Added: 1 year ago
From: RedArmyChoirYT
Views: 170,167
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (786)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • PROLETARIANS OF ALL COUNTRIES UNITE!!!

  • C&C: ☭ed Alert 3

  • I hope that Egypt be a Communist country

  • Brilliant !

  • Siendo de derecha, llore el dia que el mundo perdio a la URSS

  • 1:42 Angry Bird?

  • Glory to the Soviet Union!

  • Stop arguing, listen to the march - enjoy it.

    Remember that war, respect those who fought in this war and who with all their dignity and honor won it for US to live and be there where we are today.

    Be proud of them, respect them and pass it to your children.

  • ёбаные правители развалили державу когда то всех превосходили были как одно целое а ща сука одни алкаши

  • Don't know why but this song reminds me a little bit of when the Soviets retalliated the Nazis in Stalingrad =D

  • this one's pretty good, I like it

  • Awesome song. Krasnaya Armiya forever!

    Cheers from Brazil

  • Ohhhh so beutiful..

  • sooooooooooo beautiful!!!!!!

  • @1995merendeiro No, Brasil sucks. Now, fucking enjoy this god damn song, Brasilian-Portuguese fuck.

  • @TheSovietdino Brazilian and Portuguese are different. And you may not know but Portugal's constitution is socialist.

  • @TheDudeReborn I don't know what is your definition of a socialist constitution. The only socialist constitution is that wich nationalize or socialize private property of the means of production. Point

  • @apocalypticmadman Our 1976 constitution says you can nationalize at will to benefit the people, but we can't do that anymore (because of the European Union).

  • Американцы пришли сюда чтобы поспорит про историю СССР, а русские пришли чтобы послушать марш :3

  • "While waiting for the coffee, you drowsily watch a sea of red flags winding its way through the center of Moscow, flooding the cobblestones of Red Square. You rub your eyes, wondering if this is a segment from the History Channel. Then reality kicks in with the caffeine: In a stunning upset, Communist leader Gennady Zyuganov has defeated Vladimir Putin in the Russian presidential elections."

  • @SovietUnionRedStar

    What I'd do to see that happen.

  • @SovietUnionRedStar Let this dream become true today! Vote Communist! Workers of the world unite!

  • @SovietUnionRedStar So the Russian Communist party is winning?

  • @Humberto4790 sadly, no.

  • @Humberto4790 The communist party is right up there after Putin

  • @SovietUnionRedStar

    It will not be Zuganov.

    Although the red flag WILL wave in Russia once again.

  • @SLRSulik I dread that day...to resurrect what we had buried for good, the mere idea, sends chills down my spine.

  • @SentimentalBadger maybe it might be better

  • @redundantstudios No, Russia just needs to stabilize itself. This is a Country relatively new to Capitalist ideals. While they may not be perfect, it is a more free lifestyle than what people endured in the USSR. And my Father agrees.

  • @SentimentalBadger Still it was better before it became capitalistic. Now we have 2 time more fascists than rest of the world together and corruption on same level as fucking Togo and are losing minimum 400 billion dollars every year just because of bribes.

  • @dangar45 Yeah, granted, folks are in the shit. But would you rather be free but in hard times, or in a nation of wealth, but you having none? Give it some time, some party will find the balance between socialism and Capitalism.

  • @SentimentalBadger No party are able to make Russia as good as it was before 1917. That will never happen. Western countries are successful not because of their democracy and liberalism, but because of their Imperialistic background, prolonged peace and their friendship with USA (which also gave them milliards after WW2 and help/protection during the Cold War).

  • @dangar45 You'll find that European greatness in the current era is due to their generally sound economic policy and liberalness, combined with their personal military might, and most nations (e.g. Germany) no longer feel the effects of their disbanded empires at all.

  • @SentimentalBadger Free lifestyle and socialism maybe?

  • @redundantstudios I wish we could find a balance between the two, but people just seem to mess up one way or another :P.

  • @SentimentalBadger Of course. Nothing wrong with a libertarian (i.e anarchist) balance, but a centered government is nearly impossible as it always will swing one way or the other, and generally to the more authoritarian side of things. Balance is always wanted, but never granted it seems.

  • @SentimentalBadger There is balance between capitalism and socialism. They're called Nordic countries. Free education, free healthcare, well organized public sector. Same time one can start their own business and succeed, but due to relatively high taxes, no body will become multi-billionaire (which is a good thing, no body needs that much money). No homeless, but no super-rich either.

    Don't really understand why people think one has to choose between extreme left or extreme right...

  • @JohQx3 I love you. FINALLY SOMEONE SEES THE TRUTH! Nord for life.

  • @SentimentalBadger say rather that it is a people new to capatalist ideas. Under the Tsar's of russia from the 1600's to the early 1900's capalism was promoted, even though the riches of capalism only reached the upper or wealthy middle class. But I see your point completely.

  • did someone cough at 0:11 or am i hearing somthing else?????

  • Let's go my Comrades to war! To war with the capitalist dogs of the West! They will be crushed by the next generation of New Age Communists!

  • Workers of all the world!!UNITE!!against corporate faschist!!SMRT FAŠIZMU SLOBODA NARODU!!

  • naturalis u faggot grow some balls and SHUT THE FUCK UP! and no im not a yank you fucking scroat

  • Прекрасная песня!Спасибо

  • Funny how soviet were so big and powerful but couldn't take Finland.

  • @fatboyjim91 they could at the end

  • @Lyube123 Finland was never occupied by USSR. They could have, I don't deny that, but they didn't, as they wanted to rush to Berlin before Western Allies.

  • @JohQx3

    Finland was not invaded because it never crossed outside the territories occupied by Soviets previously, in the "Winter War", territories mostly inhabited by Finns.

  • @anaplastic Finland was invaded at Winter War and Finland made multiple provocative actions against USSR with Germany to launch Continuation War. Finland crossed the old borders and advanced as far as Petroskoi, as Finland needed something to bargain with USSR. How ever, Mannerheim did not allow Finns to take part to Siege of Leningrad or to cut down railway to Murmansk, as it would've only made more civilian casualties.

  • @JohQx3

    Anyway, they advanced generally to the old borders, only occasionally deeper, if I remember well. There was a Finnish population mixed with Russians even further. Now, I am not sure why exactly they didn't advance, what is sure is that they intentionally stopped short of Leningrad in 1941. It's also hard to enter the brain of Stalin, but I guess had the Finns worsened by much the situation at Leningrad, Finland would have been a large Estonia inside USSR for 45 years.

  • @anaplastic Main purpose for Continuation War was to get lost territories back from USSR. How ever, as Mannerheim got his training in Russian Army, he knew something about Russian strategies and mentality. He knew that in order to get the Karelia back to Finland, Finns had to give something in exchange (and in this scenario it would've been the occupied territories). Not taking part of Siege of Leningrad and other similar events saved Finland, as Finns weren't seen as such a ''monsters''.

  • @JohQx3

    I don't quite understand, who wanted the whole Karelia? I don't think Finns ever wanted the whole Karelia, if I remember something of geography (and demographics, there are too many ethnic Russians). Anyway, the main point is that Mannerheim (i think a general in the Russian Imperial Army) decided correctly not to push harder, irrespective of what Germans were asking (even Hitler repeatedly asked, if I remember).

  • @anaplastic Well not whole Karelia, but the Karelian Isthmus which was part of Finland before Winter War. Finnish Karelia was never full of ethnic Russians, but ethnic Finns. Finns were forced to move out after Russians just took over Karelian Isthmus.

  • @JohQx3

    Ok, what's the Finnish Karelia? I knew of "Karelia" as of something large, like half or more the size of Finland, and that large "Karelia" had a sizable Russian population even in 1900. Anyway, what Mannerheim probably wanted imho was more or less the territory taken by Soviets during the Winter War (much smaller than the whole Karelia), inhabited mostly by Finns.

  • @anaplastic Nah, Karelia is located around Western, Southern and Northern sides of Lake Ladoga. Finnish Karelia is simply the part of Karelia (like Karelian Isthmus) that was part of Finland before Winter War, part of Grand Duchy of Finland when under Russian rule and part of Österland when under Swedish rule. Population of it has always been Finnish. Whole Karelia is a lot bigger, true, but Finns only want their old lands that were taken by force back.

  • @JohQx3

    Ok, then we basically agree.

  • @JohQx3 You don't just want your land. you fight for it silly.That's what we Russians did.

  • @Rmxmax We tried to fight for it, that's called Continuation War. Finland and Russia have really good relationships, and Finns don't see any reason to make them worse. Finns value peace a lot more than some lands, but Winter War was a crime and taking those lands was a criminal act, so if Russia wants to ''clean its reputation'' it should do some compensating for its old, unjustified crimes.

  • @JohQx3 yeah, it's true.

  • @fatboyjim91 Funny how the greatest superpower today, the US, could not handle Iraq, Afghanistan, or Vietnam for that manner

  • @NaturalisPhaenomena Different wars. The US could hold its own against a regular army, though when it comes to a war of hearts and minds against insurgents it doesn't fair so well.

  • @NaturalisPhaenomena USSR couldn't handle Afghanistan either... That country is 'unconquerable'.

  • @jppged Yes, indeed. The majority of modern wars is that way.

  • I'm no communist, but the Soviets had some awesome music!

  • Hell, these Soviets almost single-handedly beat the entire Nazi Europe, that's a hell of a feat.

  • @anaplastic Well single-handedly...they had some support from England, and the US send supplies and were a useful distraction until Stalin could send 4 Million Red Army conscripts across the Seelower Heights and crush our resistance. There's no doubt that WWII was a Soviet victory though.

  • @l0rf

    Yeap,along with the Greek resistance which slowed the advance of troops to the Soviets,In-the Reich problems, and lets not forget the US landing along with the Brits.

  • @l0rf But, don't forget the Nazis threw a lot more resources at the Soviets than anyone else, UK nor US had to find on their home soil, the USSR did.

  • @TK8492 Oh I know. One of my great Uncles fell in Stalingrad, I know the Eastern Front was a war unto itself. There's no doubt that the Soviets had to bear the brunt of Teutonic warfare, were the first to encounter Tiger tanks, Elephant tank destroyers and 42cm Mortars.

  • @l0rf The only country to emerge from WW2 with its economy, wealth, power, & infrastructure enhanced was the USA.

    The USSR could never have survived WW2 without the western allies. The USSR emerged from WW2 fatally damaged but through harsh but ultimately unsustainable measures survived for 3 decades before economic & 'cold war' competition with the more powerful USA led to the Soviet's final collapse.

    WW2 (which also caused the downfall of the British Empire) was unquestionably a USA victory.

  • @freeman8128 I'd put it in other words. While Soviet Union broke the back of Hitler US used the results of ww2 to its advantage. Would USSR survive w/o help of West or wouldn't is doubtful question. Only 20 years before ww2 all of them: US, GB, Germany, Poland, France and Japan were attacking Soviet Russia and lost. The collapse of USSR was caused not by economical failure but by treachery of highest leaders of it. The collapse of economy is what you see in West now.

  • @fiorAvanti1917 No trust me they're were MASSIVE economic problems with a centrally planned economy.

  • @vanbismark Really? Any massive economic problem of Socialism wasn't massive enough to compare with any average crisis of Capitalism.

  • @fiorAvanti1917 tell that to all of the retarded EU nations that are bankrupt and have to change all their policies like france. the EU's economic plan in the recession was literally "cross your fingers and hope the yanks save us all" they tried socialized agriculture in soviet russia and communist china and both stalin and mao zedong hold world records for being responsible for loss of human life, because the all starved to death. socialism is the stupidest government structure you could employ

  • @fiorAvanti1917 The Soviet Union collapsed because it had become economically dependant on forced labour & a corrupt, inefficient, bureaucratic command economy held together by repression. These factors were not sustainable & the system was so rotted from within that once removed, collapse was inevitable.

    It was not a matter of treachery but a failed attempt to reform a fundamentally unsustainable system that was impractical & morally corrupted beyond reform.

  • Comment removed

  • @fiorAvanti1917 if you really think the USSR didn't implode you're a fool. they didn't have the infastructure, money, or work ethic that the USA did. they spent all their money trying to look tough but in the end the money well ran dry. Communism and Socialism look great on paper but give a few years they always collapse. why do you think china implements a free market economy even though they're commies? because they tried that shit before and they starved by the millions.

  • @phone8667250 The imploding of USSR had political, not economical character. By the way, the fall of USSR caused the greatest crisis of capitalism, what you are watching now around you. Free market is not taboo for Socialist countries. USSR had it in 20s. It was called NEP, and organized after some Lenin's works. Don't forget, your gvt is pressed to implement planned economy as well. You tell me, what was nationalized last time in your country?About starvation - thats horror tales

  • @fiorAvanti1917. The USSR collapsed due to poor management and an overblown military budget. They could have cut their military by 90% and focussed all that money on domestic affairs. They'd still retain the ability to nuke any invading country into the stone age - but they'd be much better off economically. I could say the same of the USA in 2012.

  • @baobubs You have very good eyes, to see from Australia what I couldn't see from Russia. The today's Russia with practically no war budget dreams to have the tenth of economical health of Soviet Union in most crisis time. No one plant or mine stopped the work, no field left. The luck of products was organized by leaders of USSR Gorbachov and K.

  • @freeman8128 Actually, britain and russia could have easily defeated nazi germany. most of their victories were based on forging and breaking alliances among smaller nations so that germany would have a temp ally to help overtake a nation. thats how it got most of europe. they also were based on the fact they didnt face a defeat until russia. afterwards, morale was crap, britain destroyed their western air forces, russia was massing millions of soldiers.

  • @zexion4real In reply to your 2 comments:

    Your analysis & opinion differs not only from the history but notably from those of Winston S. Churchill, Statesman & Historian, who as British Premier was - together with Roosevelt & Stalin - one of the 'big three' who led the Allies in WW2

  • @zexion4real britain was a pile of rubble we payed to rebuild their infastructure. also you're dead wrong. they split poland but every other country they took was through conquest or appeasement tactics by Neville Chamberlain. the entire eastern front hinged on stalingrad. they could have taken moscow easily and then would have had reliable logistics to support them with the winter clothes and shit that they desperately needed. hitler quagmires they're momentum at stalingrad

  • @freeman8128 in the end, the US only liberated france and helped end the war more quickly and beat japan. if U.S. and japan were out, the war might have ended 22-5 years later than it did, still with Russia and britain winning.

  • dude read a book you're dumb. USA killing japan alleviated an entire front. russian was more afraid of japan than germany because of the non aggression pact. they got caught with their pants down most of their army and tanks stationed by mongolia. also you think the brits could launch an air campaign after the battle of britain? the US pumped every single ally excepting maybe russia with boat loads of cash before we ever landed. the russians didn't win the war. germany squandered it

  • @anaplastic so untrue

  • @anaplastic every 7/10 dead Nazis were killed by the Soviets, Now thats saying something

  • @anaplastic it's a shame really, nazi germany and russia are brothers, it is USA that we should have repellled. look at our homeland now under nato rule? let USA burn.

  • @anaplastic no, they didn't. 

  • @anaplastic

    lost 20+ million.

    and the nazis lost the war cause of Romania.

    with the Romanians on their side the war could go on for another 6 months enough time for Hitler to finish the V1 and V2 rockets....but our King betrayed us and went on the communist side aka Sold us to the devil. ;))

  • @anaplastic Actually the British Empire & the USA also had something to do with it - without whom the Soviets would have been completely smashed.

  • @freeman8128 Ah. Yes. They gave the Soviets corned beef, some weapons, and some money.

  • @beaverswedish Thats right: they kept the Soviets supplied through the Arctic convoys at great cost to themselves in men & ships; sacrificed their lives & resources bombing Germany to destroy their ability to fight the Soviets; suffered & died in huge numbers fighting the Axis in North Africa, Italy, France the Netherlands Germany, Czechoslovakia, the Balkans & the far East.

    Britain sacrificed its World Empire to that cause. The Soviets owed their survival to the British & Americans.

  • @freeman8128 What you're saying is, millions of Soviets died for nothing, Stalinism, the horrid thing, rose for no good reason and that Russia should kneel and kiss Britains ass? No, not going to happen.

  • @ComradeOfHouse If you want to kiss anybodies ass it should be the USA !! The supplied most of the material that kept you alive.

  • @Tralgit I agree - but bear in mind that the USA was the only country to emerge from WW2 having made a profit & increased its economic power, prestige & prosperity, with the rest of the world in its debt (a massive turnabout since the depression of the 1930's).

    So massive was the economic cost of WW2 to Britain that it took until the year 2008 to pay off its debts to the USA.

  • @freeman8128 The " war bonds " was the way to pay for the war, I don't know when they were paid in full by the US government. Joe Sixpack paid at the end for it.

  • @Tralgit Joe Sixpack always pays in every country. In USA people bought 'War Bonds' in UK they were called 'Postwar Credits' (same thing) - they were never paid in full.

    To finance 'Lend Lease' Britain sold off massive assets (Mining, Oil, Industries, Railways etc) in Latin America & Asia & transferred various island colonies to USA.

    In the latter '40's Britain made further Massive Borrowings from the USA to finance post-war reconstruction having suffered greatly from German bombing.

  • @freeman8128 Yep, the UK never fully recovered from WW II, for the rest of Europe there was the " Marshall plan ", to finance the recovery and prevent it from falling into " Red " .

  • @Tralgit the bonds paid for 2 things: first they pumped insane amounts of cash into american industry which would switch to car, airplanes companies after the war providing tons of jobs and increasing USA export capacity. secondly the USA literally gave billions and billions to every country in Europe besides russia be they were afraid of communist uprisings in destabalized western culture

  • @phone8667250 Yep, they learned from WW I, the treaty of Versailles, it brought Germany to its knees and made the rise of Adolf Hitler possible.

  • @freeman8128 ...? The CCCP emerged from WW2 as a superpower as well. Are you even listening to the song?

  • @ArTofPvT I have known the song all my life & USSR from the end of WW2 until USSR collapsed - before you were born

    Like other combatant European countries (England & Germany) USSR emerged from WW2 with its infrastructure severely damaged but a need to play the part of a superpower in spite of the economic realities. This was achieved by a combination of severe austerities, asset stripping from occupied former enemies, forced labour & bluff.

    However, this was not sustainable & the USSR collapsed

  • Comment removed

  • @ComradeOfHouse That's what YOU are saying.

    The Russians also owe a massive debt to CANADA; for the Canadian contribution to their survival.

  • @freeman8128 I am Canadian, and no, that is not what should happen, that is not what is ever going to happen to anybody.

    You've failed to understand that this war is absolutely horrid, and should not have happened, and in this time we all helped eachother out, we don't owe anything to anybody by defending ourselves.

    @Tralgit Nobody is going to kiss anybodies ass, stop being so arrogant

  • @ComradeOfHouse Those of us who have first hand experience of war understand rather better than you do that EVERY war is absolutely horrid.

    WW2 was necessary to save Freedom, Justice, Reason & Democracy from Nazism & its allies. It might have been avoided if the Free World had stood up to Nazism & Fascism earlier instead of the foolish attempt at appeasement which only encouraged these evils.

    The Free world is in danger today from 'Islamofascism': making the same errors may lead to catastrophe

  • @freeman8128 dude why don't these people get it? it's like just pick up a god damn history book it's there for everyone to see. finally someone you can make a solid point without it being full of holes

  • @anaplastic hell i could fight a whole Reich with music like this behind my back

  • @JAEitler like this

    

  • @JAEitler

    But the losses would be terrible! For one of us died about 13 Russians!

    We had 1 300 000 Russians fighting under the German flag, cause the communists were truly bad and they liked better to get treated like persons and to smash the communism.

  • @FettererBaer Give me proof for that statistic and stop sounding like a dumbass.

  • @bnik98

    Well!

    In the whole WWII died about 13 600 000 sowjet soldiers

    In the whole WWII died about 4 200 000 german soldiers

    The german soldiers were having this losses not only at the eastern front!

    (about 2 500 000)

    The statistik 1 to 13 was correct at the begin of the war. Later it changed to the total of: one German to five soviet soldiers.

  • Comment removed

  • @FettererBaer yea but the russians you we're talking about were also murdered by 'you'. hanged, shot, raped, beaten, burned, gassed, worked and starved to death in camps (not only jew but POWs also), tortured, frozen, blown to peices, and generally butchered by 'your' war machine that was based upon utterly horrid and disgusting ideology calling itself national SOCIALISM, as a result of being thrashed in the great war

  • @COD4K1LLER

    Well, but you and I, know that the Russions committed larger genocides than our people.

    For example of about 90 000 - 100 000 POW from Stalingrad came only 6 000 back.

    The biggest ethnic cleaning in history was in the german east, committed by communists (15 000 000 People killed, raped or driven away). You are right, that russian POW got killed in a hight number, but they died mostly because they had no food (equal to the german POWs).

  • @COD4K1LLER

    The national socialism started committing genocides not before there were dying lots of german soldiers. And genocides were in Germany never legal and secret!

    The commies murdered always and in bigger numbers...

    What ideology is more disgusting and evil?!

  • @FettererBaer depending upon ones perspective and class, but at the root and purest form, communism/socialism, because it is based upon equality for all workers, where as national socialism is based upon and the survival of the fittest you could say, and that the rulers of earth were the aryans, and htath te slavs were 'sub-human'. However the stalinist soviet union was highly corrupt and totalitarian, almost, but not quite as equally as disgusting as "illegal" murder by gas

  • @COD4K1LLER

    The national socialism did never want (the aryans) to rule the earth. The word "master-race" was invented by the americans, to do atrocity propaganda...

    The sowjets killed more russians and ukrainians before the war, than the germans through it... I can not find a murder better, that happened by hunger than killing by gas!

    Who would you kill more easily? Someone related to you but rich or someone not related to you, no matter if he has got money? Thats the difference between

  • @FettererBaer unfortunately i cannot understand what you are talknig about wholy in that last comment, however, yes it is based upon Aryan Supremecy, please do not confuse national sosialism with fascism, yes fascism was not based upon that, much like how even though socialism did not include such corruption that soviet communism had. Also, there was enough food for prisoners also, that is why so few western allied POWs did not starve to death, the the Soviet POWs were

  • @COD4K1LLER

    1)

    I speak from the national socialism and I know the difference to the fascism. (I'm studying history at the university of Graz) And I assure you, that the Germans never wanted to rule the world, or something like that...

    In the east our own soldiers died because of the loss of food, so we gave the POWs not the food but our national comrades. In this territory our supplies didn't work so well. In the west, they did. Of course it would have been our duty to treat them better.

  • @FettererBaer You are either idiot or liar. Not to know that many Russian POWs in 1941 were shot at once can only idiot. The rest was practically starved in short time, while Nazi had plenty of food, stolen in occupied territory. But the civilian had to starve, cuz all food was stolen. In the first days of occupation many Russian, as well as Polish lands were given to Germans to own and the peasants were given them as slaves. Many farmers in Germany had slaves from Poland etc.

  • @fiorAvanti1917

    Forced labour from polish and russian people happened.

    The civilians died because of the scorched earth tactic of the commies!

    Our army had n o t enough supplies - I wish it had...

  • @FettererBaer Come here and our elder people will tell you were you got your supplies and how many of them. I30 000 is the number of ALL scum in Wehrmacht uniform that called themselves Russians. As for Paulus. Anyone can see in what condition these Germans were when they surrendered, and anyone can see that to the West of Stalingrad were Germans, to the East is Siberia. Take a guess were POWs were sent? Who is guilty that they went so far and starved before taken POWs?

  • @FettererBaer Only for some Western idiot shooting of officers, communists, commissars and Jews at once was innocent joke. It was considerable part of Soviet Army. And the remaining soldiers envied the dead when they got to KZ.

  • @fiorAvanti1917

    I like the russian Nation, and I know it suffered much more through the communism than through the national socialism.

    I repeat that killing commissars is a crime, but the crimes committed by the Red Army were more terrible.

    The german POWs died in very high numbers! Just like the russian POWs...

    I can't see any difference between that.

    You could try to ask a historian, or go to a university-library. I suggest the entry is free.

  • @fiorAvanti1917

    Interesting might be, that "liberated" russian POWs were punished and often condemned to death/ working to death in concentration camps called gulags, because for Red Army soldiers it was forbidden to surrender. The faith in German captivity was often better than getting liberated by the own army...

  • @FettererBaer It seems I explained why the German POWs of Paulus and only Paulus died. You have not to object here. All others returned home and built GDR, pain in your ass for decades. You don't have to search long for the crimes of your forefathers, come here in Russia and read in each village the names on the graveyards. That's hard for me to prove Western idiot that liberated POWs , 90% of them were set free after a month.

  • @fiorAvanti1917

    Well it is obvious that you truly believe the sowjet propaganda.

    You "explained" nothing, you claimed something not true!

    I didn't deny that my forefathers committed crimes, I just said, that the sowjet ones were much more horrible.

    Your statement approaching the historians is so stupid that I'm not going to comment it at all - it speaks for itself.

    Meanwhile I don't hope you will see reason. Maybe we should end this "dialog", it seems senseless to me.

  • @FettererBaer Had you some brains you'd understand that the one who is programmed is you. Everything you know, you are taught by your "historians". What I know is not only manuals, it is experience of the generations of my father and my grandfathers. Your crimes is on graveyards in any of our cities, our crimes are only in your minds. If there were millions of victims, should I know at least one relative of one of them personally?

  • @fiorAvanti1917 Clearly your family has a long history of supporting the regime.

    There's a reason why some of the best phyiscal photo and historical document editing techniques are from Russia.

  • @AAliasW You'll laugh, but there is NO family that hadn't long history of supporting regime. Even these who now claim the opposite. Ever heard that word "democracy"? When the people supports the government not because it is pressed to, but because the people builds a government?

  • @fiorAvanti1917 Right, democrasy, right, sweet dreams

  • Comment removed

  • @FettererBaer if you took ALL the crimes of all russians since before Czarist times up to now and added them, they wouldnt even half equal the holocaust! your argument is done.

  • @ussr1cccp

    HAHAHA!

  • @ussr1cccp you sure don't know a lot about Russian History then

  • @Stargate404 I suppose you learned Russian History from CNN and BBC...

  • @Stargate404 give me examples of anything worse than the holocaust commited by russia? pogroms probably came the closest but even that is dwarfed in comparison to the holocaust

  • @ussr1cccp Holodomor..

  • @pedroissler Классовая борьба внутри страны между гражданами этой страны не по национальному признаку.

    Холокост ... сами понимаете.

    А что будем делать с современными холокостами со стороны капитализма и его блоков?

  • @BetelgeuseMy Imbeciles like you somehow manage to link Holocaust=jews= settlers in Golan Heights and start using the three terms interchangeably.

  • @pedroissler Ненормальный здесь Вы, если голодомор и коллективизацию связали с холокостом, применив термин "холокост" в вашем узколобом западном варианте, то есть связали голодомор и коллективизацию с уничтожением евреев.

  • @BetelgeuseMy it's like I don't want to discuss with you because I haven't got the time and because I'm pretty sure you're wrong

  • @pedroissler Уходящему с концами - золотой мост. По крайней мере вы изобразили нам способ уходить от разгрома в споре.

    Будьте благополучны. :)

    The outgoing forever has the right to the golden bridge. At least you have shown for us that you have a way of going from the imminent defeat in a dispute.

    Be well. :)

  • @ussr1cccp Collectivizations..

  • @ussr1cccp I'd call Stalin killing around 20 million Russians during his time as leader and nearly wiping out his military during the Great Purge as pretty bad

  • Comment removed

  • @ussr1cccp Russians lost loads but loads of people in the war, they didn't kill half of what they actually lost...

  • @Westiees Назовите страну, в которой человек, отказывающийся соблюдать конституцию, не признается уголовником. Назовите страну, в которой уголовникам пряники раздают, а не сажают в тюрьму или на электрический стул, или не делают смертельную инъекцию.

  • @FettererBaer Yes, the killing of comissars, Jews, Communists, starving civilians is a crime. But even bigger crime commit every day your so called historians. They kill each day more and more Soviet people. Each day these who went out to rob and to kill feel ever better, because these 'historians' washed them clean, accusing in all crimes the people and the power that liberated the world from brown pest.

  • @FettererBaer You are 'slightly' mistaken. Not 1 300 000, but 130 000. And don't lie where you can be easily caught on lie. Most of German POWs survived and returned to Germany. I do admit, that plenty of soldiers of Paulus army starved, but they starved before they were taken prisoners.

  • @fiorAvanti1917

    You mean the "Russian Liberation Army"! It was built not until november 1944.

    Russians joined the Germans of course before in high numbers!

    From the last 90 000 - 100 000 soldiers of Paulus (all POW) only 6000 came back to Germany. This numbers are - sad to say - arguably representative.

    In the shootings from POWs 1941, died mainly political commissar. Of course that was not ok, but normal soldiers were not harmed.