Yes, the whites were 100% good heroes and the reds were 100% evil villains, and every white general and soldier fought with honour and every red general and soldier committed war crimes.
Isn't it easy to understand the world, after all it's all black and white without shades of grey.
@Cyberspine Well I'm sure you would know, you seem to have some experience in having an over simplistic view of things. After all, straw men arguments tend to be the mark of intellectually vacuous, a demographic in which you would fit in quite splendidly.
Simply because I refer to Wrangel as hero, that does not mean I think every single member of the white army was a complete angel. I have said nothing in my video that would have in anyway implied that. This video was not meant to be objective, I have specifically made it clear that the intent of this video was to be a tribute to Wrangel in the video description, and I have never tried to pass it as anything else. The purpose of this video is to be propagandistic, and not academically objective.
Simply being insulted by your opponent is not an ad hominem attack. If had not addressed your criticism at all, and instead referred to you as intellectually vacuous, then you might have had a valid point. However, I did address your claim that I was seeing things in black and white by pointing out that you were making a straw man fallacy. Simply the presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem fallacy, the attack must be used with the purpose of undermining the argument.
I would say the very same thing about your sarcastic remarks. You attempted to condescend me by completely misrepresenting my position. That is how this discussion began in the first place. Through the entirety of this discussion, you have yet to offer any argument in opposition. The only thing you have done is immaturely mocked your opponents position. As far as I am concerned, if anyone has engaged in low class attacks, it has been you.
@ImperialRussianGuard My original post was indeed sarcastic. The video is by any standard incredibly biased, and nowhere does it say that it is a fictitious work of art or propaganda, except now later in the comment section. As such I thought it was your genuine opinion.
And in no way have I been condescending. I haven't tried to alter what was said in the video, in the contrary. My own interpretation is that the general attitude is black and white compared to what the history books say.
I assume that you are aware of the term "tribute." It is a term which implies bias and propagandism. Since you say that you haven't altered what was said in the video, would you be so kind as to show me where I said that," the whites were 100% good heroes and every white general and soldier fought with honor."
And my conception of a tribute to a great man would only include the unbiased truth. After all, since he was so great, he doesn't need bias to seem great to the viewer.
@Cyberspine Let me repeat my question, in what part of my video did I say," the whites were 100% good heroes and every white general and soldier fought with honor." You are entitled to your artistic views, as I am entitled to mine. No one is preventing you from making videos in what ever manner you see fit. However I do object when you attempt to distort the truth about myself and my views.
You didn't expect such comment, especially not from someone from an insignificant Slavic country like Croatia... Hm, I didn't intend to open this topic neither, but your back and for one against the other didn't let me rest.
If you only knew the wale and the power of all words we speak. If not this, the beauty of music will remind us... yes. glory to every brave man. Bog s vama
These forces find its represents, on each side: the relative good one, and the relative evil one. Let us give the names: The bible says, this world is ruled by devil, whose nature is totally opposite to God, and did never freely surrender its dominion. When his power will shake most? When the one who suppose to take the rightful place under heaven is about to come. This is what we are witnessing nowadays, - our present duty is to welcome Him, by embracing our enemies first.
Red was right ? O no, the White was right? ???It is more than that... there are unseen forces behind the history, which lead to something or to someone.
If the human being was tore apart, than these peaces are searching to find its counterpart. It is actually human who is divided in Spirit on one side and body on other side, both represented in history in huge scale, but actually representing the conflict within each individual. On the backstage two opposing forces fighting, don't you see that?
Communists say the Czar was cruel. Cruel? Czar Nicholas II was too humane. He pardoned many criminals and let revolutionaries like Lenin off. Russia was the wealthiest nation in the world in 1910, it produced 2/3 of the world's food. By 1920 it was starving! Millions were murdered by these Satanists. The Bolsheviks (consisting mostly of Talmudic Jews) destroyed the motherland and stole the gold
And now the criminals write the history books and brainwash the youth into hating their own heritage!
So sorry all of them faild then. Finally them all were stupid ignorant snobs so that's why them all lost Russia to commies - Krasnov, Denikin, Udenich, Kolchak, Wrangel - and some more names - they all losers and we are too their descendants
Wrangel didn't "fail". Red Army had to send its entire elite to defeat this man. He was the best general of the whites. You right about the others though.
General Vrangel is buried in Russian Orthodox Church in Belgrade,capital of Serbia and my hometown.I,as a descendant of white emmigrant often go to generals grave to pry for his soul.Greetings to my Orthodox Russian brothers from Serbia.
Hail to the Tzar, Hail to the White Army, defenders of justice and order! Bolsheviks were a wild murdering horde of uncultured criminals, and communism has killed more people than any other ideology in the whole world, including nazism.
May the memory of General Wrangel and the other great men of the White Movement never be forgotten. They stood against the fall of civilization, despite all odds.
тупые американцы россия не ваша страна вы о ней ничего не знаете и ни когда не узнаете вы не знаете кого мы боимся и ненавидим и не надо промывать мозги школьникам
If communism wasn't good, than why did whole nation went in revolution and not in white army? You cant make 200.000.000 people to join you by forcing them my friend!
Moment, Do we all forget the fundamental change in whole society, that was knocking at the door at turning of 19/20th century?It shifted the worlds.Our forefathers were blown from the east to the west, left against the right, red against the white. No one understood truly the background of the changes. Let recognize and honor all blood that was shed...the bodies were dead, but Ideologies went on. Each human counts and deserves respect... these are the beloved one to someone.
@Granualt I love your passion, but I have to correct you. The Tsar died in 1918 along with his family, however the Russian autocracy did end in 1917 with the short-lived corrupt provincial government that paved the way for the red satanic hordes and the murder of Russian culture and Holy tsarism.
God Bless St. Nicholas II. It's ironic that 'Nicki' can point the blame for the collapse of Russia on the Jewish element in Europe and America and also his second cousin; Kaiser Wilhelm II. Ultimately he can blame his death on this international Jewish presence and both his first and second cousins; George V of Great Britain and Wilhelm II. Even though allied with Britain during the war, George had the opportunity to send ships to rescue the Tsar and his family but turned this proposition down.
@theone1087 georgie porgie, his nickname from childhood, did more then that. He financially lend money to the bolsheviks by lending them money for supley and giving them money to buy wapons and stopping by deceit, the import of guns ordered in america.
Был похоронен в Брюсселе. Впоследствии прах Врангеля был перенесен в Белград, где торжественно перезахоронен 6 октября 1929 года в русском храме Святой Троицы.
Had General Wrangel fought for the freedom of his people I would have respected him but he fought to keep the autocratic and despised Czar in power. Had Russia´s conservatives, liberals and Social Demcorats cared for the people instead of kissing the Czar´s ass they could have saved Russia form bolshevism. However when they all supported the hated Czar in the civil war they forced the Russian people to choose between the Czar and 'change' in the form of communism. The people chose communism.
@ma82fo You are aware that under the Tsar, the Bolsheviks were a insignificant minority, right ? In fact the boy scouts had a larger following in Russia then they did. They only gained prominence in the chaos and anarchy of the Russian Republic, after the monarchy was abolished. So your theory falls flat. Baron Wrangel understood that the only form of governement that Russia could prosper under was tsarism.When one look at Russia's history following 1917, one can only conclude that he was right.
A huge LOL at your comment. The Czarist Monarchy was never abolished before the Revolution. In fact the revolution happened because of the new 'republics' failure to balance the supreme power of the Czar. The Duma, or russian parliament, didn´t hold any real power during the Czarist rule and it was only formed to mask the fact that Russia was still ruled by a despotic dictator. Also you should be glad since todays Russia is more or less a step back to the Czarist era.
@ma82fo Well I can see that you have never heard of the Feburary Revolution. The one which preceded the October/Bolshevik revolution ? The one in which a provisional government was esatblished by Kerensly and Prince Lvov ? Haven't you heard of it ? No ? Well clearly you aren't as well read on the subject as you'd like to think you are. The Russian federation and the Russian empire have next to nothing in common, so trying to compare them is pointless.
I know very well of the February Revolution and the failures of the governments that followed. Both the Conservative government under Lvov and the Left-wing government under Karensky failed to bring democracy to Russia because of their inability to cut the power of the Czar. Also both Lvov and Karensky didn´t dare to challenge the Czar on the issue of the War with Germany which was turning out bad for the Russian Empire and this was not appreciated by the people.
@ma82fo Well they illegally siezed power from him, so...technically they cut his power.While they may have failed in bringing their vision of liberal democracy, due to their incompetence they helped bring communism to power, which is many ways similair to democracy.In 1917 the Imperial Russian Army was on the verge of triumph. Following the successful Brusilov offense another devestating offense was being planned. Had Kerensky and Lvov not messed things up, Russia would have won a great victory.
@ImperialRussianGuard russia didnt prosper during communism?it went from an agrarian backward country to one of the most modern and industralized in ten years during stalin, dont talk about things you dont know anything about
For the Volga and Baltic Germans who were wiped out or exiled to die in frozen Gulags, I salute the memory of general Wrangel, and the uploader of this vid. There are no American museums built with the tax money of other people erected to the memory of those victims. Clearly, some victims are more 'hallowed' than others... Curse the reds, and crush them! Anglo-Zio-American Axis of globalism and multicult, you're next!
Самый достойный офицер и мужчина! Доблесть России и Нашей армии! Если бы на белом свете было бы хоть не много таких, наша Родина ни когда не стояла бы в очереди упавших на колени! П.Н.В. Огромное Уважение! Жаль только, когда он сказал, что Россия переживёт гнёт негодяев, он не знал, что Мы опять попадём, под власть очередных негодяев. Если бы у нашей многострадальной страны был бы П.Н.Врангель - все негодяи, получили бы по заслугам!
This man was a hero.I am English but I know about the hypocrisy of the left,any type or variety of left.I saw in England & here in Hungary.May God restore the Romanov dynasty!
@Besyonok13 fourth, i agree that the coup was better because less comrades (white and red alike) died.fifth, the massacre took place during the tsar nicholai's reign so it still points to his poor leadership. sixth though i have a huge preference for communism, i'm not communist because I believe everyone deserves personal rights. however their sense of unity makes up for some of it. I hope to agree because the world would be better if we all had a sense of unity and comradeship, comrade :)
@Besyonok13 ok, first: I think civil war is not the greatest evil, it is tragic and turns neighbor against neighbor, but rebellion is sometimes the answer. second, i don't think a central committee is good either because the more you have involved with politics the more easily it can be corrupted. third I will watch your Putin if you look into a few speeches by Lenin (preferably jewish pogroms) you will think this mans words are gold as well.
@Besyonok13 So he maybe couldn't prevent the massacre, but if you own 1/6 of the world, apologies are in order, yelling at the man who issued the order was necessary, and how you could defend this by saying "we fought for democracy and freedom" when it doesn't do a damn bit of good when people can't feed themselves is just stupid. you fought for wants, we fought for needs. Lenin provided them, sure many died over the communist rule, but is almost everyone slowly starving to death and better?
@zexion4real ...go to your beloved wikipedia,and read about the rebellion which occured in the Tambov "state",just to have a slight understanding,heres an iron fact -Russian famine of 1921
@zexion4real François Furet estimated there were 5 million deaths in the famine; for comparison, the worst crop failure of late Tsarist Russia, in 1892, caused 375,000 to 400,000 deaths. That failure followed years of normal and bumper harvests, with the resulting buildup of reserves
@zexion4real ; the harvest of 1888 had been "excellent beyond even the more optimistic hopes". Also, that was in a time of peace, international commerce, and good order; there had not been war throughout Russia as there was from 1914 to 1920.
@Besyonok13 THey fit the FACTS AND MY THEORY. many industries collapsed around that time period, people starved and protested asking for food and retreat from WWI. the soldiers shoot us and if Nicholas was a competant leader, he would have raised hell for the murder of his people, the man who issued the order of the shooting would have at least had a lecture, but he did nothing.
@Besyonok13 1914 is when we starved when industries collapsed and there was mass unemployment. "mummy and daddy" couldn't provide for anybody back then, unless you say us eating rats and other vermin to survive was just "made up" and "just a distortion of the truth". I cannot defend gulags, but can you defend a leader sending his men off in wave after wave, poorly armed, fighting against a major power and having his people slaughtered? can you defend The czars unreasonable involvement in WWI?
@zexion4real HOW,a "pourly" armed country,could have had such a civil war? WHERE the fuck did all the human resource&weapons come from??? were there factories built since 1914 to 1917? or major productivity boosts? And how dare you say "we starved" when you dont have even a close understanding of true hunger? one of the first things Lenin did,was ban any types of trade,introduce bread monopoly,bread cards and a must to serve in the red army or work for the communists if you wanted to eat at all
@ZaJaClt i'm sorry, unless you are some dumb ass kid in africa, you don't know the true meaning of starvation. Russians starved during that time period because the government told them to earn the money for it. also, those farm facts are highly irrelevant to the fact they did starve from 1914 on until Lenin was able to get everything in order to PREVENT IT! and so what if the government asked you to work for the communist government/ military to get food?
@ZaJaClt We do that shit in EVERY form of government. dumbass. you're such a fucking clown, can't even spell "poorly" right! you stfu and gtfoyt (get the fuck off youtube.) and die or something. you're an idiot who doesn't know a damn bit about history, except irrelevant and probably false farming patterns of russia BEFORE THE REVOLUTION HAPPENED AT ALL!!
@ZaJaClt now back to the starvation, the government didn't do a DAMN thing for the MILLIONs of peasants who were dying in the streets and since no jobs were available, ecxcept the military (which they would die as soon as they got in a trench) and no one was willing to do that because it was ruining russia's good name, people were dying, and land was lost at a rapid rate. not that you would care, dumb shit.
@zexion4real WOW,just curious,who the fuck told you that? And i like your lame attempt to make a statement,such as "probably false farming patterns"..........weak.....and for the last time,You say "we" all the time,how the fuck are YOU,related to the history of my people?
@Besyonok13 Why should i read white propaganda? We lived under nicholas the second and he was the czar. which made us peasants since we had no money and were the poor class in a feadalistic government which is what a serf typically is. I'm not proud of us killing ourselves, but you should be equally ashamed for doing the exact same.
@Besyonok13 И кто Вы должны назвать МЕНЯ уродливым? Вы - немое белое, кто является только воспаленным, потому что нас красные бьют Вас на всем протяжении России.
@Besyonok13 what is your knowledge? "easterner"? the facts are communists brought food to the table. Have you ever gone without food "easterner"? it sucks, much more than being "deprived" of democracy. Moc Sovietom! Энергия Коммунистам! power to the soviets! Белые могут сосать это!
@Besyonok13 You live in a strange fantasy world. Laughed at? you're the one who is laughed at for taking pride in having relatives that fought for the side that lost. Democracy and freedom? would that feed the people? would that make the people happy? watching some fat rich people dictating the poor and starving "serfs"? Anyone in their right mind would prefer bread and peace than a false democracy and imaginary freedom.
The White Armies of Russia were the bravest men on this Earth, they were the first ones to come up against the sick and twisted men of Communism. They fought for every inch of land and made teh Red bastards pay. The Czar and his family are heroes and martyrs to any people who have been under communist all their lives
@tHeWasTeDYouTh Heroes and martyrs? the czar had men open fire on protesters that were upset because they had no food for their family's. Thats no hero, thats a tyrant. the white armies of russia weren't brave, they had the advantage of being supplied by their country's military. the REDS were the braver group because they made do with what they hunted with and had to steal rifles from soliders to win. power to the soviets!
@zexion4real you are a fucking idiot, the communist killed something like 40 million people in total, after the cold war was over secret KGB files were opened to the public
yes the Czar did what you said but GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK, the communist killed MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of people in Russia. One day you were a normal person and the next day your name was is Pravda and you and your entire family were killed or sent to die in gulags
@tHeWasTeDYouTh You give me a fucking break, czars over the course of history killed much more than what you claim the communists did. Ivan killed people on a whim because he suspected they were plotting against him, Bloody Nicholas lived happily while his people starved and he did NOTHING to help them other than shoot at them, and almost all the czars were hated by the russian people due to terrible leadership. Gorbachev and Lenin were TRUE communists, not the ones you're thinking about.
@tHeWasTeDYouTh True communists help each other and don't kill each other, but then again FUCKING IDIOTS LIKE YOU DON"T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BECAUSE "COMMIES ARE COMMIES" there are different types of communists, The ones who follow Lenins example and then there are those who broke off and don't follow the true ideals of communism. Are you even russian or just some hick in the U.S. spouting shit out of his mouth about something he doesn't and never will understand?
Never mind the noob,anyone that claims that a gay siphilitic syco that managed to get some lower classes believe his bullshit and called himself theyre leader,is a genius-is automatically diagnosed as being mentally retarted =] and if you can tell what is true facts and what's communist propaganda,then try to look up some true fact on Nicholas ll
@tHeWasTeDYouTh yes because putting down a rebellion that sought to feed its people and give them their necessities is obviously something brave men do.
@zexion4real yes because the communist killed MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, shit the Czar and his system were not perfect but the communist did so many horrible things the Czar looks like an angel
Gulags, mass killings of people, your name would come up in Pravda and you and your entire family were killed
@tHeWasTeDYouTh no fucking way in hell did the czar look like an angel, people loved lenin and he is still respected to this day. Stalin killed people, lenin killed white bastards who fought against the peoples desire to have a more SUFFICIENT FORM OF GOVERNMENT! POWER TO SOVIETS!
@zexion4real My friend, killings are never blessed by anyone. If those killings were not made those that you mention would continue to rule upon those days. They do not because nobody really respects them any more due to the killings comitted. The power of one resime cannot reside upon murders
@milespearson2 what about capitalism? they let their own people kill one another and did nothing of it and i do not see capitalism falling apart. look at the deep south of the U.S. before the civil rights movementl, and "gangsters" today. we know they kill, but you do nothing. so its ok for a natiuon to let civillians kill people for the hell of it, but when a nation does it to protect the nation and its people (for the most part excluding stalin) Its worse?
@zexion4real You are absoutely right. Who says that the "gangsters" are not falling appart. Look at the crisis. "Thou shall not kill" That's a very important commandment. No body can stay for long once associated with killings
The Bolsheviks LOST the election to the Constituent Assembly, they did NOT enjoy popular support, Bolshevik troops fired on striking workers in Leningrad. Did the five MILLION Russians who starved to death in the famine caused by "War Communism" die "loving Lenin"? i think not! Lenin killed thousands of civilians, the "white bastards" fought for freedom.
The first thing Lenin did when he came to power was take power away from the workers' soviets and put it in the hands of the central committee of the Communist Party. Lenin was a dictator, far more repressive than any Tsar. The Tsars were saints compared to thugs like Lenin. The only people who still "respect" Lenin are murderers like Gaddafi.
@TheTollundWoman oh, so thats why everyone followed lenin and didnt kill his ass or leave him to die like stalin. or better yet, thats why lenin is in a glass coffin in moscow so everyone could go see and admire him. because they hated him. makes perfect sense. *cough* SARCASM *cough*
P.N.Wrangel....undoubtly the most capable and competent general of white movement......evacuation of his army was one of the greatest military rescue operation you can compare just with Dunkirk one.
Maybe if he come to full power over volunter´s army in early phase of civil war, instead of it´s final phase....maybe today we have to talk about boshevik´s evacuation from Kronstadt :D
Wrangel was from sweden but had two barnches the swedish and the baltic, the swedish died in 17 th century but wrangel in the russian civil war was the last in the wrangel family .
It's shame that Wrangel and other Whites leaders haven't fought arm to arm with Poles against bolsheviks. They haven't consent about Poland independence. Wrangel was OK, but others were retarded imperialists. If we achieve antisoviet coalition, there woudn't be commusism in our contries and possible WW2 neither. Poland and Russia could be two wealth and strong european countries today. RIP Mr General.
Великая личность!Беда России что поздно пришел.И пришел чтобы дать возможность достойно уйти(эвакуация).Как он управлял Крымом!Это бы Колчаку!Но не все было однозначно!И были коммунисты идеалисты использованные циниками.Подобные Шилову в "свой среди чужих".И Николай от престола во время войны отрекся!Имея феноменальную память,образование,манеры и прочее.Но не умевший убеждать!И разбираться.Врангель на мой взгляд в белом движении номер один.Но живи я в то время уж не знаю чью сторону бы выбрал.
Thank you for reminding us about heroism of our White Officers. They should not be forgotten. They were the ones trying to save Russia from complete destruction, tyranny, golodomor and so on. I wonder if we have any monuments resurrected in Russia to those who died fighting for Russian on the right side .
Your poor sense of humor is not working. Unless you can offer an intelligent argument against monarchy don't bother wasting my time with your nonsense.
@ImperialRussianGuard I'm not wasting your time, you're wasting your own time by reading it, especially since that comment wasn't meant for you. That wasn't humor, by the way.
@MaoiMeowi2 Since you want monarchy, I assume you have Romanov blood in you, or are related to one of the more wealthier pre-revolution families. Now, just because YOU'D have it good, doesn't mean the general population would. Peasants were oppressed under monarchies, and a lot of times, weren't even able to read. They'd have to pay taxes they couldn't pay. May I ask why you want a monarchy?
No you're wrong. I have no Romanov blood. I can see you you were brainwashed your whole life to assume that monarchy only benefits the wealthy. However reality is quite different. The average Russian was much better off under the Tsar than Communism or Democracy. I support monarchy since populist forms of government such as democracy and communism are based on emotions not rational decisions
@ImperialRussianGuard Makes sense, as long as you have a good monarch. A person can make rational decisions, but what happens when they don't want to sped the money necessary to realize those decisions? What happens when the monarch is unfit to rule?
-
There was a reason for the Russian Revolution. For the French Revolution. For the American Revolution. The monarchs weren't making decisions that would be beneficial to everyone, only themselves.
The French revolution was caused due to a financial crisis. The Russian Revolution was caused War weariness of WWI. The funny thing is that both of them were constitutional monarchies when they happened. ANd I'm sure you the know the horrific end results of those experiments. The American revolution was not a revolt against the monarchy. It was against the taxes imposed by the British parliament. Many founding fathers such as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson advocated for Monarchy.
@ImperialRussianGuard Don't call me brainwashed. There's a difference between that and simply not knowing. If I were brainwashed, I'd be calling you a stupid conservative who has absolutely no brain whatsoever.
Very well I will not. However then don't make ridiculous statements such as comparing a form of government to a slut in a room full of mormon men. It just sounds ridiculous .
@ImperialRussianGuard It's not ridiculous. It's just illustrating how bad monarchies can go if the wrong person is in charge, as I said in my previous comment, but I don't know if you read it.
You're right it's not ridiculous. It's childish and immature. If you're going to make an analogy make one that at least make sense. What if the person who ran for president turns out to be a liar . What if the person who ran for president decides he doesn't want to step down. Then you have a situation like you have in Iran. Pre-1979 Iran was the 9th wealthiest country in the world.
@ImperialRussianGuard Alright, I'll make one that makes sense. A monarchy is like a dysfunctional family- the parents don't pay attention to the kids, the kids get in trouble, and the parents don't help. How is that?
-
Kill a monarch, and their next of kin will continue their work. Kill a president, and you get a different person. Besides, there are rules in a successful presidency (although I wouldn't use that to describe this country in the past 2 decades).
I can see making analogies isn't of your strengths. This new analogy isn't any closer to reality than your last one. Where did you get the idea that monarchs don't pay attention to their people? Here this a more accurate analogy about Monarchy.A monarch in a country is a teacher in a class while a President is only the most popular(not most intelligent!) student.
@ImperialRussianGuard No, no, BOTH of my analogies made perfect sense- the first one, a monarch causes a lot of trouble, and the second one, you got. I got that idea from every monarch who's lost power completely or partially because of a revolution.
-
Now, your analogy is bad, because you're implying the president makes his or her decisions under a monarch, and answers to that monarch, instead of being an independent leader. Wherever did you get that idea?
No your analogies make no sense. The first is just you trying to make a vulgar joke. The second is your attempt to sound witty. It's funny you accuse monarchs of being careless rulers because of Revolutions. Perhaps that's why the Russian provisional government only lasted 7 months while the Russian monarchy lasted 455 years. You have misread my analogy. If you read it you would understand that I am comparing having a president to having the most popular student in place of a teacher.
@ImperialRussianGuard I just explained them. I can't help it if you have problems understanding what I said. And no, it wasn't a joke. The second worked as well as yours did.
-
Well, what I was saying was that if they were a good monarch (like Catherine the Great), that wouldn't have happened. I would believe in monarchies if all monarchs had the best interest of the people in mind instead of themselves.
You're analogies made no sense until you explained your intent behind them. Then the points didn't quite connect. However there are more important issues to argue about than analogies. Wait so you are blaming the weakness of the 1917 Russian Republic on Monarchy ? Let me ask you a question ? What percentage of politicians in the world honestly care about what's best for the people ? Not very high. So If you're concerned about what's best for the people why are you for democracy ?
I asked this since you said revolutions happened because of the monarchs. I then asked you if you were you blaming the Bolshevik revolution on monarchy even though the October revolution occurred during a short lived republic. It has nothing to do with you being American.
@ImperialRussianGuard As I said, monarchs would be good if they could be trusted with their power, no matter who they are. Otherwise, I agree with you that leaders should think about the future of their nation instead of the future of their ideology. However, when they start oppressing the people when it's not necessary, or when they start heavily taxing to fund their hobbies, it's a problem.
Well you're on the right track but you must understand that it is very difficult to do what is best for a nation in a republic. Often what must be done is not popular. So even if a politician actually wants to do what is best he probably won't get elected. If Russia was a Republic during the reign of Peter the Great then it's dominant language would be probably be Swedish by now. Even though Peter the Greats reforms were unpopular they were necessary.
@ImperialRussianGuard Not what the people want, what they need. They need to be educated. They need to be guaranteed the ability to feed themselves. However, if people don't like something because it inconveniences them, they need to just live with it.
-
By the way, it was Peter the Great who wanted everyone to cut their beards off, correct? I don't see how that's necessary.
Peter the Great modernized Russia's army, built it's first fleet, defeated the Swedish empire and made Russia a major european superpower. It would not have been possible had Russia been a democracy." If people don't like something because it inconveniences them, they need to just live with it." That sounds very democratic of you. So you attack monarchy because you claim they don't have the best interest in of the people in mind. Then you say this. Someone is sounding like a hypocrite.
Perhaps you would be in favor of a Constitutional monarchy like that of the German Empire. In the German Empire the Kaiser could not oppress his people ,however there was not a tyranny of the majority. The Kaiser had serious power unlike many modern constitutional monarchs. The Crown and the Parliament kept one another in check.
@ImperialRussianGuard I'd prefer a stateless society where everyone contributes to everyone else. However, since that won't happen for at least another millennium (or so I figure, considering societies' values get more liberal as time passes). In my life time, I'd like to live under a government similar to that of the USSR, but not so restrictive on personal freedoms.
From the way you are talking you sound like an Anarchist . Let me ask you something. What will happen if a stateless society is invaded ? How well will you're stateless society fare if it is invade by an organized army ? I can assure that it will not be well. A key for civilizations survival is an strong organized army. How will this happen in a society with no government ?
@ImperialRussianGuard Eventually, the whole world would be like that. Remember how I said that would happen in time?
-
That's not the same as having the people's interest in mind. If a mother doesn't give her child candy when he or she wants it, does that mean she doesn't care about her child? I hope THAT analogy you understand. I'm not sounding like a hypocrite.
It's funny that you used that analogy since it present more of an argument for monarchy than anarchism.Since if one thinks about it Monarchy is much like it's family. If a father disciplines his children that does that mean he is a bad parent ? No ,it means he is dong what is best for his children. The same with monarchy. While in a democracy is like apathetic parents or parents who spoil their children.
@ImperialRussianGuard Ugh. You said that I was a hypocrite because I thought people should be thought of primarily by their monarch, but not given what they want. I was illustrating the difference between want and need. That analogy had nothing whatsoever to do with my ideal society.
-
Well, you can ask a redneck that question. People here are armed to the teeth and the majority haven't even had combat training. That answers it, yes? Or need I spell it out?
First of all I didn't call you a hypocrite. I said you sounded like one. I said that because you were defending democracy then you said that if people don't like something than tough luck. A supporter of democracy would not say that. Democracy is a form of government of what the people want. While Monarchy is a form of government in which the nations interests are first.
Also an army of untrained,unorganized,undisciplined rednecks who aren't led properly will have very little effect on a professional army. A bunch of angry men with rifles won't do much against tanks or helicopters. How does a stateless society maintain a serious army? Since you're in favor of anarchy surely you can enlighten me about how they maintain a serious army.
@ImperialRussianGuard As I said before, I believe in some aspects of a Democracy, not a Democracy. I'm for what people need, not what they want.
-
Just because there isn't a state, doesn't mean there can't be tanks, helicopters, jets, and such. They'd be owned collectively, technically, although certain people would still be trained in their use, and naturally, everyone would defend each other.
What exact aspects of Democracy. Since you already stated that you dislike politicians and dislike the fact that it's based on what the people want? Where would get the money to maintain the tanks, train the men to use them and hire generals to command them? You can't tax them if it's a stateless society. You can't force people to pay for it in an anarchy. So how do you plan on maintaining these tanks and army?
@ImperialRussianGuard This will sound contradictory, but it isn't. That said, the parts I like are the freedom to express your opinions (and form them) and the fact that the people instead of society's elite rule. Now, before you say anything, let me say this-the people must distinguish between what they want and need. They want big mansions, they need food. They want to be exempted from military service, but the country needs defense.
@ImperialRussianGuard Everything that would need to be bought would be traded for something those people, probably the metal workers, need. For example, they might need clothing, so you give them clothing. Other transactions like this occur if necessary, and you have everything you need. Men are instructed by previous tank crews. Commanders are picked from the population based on intelligence, then resume their lives when there isn't a war (unless, of course, they die).
@ImperialRussianGuard Sounds far-fetched, I know, that's why it can't happen at this point in time. By the way, go on some Glenn Beck video and say American Conservatives think too highly of their ability to use a gun. It would make for some interesting...*ahem*...conversation.
Also you haven't you still haven't answered my question about how an anarchy would defend itself against an organized army. How would an unorganized undisciplined army defend against a professional army?
Also monarchs are raised to think strategically rather than ideologically. Politicians think ideologically not strategically. Monarchs do what must be done not what is popular. Peter the Greats reforms were not popular. Politicians are often scared to do what must be done since they are scared of losing votes. Also they are not willing to make necessary decisions that would go against their ideology.
@ImperialRussianGuard You didn't elaborate on what you meant your analogy to mean, so I read it as you wrote it. You never said the student would take the teacher's place.
kaiserreich mod XDXD
Stronghold18 1 week ago
Yes, the whites were 100% good heroes and the reds were 100% evil villains, and every white general and soldier fought with honour and every red general and soldier committed war crimes.
Isn't it easy to understand the world, after all it's all black and white without shades of grey.
Cyberspine 2 weeks ago
@Cyberspine Well I'm sure you would know, you seem to have some experience in having an over simplistic view of things. After all, straw men arguments tend to be the mark of intellectually vacuous, a demographic in which you would fit in quite splendidly.
ImperialRussianGuard 1 week ago
@ImperialRussianGuard You describe Wrangel as: a hero, one of the greatest heroes the world has ever seen
whereas you describe the reds as: murderers, destroyers of Russia, villains, merciless, a communist plague
Hardly academically objective terms. Besides, if you are going to critizise the way I put my arguments, it's not a good idea to use ad hominems.
Cyberspine 1 week ago
Simply because I refer to Wrangel as hero, that does not mean I think every single member of the white army was a complete angel. I have said nothing in my video that would have in anyway implied that. This video was not meant to be objective, I have specifically made it clear that the intent of this video was to be a tribute to Wrangel in the video description, and I have never tried to pass it as anything else. The purpose of this video is to be propagandistic, and not academically objective.
ImperialRussianGuard 1 week ago
Simply being insulted by your opponent is not an ad hominem attack. If had not addressed your criticism at all, and instead referred to you as intellectually vacuous, then you might have had a valid point. However, I did address your claim that I was seeing things in black and white by pointing out that you were making a straw man fallacy. Simply the presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem fallacy, the attack must be used with the purpose of undermining the argument.
ImperialRussianGuard 1 week ago
@ImperialRussianGuard Personal attacks waste everybody's time. They give no extra weight to anything you say in a discussion, period.
Cyberspine 1 week ago
I would say the very same thing about your sarcastic remarks. You attempted to condescend me by completely misrepresenting my position. That is how this discussion began in the first place. Through the entirety of this discussion, you have yet to offer any argument in opposition. The only thing you have done is immaturely mocked your opponents position. As far as I am concerned, if anyone has engaged in low class attacks, it has been you.
ImperialRussianGuard 1 week ago
@ImperialRussianGuard My original post was indeed sarcastic. The video is by any standard incredibly biased, and nowhere does it say that it is a fictitious work of art or propaganda, except now later in the comment section. As such I thought it was your genuine opinion.
And in no way have I been condescending. I haven't tried to alter what was said in the video, in the contrary. My own interpretation is that the general attitude is black and white compared to what the history books say.
Cyberspine 1 week ago
I assume that you are aware of the term "tribute." It is a term which implies bias and propagandism. Since you say that you haven't altered what was said in the video, would you be so kind as to show me where I said that," the whites were 100% good heroes and every white general and soldier fought with honor."
ImperialRussianGuard 1 week ago
@ImperialRussianGuard I didn't say you said so. That's what I said.
And my conception of a tribute to a great man would only include the unbiased truth. After all, since he was so great, he doesn't need bias to seem great to the viewer.
Cyberspine 6 days ago
@Cyberspine Let me repeat my question, in what part of my video did I say," the whites were 100% good heroes and every white general and soldier fought with honor." You are entitled to your artistic views, as I am entitled to mine. No one is preventing you from making videos in what ever manner you see fit. However I do object when you attempt to distort the truth about myself and my views.
ImperialRussianGuard 5 days ago
@ImperialRussianGuard And I'm going to answer like I answered before: You didn't say so, that's what I said.
Cyberspine 5 days ago
Слава белой армии
VrangelSRB 1 month ago
It would´ve been an honour to have fought under the command of this great man, against the red jackals!!
Long Live the black baron.. from Mexico!!
Mrgokueldestructor 1 month ago
hmm is like the jeans.....
Sovietassbuster 4 months ago
Ups, the first comment is at the button...
Lu3Zak 4 months ago
You didn't expect such comment, especially not from someone from an insignificant Slavic country like Croatia... Hm, I didn't intend to open this topic neither, but your back and for one against the other didn't let me rest.
If you only knew the wale and the power of all words we speak. If not this, the beauty of music will remind us... yes. glory to every brave man. Bog s vama
Spasiva
Lu3Zak 4 months ago
These forces find its represents, on each side: the relative good one, and the relative evil one. Let us give the names: The bible says, this world is ruled by devil, whose nature is totally opposite to God, and did never freely surrender its dominion. When his power will shake most? When the one who suppose to take the rightful place under heaven is about to come. This is what we are witnessing nowadays, - our present duty is to welcome Him, by embracing our enemies first.
Lu3Zak 4 months ago
Red was right ? O no, the White was right? ???It is more than that... there are unseen forces behind the history, which lead to something or to someone.
If the human being was tore apart, than these peaces are searching to find its counterpart. It is actually human who is divided in Spirit on one side and body on other side, both represented in history in huge scale, but actually representing the conflict within each individual. On the backstage two opposing forces fighting, don't you see that?
Lu3Zak 4 months ago
Communists say the Czar was cruel. Cruel? Czar Nicholas II was too humane. He pardoned many criminals and let revolutionaries like Lenin off. Russia was the wealthiest nation in the world in 1910, it produced 2/3 of the world's food. By 1920 it was starving! Millions were murdered by these Satanists. The Bolsheviks (consisting mostly of Talmudic Jews) destroyed the motherland and stole the gold
And now the criminals write the history books and brainwash the youth into hating their own heritage!
TossTheTV 4 months ago
So sorry all of them faild then. Finally them all were stupid ignorant snobs so that's why them all lost Russia to commies - Krasnov, Denikin, Udenich, Kolchak, Wrangel - and some more names - they all losers and we are too their descendants
Madved07 4 months ago
@Madved07
Wrangel didn't "fail". Red Army had to send its entire elite to defeat this man. He was the best general of the whites. You right about the others though.
BENNYSIEGEL90 4 months ago
meh fuck the whites
CylonAndrew 4 months ago
General Vrangel is buried in Russian Orthodox Church in Belgrade,capital of Serbia and my hometown.I,as a descendant of white emmigrant often go to generals grave to pry for his soul.Greetings to my Orthodox Russian brothers from Serbia.
georgije91 5 months ago 4
@georgije91 Слава белой армии большевики матч-реванш
VrangelSRB 1 month ago
Hail to the Tzar, Hail to the White Army, defenders of justice and order! Bolsheviks were a wild murdering horde of uncultured criminals, and communism has killed more people than any other ideology in the whole world, including nazism.
May the memory of General Wrangel and the other great men of the White Movement never be forgotten. They stood against the fall of civilization, despite all odds.
JarlFrank 5 months ago
glory to all who oppose communism!
spokoziomTHC 6 months ago
тупые американцы россия не ваша страна вы о ней ничего не знаете и ни когда не узнаете вы не знаете кого мы боимся и ненавидим и не надо промывать мозги школьникам
BaKs1212 6 months ago
If communism wasn't good, than why did whole nation went in revolution and not in white army? You cant make 200.000.000 people to join you by forcing them my friend!
goronek 6 months ago
@goronek
Moment, Do we all forget the fundamental change in whole society, that was knocking at the door at turning of 19/20th century?It shifted the worlds.Our forefathers were blown from the east to the west, left against the right, red against the white. No one understood truly the background of the changes. Let recognize and honor all blood that was shed...the bodies were dead, but Ideologies went on. Each human counts and deserves respect... these are the beloved one to someone.
Lu3Zak 4 months ago
ЗА Веру и ОТЕЧЕСТВО!
MrXney 6 months ago
Russia died 1917 with the tsar..
Granualt 6 months ago
@Granualt I love your passion, but I have to correct you. The Tsar died in 1918 along with his family, however the Russian autocracy did end in 1917 with the short-lived corrupt provincial government that paved the way for the red satanic hordes and the murder of Russian culture and Holy tsarism.
theone1087 6 months ago
God Bless St. Nicholas II. It's ironic that 'Nicki' can point the blame for the collapse of Russia on the Jewish element in Europe and America and also his second cousin; Kaiser Wilhelm II. Ultimately he can blame his death on this international Jewish presence and both his first and second cousins; George V of Great Britain and Wilhelm II. Even though allied with Britain during the war, George had the opportunity to send ships to rescue the Tsar and his family but turned this proposition down.
theone1087 7 months ago
@theone1087 georgie porgie, his nickname from childhood, did more then that. He financially lend money to the bolsheviks by lending them money for supley and giving them money to buy wapons and stopping by deceit, the import of guns ordered in america.
ThePrincessMoonbeam 6 months ago
Был похоронен в Брюсселе. Впоследствии прах Врангеля был перенесен в Белград, где торжественно перезахоронен 6 октября 1929 года в русском храме Святой Троицы.
minjaadvokat 7 months ago
а генерал Колчак есть?
AtokaKartoka 7 months ago
Had General Wrangel fought for the freedom of his people I would have respected him but he fought to keep the autocratic and despised Czar in power. Had Russia´s conservatives, liberals and Social Demcorats cared for the people instead of kissing the Czar´s ass they could have saved Russia form bolshevism. However when they all supported the hated Czar in the civil war they forced the Russian people to choose between the Czar and 'change' in the form of communism. The people chose communism.
ma82fo 8 months ago
@ma82fo You are aware that under the Tsar, the Bolsheviks were a insignificant minority, right ? In fact the boy scouts had a larger following in Russia then they did. They only gained prominence in the chaos and anarchy of the Russian Republic, after the monarchy was abolished. So your theory falls flat. Baron Wrangel understood that the only form of governement that Russia could prosper under was tsarism.When one look at Russia's history following 1917, one can only conclude that he was right.
ImperialRussianGuard 8 months ago 2
@ImperialRussianGuard
A huge LOL at your comment. The Czarist Monarchy was never abolished before the Revolution. In fact the revolution happened because of the new 'republics' failure to balance the supreme power of the Czar. The Duma, or russian parliament, didn´t hold any real power during the Czarist rule and it was only formed to mask the fact that Russia was still ruled by a despotic dictator. Also you should be glad since todays Russia is more or less a step back to the Czarist era.
ma82fo 7 months ago
@ma82fo Well I can see that you have never heard of the Feburary Revolution. The one which preceded the October/Bolshevik revolution ? The one in which a provisional government was esatblished by Kerensly and Prince Lvov ? Haven't you heard of it ? No ? Well clearly you aren't as well read on the subject as you'd like to think you are. The Russian federation and the Russian empire have next to nothing in common, so trying to compare them is pointless.
ImperialRussianGuard 7 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard
I know very well of the February Revolution and the failures of the governments that followed. Both the Conservative government under Lvov and the Left-wing government under Karensky failed to bring democracy to Russia because of their inability to cut the power of the Czar. Also both Lvov and Karensky didn´t dare to challenge the Czar on the issue of the War with Germany which was turning out bad for the Russian Empire and this was not appreciated by the people.
ma82fo 7 months ago
@ma82fo Well they illegally siezed power from him, so...technically they cut his power.While they may have failed in bringing their vision of liberal democracy, due to their incompetence they helped bring communism to power, which is many ways similair to democracy.In 1917 the Imperial Russian Army was on the verge of triumph. Following the successful Brusilov offense another devestating offense was being planned. Had Kerensky and Lvov not messed things up, Russia would have won a great victory.
ImperialRussianGuard 7 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard get a room
PHILLYBURNS 7 months ago
@PHILLYBURNS Well I am in one right now...so your point ?
ImperialRussianGuard 7 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard well stop in it then
PHILLYBURNS 7 months ago
@PHILLYBURNS Stop doing what ? It would be really useful if you could articulate your comments a bit more.
ImperialRussianGuard 7 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard
Tak tak....pravilno...
amarat9999 7 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard russia didnt prosper during communism?it went from an agrarian backward country to one of the most modern and industralized in ten years during stalin, dont talk about things you dont know anything about
smileoutastyleify 5 months ago
@ma82fo
Govno znaješ komunictickaja cobaka.....Ob Wrangele kracivo govoriť nada!
amarat9999 7 months ago
Смърт на Комунизма!!
MrBulgaran 9 months ago 3
Why was i not told about this Hero in school?
SuperiorBlueEyedCelt 10 months ago
For the Volga and Baltic Germans who were wiped out or exiled to die in frozen Gulags, I salute the memory of general Wrangel, and the uploader of this vid. There are no American museums built with the tax money of other people erected to the memory of those victims. Clearly, some victims are more 'hallowed' than others... Curse the reds, and crush them! Anglo-Zio-American Axis of globalism and multicult, you're next!
NKVism1 10 months ago
i support tzarizam and monarhy....in my country the same happened the communists overthrew our King...and now we live a shity life... from SERBIA
Ivke555 11 months ago
he was my great grandfather!!
dion19741 11 months ago
Только, черным бароном не Врангеля величали, а Унгерна, IMHO...Ну, да не суть...
MrHQmind 1 year ago
Самый достойный офицер и мужчина! Доблесть России и Нашей армии! Если бы на белом свете было бы хоть не много таких, наша Родина ни когда не стояла бы в очереди упавших на колени! П.Н.В. Огромное Уважение! Жаль только, когда он сказал, что Россия переживёт гнёт негодяев, он не знал, что Мы опять попадём, под власть очередных негодяев. Если бы у нашей многострадальной страны был бы П.Н.Врангель - все негодяи, получили бы по заслугам!
SamsMosch 1 year ago
@Besyonok13 Неплохо,очень даже не плохо. О подрыве деятельности и предательстве со стороны чиновников-староверов знаем?
ZaJaClt 1 year ago
This man was a hero.I am English but I know about the hypocrisy of the left,any type or variety of left.I saw in England & here in Hungary.May God restore the Romanov dynasty!
Poldark3 1 year ago
I would of been honoured to have fought under him May the House of Romanov be re-established!!!!
americanmonarchist 1 year ago
Make him to a saint!
wallentin76 1 year ago
За родину! Для красной армии! для свободной России. из Восточной Сибири в английский моря. КРАСНАЯ АРМИЯ ЯВЛЯЕТСЯ САМЫМ МОЩНЫМ! YPA! YPA! YPA
utsprut2 1 year ago
@utsprut2 моя твоя не понимай
trupoed11 1 year ago
australian troops fought with white army against the reds, but now the jews have control of america and australia
dankrug 1 year ago
@Besyonok13 fourth, i agree that the coup was better because less comrades (white and red alike) died.fifth, the massacre took place during the tsar nicholai's reign so it still points to his poor leadership. sixth though i have a huge preference for communism, i'm not communist because I believe everyone deserves personal rights. however their sense of unity makes up for some of it. I hope to agree because the world would be better if we all had a sense of unity and comradeship, comrade :)
zexion4real 1 year ago
@Besyonok13 ok, first: I think civil war is not the greatest evil, it is tragic and turns neighbor against neighbor, but rebellion is sometimes the answer. second, i don't think a central committee is good either because the more you have involved with politics the more easily it can be corrupted. third I will watch your Putin if you look into a few speeches by Lenin (preferably jewish pogroms) you will think this mans words are gold as well.
zexion4real 1 year ago
@Besyonok13 So he maybe couldn't prevent the massacre, but if you own 1/6 of the world, apologies are in order, yelling at the man who issued the order was necessary, and how you could defend this by saying "we fought for democracy and freedom" when it doesn't do a damn bit of good when people can't feed themselves is just stupid. you fought for wants, we fought for needs. Lenin provided them, sure many died over the communist rule, but is almost everyone slowly starving to death and better?
zexion4real 1 year ago
@zexion4real ...go to your beloved wikipedia,and read about the rebellion which occured in the Tambov "state",just to have a slight understanding,heres an iron fact -Russian famine of 1921
ZaJaClt 1 year ago
@zexion4real François Furet estimated there were 5 million deaths in the famine; for comparison, the worst crop failure of late Tsarist Russia, in 1892, caused 375,000 to 400,000 deaths. That failure followed years of normal and bumper harvests, with the resulting buildup of reserves
ZaJaClt 1 year ago
@zexion4real ; the harvest of 1888 had been "excellent beyond even the more optimistic hopes". Also, that was in a time of peace, international commerce, and good order; there had not been war throughout Russia as there was from 1914 to 1920.
ZaJaClt 1 year ago
@Besyonok13 THey fit the FACTS AND MY THEORY. many industries collapsed around that time period, people starved and protested asking for food and retreat from WWI. the soldiers shoot us and if Nicholas was a competant leader, he would have raised hell for the murder of his people, the man who issued the order of the shooting would have at least had a lecture, but he did nothing.
zexion4real 1 year ago
@Besyonok13 1914 is when we starved when industries collapsed and there was mass unemployment. "mummy and daddy" couldn't provide for anybody back then, unless you say us eating rats and other vermin to survive was just "made up" and "just a distortion of the truth". I cannot defend gulags, but can you defend a leader sending his men off in wave after wave, poorly armed, fighting against a major power and having his people slaughtered? can you defend The czars unreasonable involvement in WWI?
zexion4real 1 year ago
@zexion4real HOW,a "pourly" armed country,could have had such a civil war? WHERE the fuck did all the human resource&weapons come from??? were there factories built since 1914 to 1917? or major productivity boosts? And how dare you say "we starved" when you dont have even a close understanding of true hunger? one of the first things Lenin did,was ban any types of trade,introduce bread monopoly,bread cards and a must to serve in the red army or work for the communists if you wanted to eat at all
ZaJaClt 1 year ago
@ZaJaClt i'm sorry, unless you are some dumb ass kid in africa, you don't know the true meaning of starvation. Russians starved during that time period because the government told them to earn the money for it. also, those farm facts are highly irrelevant to the fact they did starve from 1914 on until Lenin was able to get everything in order to PREVENT IT! and so what if the government asked you to work for the communist government/ military to get food?
zexion4real 1 year ago
@ZaJaClt We do that shit in EVERY form of government. dumbass. you're such a fucking clown, can't even spell "poorly" right! you stfu and gtfoyt (get the fuck off youtube.) and die or something. you're an idiot who doesn't know a damn bit about history, except irrelevant and probably false farming patterns of russia BEFORE THE REVOLUTION HAPPENED AT ALL!!
zexion4real 1 year ago
@ZaJaClt now back to the starvation, the government didn't do a DAMN thing for the MILLIONs of peasants who were dying in the streets and since no jobs were available, ecxcept the military (which they would die as soon as they got in a trench) and no one was willing to do that because it was ruining russia's good name, people were dying, and land was lost at a rapid rate. not that you would care, dumb shit.
zexion4real 1 year ago
@zexion4real WOW,just curious,who the fuck told you that? And i like your lame attempt to make a statement,such as "probably false farming patterns"..........weak.....and for the last time,You say "we" all the time,how the fuck are YOU,related to the history of my people?
ZaJaClt 1 year ago
@Besyonok13 Why should i read white propaganda? We lived under nicholas the second and he was the czar. which made us peasants since we had no money and were the poor class in a feadalistic government which is what a serf typically is. I'm not proud of us killing ourselves, but you should be equally ashamed for doing the exact same.
zexion4real 1 year ago
@zexion4real HAHAHAHAHA!! OMFG!!! peasants with no money =]]]]] wow,just wow =] stfu and gtfo noob.serious talk here only
ZaJaClt 1 year ago
@Besyonok13 И кто Вы должны назвать МЕНЯ уродливым? Вы - немое белое, кто является только воспаленным, потому что нас красные бьют Вас на всем протяжении России.
zexion4real 1 year ago
@Besyonok13 BUT HE ALLOWED IT! did he punish the soldiers? did he stop the starving? what did he do?
zexion4real 1 year ago
@Besyonok13 what is your knowledge? "easterner"? the facts are communists brought food to the table. Have you ever gone without food "easterner"? it sucks, much more than being "deprived" of democracy. Moc Sovietom! Энергия Коммунистам! power to the soviets! Белые могут сосать это!
zexion4real 1 year ago
@Besyonok13 You live in a strange fantasy world. Laughed at? you're the one who is laughed at for taking pride in having relatives that fought for the side that lost. Democracy and freedom? would that feed the people? would that make the people happy? watching some fat rich people dictating the poor and starving "serfs"? Anyone in their right mind would prefer bread and peace than a false democracy and imaginary freedom.
zexion4real 1 year ago
The White Armies of Russia were the bravest men on this Earth, they were the first ones to come up against the sick and twisted men of Communism. They fought for every inch of land and made teh Red bastards pay. The Czar and his family are heroes and martyrs to any people who have been under communist all their lives
they were very brave, fuck the Bolshevisk
tHeWasTeDYouTh 1 year ago
@tHeWasTeDYouTh Heroes and martyrs? the czar had men open fire on protesters that were upset because they had no food for their family's. Thats no hero, thats a tyrant. the white armies of russia weren't brave, they had the advantage of being supplied by their country's military. the REDS were the braver group because they made do with what they hunted with and had to steal rifles from soliders to win. power to the soviets!
zexion4real 1 year ago
@zexion4real you are a fucking idiot, the communist killed something like 40 million people in total, after the cold war was over secret KGB files were opened to the public
yes the Czar did what you said but GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK, the communist killed MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of people in Russia. One day you were a normal person and the next day your name was is Pravda and you and your entire family were killed or sent to die in gulags
read Black Book of Communism or Gulag Archipelago
tHeWasTeDYouTh 1 year ago
@tHeWasTeDYouTh You give me a fucking break, czars over the course of history killed much more than what you claim the communists did. Ivan killed people on a whim because he suspected they were plotting against him, Bloody Nicholas lived happily while his people starved and he did NOTHING to help them other than shoot at them, and almost all the czars were hated by the russian people due to terrible leadership. Gorbachev and Lenin were TRUE communists, not the ones you're thinking about.
zexion4real 1 year ago
@tHeWasTeDYouTh True communists help each other and don't kill each other, but then again FUCKING IDIOTS LIKE YOU DON"T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BECAUSE "COMMIES ARE COMMIES" there are different types of communists, The ones who follow Lenins example and then there are those who broke off and don't follow the true ideals of communism. Are you even russian or just some hick in the U.S. spouting shit out of his mouth about something he doesn't and never will understand?
zexion4real 1 year ago
@tHeWasTeDYouTh
Never mind the noob,anyone that claims that a gay siphilitic syco that managed to get some lower classes believe his bullshit and called himself theyre leader,is a genius-is automatically diagnosed as being mentally retarted =] and if you can tell what is true facts and what's communist propaganda,then try to look up some true fact on Nicholas ll
ZaJaClt 1 year ago
@tHeWasTeDYouTh yes because putting down a rebellion that sought to feed its people and give them their necessities is obviously something brave men do.
zexion4real 11 months ago
@zexion4real yes because the communist killed MILLIONS OF PEOPLE, shit the Czar and his system were not perfect but the communist did so many horrible things the Czar looks like an angel
Gulags, mass killings of people, your name would come up in Pravda and you and your entire family were killed
fuck communism
tHeWasTeDYouTh 11 months ago
@tHeWasTeDYouTh no fucking way in hell did the czar look like an angel, people loved lenin and he is still respected to this day. Stalin killed people, lenin killed white bastards who fought against the peoples desire to have a more SUFFICIENT FORM OF GOVERNMENT! POWER TO SOVIETS!
zexion4real 11 months ago
@zexion4real My friend, killings are never blessed by anyone. If those killings were not made those that you mention would continue to rule upon those days. They do not because nobody really respects them any more due to the killings comitted. The power of one resime cannot reside upon murders
milespearson2 11 months ago
@milespearson2 what about capitalism? they let their own people kill one another and did nothing of it and i do not see capitalism falling apart. look at the deep south of the U.S. before the civil rights movementl, and "gangsters" today. we know they kill, but you do nothing. so its ok for a natiuon to let civillians kill people for the hell of it, but when a nation does it to protect the nation and its people (for the most part excluding stalin) Its worse?
zexion4real 10 months ago
@zexion4real You are absoutely right. Who says that the "gangsters" are not falling appart. Look at the crisis. "Thou shall not kill" That's a very important commandment. No body can stay for long once associated with killings
milespearson2 10 months ago
@zexion4real
The Bolsheviks LOST the election to the Constituent Assembly, they did NOT enjoy popular support, Bolshevik troops fired on striking workers in Leningrad. Did the five MILLION Russians who starved to death in the famine caused by "War Communism" die "loving Lenin"? i think not! Lenin killed thousands of civilians, the "white bastards" fought for freedom.
TheTollundWoman 10 months ago
@zexion4real
The first thing Lenin did when he came to power was take power away from the workers' soviets and put it in the hands of the central committee of the Communist Party. Lenin was a dictator, far more repressive than any Tsar. The Tsars were saints compared to thugs like Lenin. The only people who still "respect" Lenin are murderers like Gaddafi.
TheTollundWoman 10 months ago
@TheTollundWoman oh, so thats why everyone followed lenin and didnt kill his ass or leave him to die like stalin. or better yet, thats why lenin is in a glass coffin in moscow so everyone could go see and admire him. because they hated him. makes perfect sense. *cough* SARCASM *cough*
zexion4real 9 months ago
P.N.Wrangel....undoubtly the most capable and competent general of white movement......evacuation of his army was one of the greatest military rescue operation you can compare just with Dunkirk one.
Maybe if he come to full power over volunter´s army in early phase of civil war, instead of it´s final phase....maybe today we have to talk about boshevik´s evacuation from Kronstadt :D
sezamovypucik 1 year ago
Wrangel was from sweden but had two barnches the swedish and the baltic, the swedish died in 17 th century but wrangel in the russian civil war was the last in the wrangel family .
odenviking 1 year ago
Makhno burnt churches made peace with German sponsored Bolsheviks then got bumped off what kind of a victory do you call that Katyushagirl?
stuartsob 1 year ago
Yeah Nestor Makhno kicked his ass across the Ukraine . . .
Katyushagirl 1 year ago
во всем виноваты жиды.
Kadet79RU 1 year ago
GLORY TO THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE!!!
kobyv555 1 year ago
@kobyv555 smatri kak eti slova zvu4at v gubah etih ljudej
youtube.com/watch?v=p1hmb8SRNbQ
AndriS1968 1 year ago
Death to bolsheviks!
vanhakelo94 1 year ago
A true nobel man and warrior!
wallentin76 1 year ago
Comment removed
illuminatiT 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's shame that Wrangel and other Whites leaders haven't fought arm to arm with Poles against bolsheviks. They haven't consent about Poland independence. Wrangel was OK, but others were retarded imperialists. If we achieve antisoviet coalition, there woudn't be commusism in our contries and possible WW2 neither. Poland and Russia could be two wealth and strong european countries today. RIP Mr General.
illuminatiT 1 year ago
Comment removed
illuminatiT 1 year ago
Comment removed
illuminatiT 1 year ago
Comment removed
illuminatiT 1 year ago
Слава генералу Петру Врангелю!!!
niklot1000 1 year ago
Великая личность!Беда России что поздно пришел.И пришел чтобы дать возможность достойно уйти(эвакуация).Как он управлял Крымом!Это бы Колчаку!Но не все было однозначно!И были коммунисты идеалисты использованные циниками.Подобные Шилову в "свой среди чужих".И Николай от престола во время войны отрекся!Имея феноменальную память,образование,манеры и прочее.Но не умевший убеждать!И разбираться.Врангель на мой взгляд в белом движении номер один.Но живи я в то время уж не знаю чью сторону бы выбрал.
shapir2010 1 year ago
да уж хороший был генерал
murzikaka 1 year ago
pytor nikolayevich wrangel, i will remember that hero all my life,
gueropalma1990 1 year ago
RIP!
SArcheology 1 year ago
you are funny. cool comment.
Rico8458 1 year ago
@MrTwiggy, As I can see you are German, so you consider Germany as undemocratic country and because of that you need democracy?
TheAntibolshevik 1 year ago
Бог да упокои душата му!
lachosf 1 year ago
вечная память
6yterat4uk 1 year ago
Thank you for reminding us about heroism of our White Officers. They should not be forgotten. They were the ones trying to save Russia from complete destruction, tyranny, golodomor and so on. I wonder if we have any monuments resurrected in Russia to those who died fighting for Russian on the right side .
Ivorybird09 1 year ago
russia needs a king.
Rico8458 1 year ago
@Rico8458 No one needs a king. Monarchy causes more trouble than a slut in a room full of Mormon guys.
MaoiMeowi2 1 year ago
Your poor sense of humor is not working. Unless you can offer an intelligent argument against monarchy don't bother wasting my time with your nonsense.
ImperialRussianGuard 1 year ago
@ImperialRussianGuard I'm not wasting your time, you're wasting your own time by reading it, especially since that comment wasn't meant for you. That wasn't humor, by the way.
MaoiMeowi2 1 year ago
@MaoiMeowi2 Since you want monarchy, I assume you have Romanov blood in you, or are related to one of the more wealthier pre-revolution families. Now, just because YOU'D have it good, doesn't mean the general population would. Peasants were oppressed under monarchies, and a lot of times, weren't even able to read. They'd have to pay taxes they couldn't pay. May I ask why you want a monarchy?
MaoiMeowi2 1 year ago
No you're wrong. I have no Romanov blood. I can see you you were brainwashed your whole life to assume that monarchy only benefits the wealthy. However reality is quite different. The average Russian was much better off under the Tsar than Communism or Democracy. I support monarchy since populist forms of government such as democracy and communism are based on emotions not rational decisions
ImperialRussianGuard 1 year ago
@ImperialRussianGuard Makes sense, as long as you have a good monarch. A person can make rational decisions, but what happens when they don't want to sped the money necessary to realize those decisions? What happens when the monarch is unfit to rule?
-
There was a reason for the Russian Revolution. For the French Revolution. For the American Revolution. The monarchs weren't making decisions that would be beneficial to everyone, only themselves.
MaoiMeowi2 1 year ago
The French revolution was caused due to a financial crisis. The Russian Revolution was caused War weariness of WWI. The funny thing is that both of them were constitutional monarchies when they happened. ANd I'm sure you the know the horrific end results of those experiments. The American revolution was not a revolt against the monarchy. It was against the taxes imposed by the British parliament. Many founding fathers such as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson advocated for Monarchy.
ImperialRussianGuard 1 year ago
@ImperialRussianGuard Don't call me brainwashed. There's a difference between that and simply not knowing. If I were brainwashed, I'd be calling you a stupid conservative who has absolutely no brain whatsoever.
MaoiMeowi2 1 year ago
Very well I will not. However then don't make ridiculous statements such as comparing a form of government to a slut in a room full of mormon men. It just sounds ridiculous .
ImperialRussianGuard 1 year ago
@ImperialRussianGuard It's not ridiculous. It's just illustrating how bad monarchies can go if the wrong person is in charge, as I said in my previous comment, but I don't know if you read it.
MaoiMeowi2 1 year ago
You're right it's not ridiculous. It's childish and immature. If you're going to make an analogy make one that at least make sense. What if the person who ran for president turns out to be a liar . What if the person who ran for president decides he doesn't want to step down. Then you have a situation like you have in Iran. Pre-1979 Iran was the 9th wealthiest country in the world.
ImperialRussianGuard 1 year ago
@ImperialRussianGuard Alright, I'll make one that makes sense. A monarchy is like a dysfunctional family- the parents don't pay attention to the kids, the kids get in trouble, and the parents don't help. How is that?
-
Kill a monarch, and their next of kin will continue their work. Kill a president, and you get a different person. Besides, there are rules in a successful presidency (although I wouldn't use that to describe this country in the past 2 decades).
MaoiMeowi2 1 year ago
I can see making analogies isn't of your strengths. This new analogy isn't any closer to reality than your last one. Where did you get the idea that monarchs don't pay attention to their people? Here this a more accurate analogy about Monarchy.A monarch in a country is a teacher in a class while a President is only the most popular(not most intelligent!) student.
ImperialRussianGuard 1 year ago
@ImperialRussianGuard No, no, BOTH of my analogies made perfect sense- the first one, a monarch causes a lot of trouble, and the second one, you got. I got that idea from every monarch who's lost power completely or partially because of a revolution.
-
Now, your analogy is bad, because you're implying the president makes his or her decisions under a monarch, and answers to that monarch, instead of being an independent leader. Wherever did you get that idea?
MaoiMeowi2 1 year ago
No your analogies make no sense. The first is just you trying to make a vulgar joke. The second is your attempt to sound witty. It's funny you accuse monarchs of being careless rulers because of Revolutions. Perhaps that's why the Russian provisional government only lasted 7 months while the Russian monarchy lasted 455 years. You have misread my analogy. If you read it you would understand that I am comparing having a president to having the most popular student in place of a teacher.
ImperialRussianGuard 1 year ago
@ImperialRussianGuard I just explained them. I can't help it if you have problems understanding what I said. And no, it wasn't a joke. The second worked as well as yours did.
-
Well, what I was saying was that if they were a good monarch (like Catherine the Great), that wouldn't have happened. I would believe in monarchies if all monarchs had the best interest of the people in mind instead of themselves.
MaoiMeowi2 1 year ago
You're analogies made no sense until you explained your intent behind them. Then the points didn't quite connect. However there are more important issues to argue about than analogies. Wait so you are blaming the weakness of the 1917 Russian Republic on Monarchy ? Let me ask you a question ? What percentage of politicians in the world honestly care about what's best for the people ? Not very high. So If you're concerned about what's best for the people why are you for democracy ?
ImperialRussianGuard 1 year ago
@ImperialRussianGuard I'm not. Where'd you get that idea? Because I'm American?
MaoiMeowi2 1 year ago
I asked this since you said revolutions happened because of the monarchs. I then asked you if you were you blaming the Bolshevik revolution on monarchy even though the October revolution occurred during a short lived republic. It has nothing to do with you being American.
ImperialRussianGuard 1 year ago
@ImperialRussianGuard As I said, monarchs would be good if they could be trusted with their power, no matter who they are. Otherwise, I agree with you that leaders should think about the future of their nation instead of the future of their ideology. However, when they start oppressing the people when it's not necessary, or when they start heavily taxing to fund their hobbies, it's a problem.
MaoiMeowi2 1 year ago
Well you're on the right track but you must understand that it is very difficult to do what is best for a nation in a republic. Often what must be done is not popular. So even if a politician actually wants to do what is best he probably won't get elected. If Russia was a Republic during the reign of Peter the Great then it's dominant language would be probably be Swedish by now. Even though Peter the Greats reforms were unpopular they were necessary.
ImperialRussianGuard 1 year ago
@ImperialRussianGuard Not what the people want, what they need. They need to be educated. They need to be guaranteed the ability to feed themselves. However, if people don't like something because it inconveniences them, they need to just live with it.
-
By the way, it was Peter the Great who wanted everyone to cut their beards off, correct? I don't see how that's necessary.
MaoiMeowi2 1 year ago
Peter the Great modernized Russia's army, built it's first fleet, defeated the Swedish empire and made Russia a major european superpower. It would not have been possible had Russia been a democracy." If people don't like something because it inconveniences them, they need to just live with it." That sounds very democratic of you. So you attack monarchy because you claim they don't have the best interest in of the people in mind. Then you say this. Someone is sounding like a hypocrite.
ImperialRussianGuard 1 year ago
@ImperialRussianGuard I didn't know about the Republic. Regardless, I believe in some principles of Democracy, but not a Democracy.
MaoiMeowi2 1 year ago
Perhaps you would be in favor of a Constitutional monarchy like that of the German Empire. In the German Empire the Kaiser could not oppress his people ,however there was not a tyranny of the majority. The Kaiser had serious power unlike many modern constitutional monarchs. The Crown and the Parliament kept one another in check.
ImperialRussianGuard 1 year ago
@ImperialRussianGuard I'd prefer a stateless society where everyone contributes to everyone else. However, since that won't happen for at least another millennium (or so I figure, considering societies' values get more liberal as time passes). In my life time, I'd like to live under a government similar to that of the USSR, but not so restrictive on personal freedoms.
MaoiMeowi2 1 year ago
From the way you are talking you sound like an Anarchist . Let me ask you something. What will happen if a stateless society is invaded ? How well will you're stateless society fare if it is invade by an organized army ? I can assure that it will not be well. A key for civilizations survival is an strong organized army. How will this happen in a society with no government ?
ImperialRussianGuard 1 year ago
@ImperialRussianGuard Eventually, the whole world would be like that. Remember how I said that would happen in time?
-
That's not the same as having the people's interest in mind. If a mother doesn't give her child candy when he or she wants it, does that mean she doesn't care about her child? I hope THAT analogy you understand. I'm not sounding like a hypocrite.
MaoiMeowi2 1 year ago
It's funny that you used that analogy since it present more of an argument for monarchy than anarchism.Since if one thinks about it Monarchy is much like it's family. If a father disciplines his children that does that mean he is a bad parent ? No ,it means he is dong what is best for his children. The same with monarchy. While in a democracy is like apathetic parents or parents who spoil their children.
ImperialRussianGuard 1 year ago
@ImperialRussianGuard Ugh. You said that I was a hypocrite because I thought people should be thought of primarily by their monarch, but not given what they want. I was illustrating the difference between want and need. That analogy had nothing whatsoever to do with my ideal society.
-
Well, you can ask a redneck that question. People here are armed to the teeth and the majority haven't even had combat training. That answers it, yes? Or need I spell it out?
MaoiMeowi2 1 year ago
First of all I didn't call you a hypocrite. I said you sounded like one. I said that because you were defending democracy then you said that if people don't like something than tough luck. A supporter of democracy would not say that. Democracy is a form of government of what the people want. While Monarchy is a form of government in which the nations interests are first.
ImperialRussianGuard 1 year ago
Also an army of untrained,unorganized,undisciplined rednecks who aren't led properly will have very little effect on a professional army. A bunch of angry men with rifles won't do much against tanks or helicopters. How does a stateless society maintain a serious army? Since you're in favor of anarchy surely you can enlighten me about how they maintain a serious army.
ImperialRussianGuard 1 year ago
@ImperialRussianGuard As I said before, I believe in some aspects of a Democracy, not a Democracy. I'm for what people need, not what they want.
-
Just because there isn't a state, doesn't mean there can't be tanks, helicopters, jets, and such. They'd be owned collectively, technically, although certain people would still be trained in their use, and naturally, everyone would defend each other.
MaoiMeowi2 1 year ago
What exact aspects of Democracy. Since you already stated that you dislike politicians and dislike the fact that it's based on what the people want? Where would get the money to maintain the tanks, train the men to use them and hire generals to command them? You can't tax them if it's a stateless society. You can't force people to pay for it in an anarchy. So how do you plan on maintaining these tanks and army?
ImperialRussianGuard 1 year ago
@ImperialRussianGuard This will sound contradictory, but it isn't. That said, the parts I like are the freedom to express your opinions (and form them) and the fact that the people instead of society's elite rule. Now, before you say anything, let me say this-the people must distinguish between what they want and need. They want big mansions, they need food. They want to be exempted from military service, but the country needs defense.
MaoiMeowi2 1 year ago
@ImperialRussianGuard Everything that would need to be bought would be traded for something those people, probably the metal workers, need. For example, they might need clothing, so you give them clothing. Other transactions like this occur if necessary, and you have everything you need. Men are instructed by previous tank crews. Commanders are picked from the population based on intelligence, then resume their lives when there isn't a war (unless, of course, they die).
MaoiMeowi2 1 year ago
@ImperialRussianGuard Sounds far-fetched, I know, that's why it can't happen at this point in time. By the way, go on some Glenn Beck video and say American Conservatives think too highly of their ability to use a gun. It would make for some interesting...*ahem*...conversation.
MaoiMeowi2 1 year ago
Also you haven't you still haven't answered my question about how an anarchy would defend itself against an organized army. How would an unorganized undisciplined army defend against a professional army?
ImperialRussianGuard 1 year ago
Also monarchs are raised to think strategically rather than ideologically. Politicians think ideologically not strategically. Monarchs do what must be done not what is popular. Peter the Greats reforms were not popular. Politicians are often scared to do what must be done since they are scared of losing votes. Also they are not willing to make necessary decisions that would go against their ideology.
ImperialRussianGuard 1 year ago
@ImperialRussianGuard You didn't elaborate on what you meant your analogy to mean, so I read it as you wrote it. You never said the student would take the teacher's place.