@sparkytrick The 13 year old was the son of the tsar. He was murdered along with his family. Socialists, Marxists, Leninists, Communists, whatever they call themselves, they are thugs. Just look at how many unionists are corrupt, or in bed with the mob. Communism is the politics of the tyrant.
When i saw the priest celebrating the Revolution i knew that im watching a Soviet propaganda. In reallity the Bolsheviks the first thing they did was to burn down churches....
Socialists have always had a tradition of thuggery. Even today, the union movement, atleast in my country, is controlled by thugs and bullies. The workers of the world united. Unfortunately, the rest of us have to suffer for it. Long live capitalism. Socialist fucks!
When you kill a child in the name of revolution, your cause ceases to be valid. History has shown us that revolutions are bloody; and those who engage in them are often worse than those who fight. The French revolution is a great example.
9 months later the Romanovs were murdered, under the orders of Lenin. Among the dead were the former tsar and tsarina, their daughters, and their son Alexei, who was just 13. Conveniently ignored by this propaganda piece of socialist stinking shit.
@atrophyfilms2012 I did not even view it just by looking at the names i understand this is a propaganda revisionist atempt to defer real blame and responsibility for this genocide. Dare we even breath the real truth.
@bibimir True, Lenin had nothing but good intentions, during his time true communism lived for a brief time. Stalin fucked it up, My grandfather told me that everything was soo cheap even by their standards. Like a movie ticket was 2 pennies. Even by their standards that was practically free. So if Lenin got to live a little longer I believe he would have achieved true communism where money does not exist. My grandfather told me money almost got phased out, but Stalin fucked it all up.
This movie combines truth and fiction. There is a lot of 'cherry picking'. If you are someone who reads a lot of history, you can more easily discern one from the other. And yes Alexander Kerensky the democrat, the darling of the Western Allies fired on non-violent crowds just as the Czar did in 1905. But so did Lenin and the Bolsheviks in 1918 a year later. Completely left out of this movie naturally.
This film was made during the Soviet era and this affected his story. Revolution shows such a grandiose, but actually Winter palace was protected by a few women and children...
@bibimir Come on man, I know and I see everything, my father and grandfather told me, bolsheviks killed millions of farmers who didnt agree to work and give their money to the new bolshevik government.
There are good parts in communism though,but its not important when you cant live which way you want.
its hard to realize when youre not from the soviet union. but ask people which their country was a part of soviet union.
@Metalicalypse Mostly under Stalin, I bet. Lenin wasn't that bad (and if you say he was, I doubt it :P ). That wasn't communism though. Especially during Stalin, who was the same as Hitler, although I still can thank Stalin for fighting off Hitler, but I don't agree with his killing of millions of innocents. Communism is good, but Soviet government gave communism a bad name, and it wasn't communist at all. Communism is freedom, democracy. Soviet Union, North Korea and China are not communist.
Right, you twat, you're clearly a racist and anti-semetic bigot, whose ties of allegiance are tied in pathetically with the images of God and a flag, and do you really believe that coming from a priviledged background means that you can never represent those less fortunate than you? And yes, you're right, Communism isnt a wonderful idea, but Marxism is, Leninism which forms the basis of modern Communism only advocates that an elite group forward the revolution, which Lenin regarded as necessary.
Couldn't watch after 35:00 minutes. Letting prisoners go to fight, rape, steal and pillage is what Communism is in its purest form. The abolition of God, authority and family and letting garbage literature corrupt society. Yes, if you believe in the 'equal' distribution of all things, please let the common man on the street have a 'piece' of your wife, your father's inheritance and come in and out of your 'property' whenever he damn well pleases. All who promote these principles are criminals.
@theone1087 That didn't just happen under Communism. It happened before the Bolsheviks took hold. I think it was during the February revolution.
The Black Hundreds were happy to use criminal help in their pogroms. In the two weeks following the October proclamation of 1905, 3000 Jews were murdered by these people. In one pogrom in Odessa, 800 were killed, 5000 wounded and 100000 left homeless. This was outright criminal activity.
One of the most sacrilegious cinemas I've ever bore witness to; Lenin and Trotsky are suffering eternal damnation for the crime against God-ordained monarchy or Holy Tsardom.
I couldn't agree more Mr Lasicak. A lot of play is made with "citizens" early on. Citizens of what? Russian socialism folded, circa 1991, for sufficient reasons.
I've certainly not personally seen the movie flick and as a result decided to go to see this one found on thisisawesomemovie. c000m and so i actually said? everything was in fact wonderful. an individual simply just definitely have to acknowledge who the three central characters are and as a result anything else is going to be logical.
@crossheat2010 The Tsar was a real and normal human beeing like any Monarch that ruled all the European countries during many centuries. He never had any plan or intention to kill, eradicate and murder millions of his citizen like the Bolchevik criminals did under Lenin, Stalin....
The Tsar was a real and normal human beeing like any Monarch that ruled all the European countries during many centuries. He never had any plan or intention to kill, eradicate and murder millions of his citizen like the Bolchevik criminals did under Lenin, Stalin....
Mother Russia abused by the Bolchevik. 75 years of a regime that supressed freedom. Lenin and then Stalin murdered millions of their citizen and tried to eradicate from Russia all presence of God and religion.
The Tsar failed because his wife the Empress consciousness was manipulated by the very dark '' monk'' Raspoutine who misleaded her and her family.
@crossheath2010 Soviets DID NOT repace Tsar regime. Thats the biggest bolsheviks LIE. They replaced demokratic government. The first thing tehy did was separate peace with Germany. Compare to western allies in WW2 who never accepted german offers on separate peace...Russian tend to forget this bolseviks betrayal.
@MrLasicak That a completely idiotic comment as for Russia to continue in the war would have been suicidal, it had already sustained over 7 million casualities and the economy and infastructure had been ruined by the Romanov dynasty, in many ways Communism saved Russia, although Stalin in his turn wrecked it.
@Francis666ism It's typical someone like you would defend an atheistic, murderous, regicidal and barbarous regime with a name like 'Francis666ism'. I bet you're a satanist too, only the devil and naive, non-erudite and gullible college students could love Trotsky and Lenin. Even Stalin is too low for someone like you, maybe you have a chance at becoming a human being. God bless Holy Rus!
@theone1087 Your comment shows your own immense naivity, and your utter lack of knowledge of Lenin or Trotsky, Trostky was completely opposed to Stalin's repressive and barbaric regime, but you show your misunderstanding, or lack of understanding most because you dont understand how their mentalities worked. If you think men can seize power in the name of what they believe and for there to be no bloodshed, then you are a naive idiot. I am not commending their actions like a fanatic,as you think
@theone1087 Communism in itself is a wonderful idea, the tragedy is that it doesnt work, due to mankinds own flaws, and the need for violence to allow its inception. You sound like the typical American who hates Communism because of Western brainwashing, and for your information, Lenin and Stalin's regimes both massively propelled the Russian economy, and saved them from collapse, and while i think Stalin's actions were despicable, you are an idiot if you deny it.
@Francis666ism And yes Lenin is Jewish, confirmed by the BBC. It doesn't mean anything, for I hate no one. However Jews occupied the top positions of the Bolshevik leadership. I've researched this subject thoroughly; the reason many NYC Jewish bankers funded the Russian revolution was because of the Anti-Semitic pogroms inflicted by Alexander III in 'retaliation' for his father's assassination.
@Francis666ism Trotsky was the son of a wealthy land lord and Lenin was an aristocrat! It had nothing to do with the poor masses, since Alexander liberated the serfs in 1861 and their living standards grew rapidly. It was a matter of revenge and Nicholas's incompetence that brought down the blessed regime. Secondly, Jacob Schiff furnished Trotsky with a private apartment room in Manhattan and a private chauffeur. Yes a banker funding the son of a land lorn is 'revolutionary'. Read you wanker!
@theone1087 And Marxism in itself, if it worked would constitute a great society, i have read Das Capital from front to back numberless times, and have done a great deal of research on Marxism and a whole lot of other things. Communism doesnt work, but if Marxism were altered in a different direction im sure it could. And i cant describe how pathetic i find you comparing me to the devil, and sub-human simply for seeing good in aspects of Marxism, you sound like a Nazi.
@Francis666ism Communism is not a wonderful idea! Even Marx called his own writing 'shit', for its uses were used to pervert the masses. Secondly, I'm not American, I'm British and the Russian economy before those German Jewish agents (Lenin and Trotsky) were funded by NYC banker Jacob Shiff and WWI was the top in Europe. Russia had the highest gold production, lowest inflation, rising production from steel to coal that beat even British statistics (When we were an empire!). Do some research!
@theone1087 Karl Marx did not call his own writing shit, and if he did, he was not refering to the what it meant, how fucking retarded are you, you're telling me that he suddenly turned around and considered his dream of society shit? And for your information almost all of Britains coal was mined in the British isles, and if you've ever read a map, then you will know that Russia is quite fucking big, and so for its coal levels should have exceeded Britain.
@theone1087 And the only way in which Lenin was a German agent was that Germany allowed him through because they believed that he would speed up Russia's surrender, which he did. And the way you call Trotsky a Jewish agent clearly shows your anti-semitism. And perhaps you should know that Trotsky was offered the leading role in the Bolshevik party but refused because people would have looked down on him for being Jewish, which i think shows he had no pro-Jew policies in mind.
@theone1087 and you're telling me that Russia's economy was great? then why were there lines stretching for miles waiting for food, and why did Russian soldiers have to share weapons and food, do you seriously think that a revolution large enough to consume Russia could have taken place if the people thought the economy was in good shape? The Romanovs ruined the nation and its economy, along with the loyalty of the masses, Communism didnt work because it was abused.
@Francis666ism It is a fact that Karl Marx called his own writing shit on a number of occasions and in fact, to speak of 'Nazis' called the Slavs, 'ethnic garbage'. He approved of races annihilating weaker races and much more, I presented a case set of facts and I'm a 'Nazi'? I made an obvious comparison between
'666' and 'devil', that just wasn't random. It's not like I had 'SSTotenkopf' as my scream name.
@Francis666ism Secondly, Britain counted the entire empire's statistics as British statistics especially before 1914, that including the vast spaces of Canada and India. Britain had 25% of the land mass of the world, plus domination of the world's oceans. Yes Russia is big, but even then with an undereducated population and undermanned, it's impressive that Russia beat Britain; the centre of nearly everything back then until about 1936-1939.
@theone1087 By the begginning of the 20th century Britain was no longer the superpower it once had been, it may still have held large areas of land, but its political, military and economic power was far weaker than in the previous 2 centuries, and especially in comparison to the USA, Germany alone had more economic and military strength in 1914, that is a fact, so it is somewhat stupid to say Britain was at that stage still the worlds unquestionable superpower.
@Francis666ism Lastly I never said BBC confirmed Trotsky was Jewish! I said Lenin, read, please read! It was said for nearly most of the 20th century that Lenin was the only non-Jewish leader who was apart of the leadership of the Bolshevik criminals. Secondly, I was discussing the Russian economy before WWI, even Britain and Germany had bread lines, starvation and poverty due to the heavy cost of war. It's just the western writers always single out Russia for some reason. Please research!
@theone1087 You fucking retard, Russia WAS IN A STATE OF DISASTER their soldiers had to share weapons,their citizens were dying of famine, unlike in Britain, and Russia had sustained as many casualties as all the other powers put together. Germany was in famine because it had been fighting both Britain and France and Russia at the same time and nations in the Balklans, and even more because it couldnt trade or bring in imports because it was blockaded.
@Francis666ism and the revolution did absolutely nothing to stop any of the problems...in fact they exacerbated the production of food and distribution of products to most needed areas.
@diddymuck Russia was poor in the tsarist times, and the World War 1 made it even poorer, it was the main cause for the revolution and Russia's surrender. What the new Bolsheviks tried to do was put economy back in order, and they more or less did so, but food cannot grow in a day. Bolsheviks made a lot of mistakes, and Stalin, who wasn't even communist but a fascist dictator, then got into power, and all hope for communism died then.
@theone1087 If you regard people who fight for what they believe criminals you have serious problems, and also there were tons of non Jewish people in the party, and their religion didnt matter, as they advocated Atheism, not to mention you forget that Stalin, one the more important people in the party's history as you may know, was not Jewish.
@Francis666ism Lastly if I'm conducting a scientific experiment and keep blaming the experimenter for the fault of non-soluble chemicals not inter-meshing, after a while you blame the chemicals, not scientist. If you keep blaming Russians for the 'mess-up' of Communism, what about the Chinese, or the Cambodian, or the North Koreans? Let me amass the death count for you, Russian revolution equals 7 million, the Ukrainian starvation-11 million, China equals what a 100 million.... I mean on and on
@theone1087 No one can deny that the deaths born out of communism are due to some of the most barbaric genocides in history, im not defending the people, but the deaths were born out of abuse of dictatorship by the proletariat, not the idea, Marxism promotes classlessness and equality, but under Leninism that becomes impossible, because power is abused, and the transition into full blown communism becomes impossible. And the Russian revolution was relatively bloodness,the civil was was not.
@Francis666ism The Bolshevik Revolution was the THIRD revolution in 12 years. It was the only one which succeeded and had the Red army lost the civil war, it too would have failed. The first problem with any revolution is the possibility of a counter-revolution and this was still a serious consideration. Given the methods of the Whites, the Reds decided to fight fire with fire. For the revolution to succeed, any possibility of counter-revolution had to be eliminated. Not an excuse; just a fact.
@Francis666ism I thought my point was pretty clear. There had be two other revolutions and neither had really succeeded, the 1905 version because of the counter-revolution. That meant that any revolution which was to succeed had to use the same methods as the opposition, regardless of how brutal.
@Camerameister I never said you were wrong, i only said that that the Bolshevik revolution was relatively bloodless in comparison to the other two revolutions, the civil war is what took the lives of millions.
@Camerameister If you are defending the white forces, them consider this: they ruined the economy, they murdered protesters who only wanted equal rights when they were in power, they killed eachother, and their terrible management of the war led to 7 million Russian casualties in WW1. The only ties of loyalty were built because the supporters were given unfair priveledges.
@theone1087 It was only non-soluble because of the format, and the opportunity it gave for power-hungry men to take advanatge of the masses want for freedom. And btw Lenin never advocated any genocides, famines occured because the economy had been wrecked by WW1 and Lenin eventually introduced the NEP which by en large ended the famine and revived the economy. Lenin even warned against Stalin being allowed to continue in the party, but his final testament was silenced.
@Francis666ism Lenin was a revolutionary who was influenced by the execution of his brother and by the nihilists who used violent methods to smash the state. He did not agree with Marx - that communism would just evolve via a capitalist phase - because it would take too long. He wanted to eliminate the capitalist phase and move to what he called "direct democracy", where local councils (called "soviets" in Russian) dealt directly with the head of state without the apparatus of government.
@Camerameister Again your point? And btw Lenin was interested in Marx's writing long before the execution of his brother,he was a very cultured man, it was the execution which motivated him to take it to revolutionary levels. And in fact Lenin idolised Marx, and in fact in reality there was no real "head" of the party, other than in practice, depending on how much support they had.
@Camerameister And when he did technically take dictatorial power, it was to enforce the NEP, a policy which advocated a slight return to capitalist elements in order to revitalise the economy. And the Soviets in reality did not have much power, their decisions were based upon the policies and orders of the party leaders. Lenin was actually one of the less radical Bolsheviks, he thought that the economy should recover before they made the full transition into a full communist society.
He didn't defend any of that. He said that in some ways communism saved Russia and he's actually not far off the mark. Russia made enormous industrial progress between the defeat by the Japanese at Tshushima and the exit from WWI. They made an awful lot more progress once the civil war ended.
You also need to remember that the Whites were every bit as murderous as the Reds.
@ButherLi55ett In contrast to you, my dear stupid western communist, I studied the Great October Socialist Revolution in Soviet Union. There is no "russian revolution". I was born in USSR and know what communism is about from the first handes, not from liberal colledge professors
@NathanR38 Yes, it is. Of course, John Reed was not objective, but who was? So it should be read with some scepticism anyway.
Eizenshtein shot a lot of top-level comminist propaganda movies. And all of them have nothing common with reality. "Ivan the terrible", "Ironclad "Potemkin", "October"... Nothing is real. This is an art, man.
@izchicago The revolution was in 1917. You did not experience it. If you don't think it was a revolution what do you think it was? What do you think the events were in other countries, Germany, Hungary and throughout the World at that time? I'll ask you again. How has the film misrepresented the events in Russia of 1905 onwards?
I am not going to argue if I know the revolutions in Russia better then you. Obviously I do. The revolution of 1905 (this is an official name) has nothing common with this movie. Even the official version I learned in my middle school.
And don't try to sell me this BS about the German and Hungarian revolutions:Komintern, Bella Kun etc. have you ever heard these names?
@izchicago I made a mistake. I did not mean 1905. I meant to say from Feb 1917 onwards. You are still ignoring my question. Why? What do you think the events were, a coup? A bourgeois revolution? Some kind of conspiracy. It's a simple question. If you don't regard it as a revolution what do you regard it as?
@ButherLi55ett Bolsheviks by themselves called it "An October coup" for the first ten years. And about 1927 the tenth anniversary Stalin began to call it a revolution. As to the February bourgeois revolution, an official name in USSR (man, I have to teach you 5th grade history!) ... It was officially called bourgeois for an obvious reason: RSDRP(b) did nothing. Bolsheviks did not play any essential role. It was bourgeois indeed.
@izchicago ACTUALLY its a revolution. What its a revolution? its a deep change that doesnt only transform the society and politics in one area but also expands to the rest of the world...The october revolt its a revolution was the first socialist-marxist armed movement that overthorwn a monarchist regime and gave the example to the rest of the world that communism can achieve triumph.still you guys stop talking of this crap and watch the film so as to admire Eisenstein art and footage -.-
@gol67 Eres stupido, hombre! Abajo todos marxistos y marxistas! Me cago en cabesas de sus padres.
In october the revolt did not "overthrouw a monarchy" It happened in february. Bolsheviks caught the power and killed, murdered the opponents electeted by the only democratic free elections for hundreded of years.
@Natester555 yes, it is. Too bad can't see a full structure, because after this footage, there is only 1 picture of it that exists, it would be nice to see more.
It was an actor the guy who represented Lenin. This is a soviet dramatization of the October Revolution by Sergei Eisenstein one the pioneers in cinema of this era.
@GanJanDan this is not true. Did you do a little research? This artist created his movie out of historical video footage that was taken. Lenin is real in that video, in fact that is a very famous video of him screaming and leading.
@scorpiooooooh that's why it still exists. It took such an artist to create something to live through communism without being destroyed. This is clearly an anti-communist bolshevik.
Thanks so much for allowing us to see a work of art and a really important piece of history.
kesmarn 4 days ago
@hairyarsewelder Just the response I expected from a socialist sympathizer. This movie is the kind of propaganda that would make Goebbels blush.
atrophyfilms2012 1 week ago
@atrophyfilms2012 Do you recognize propaganda from the right when you see it? Like Rush Limbaugh? Fox News?
kesmarn 4 days ago
@sparkytrick The 13 year old was the son of the tsar. He was murdered along with his family. Socialists, Marxists, Leninists, Communists, whatever they call themselves, they are thugs. Just look at how many unionists are corrupt, or in bed with the mob. Communism is the politics of the tyrant.
atrophyfilms2012 1 week ago
When i saw the priest celebrating the Revolution i knew that im watching a Soviet propaganda. In reallity the Bolsheviks the first thing they did was to burn down churches....
Socialism is a disease
flat13onfire 2 weeks ago
VIVA EL CHE, VIVA LENIN Y VIVA EL SUBCOMANDANTE MARCOS!!!!
testaferro46 2 weeks ago
its funny how similar is the actitude of the hate comments against comunists here and the burgoise women hiting the proletarians in the movie
testaferro46 2 weeks ago
hail lenin
sovietdog17 1 month ago
Socialists have always had a tradition of thuggery. Even today, the union movement, atleast in my country, is controlled by thugs and bullies. The workers of the world united. Unfortunately, the rest of us have to suffer for it. Long live capitalism. Socialist fucks!
atrophyfilms2012 2 months ago
@atrophyfilms2012 YOU ARE AN ABSOLUTE IGNORANT STUPID CUNT
hairyarsewelder 2 weeks ago
@atrophyfilms2012 We all know there are no thieves, bullies or thugs on Wall Street, don't we?
kesmarn 4 days ago
When you kill a child in the name of revolution, your cause ceases to be valid. History has shown us that revolutions are bloody; and those who engage in them are often worse than those who fight. The French revolution is a great example.
atrophyfilms2012 2 months ago
9 months later the Romanovs were murdered, under the orders of Lenin. Among the dead were the former tsar and tsarina, their daughters, and their son Alexei, who was just 13. Conveniently ignored by this propaganda piece of socialist stinking shit.
atrophyfilms2012 2 months ago
@atrophyfilms2012 I did not even view it just by looking at the names i understand this is a propaganda revisionist atempt to defer real blame and responsibility for this genocide. Dare we even breath the real truth.
TheTime4solutions 2 months ago
@atrophyfilms2012 One 13 year old dies and all of a sudden a cause is unjust? Every revolution has it's dirt and downfalls.
sparkytrick 1 week ago
Gee, if Nepolean has won, none of this probaly wuld have happened!
mshotz1 2 months ago
@mshotz1 The Rothschilds had both sides of that covered Napolion was controled by Rothschild bankers as well. They always control all sides.
TheTime4solutions 2 months ago
in 2012
sovietdog17 3 months ago
for the new war to come
sovietdog17 3 months ago
@bibimir True, Lenin had nothing but good intentions, during his time true communism lived for a brief time. Stalin fucked it up, My grandfather told me that everything was soo cheap even by their standards. Like a movie ticket was 2 pennies. Even by their standards that was practically free. So if Lenin got to live a little longer I believe he would have achieved true communism where money does not exist. My grandfather told me money almost got phased out, but Stalin fucked it all up.
TheMuslimKiller 3 months ago
@TheMuslimKiller I agree :) Although Stalin did make Soviet Union an industralized super power, but still...
bibimir 3 months ago
thank you. thank you. I will show this film to my history teacher for add the lesson about Russian Revolution in October 1917 I promise :)
fikamar27 4 months ago 6
Russian women have sexy feet!
FuckCommunism1 4 months ago
This movie combines truth and fiction. There is a lot of 'cherry picking'. If you are someone who reads a lot of history, you can more easily discern one from the other. And yes Alexander Kerensky the democrat, the darling of the Western Allies fired on non-violent crowds just as the Czar did in 1905. But so did Lenin and the Bolsheviks in 1918 a year later. Completely left out of this movie naturally.
hinchlnt 4 months ago
What is the music that plays during the prelude to this film?
InsanityAnonymous 4 months ago
@InsanityAnonymous Shostakovich.
kesmarn 4 days ago
thank you!
Aathron 4 months ago
1917
russia
sovietdog17 4 months ago in playlist Liked
This film was made during the Soviet era and this affected his story. Revolution shows such a grandiose, but actually Winter palace was protected by a few women and children...
OMyNameIsHarryPotter 5 months ago
Yeah by killing millions of innocent farmers and citizens... what a revolution!
Metalicalypse 5 months ago
@Metalicalypse The only ones killing farmers and citizens were Tsarist White Guard, not the bolsheviks. Otherwise, the revolution wouldn't succeed.
bibimir 4 months ago
@bibimir Come on man, I know and I see everything, my father and grandfather told me, bolsheviks killed millions of farmers who didnt agree to work and give their money to the new bolshevik government.
There are good parts in communism though,but its not important when you cant live which way you want.
its hard to realize when youre not from the soviet union. but ask people which their country was a part of soviet union.
and again Communism sucks...
Metalicalypse 4 months ago
@Metalicalypse Mostly under Stalin, I bet. Lenin wasn't that bad (and if you say he was, I doubt it :P ). That wasn't communism though. Especially during Stalin, who was the same as Hitler, although I still can thank Stalin for fighting off Hitler, but I don't agree with his killing of millions of innocents. Communism is good, but Soviet government gave communism a bad name, and it wasn't communist at all. Communism is freedom, democracy. Soviet Union, North Korea and China are not communist.
bibimir 4 months ago
@bibimir You are absolutely right!
monmon22able 3 months ago
@monmon22able Why, thank you! :)
bibimir 3 months ago
the soviet union caused mass starvation, removal of land from proper owners and motivated the deaths and execution of millions of innocent people.
diddymuck 5 months ago
Right, you twat, you're clearly a racist and anti-semetic bigot, whose ties of allegiance are tied in pathetically with the images of God and a flag, and do you really believe that coming from a priviledged background means that you can never represent those less fortunate than you? And yes, you're right, Communism isnt a wonderful idea, but Marxism is, Leninism which forms the basis of modern Communism only advocates that an elite group forward the revolution, which Lenin regarded as necessary.
Francis666ism 6 months ago
Couldn't watch after 35:00 minutes. Letting prisoners go to fight, rape, steal and pillage is what Communism is in its purest form. The abolition of God, authority and family and letting garbage literature corrupt society. Yes, if you believe in the 'equal' distribution of all things, please let the common man on the street have a 'piece' of your wife, your father's inheritance and come in and out of your 'property' whenever he damn well pleases. All who promote these principles are criminals.
theone1087 6 months ago
@theone1087 That didn't just happen under Communism. It happened before the Bolsheviks took hold. I think it was during the February revolution.
The Black Hundreds were happy to use criminal help in their pogroms. In the two weeks following the October proclamation of 1905, 3000 Jews were murdered by these people. In one pogrom in Odessa, 800 were killed, 5000 wounded and 100000 left homeless. This was outright criminal activity.
That had nothing to do with Communism.
Camerameister 5 months ago
Comment removed
theone1087 6 months ago
One of the most sacrilegious cinemas I've ever bore witness to; Lenin and Trotsky are suffering eternal damnation for the crime against God-ordained monarchy or Holy Tsardom.
theone1087 6 months ago
As a reminder to myself im at 0:25:41
DraugasLietuva 7 months ago
In soviet Russia, movies play you.
EngelbrechtDK 9 months ago 21
I couldn't agree more Mr Lasicak. A lot of play is made with "citizens" early on. Citizens of what? Russian socialism folded, circa 1991, for sufficient reasons.
PW Miles, England.
MrPwmiles 9 months ago
I've certainly not personally seen the movie flick and as a result decided to go to see this one found on thisisawesomemovie. c000m and so i actually said? everything was in fact wonderful. an individual simply just definitely have to acknowledge who the three central characters are and as a result anything else is going to be logical.
scorpio888744 10 months ago
i like men
U23Drocs 10 months ago
@Servbot33
Make your on research on the Web about Lenin and you will find that he was a cruel leader responsable of many crimes.
candevhec 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@crossheat2010 The Tsar was a real and normal human beeing like any Monarch that ruled all the European countries during many centuries. He never had any plan or intention to kill, eradicate and murder millions of his citizen like the Bolchevik criminals did under Lenin, Stalin....
candevhec 10 months ago 3
@candevhec Lenin didn't kill anyone Stalin was the murder.
Servbot33 10 months ago
The Tsar was a real and normal human beeing like any Monarch that ruled all the European countries during many centuries. He never had any plan or intention to kill, eradicate and murder millions of his citizen like the Bolchevik criminals did under Lenin, Stalin....
candevhec 10 months ago
I wonder at seeing Trotsky featuring in the movie.. Wasn't he a persona non-grata under Stalin's rule?
BaumerPaulGefreiter 10 months ago
@BaumerPaulGefreiter Yeah the film was altered later in Stalin's time to exclude Trotsky
alexiaNBC 10 months ago
Mother Russia abused by the Bolchevik. 75 years of a regime that supressed freedom. Lenin and then Stalin murdered millions of their citizen and tried to eradicate from Russia all presence of God and religion.
The Tsar failed because his wife the Empress consciousness was manipulated by the very dark '' monk'' Raspoutine who misleaded her and her family.
candevhec 11 months ago
@candevhec
Rubbish, the Tsar failed because he was a crap politician.
The Soviets were only as bad as the regime they replaced. The true tragedy of the Soviet Union is the damage it did in the name of socialism.
crossheath2010 10 months ago
@crossheath2010 The Soviet Union saved the world from fascism and invented space travel.
Servbot33 10 months ago 19
@Servbot33 hurr.
crossheath2010 10 months ago
@Servbot33 nah we would of nuked em before they had the chance
TristanH90 9 months ago
@Servbot33 at the expense of what? the lives of millions
naruto2710 7 months ago
@naruto2710 disliked your comment by mistake sorry
StarKillerLucas 6 months ago
@crossheath2010 Soviets DID NOT repace Tsar regime. Thats the biggest bolsheviks LIE. They replaced demokratic government. The first thing tehy did was separate peace with Germany. Compare to western allies in WW2 who never accepted german offers on separate peace...Russian tend to forget this bolseviks betrayal.
MrLasicak 9 months ago
@MrLasicak First World War was conflict of imperialists. Communists in Russia didn't want this war.
stureremil1942 8 months ago
@MrLasicak That a completely idiotic comment as for Russia to continue in the war would have been suicidal, it had already sustained over 7 million casualities and the economy and infastructure had been ruined by the Romanov dynasty, in many ways Communism saved Russia, although Stalin in his turn wrecked it.
Francis666ism 6 months ago
@Francis666ism It's typical someone like you would defend an atheistic, murderous, regicidal and barbarous regime with a name like 'Francis666ism'. I bet you're a satanist too, only the devil and naive, non-erudite and gullible college students could love Trotsky and Lenin. Even Stalin is too low for someone like you, maybe you have a chance at becoming a human being. God bless Holy Rus!
theone1087 6 months ago
@theone1087 Your comment shows your own immense naivity, and your utter lack of knowledge of Lenin or Trotsky, Trostky was completely opposed to Stalin's repressive and barbaric regime, but you show your misunderstanding, or lack of understanding most because you dont understand how their mentalities worked. If you think men can seize power in the name of what they believe and for there to be no bloodshed, then you are a naive idiot. I am not commending their actions like a fanatic,as you think
Francis666ism 6 months ago
@theone1087 Communism in itself is a wonderful idea, the tragedy is that it doesnt work, due to mankinds own flaws, and the need for violence to allow its inception. You sound like the typical American who hates Communism because of Western brainwashing, and for your information, Lenin and Stalin's regimes both massively propelled the Russian economy, and saved them from collapse, and while i think Stalin's actions were despicable, you are an idiot if you deny it.
Francis666ism 6 months ago
Comment removed
theone1087 6 months ago
@Francis666ism And yes Lenin is Jewish, confirmed by the BBC. It doesn't mean anything, for I hate no one. However Jews occupied the top positions of the Bolshevik leadership. I've researched this subject thoroughly; the reason many NYC Jewish bankers funded the Russian revolution was because of the Anti-Semitic pogroms inflicted by Alexander III in 'retaliation' for his father's assassination.
theone1087 6 months ago
@theone1087 You need the BBC to confirm that Trotsky was Jewish for you? Poor you.
Francis666ism 6 months ago
@Francis666ism Trotsky was the son of a wealthy land lord and Lenin was an aristocrat! It had nothing to do with the poor masses, since Alexander liberated the serfs in 1861 and their living standards grew rapidly. It was a matter of revenge and Nicholas's incompetence that brought down the blessed regime. Secondly, Jacob Schiff furnished Trotsky with a private apartment room in Manhattan and a private chauffeur. Yes a banker funding the son of a land lorn is 'revolutionary'. Read you wanker!
theone1087 6 months ago
@theone1087 And Marxism in itself, if it worked would constitute a great society, i have read Das Capital from front to back numberless times, and have done a great deal of research on Marxism and a whole lot of other things. Communism doesnt work, but if Marxism were altered in a different direction im sure it could. And i cant describe how pathetic i find you comparing me to the devil, and sub-human simply for seeing good in aspects of Marxism, you sound like a Nazi.
Francis666ism 6 months ago
@Francis666ism Communism is not a wonderful idea! Even Marx called his own writing 'shit', for its uses were used to pervert the masses. Secondly, I'm not American, I'm British and the Russian economy before those German Jewish agents (Lenin and Trotsky) were funded by NYC banker Jacob Shiff and WWI was the top in Europe. Russia had the highest gold production, lowest inflation, rising production from steel to coal that beat even British statistics (When we were an empire!). Do some research!
theone1087 6 months ago
@theone1087 Karl Marx did not call his own writing shit, and if he did, he was not refering to the what it meant, how fucking retarded are you, you're telling me that he suddenly turned around and considered his dream of society shit? And for your information almost all of Britains coal was mined in the British isles, and if you've ever read a map, then you will know that Russia is quite fucking big, and so for its coal levels should have exceeded Britain.
Francis666ism 6 months ago
@theone1087 And the only way in which Lenin was a German agent was that Germany allowed him through because they believed that he would speed up Russia's surrender, which he did. And the way you call Trotsky a Jewish agent clearly shows your anti-semitism. And perhaps you should know that Trotsky was offered the leading role in the Bolshevik party but refused because people would have looked down on him for being Jewish, which i think shows he had no pro-Jew policies in mind.
Francis666ism 6 months ago
@theone1087 and you're telling me that Russia's economy was great? then why were there lines stretching for miles waiting for food, and why did Russian soldiers have to share weapons and food, do you seriously think that a revolution large enough to consume Russia could have taken place if the people thought the economy was in good shape? The Romanovs ruined the nation and its economy, along with the loyalty of the masses, Communism didnt work because it was abused.
Francis666ism 6 months ago
@Francis666ism It is a fact that Karl Marx called his own writing shit on a number of occasions and in fact, to speak of 'Nazis' called the Slavs, 'ethnic garbage'. He approved of races annihilating weaker races and much more, I presented a case set of facts and I'm a 'Nazi'? I made an obvious comparison between
'666' and 'devil', that just wasn't random. It's not like I had 'SSTotenkopf' as my scream name.
theone1087 6 months ago
@Francis666ism Secondly, Britain counted the entire empire's statistics as British statistics especially before 1914, that including the vast spaces of Canada and India. Britain had 25% of the land mass of the world, plus domination of the world's oceans. Yes Russia is big, but even then with an undereducated population and undermanned, it's impressive that Russia beat Britain; the centre of nearly everything back then until about 1936-1939.
theone1087 6 months ago
@theone1087 By the begginning of the 20th century Britain was no longer the superpower it once had been, it may still have held large areas of land, but its political, military and economic power was far weaker than in the previous 2 centuries, and especially in comparison to the USA, Germany alone had more economic and military strength in 1914, that is a fact, so it is somewhat stupid to say Britain was at that stage still the worlds unquestionable superpower.
Francis666ism 6 months ago
@theone1087 Oh and btw im half british, so you can spare me any accusations of prejudice against british people.
Francis666ism 6 months ago
Comment removed
theone1087 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Francis666ism Lastly I never said BBC confirmed Trotsky was Jewish! I said Lenin, read, please read! It was said for nearly most of the 20th century that Lenin was the only non-Jewish leader who was apart of the leadership of the Bolshevik criminals. Secondly, I was discussing the Russian economy before WWI, even Britain and Germany had bread lines, starvation and poverty due to the heavy cost of war. It's just the western writers always single out Russia for some reason. Please research!
theone1087 6 months ago
@theone1087 You fucking retard, Russia WAS IN A STATE OF DISASTER their soldiers had to share weapons,their citizens were dying of famine, unlike in Britain, and Russia had sustained as many casualties as all the other powers put together. Germany was in famine because it had been fighting both Britain and France and Russia at the same time and nations in the Balklans, and even more because it couldnt trade or bring in imports because it was blockaded.
Francis666ism 5 months ago
@Francis666ism and the revolution did absolutely nothing to stop any of the problems...in fact they exacerbated the production of food and distribution of products to most needed areas.
diddymuck 5 months ago
@diddymuck Russia was poor in the tsarist times, and the World War 1 made it even poorer, it was the main cause for the revolution and Russia's surrender. What the new Bolsheviks tried to do was put economy back in order, and they more or less did so, but food cannot grow in a day. Bolsheviks made a lot of mistakes, and Stalin, who wasn't even communist but a fascist dictator, then got into power, and all hope for communism died then.
bibimir 4 months ago
@theone1087 If you regard people who fight for what they believe criminals you have serious problems, and also there were tons of non Jewish people in the party, and their religion didnt matter, as they advocated Atheism, not to mention you forget that Stalin, one the more important people in the party's history as you may know, was not Jewish.
Francis666ism 5 months ago
Comment removed
theone1087 6 months ago
@Francis666ism Lastly if I'm conducting a scientific experiment and keep blaming the experimenter for the fault of non-soluble chemicals not inter-meshing, after a while you blame the chemicals, not scientist. If you keep blaming Russians for the 'mess-up' of Communism, what about the Chinese, or the Cambodian, or the North Koreans? Let me amass the death count for you, Russian revolution equals 7 million, the Ukrainian starvation-11 million, China equals what a 100 million.... I mean on and on
theone1087 6 months ago
@theone1087 No one can deny that the deaths born out of communism are due to some of the most barbaric genocides in history, im not defending the people, but the deaths were born out of abuse of dictatorship by the proletariat, not the idea, Marxism promotes classlessness and equality, but under Leninism that becomes impossible, because power is abused, and the transition into full blown communism becomes impossible. And the Russian revolution was relatively bloodness,the civil was was not.
Francis666ism 6 months ago
@Francis666ism The Bolshevik Revolution was the THIRD revolution in 12 years. It was the only one which succeeded and had the Red army lost the civil war, it too would have failed. The first problem with any revolution is the possibility of a counter-revolution and this was still a serious consideration. Given the methods of the Whites, the Reds decided to fight fire with fire. For the revolution to succeed, any possibility of counter-revolution had to be eliminated. Not an excuse; just a fact.
Camerameister 5 months ago
@Camerameister I never said it was the first revolution. Your point is?
Francis666ism 5 months ago
@Francis666ism I thought my point was pretty clear. There had be two other revolutions and neither had really succeeded, the 1905 version because of the counter-revolution. That meant that any revolution which was to succeed had to use the same methods as the opposition, regardless of how brutal.
That's not in defence of anyone in particular.
Camerameister 5 months ago
@Camerameister I never said you were wrong, i only said that that the Bolshevik revolution was relatively bloodless in comparison to the other two revolutions, the civil war is what took the lives of millions.
Francis666ism 5 months ago
@Francis666ism The October revolution was actually less bloody than the February revolution.
Camerameister 5 months ago
@Camerameister I know.
Francis666ism 5 months ago
@Camerameister If you are defending the white forces, them consider this: they ruined the economy, they murdered protesters who only wanted equal rights when they were in power, they killed eachother, and their terrible management of the war led to 7 million Russian casualties in WW1. The only ties of loyalty were built because the supporters were given unfair priveledges.
Francis666ism 5 months ago
@Francis666ism How does what I said defend the White forces?
Camerameister 5 months ago
@theone1087 It was only non-soluble because of the format, and the opportunity it gave for power-hungry men to take advanatge of the masses want for freedom. And btw Lenin never advocated any genocides, famines occured because the economy had been wrecked by WW1 and Lenin eventually introduced the NEP which by en large ended the famine and revived the economy. Lenin even warned against Stalin being allowed to continue in the party, but his final testament was silenced.
Francis666ism 6 months ago
@Francis666ism Lenin was a revolutionary who was influenced by the execution of his brother and by the nihilists who used violent methods to smash the state. He did not agree with Marx - that communism would just evolve via a capitalist phase - because it would take too long. He wanted to eliminate the capitalist phase and move to what he called "direct democracy", where local councils (called "soviets" in Russian) dealt directly with the head of state without the apparatus of government.
Camerameister 5 months ago
@Camerameister Again your point? And btw Lenin was interested in Marx's writing long before the execution of his brother,he was a very cultured man, it was the execution which motivated him to take it to revolutionary levels. And in fact Lenin idolised Marx, and in fact in reality there was no real "head" of the party, other than in practice, depending on how much support they had.
Francis666ism 5 months ago
@Camerameister And when he did technically take dictatorial power, it was to enforce the NEP, a policy which advocated a slight return to capitalist elements in order to revitalise the economy. And the Soviets in reality did not have much power, their decisions were based upon the policies and orders of the party leaders. Lenin was actually one of the less radical Bolsheviks, he thought that the economy should recover before they made the full transition into a full communist society.
Francis666ism 5 months ago
@theone1087 This is just silly.
He didn't defend any of that. He said that in some ways communism saved Russia and he's actually not far off the mark. Russia made enormous industrial progress between the defeat by the Japanese at Tshushima and the exit from WWI. They made an awful lot more progress once the civil war ended.
You also need to remember that the Whites were every bit as murderous as the Reds.
Camerameister 5 months ago
Pity it wasn't a success like it was expected to be.
envanje 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you are luck you can find an Asain women gettop5.info
allennyquistlas 1 year ago
OMG!!!
"a historically accurate account of the Bolshevik revolution "
This is communist propaganda from the first till the last second. Don't buy this BS, people.
izchicago 1 year ago
@izchicago So, how do you think it misrepresents events then? Have you read/studied the Russian revolution?
ButherLi55ett 1 year ago
@ButherLi55ett In contrast to you, my dear stupid western communist, I studied the Great October Socialist Revolution in Soviet Union. There is no "russian revolution". I was born in USSR and know what communism is about from the first handes, not from liberal colledge professors
izchicago 1 year ago
@izchicago What about Ten Day That Shook the World? Is that book accurate?
NathanR38 1 year ago
@NathanR38 Yes, it is. Of course, John Reed was not objective, but who was? So it should be read with some scepticism anyway.
Eizenshtein shot a lot of top-level comminist propaganda movies. And all of them have nothing common with reality. "Ivan the terrible", "Ironclad "Potemkin", "October"... Nothing is real. This is an art, man.
izchicago 1 year ago
@izchicago The revolution was in 1917. You did not experience it. If you don't think it was a revolution what do you think it was? What do you think the events were in other countries, Germany, Hungary and throughout the World at that time? I'll ask you again. How has the film misrepresented the events in Russia of 1905 onwards?
ButherLi55ett 1 year ago
@ButherLi55ett
I am not going to argue if I know the revolutions in Russia better then you. Obviously I do. The revolution of 1905 (this is an official name) has nothing common with this movie. Even the official version I learned in my middle school.
And don't try to sell me this BS about the German and Hungarian revolutions:Komintern, Bella Kun etc. have you ever heard these names?
izchicago 1 year ago
@izchicago I made a mistake. I did not mean 1905. I meant to say from Feb 1917 onwards. You are still ignoring my question. Why? What do you think the events were, a coup? A bourgeois revolution? Some kind of conspiracy. It's a simple question. If you don't regard it as a revolution what do you regard it as?
ButherLi55ett 1 year ago
@ButherLi55ett Bolsheviks by themselves called it "An October coup" for the first ten years. And about 1927 the tenth anniversary Stalin began to call it a revolution. As to the February bourgeois revolution, an official name in USSR (man, I have to teach you 5th grade history!) ... It was officially called bourgeois for an obvious reason: RSDRP(b) did nothing. Bolsheviks did not play any essential role. It was bourgeois indeed.
izchicago 1 year ago
@izchicago ACTUALLY its a revolution. What its a revolution? its a deep change that doesnt only transform the society and politics in one area but also expands to the rest of the world...The october revolt its a revolution was the first socialist-marxist armed movement that overthorwn a monarchist regime and gave the example to the rest of the world that communism can achieve triumph.still you guys stop talking of this crap and watch the film so as to admire Eisenstein art and footage -.-
gol67 1 year ago 3
@gol67 Eres stupido, hombre! Abajo todos marxistos y marxistas! Me cago en cabesas de sus padres.
In october the revolt did not "overthrouw a monarchy" It happened in february. Bolsheviks caught the power and killed, murdered the opponents electeted by the only democratic free elections for hundreded of years.
izchicago 1 year ago
@izchicago
stfu
b3stiaL 1 year ago
People abused their mother Russia, because she loved her kids so much and believed that kids would never raise the arm on their mother.
AlexanderSigal 1 year ago
This film is automatically awesome because there is a Tsar Tank in it.
Natester555 1 year ago
@Natester555 could you tell me what part of the movie it was in? I watched the whole thing and didn't notice it.
AlexanderSigal 1 year ago
@AlexanderSigal It starts at 8:12
Natester555 1 year ago
@Natester555 yes, it is. Too bad can't see a full structure, because after this footage, there is only 1 picture of it that exists, it would be nice to see more.
AlexanderSigal 1 year ago
@AlexanderSigal Yeah, it would be!
Natester555 1 year ago
It was an actor the guy who represented Lenin. This is a soviet dramatization of the October Revolution by Sergei Eisenstein one the pioneers in cinema of this era.
GanJanDan 1 year ago
@GanJanDan this is not true. Did you do a little research? This artist created his movie out of historical video footage that was taken. Lenin is real in that video, in fact that is a very famous video of him screaming and leading.
AlexanderSigal 1 year ago
Trippy, like way out there man. Can't stop watching, it's like a psychedelic documentary.
scorpiooooooh 1 year ago
@scorpiooooooh that's why it still exists. It took such an artist to create something to live through communism without being destroyed. This is clearly an anti-communist bolshevik.
AlexanderSigal 1 year ago
Did Lenin actually make a cameo in this?
NottheFacePlease 1 year ago
@NottheFacePlease
very unlikely, considering that the movie dates from 1928
Lenin died in 24
Guitarvirtuoso666 1 year ago