeping power. >> i'll be honest with you, i don't think anyone will want to give up their veto. >> reporter: and russia is not about to vote itself off the security council either, although weeks ago it was condemned twice by the u.n. general assembly but those were in nonbinding resolutions, russia was also thrown off the human rights council but even that wasn't a unanimous decision. >> here's the real headline, a majority of the members of the united nations did not vote to

he has assured that russia will be as isolated as it has been since the end of joseph stalin's brain, as long as he is president. if he wins, we have to live with him for a longer period of time. if he loses, maybe somebody will take care of that with in his den of thieves. because those men around him are not sentimental. secondly, he has to not win because of the fence sitters. particularly the indians and others. but also china. i have to think that the president of china, having signed this friendship that would have no limits, suddenly finds himself in the company of a homicidal maniac who is bringing down sanctions and is destroying europe. the chinese like certainty. they like order. this is disorderly. how this end will affect their behavior. not just with russia, but in asia more broadly. and the final thing is, it was winston churchill who encouraged us to meet the soviet forces as far east as possible. because diplomacy actually is a function of the situation on the ground, not the other way around. if in fact the russians can succeed, then that will be a problem for the in

he has assured russia is going to be as isolated has been since the end of joseph stalin's reign as long as he is president. if he wins, we have to live with him for a longer people of time. if he loses, maybe someone will take care of it in his den of beliefs. his partnerships of the world are not sentimental. secondly, he has to not win because of the fence centers. particularly, the indians and others but also, china. which has taken a bet on russia and i think that xi jinping, having signed this friendship that would have the limits, finds himself in the company of a homicidal maniac who is bringing down sanctions and who is destroying europe. the chinese like certainty and order. this is disorderly. how this ends will affect his behavior and not in russia but in asia broadly. it was churchill who encouraged us to meet that soviet forces as far east as possible because diplomacy actually is a function of a situation on the ground, not the other way around. if in fact, the russians can succeed with plan d, that will be a problem for the international committee. i will tell you, even i

his family was among the millions of people who under joseph stalin were forcefully taken from heir homes and taken to remote parts of the soviet union. political dissidents farmers who opposed the takeover of their land were taken from deportation, all in an effort to crush dissent. his family lived in a prisoner of war camp. it was almost a decade when they were finally allowed to return to their home which had been destroyed. the names of the estonians killed in the mission were inscribed. his brother is one of them. and he also has family on the fall. >> with the action to kill the people, or people without doing nothing. the people just died from diseases, from starvation. >> reporter: it made people feel they should die down and accept the situation as was? >> yes, after such realization, people should accept the system as it is. >> reporter: what is the lasting impact on your life? >> translator: i lost my childhood. i have to remain myself in a foreign and hostile environment. >> reporter: do you see any parallels with what's happening today? >> translator: i was sure that nothing

each with veto power that joseph stalin himself insisted. the word has changed but the council still remains largely as it was 77 years ago. that is, russia has the power to veto any resolution it opposes. >> it's like giving a senator on the floor a veto over any legislation, without any overrides? >> exactly. and what we're seeing is when there's a fundamental disagreement among the permanent members, nothing happens. >> reporter: suggestions to reform the council by adding more permanent members, or removing vetoes altogether have been nonstarters. as former u.n. ambassador bill richardson points out, it's all about keeping power. >> i'm being honest with you, i don't think anyone is going to want to give up their veto. >> reporter: and russia is not about to vote itself off the security council either. although weeks ago, it was condemned twice by the u.n. general assembly. but those were in nonbinding resolutions. russia was also thrown off the human rights council. but even that wasn't a unanimous decision. >> here's the real headline,

stalin over the government of poland in 1945. that same year the united nations was founded in san francisco walter white was at the founding conference in san francisco. so was harry truman and the un was founded. in hopes that it could confront and solve terrifying issues like we're seeing right now. let's hope it works. i'm not a big praying guy, but i'm praying. so thank you very much. thank you for having me. there's a lot more to this book that i didn't talk about. so i hope people read it. so i think there's time for questions. don't be afraid to ask the hard ones. all right. thank you aj for that thought-provoking presentation if you have a question and have an added it to the q&a feature at the bottom of your screen, please go ahead and do so now you can also like a question that's already been submitted that you would like to see answered. so our first question tonight comes from ed and ed asks based on race riots in northern cities and the story you had of the incident in detroit. how free were blacks to vote in the no

i know that from 32-33 the soviet ukraine suffered a horrific famine directly that are by joseph stalin. at left millions of people dead, that it left millions of people dead in the spring of 1933. it began in 1929, stalin and the soviets seized ownership of individual land to create collective farms, relatively rich peasants who are designated as a class enemy. those who resisted had their homes ransacked of food and their families blacklisted from receiving subsidence. it rejected international aid. this was famine enabled genocide. ussr secured 4.2 million tons of grain from ukraine in 1932 which is some more than enough to feed 10 million people. yet ukrainians starve to death. the kremlin's methods replicates other man-made famines like the chinese famine. where at least 30 million starve to death. in the face of drought, the chinese government party launched a five-year plan called the great leap forward which abolished private farming and transferred all production allocation of food to the hands of the state. during the failure of the ussr, wishing for the manufacture of the ind

stalin's soviet union because we decided it was better to keep them in the diplomatic tent so they would use diplomacy and not warfare to resolve their differences. so although it's painful to contemplate keeping russia in these u.n. bodies in the end is probably the best move. yeah, i mean i get the old adage, you know, keep your friends close and your enemies closer. but i want to read this nbc news op ed. i found it interesting. it says quoting here russia has committed atrocities, but is it ? one of them zolensky assertion of in the images from bukha spurred a new round of support from the west with the us and european countries forcefully condemning the killings and calling for additional sanctions against russia. however, president joe biden and his advisers have refused to recognize the atrocities as . so are they . and then the op ed goes on to say the answer is likely no. what's your answer, fred? well, is defined by the convention, which i think passed in the 1920s and it constitutes a systematic effort to annihilate people. and i think clearly that's what's going on in ukraine