@killerberdo I actually though this documentary was very un-biased... if anything it explained the Soviet's view points clearly... What were you watching? (BTW I am part Russian and I am a Historian- I am now studying Eastern European History extensively. I can tell you that this IS a pretty good documentary.)
The West send 109,000 troops in 1919 to fight the bolsheviks and they have the audacity to talk about Soviet agression, they funded the rise of fascism in countries which happend to have popular Socialist parties, and they talk about spreading democracy ! the Soviet Union with all its negativities is a midget in Hypocrisy compared to the west !
That's a hell of a lot of negatives for them sick soviets lol. Independent to the republic is how every country should stand. Shouldn't allow some communist dictator to use armies to take over Independent countries. Can you lead me in the direction for what America has supported that support fascism and socialism? Funny seeing how America practices both Socialism and Fascism now. They might call it democracy but it is what it is.
This documentary is flawed and twisted, typical of most West-made documentaries on the Cold War. The USSR did not care about England, much less Canada or Australia, by the end of ww2 they became USA´s lapdogs. Stalin feared ZERO from England, only the U.S. mattered. Of course the USSR had massive losses during ww2, what i am saying is put the U.S. Army or any other Western army to fight in the streets of Stalingrad for 1 day, and they are out of the war the next morning. Period.
@vonkaunaz Why did Stalin give way to Churchill's demands about influence in Greece if he didn't feel that the British were still a threat? Britain was still a Great power for a short time after the war, it's only when the Suez crisis happened that the game was up for the British. Britain came out of the war re-armed, with it's commonwealth by it's side, though economically ruined, she and France combined had a powerful presence in Germany and an intellegence network the soviets feared.
@manicbabyshambles123 " Why did Stalin give way to Churchill's demands about influence in Greece if he didn't feel that the British were still a threat? Britain was still a Great power for a short time after the war, it's only when the Suez crisis happened that the game was up for the British." -Nonsense, Stalin prioritised,Greece was not at the top of his list. He had no intention of going for Greece so to "giving it up" in exchange4 accepting soviet influence in other parts was a double win.
@Staplesz this is a Gorbachev era doc. Gorby was in the process of trying to end the cold war for good as the USSR was falling apart from the inside. the only way to end the War was to court the opponent, as hardball was not an option.
that being said, it became apparent to me that the youtube user that claimed to be behind the production in the above description, offered nothing of the same calibur - and probably had nothing to do with it. So, any name would be helpful.
On a more relevant note.... Does anyone know of an other documentary productions authored by the same director/writer? It was very well composed, the perspectives and conclusions were well supported, and I am definately interested to see more of their work!
Churchill was the real "Niger in the wood-pile", he had from day one been in the vangard of the White-Army of bandits that invaded Russia after WWI. It is interesting that the same list of country that had been part of this bunch of pirates or funded them then after WWII became "satellites" of Russia - part of it's sphere of influence or were "neutralize" -in the case of Finland.
I see the revisionists and misinformation brigade have been at work. After the Nagasaki Strike ( a mile off target) the US has another 7 bombs already to go in the Pacific and another and t parts for another 5 back in the US.The USSR achieved it's stunning victories over the Nazi/Hun invader in part thanks to British/American supplies at the critical 1941-1942 phase. Spitfire Squadron to defend Moscow. They learned by copying what they were sent and they were our allies - least we forget!
@F4foxbravo995 Exactly. There was that famous case of THREE B-29's that had to make an emergency landing on a Soviet controlled island. The crew were taken off and sent back to us, but they took the B-29 LITERALLY apart, COMPLETELY, photographing every single rivet, screw, etc., and cloned the thing. It became the TU-4.
Until then, the USSR had no long range bombers that could EVEN POTENTIALLY reach the US with atomic weapons. The very poorly made copies looked good and that was about it.
Although interesting, these documentaries can not avoid the pro-West smell. "For real or imaginary reasons the West may have overestimated Soviet military strenght..." Following WW2 the USSR had the largest military force in the world; and it wasn´t only about numbers: they were experienced, BATTLE HARDENED in massive military operations. Had the U.S. Army and the Red Army battled in the late 1940s or the 50s, the Soviets would have steamed rolled over the US forces.
@vonkaunaz Very unlikely. US military equipment was far superior in their capability. And you are ignoring one huge advantage that the US had in the late 40's or the 50's.
We had nuclear weapons that we could deliver anywhere in the Soviet Union. The Soviets lagged far behind the US in this area, and never really had the capability to hit the US itself until the 60's.
So, your prediction that the Soviets rolling over US forces is completely wrong. They would have been atom bombed to hell.
@Zentrails : After the 2nd atom bomb dropped on Japan,the U.S. didn´t have any left. It also took them quite a few years to be capable of hitting the USSR. In ww2 the USSR had weapons that were FAR superior to anything fielded by the U.S.: tanks,artillery,guns; many gifted captains -Zhukov, Koniev and Rokossovsky. And a critical issue: the inability of the U.S. to take high losses. They were shocked with losses in Tarawa: wait for the results of an earthquake-like Soviet artillery-rocket barrage
Look, I know this is from a LONG time ago, but I just don't agree with you.
The USSR had MASSIVE losses during ww2.
The fact that the US was on both sides of Russia's border and the fact that not only the US, but also Britain, Canada and Australia were anti communist, made the Russians VERY warry of their actions.
Stalin was pissing his pants for another war because he KNEW he couldn't live through another one.
@Zentrails your wrong the soviets had in 1949 a nuclear bomb and in the late 40s they could nuke the US aswell why else were they called a world superpower? and in the 60-70s erea they could destroy NATO and than they began to collapse.
@jijdom you got it ass backwards, in the late 40's the soviets did not had the capabillity to strategically nuke nato, they were having problems with the missiles range and aiming systems, so they had to cover this up, this is the reason they tried putting missiles on cuba, as time went on the soviets became more and more on par with the americans, of course nobody knew the problems the russians were having so M.A.D was the main deterant
@vonkaunaz By the way, the notion of us only having 2 atom bombs is completely wrong. After Nagasaki, we were prepared to drop about one new one every three weeks or so.
Meanwhile, the USSR had NO aircraft carriers, has NEVER had any blue water aircraft carriers, in fact, not really much of a Navy at all.
The MAIN reason Truman dropped atom bombs on the two populated areas was to scare the bejesus out of Stalin who had "declared war" on Japan just a few weeks prior. He succeeded.
@killerberdo I actually though this documentary was very un-biased... if anything it explained the Soviet's view points clearly... What were you watching? (BTW I am part Russian and I am a Historian- I am now studying Eastern European History extensively. I can tell you that this IS a pretty good documentary.)
gothika0akaisha 6 days ago
This was just as bad as the holocaust
ChernobylOfficial 1 month ago
is there a documentary which isn't biased? this seems to be more towards western side.
killerberdo 1 month ago
@killerberdo no there really isn't because they are made by people and people have an agenda and their owns truths
MrROTD 1 month ago
01:10 one man is missing lol?!
TheSuperComments 1 month ago
pue communism just doesn`t work, social democracy does.
Spatalian007 2 months ago
@Spatalian007 Communism works xD
It has worked pretty much all the times.
XtruxtioN 1 week ago
apparently, you have no idea about what USSR is.... you just listen or read west-side of the story. Try to read from another sources too.....
slymnnzii 3 months ago
Oligarchy in all its forms is the true enemy of the people.
Marspyramids 3 months ago
The West send 109,000 troops in 1919 to fight the bolsheviks and they have the audacity to talk about Soviet agression, they funded the rise of fascism in countries which happend to have popular Socialist parties, and they talk about spreading democracy ! the Soviet Union with all its negativities is a midget in Hypocrisy compared to the west !
truesemite 4 months ago
That's a hell of a lot of negatives for them sick soviets lol. Independent to the republic is how every country should stand. Shouldn't allow some communist dictator to use armies to take over Independent countries. Can you lead me in the direction for what America has supported that support fascism and socialism? Funny seeing how America practices both Socialism and Fascism now. They might call it democracy but it is what it is.
username0727 1 month ago
This documentary is flawed and twisted, typical of most West-made documentaries on the Cold War. The USSR did not care about England, much less Canada or Australia, by the end of ww2 they became USA´s lapdogs. Stalin feared ZERO from England, only the U.S. mattered. Of course the USSR had massive losses during ww2, what i am saying is put the U.S. Army or any other Western army to fight in the streets of Stalingrad for 1 day, and they are out of the war the next morning. Period.
vonkaunaz 5 months ago 2
@vonkaunaz Why did Stalin give way to Churchill's demands about influence in Greece if he didn't feel that the British were still a threat? Britain was still a Great power for a short time after the war, it's only when the Suez crisis happened that the game was up for the British. Britain came out of the war re-armed, with it's commonwealth by it's side, though economically ruined, she and France combined had a powerful presence in Germany and an intellegence network the soviets feared.
manicbabyshambles123 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@manicbabyshambles123 " Why did Stalin give way to Churchill's demands about influence in Greece if he didn't feel that the British were still a threat? Britain was still a Great power for a short time after the war, it's only when the Suez crisis happened that the game was up for the British." -Nonsense, Stalin prioritised,Greece was not at the top of his list. He had no intention of going for Greece so to "giving it up" in exchange4 accepting soviet influence in other parts was a double win.
vdotme 1 week ago
@vonkaunaz Americans don't have to fight you directly to win. That's the genius of Cold Warriors like Truman, Kennedy, and Reagan.
JudgeGrif 2 months ago
@JudgeGrif Yeah but Reagan did fight them directly
marcsman229 2 months ago
do you have a contact email ?
MamboFilmProject 5 months ago
the lives of billions in the hands of a phew.....
Pete1987pl 6 months ago
It's a great video.
flowewritharoma 6 months ago
All the world's a stage.
ManSmokingACigarette 9 months ago 8
@ManSmokingACigarette
It's all just a big game.
FriedNugget 9 months ago
@FriedNugget
Yup.
ManSmokingACigarette 9 months ago
this was very well done I suppose, but I am confused by the 'courtship' a bit.
Staplesz 11 months ago
@Staplesz this is a Gorbachev era doc. Gorby was in the process of trying to end the cold war for good as the USSR was falling apart from the inside. the only way to end the War was to court the opponent, as hardball was not an option.
vdotme 9 months ago
bs
schwabe7143 11 months ago
that being said, it became apparent to me that the youtube user that claimed to be behind the production in the above description, offered nothing of the same calibur - and probably had nothing to do with it. So, any name would be helpful.
oilchart 1 year ago
On a more relevant note.... Does anyone know of an other documentary productions authored by the same director/writer? It was very well composed, the perspectives and conclusions were well supported, and I am definately interested to see more of their work!
oilchart 1 year ago
Churchill was the real "Niger in the wood-pile", he had from day one been in the vangard of the White-Army of bandits that invaded Russia after WWI. It is interesting that the same list of country that had been part of this bunch of pirates or funded them then after WWII became "satellites" of Russia - part of it's sphere of influence or were "neutralize" -in the case of Finland.
F4foxbravo995 1 year ago
I see the revisionists and misinformation brigade have been at work. After the Nagasaki Strike ( a mile off target) the US has another 7 bombs already to go in the Pacific and another and t parts for another 5 back in the US.The USSR achieved it's stunning victories over the Nazi/Hun invader in part thanks to British/American supplies at the critical 1941-1942 phase. Spitfire Squadron to defend Moscow. They learned by copying what they were sent and they were our allies - least we forget!
F4foxbravo995 1 year ago
@F4foxbravo995 Exactly. There was that famous case of THREE B-29's that had to make an emergency landing on a Soviet controlled island. The crew were taken off and sent back to us, but they took the B-29 LITERALLY apart, COMPLETELY, photographing every single rivet, screw, etc., and cloned the thing. It became the TU-4.
Until then, the USSR had no long range bombers that could EVEN POTENTIALLY reach the US with atomic weapons. The very poorly made copies looked good and that was about it.
Zentrails 1 year ago
Although interesting, these documentaries can not avoid the pro-West smell. "For real or imaginary reasons the West may have overestimated Soviet military strenght..." Following WW2 the USSR had the largest military force in the world; and it wasn´t only about numbers: they were experienced, BATTLE HARDENED in massive military operations. Had the U.S. Army and the Red Army battled in the late 1940s or the 50s, the Soviets would have steamed rolled over the US forces.
vonkaunaz 1 year ago
@vonkaunaz Very unlikely. US military equipment was far superior in their capability. And you are ignoring one huge advantage that the US had in the late 40's or the 50's.
We had nuclear weapons that we could deliver anywhere in the Soviet Union. The Soviets lagged far behind the US in this area, and never really had the capability to hit the US itself until the 60's.
So, your prediction that the Soviets rolling over US forces is completely wrong. They would have been atom bombed to hell.
Zentrails 1 year ago
@Zentrails : After the 2nd atom bomb dropped on Japan,the U.S. didn´t have any left. It also took them quite a few years to be capable of hitting the USSR. In ww2 the USSR had weapons that were FAR superior to anything fielded by the U.S.: tanks,artillery,guns; many gifted captains -Zhukov, Koniev and Rokossovsky. And a critical issue: the inability of the U.S. to take high losses. They were shocked with losses in Tarawa: wait for the results of an earthquake-like Soviet artillery-rocket barrage
vonkaunaz 1 year ago 4
@vonkaunaz Sir! You just earned a thumb up!
SovietLenin1 9 months ago
@vonkaunaz
Look, I know this is from a LONG time ago, but I just don't agree with you.
The USSR had MASSIVE losses during ww2.
The fact that the US was on both sides of Russia's border and the fact that not only the US, but also Britain, Canada and Australia were anti communist, made the Russians VERY warry of their actions.
Stalin was pissing his pants for another war because he KNEW he couldn't live through another one.
FriedNugget2 5 months ago
@Zentrails your wrong the soviets had in 1949 a nuclear bomb and in the late 40s they could nuke the US aswell why else were they called a world superpower? and in the 60-70s erea they could destroy NATO and than they began to collapse.
jijdom 7 months ago
@jijdom i had this argument with a coworker...the soviets new about the manhatten project..
Pete1987pl 6 months ago
@jijdom you got it ass backwards, in the late 40's the soviets did not had the capabillity to strategically nuke nato, they were having problems with the missiles range and aiming systems, so they had to cover this up, this is the reason they tried putting missiles on cuba, as time went on the soviets became more and more on par with the americans, of course nobody knew the problems the russians were having so M.A.D was the main deterant
TheTerrorsquad69 5 months ago
@vonkaunaz By the way, the notion of us only having 2 atom bombs is completely wrong. After Nagasaki, we were prepared to drop about one new one every three weeks or so.
Meanwhile, the USSR had NO aircraft carriers, has NEVER had any blue water aircraft carriers, in fact, not really much of a Navy at all.
The MAIN reason Truman dropped atom bombs on the two populated areas was to scare the bejesus out of Stalin who had "declared war" on Japan just a few weeks prior. He succeeded.
Zentrails 1 year ago
6rdranyamHILETTUCEHIOCTOBER19
9:2211:51SHORTLYBEFOREMCINME
2:29pm Tuesday (CDT) - Time n MISS
9:2211:51SHORTLYBEFOREMCINME
6rdranyamHILETTUCEHIOCTOBER19
GelandnaleG 1 year ago
don't blink, they rattle off things that seem important really fast some times.
maynardr6 1 year ago
Very intersting and informative. Thanks a lot for uploading this ;).
BoTTeNBR 1 year ago
Informative and thought provoking. Thanks...
Balkanlar 1 year ago
Really interesting, thx.
bartholomewmoore 1 year ago
General Winter,defender of the motherland :)
monsterlandy 1 year ago
great video just setting a bookmark so i can watch the rest later 0:40:00
kieran3000 2 years ago 2