Added: 3 years ago
From: ricoalexander
Views: 366,106
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (1,485)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • who cares..we're just insignificant specs of dust in a rock falling through space!!

  • Революция много изменила в России. И не только в ней. Хотя, что вам, Американцам... Россия славилась самой кровавой историей, начиная с нашествия Татаро-Монгольского ига. Смута, интервенция, гражданские воины, мировые воины - другие бы давно сошли с ума... Слава Богу, что человек живет всего лишь один век.

  • Check out my DAPPY parody!!! Just click on my channel and its there :P (dippy) naiiiii!

  • I wish people in the west Had the balls to strike and show the government what power the working class holds!

  • This documentary is pretty simplistic. Like a bottle of fizzy water that's been shaken and the tops come off? Careful there, you're confusing me with all those big words. Please, dumb it down a little for me.

  • socialism another great con job

  • who narrated this?

  • These Bolsheviks raped and killed Russian Princess

  • @casperblack30 you forgot capitalists like you rape and kill iraqis and arabs.

  • @dannymaclure1 She was a princess of your country. This is not a way to treat a in-line to head of state.I think Stalin was responsible for killings.Its unfortunate for Russia. Raping,killing are done by every major army. Our common enemy are Arabs and Muslims, they are taking over countries by demographic war. we must teach them a lesson

  • @casperblack30 im a capitalist and you are SICK. there not just arabs or muslims, THEIR PEOPLE.

  • @siverhawkproductions I am talking about Islamisation of Europe.

  • russian histor y was a failure that country is a mafia states i wish u prik attak taiwan and see wat happen. a joke of a country we should help the czar and b headed lenin

  • The actual # killed in WWII was more than 90 million.WWI killed 55 million.The 1918 flu pandemic added another 120 million.Korea 20 million, Vietnam 8 million, China under Mau 165 million, PolPot 50 million.Stalin's gulags 225 million.

  • @sallymaggiespotty "Stalin's gulags 225 million" ... I think you made a typo... either that or you are mislead.

  • @sallymaggiespotty You fail. Give us the link and the proof of it.

  • @sallymaggiespotty you meant casualties. Being wounded is considered a casualty. There weren't 90 million dead, or 55 million dead, but those numbers of casualties.

  • yea right. bbc telling russian history xD EPIC FAIL. ALL RUSSIAN THAT READ THIS!!! U ALL SHOULD BE PROUD OF REVOLUTION!!! U MADE WORLD A BETTER PLACE!!! dont trust BBC. i wonder why they dont show UK COURT HAVING INCEST ORGIES ON OPIUM FORM CHINA??? READ OLIVER TWIST IF U DONT BELIVE ME, he is and britz

  • Comment removed

  • It adds to the Russian atmosphere if you put the snowflake thing on while watching this.

  • @HiTunes4 excellent idea!

  • Lies,lies......

  • The video is full of lies and propaganda.

  • God Save the Tsar and his family

  • @fantomx21 You mean the same one, that oppressed his people and took their food, so he can fund his stupid war? THREE times in a row?

  • @rimlanin Nicholas 2 was much better than the Bolsheviks, the Russian government was the major importer of grain and the Communists broke hladomor.Bolsheviks had no right to brutally murder his Ordino that for nothing nemohla.Jeho daughters were stabbed with bayonets.

  • @rimlanin sory my english is very bad

  • bolshevik=bullshit

  • it was good, stalin gave it a bad name.

  • Fuck all the reacionary bullshit, the October revolution was a working class uprising LED by the bolsheviks, who gained support, as the Provisional Government was nothing but a Tsar-enabled installment that refused to follow the demands of the populace. Viva la revolucion and thanks for the video!!!

  • what is the music at the beginning it sounds so cool .

  • Watch my videos I'm starting a dictatorship, come join

  • The World needs a new revolution against the current power of business! A socialist revolution for the whole world!

  • @Nightmonkey17 From what I've seen, any type of government will eventually become corrupt. Anarchy seems the only way. Or possibly Anarcho-communism...But who knows =\

  • @SavageArms357 annarco-syndicalism

    

  • @SavageArms357 Anarcho-Communism that Follows Marx's books. The only real way of communism.

  • @MrMcGale Anarcho-Communism isn't Communism. Its simple anarchy, which means destruction, chaos and disorder. We saw the paris commune.

  • @rimlanin Anarcho-Communism is Marxism. Marx was the father of communism, and Communism is a stateless, Classless, equal, democratic society. Also, the Paris Commune was a fail at start, even without communism.

    Wrong. Google "Free Territory". A working Anarcho-Communist society, and the only one that's been established.

  • @MrMcGale Marxism is obsolete. The only working part of it is the "equality" form. Communism is a Communist State, directed by a single-party, where order is kept. There is no anarchist society. Get a political map of the world. Point to me ONE TINY LITTLE land mass, where there is no authority.

  • @rimlanin Somalia?

  • @GZVidz There is authority in Somalia, it just ins't enforced properly, which allows a whole bunch of rebels, criminals, pirates and brigdans to ravage the population. Take away the state and that is what anarchy would look like - death and destruction.

  • @rimlanin Marxism is the only true Communism, since he's the one who basically invented Communism. A communist nation must first be ruled by the people(populations, masses, everyone), and have a Government which does everything the people say. This is called Democracy. What USSR had was Stalinism and State Capitalism.

    Communist Anarchy and Capitalist Anarchy. There is a big difference. In Communist Anarchy, there are rules, laws and communes. In CapAnarchy, there is only chaos.

  • @MrMcGale He invented it, but it is no longer in use. Democracy is destruction. Democracy makes a nation weak and stupid. State power should rest within a single, capable, ambitious and benevolent person and a few other content people, to form a council to make sure that one person keeps following the people's interests. Soviets would allow people to make SUGGESTIONS to the government (and some limited self-management , they don't control it, if they do, we get corruption.

  • @rimlanin That's too easily abused though. That's why communism doesn't work, because there will always be the one smart asshole who ruins everything.

  • @hagamablabla It depends how it is set up. You need to set it up just right, if you let just a little slack slide, you will allow it to be corrupted.

  • @rimlanin So obviously North Korea and China were founded with authoritative communism, but what about Soviet Russia? Where was the slack there?

  • @hagamablabla China was founded upon the principles of Soviet communism at first, although they chose a different path to revolution and later on split from it, creating Chineese communism. N.Korea was built upon the idea of juche and stands firm to this day. The USSR, after the october revolution was an authoritarian, communist state.

  • @rimlanin

    If I remember correctly communists in the 60s used to say how only Mao was a true marxist while rest of the chinese leadership set race or rather chinese world domination over marxist principles thus the conflicts with India and USSR plus disagreements with Yugoslavia.

  • @rimlanin I do not agree with that. Democracy(E.G People's Dictatorship by it's other name). The bigger the government, the more socialist it is. There should be a vanguard party(A huge one) that follows the needs of the people, and will lead the nation to a point where a state is not needed. Communism would abolish the need for politics, crimes, police and all that, since it would create a utopia.

  • This was submitted on my birthday. :) Anyways, thanks, This really helped me and is really informative! Thanks for submitting!

  • What's the opening theme song? :D!

  • just beautiful

  • it was not revolution.it was a robbery of our Empire.

  • @arthurshrek It was a robbery from those that robbed their entire life. From imperialists, who took from the people. Who they labled "serfs". Yes, there were some Tsars that cared about their people, that prioritized their nation, but most weren't like that. They fought for coin and lands, not for their people. This gave them a nice reality check and established the people's dream.

  • lol hey look the wall-street protesters

  • The more you believe, that Poland is Russia the worse for educational system in Australia.

    Nobody blames Australia for clashes between tribes, say, in New Zealand.

  • Spare me your paranoid conspiracy theories.

    I never denied that the main players were Jewish. I suppose you'll tell me Hitler's real name was Schickelgruber and that he was Jewish too. If you look far enough, lots of people have Jewish ancestry.

    You're not only trying to make a case that it was a Jewish conspiracy but that they were all homosexual as well.

    If that doesn't ring alarm bells in the minds of sensible people, nothing will.

    Done with you.

  • @Camerameister1

    Romania's government was Communist and 90% Jewish.

    Just a "coincidence" though, never, just like in America, Jews are 2% of the population and forbes magazine recorded they make up over 50% of the country's billionaires and own up to 80% of the media and hollywood, and AIPAC is the biggest lobby, and for 2% of the population, instead of having 2 senators they have 10.

    All just a "Conspiracy though" nothing to see here, they've always been inoccent, ask Palestine. :)

    HERP DERP

  • @CelticAngloPress Distrust of Jews in Russia was universal. Pogroms were common. A Jewish oligarchy would not have been tolerated, even though the anti-Bolshevik uprisings, like the Kronstadt sailors, did not succeed.

    The comparison with Palestine is ludicrous because Israel was founded specifically as a Jewish state. Russia was not.No religion of any stripe promoted. It was actively discouraged.

  • @Camerameister1 . Brudburry in toutube. There were no pogroms in Russia since Jews didn't live in Russia. Same, as Sepoys and Sikhs never  lived in England.

  • @pskovityanin Yeah, the survivors left.

    I don't believe you. I have seen too much evidence to the contrary.

  • @Camerameister1 .Is Australia is England? Than Poland is not Russia. All claims in Warsaw.

  • @pskovityanin Rubbish.

    Spare me the nationalist denial.

  • @pskovityanin "Than Poland is not Russia."

    I never said it was.

  • @Camerameister1 "I never said it was."

    No. It was factically the thought, u wrote in your previous posts.

  • @pskovityanin Certainly wasn't intended that way.

  • @Camerameister1 Maybe u wasn't intended, but it was u, who wrote "in Russia was universal.-- were common."

    So ethnical clashes in Poland (where no one russian lived) you call clashes in Russia.

    Why? With what purpose? Geographical ignorance? Or maybe something else?

  • It's no secret that when the Bolsheviks in Russia, a coup and seized power, why then the vast majority of all the important positions in the government immediately took the Jews! Cheka led by Jews, Red Army, too, and most of the chiefs of the Soviet Jews were konslageley too. And those damn Reptilians made​a real genocide Russian people as a result of which was destroyed in the first years of Soviet power in the Civil War, the Red Terror, politics kolektivizatsii occurred which....

  • @Vladislav9151 The vast majority of Bosheviks were not Jewish. A high percentage of the Boshevik leadership was. I refuse to believe that it was anything more than a coincidence. Under the Tsar there had been an awful lot of pogroms against Jewish settlements and they even received tacit support from him in many cases. It should be pointed out that a lot of contemporary history, even that report you referred to earlier, is necessarily skewed because of the attitudes to Jews at the time.

  • @Camerameister1 It should be noted that the former Soviet camps * have arisen during the Civil War. The initiator of the establishment was Leon Trotsky (Leiba Davidovitch Bronstein), which is August 4, 1918 in Vologda gubvoenkomu telegram stated: "The conclusion of suspect in concentration camps is a necessary condition for success" ("Military History Journal", 1989, № 8,. 53). Trotsky supported Lenin addressed to the chairman of the Penza regional committee of the RCP (B.) Eugenia...

  • Commissariat of Internal Affairs (ie, the shootings) 1. The People's Commissar - Apfelbaum (Zinoviev). A Jew. This - the same Zinoviev, who was hiding in a hut with Lenin on Razliv. And now, at a memorial built Razliv, but there is no mention of that in a tent with Lenin and Zinoviev hid, which was practically a homosexual partner, Lenin 2. His assistant - Chief of the Emergency Committee - Radomyslsky (Uritsky). A Jew. This is - the main terrorist red Petrograd.

  • military commissariat 1. The Commissioner Army and Navy - Bronstein (Trotsky). A Jew. 2. Chairman of the Revolutionary Army Staff of the North - Fishman. A Jew. 3. The Commissioner of the Military Court of the 12th Army - Romm. A Jew. 4. Political commissar of the 12th Army - Metchick. A Jew. 5. Political commissar of the Staff of the 4th Army - Livenson. A Jew. 6. Chairman of the Board armies on the Western Front - Pozern. A Jew.

  • The members of the Petrograd Extraordinary Commission (Cheka) . Meynkman. A Jew. . Giller. A Jew. . Kozlowski. Polyak. . The model. A Jew. . I. Rozmirovich. Jewess. . Diesperov. Armenian. . Iselevich. A Jew.

  • Blumkin security officer. Jew This is the one who shot the German Ambassador Mirbach. Lenin vowed to track down and punish the murderer. But look for him there was nothing. He was head of department at the Dzerzhinsky. And his office was one floor below the cabinet Dzerzhinsky.

  • The Commissariat of Finance 1. The People's Commissar - Merzhvinsky. Polyak. 2. His assistant - Don Nightingale. A Jew. 3. Commissioner - Isidore Gukovskii. A Jew. 4. His assistant - Axelrod. A Jew. 5. Director of the Office - Sax (Gladnev). A Jew. 6. Director of the Office - Bogolepov. Russian

    

  • Members of the Technical Committee on the Elimination of private banks 24. Eliashevich. A Jew. 25. G. Giftlih. A Jew. 26. A. Rogov. A Jew. 27. G. Lemaire. A Jew. 28. A. Rosenstein. A Jew. 29. A. Platt. Lett. Total - from 29 people: Jews - 24; Latvians - 2 Russian - 2 Poles - 1. This - all Jewish thugs, robbing the Russian people.

  • The Commissariat of Justice 1. The People's Commissar - J. Steinberg. A Jew. This Jew, in the mid 20s, fled the Soviet Union to America and lived here in New York. On it was written in the Jewish newspaper "The New Russian Word" - say, my dear comrade Steinberg lives there and he's a good Jew. And it was, so to speak, the head terrorist of Justice. He was there engaged in executions, but here - good good Jew.

  • 2.Komissar Cassation Department - Schroeder. A Jew.

    Hence, Steinberg issued verdicts. Man tried to complain and got to Schroeder, another Jew

    3. Chairman of the Moscow Revolutionary Tribunal - J. Berman. A Jew.

    It should be borne in mind that in those days, the main punishment was execution. I think that 90% of prisoners were shot. At the time of revolutionary consciousness in a hurry, hurry on the list of drive to be shot.

  • 4. The Commissioner of the Senate in Petrograd - Beer. A Jew. 5. President of the Supreme Revolutionary Committee of the Republic - Bronstein-Trotsky. A Jew. 6. Chairman of the Commission of Inquiry by the Revolutionary Tribunal - Gluzman. A Jew. 7. Investigator of the same Tribunal - Legendorf. A Jew. 8. Investigator of the same Tribunal - Slutsky. A Jew. 9. The Prosecutor of the Tribunal - Friedkin. A Jew.

  • Employees of newspapers: "The Truth", "Izvestia", "Finance and the economy." 1. Deanne. A Jew. 2. Bergman. A Jew. 3. Kun. A Jew. 4. Duamant. A Jew. 5. A. Bramson. A Jew. 6. A. Torbert. A Jew. 7. IV Golin. A Jew. 8. Bitner. A Jew. 9. E. Alperovich. A Jew. 10. Kloyzner. A Jew. 11. Nahamkes (glass). A Jew. 12. Tsiger (Ilyin). A Jew. 13. Grossman (Rosin). A Jew. 14. Lurie (Rumyantsev). A Jew. 15. Maxim Gorky. Russian.

  • Each and every one - the Jews. The only Russian in the company - Maxim Gorky But Gorky was bo-o-olshoy eccentric. At the age of 35 years, he fathered 19-year-old Jew. Took him as his adopted son. This - the usual focus homosexuals. 35-year-old homosexual adopts a 19-year old bugger. Such cases the mass.

  • The main economic council 1. Chairman of the Moscow Council - Rykov. Russian. 2. Chairman of the Petrograd Soviet - Eismont. A Jew. 3. Vice-chairman of the Petrograd Soviet - Landeman. A Jew. 4. Director of the Petrograd Soviet - Kreynis. A Jew.

     5. Vice-Chairman of the Moscow Council - Krassikov. A Jew.

  • We'll see a list of diplomats of the USSR in Europe: 1. United Kingdom - May (nee Steinman) Ivan Mikhailovich. A Jew. 2. Germany - Jacob Z. Surits. A Jew. 3. Italy - Stein Nemtsov. A Jew. 4. Austria - Lorenz Arkady. A Jew. 5. Belgium - Rubinin Eugine. A Jew. 6. Greece - Michael Kobetsky Veniaminovich. A Jew. 7. Romania - Moses S. Ostrovsky. A Jew. 8. Lithuania - Alexander A. Kars. A Jew. 9. Norway - Yakubovich Ignatius Moiseevich. A Jew. Latvia - Leon. Brodovsky A. jew

  • And now the Soviet Government (9 commissars, and 12 deputies - the Jews) 1. The People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs - Maxim Litvinov (Meyer Wallach Finkelstein). 2. The People's Commissar of Internal Affairs - Henry G. Iegoda. 3. People's Commissar for Foreign Trade - Rosengoltz Arkady Pavlovich. 4. The People's Commissar of Internal Trade - Veytser Israel Yakovlevich. 5. The People's Commissar of Railways - Lazar Kaganovich Moiseevich

  • I could continue this list for a long time and believe Russian or Ukrainians, Belorussians, and Tatars, there will be no more, they took very different positions - they were slaves in the Gulag, or have already been killed this Jew power.

  • Of course we didn't managed to take Yermak and few others simply because it was no on our reach. Understand? I meant that any possible icebreaker park on our harbours we managed to take. At least all significant ones. We certainly did more to stop the russian Baltic fleet from evacuating than the anti-german estonians did.

  • Not saying that if the navy had been with Yudenich and rebelled against the bolsheviks in 1919 and not two years later the whites would have won. Just like I don't believe if germans had managed to capture Leningradin in 1941 it would have assured victory. Lenin was already in Moscow. Baku and other such places were more important. Petrograd only had symbolic value. I am sure Frunze and others would have eventually managed to retake it. Reclaim it even despite the navy.

  • Under the leadership of Fuhrer Adolf Hitler Germany restored its glory. Only Stalin disapointed his western sugar daddys by making a deal with Hitler. I personally believe it was at least first all about Poland. Hitler did not want war with the capitalist democratic West or the anti-capitalist Soviet Union. Western industrialists must have been overjoyed when Mr.Adolf attacked his anti-capitalist anti-democratic ally.

  • @BENNYSIEGEL90 The Polish nationalists were a thorn in the side of the various revolutionary governments, just as the Ukrainian nationalists were. While there was little advantage to keeping Poland, there were still those, like Stalin, who kept their eye open to an opportunity the re-establish Russian authority there.

    Parts of Poland were still considered "Prussian" and therefore of considerable interest to German nationalists, since she lost them in WWI. See "Tannenberg" for more.

  • The Cossacks weren't traditionally loyal to the Tsar. they were part of numerous revolutions against the upper classes and nobility long before this. This documentary is terrible and shows none of the buildup over the prior decades nor the entirety of problems the peasants faced that lead them to accept the radical ideas of the Bolsheviks.

  • @downedcoyote1 "The Cossacks weren't traditionally loyal to the Tsar. they were part of numerous revolutions against the upper classes and nobility long before this."

    The Cossaks as a culture may have been hostile to the nobility but their soldiers were the traditional terror weapon of the Tsarist Army.

  • THIS SHIT IS COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA!!!!

  • Fuck socialism.

  • lets be serious whos got the history exam and this is the most ya can be fucked doing lol

  • @jeeezzzaaa hahhaha me

  • Ive got a fucking history exam tomorrow on the French and Russian so thank you sincerely for putting this up.

  • jews were behind this

  • i'll remember. thanks

  • Besides,it was just a legend of the romanovs.

    I believe that the romanovs was never to be seen in today's russia.

  • Because the Romanovs was executed by the revolutionists of russia so that they will work whatever they want.now the russia was as normal as a republic.

    Rasputin was dead in 1916 by execution.

    Now the Romanov family were saints,The Russian Orthodox Church needs Romanovs to be the leaders and the lords.

    The romanov family were finally found peace to relocate their imperial kingdom in an another world without fear.

  • @teugene50able "Rasputin was dead in 1916 by execution."

    Rasputin was murdered.

  • I know,that's why i'm going to give the saint romanovs a present. I never say that the Monarchys of the romanovs will return,besides,the republic russia was just repubilc.

  • @teugene50able ???

    Then what did you mean when you said "...ask the romanovs to have an another chance to find true peace.so that the imperial russia will be restored."?

    Sounds like an advocation of a return to monarchism.

  • I see,then maybe i could give anastasia an another chance when i'm on a trip to moscow to see the romanov's memorial church and ask the romanovs to have an another chance to find true peace.so that the imperial russia will be restored.

    In Peace. I should talk to them with my heart.

    И я дам Романовых настоящее время.

  • @teugene50able Dream on. The monarchy is gone, never to return.

  • @Camerameister1 Statistics indicate that monarchism is growing in popularity in Russia, especially those who are younger and better educated. This is indeed welcome news ! The sooner Russia is once again a traditional monarchy, the better !

  • @ImperialRussianGuard The Monarchy is gone, never to return.

    Has it escaped your notice that the most prosperous nations in the world are liberal democracies?

    I noticed your inference that better educated people support Monarchism. I would be interested to see your supporting evidence because I don't believe you (I have a Master's degree BTW, and I am democrat).

  • Through out history many monarchies which were once abolished have been restored. Following the death of Oliver Cromwell, the English monarchy was restored. Following the defeat of Napoleon the Bourbon dynasty returned to power. In the last century alone, the Spanish,Greek, and Cambodian monarchies have been restored at some point. Even Rome, who had been without a king for over 400 years, crowned Augustus as Emperor.

  • Also I was under the impression that your sort believe that human history is decided by the will of human beings. If so then why would it be impossible to restore the Russian monarchy. If a large portion of the Russian population has the will to restore the monarchy, what is it there to stop it from doing so ? Unless you possess some supernatural power, I would not advise professing to be able to predict the distant future.

  • @ImperialRussianGuard "Also I was under the impression that your sort believe that human history is decided by the will of human beings."

    As opposed to what? God? My sort says that medical science doesn't happen because God decides it should. My sort says that aircraft don't fly because it's God's will. My sort says that I decide what happens to me and my family and monarchs have no say.

  • So you acknowledge that you believe that human will is what determines our future. Excellent, however you have to still to answer why it is absolutely impossible that in the future the Russian monarchy could be restored. If in the future, it is the will of the majority of Russians that the monarchy be restored, then what is there keeping it from being restored ? What supernatural force would keep it from being restored ?

  • Although you clearly seem to think yourself as a rational person for believing that human history is determined purely by human will, you seem to be arguing that there some sort of supernatural force that will prevent the Russian monarchy from EVER being restored, even regardless of human will.

  • @ImperialRussianGuard 20% will not get you a restoration of the monarchy in Russia. And those are your statistics, not mine.

  • @ImperialRussianGuard Won't happen. Most Russians want a say in how their country is run. A government of any sort, be it a monarchy or a liberal democracy with only 20% support is unsustainable.

    See Libya for a recent example.

  • What statistics do you have to prove that most Russians want a say in their government ? The pro-democratic groups in Russia are a complete mess. Their leadership consists mostly of Yeltsin era politicians,who although claim to be stout anti-corruption activists, have never had a problem stuffing their pockets through illegal means. They also have never had problems allying themselves with extremist marginal groups, such as the National Bolsheviks. Very few people actually support them.

  • @ImperialRussianGuard ""

    Because only 20% support it. That is not sustainable, even if you assume that the rest are divided.

  • None of those monarchies have any absolute say in the running of their respective countries. None of those countries is especially prosperous either.

    Even my country is a parliamentary democracy with a monarch as ultimate head of state. In reality, she has no say in the running of the country.

  • World's most prosperous economies are not monarchies but liberal democracies ? Last year, Global Finance listed Qatar as the richest country in the world of 2010. Qatar is a middle eastern absolute monarchy. Another country that was ranked very high was Brunei, another monarchy. If you go back 100 years, monarchies were then also the leading economies. For example between 1898 and 1913, Russia was the fastest growing economy with a 96.8% growth rate ( Hobson, ' Wary Titan', pg. 505) .

  • @ImperialRussianGuard Interesting points made here. Though I wouldn't credit Qatar's success to it having a monarchy (I'd credit the oil as opposed to a king); moreover, all the economies (monarchies, republics, etc.) of the world fit into the United States economy in terms of size. America being a republic is incidental, i.e. countries which remove un-necessary restrictions or regulations and unfetter business do generally better "economically" than those that do not.

  • @ImperialRussianGuard And the income of those places is distributed how...?

    The Gini Index reveals it's well behind Europe, the US or other liberal democracies.

  • According to the World Bank, in 2009 the life expectancy in Qatar was 75.94 years. According the CIA world factbook, the literacy rate is 89 %. In 2010 their unemployment rate was below 1%, only 0.5% of the population were unemployed ! In 2007, high income families constituted 66% of Qatari families. Since you seem to be so concerned about the distribution of income, Qatar ranked 27 in terms of equality in distribution income.

  • @ImperialRussianGuard 89% literacy is pretty poor in a modern world. That is the sort of thing monarchists advocate because an uneducated public is no threat to the monarch. Look at Spain in the late 19th Century. They actually STOPPED teaching people to read because they started asking too many questions about why the royal family and the church should have so many privileges.

    Qatar still ranks below most European countries on the Gini Index.

  • @ImperialRussianGuard "between 1898 and 1913, Russia was the fastest growing economy with a 96.8% growth rate "

    I wouldn't dispute that. What I would say was that it had more to do with the decline of the monarchy that any influence it had. Lvov and Co had far more influence on the economic prosperity of Russia than Nicholas did. Yours is a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument.

  • You accuse me of using a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument, yet you yourself have made a cum hoc ergo propter hoc argument. You argued that because "liberal democracies" are supposedly the most prosperous at the moment, therefore it is must be because they are democracies. However even if your claim that democracies were the most prosperous nations in the world was true, correlation does not imply causation. Before accusing others of making logical fallacies, you should not make them yourself.

  • @ImperialRussianGuard "You argued that because "liberal democracies" are supposedly the most prosperous at the moment, therefore it is must be because they are democracies."

    I didn't but statistically, it's pretty obvious. If ALL the top 10 and 17 of the top 20 are then it's hardly an unreasonable assumption.

  • @Camerameister1 In 2006, All-Russia Center for the Study of Public Opinion that found 20 percent of Russians wanting to restore the monarchy. A VTsIOM poll found a marked tendency among the young, the better educated and more affluent Russians to be in favor of monarchial restoration. So according to the statistics, in Russia younger and well educated people tend to sympathize more with monarchism.

  • @ImperialRussianGuard 20%? I'm amazed it's that high but it still won't get you over the line. Monarchists are usually dreamers who forget that most of these acient systems were plagued with peasant revolts and other violence and pestilence.

    Until I see a breakdown of the stats and a sensible analysis rather than your perspective, I'm not inclined to accept it at face value.

    "Lies, lies and damned statistics!"

  • Were monarchies plagued with peasant revolts? Occasionally, yes. However, the same could be said about other forms of government as well. The first French Republic for example, during it's 12 years it was faced with peasant revolts in Vendee, Brittany, Maine, and few other French provinces. It also faced peasant revolts in foreign nations it occupied, such as the Nidwalden rebellion in Switzerland. Pestilence is a natural occurrence which has no connection to government what so ever.

  • @ImperialRussianGuard Sure, peasant revolts, oppression, famine and pestilence, religious wars, serfdom, slavery...

    Sounds like fun, doesn't it? Not.

  • @Camerameister1 you're actually describing Russia under the tutelage of the criminal duo Bronstein/Ulyanov. For someone with a "masters degree" your certainly giving us some naive shit here!

  • @Svarog1969 "you're actually describing Russia under the tutelage of the criminal duo Bronstein/Ulyanov. "

    Which bit are you referring to?

    Before jumping to conclusions about what you consider to be my level of naivety, you also need to bear in mind that I can't write anything like as much as I would want to because YT only allows for 500 characters.

  • Monarchists are dreamers? This is very amusing coming from someone who supports democracy. Unlike their opponents, monarchists have never promised to create a utopia, a heaven on earth. While supporters of democracy often enthusiastically proclaim the "end of history" or other similar utopian nonsense, monarchists have always argued that human nature makes any form of government incapable of perfection.

  • Aristotle,who believed monarchy to be the best form of government, nonetheless warned of the consequences if it ever were to be corrupted. In the "Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes wrote that, "resolutions of a monarch are subject to no other inconstancy than that of human nature." Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddhin often wrote that it would be erroneous to assume that there was ever a utopia in monarchial Europe.

  • Monarchists have always acknowledged that while monarchy may be the best form of government, it is incapable of creating a Garden of Eden. Supporters of democracy on the other hand, are always inventing new and idiotic utopian theories. "The end of history" and the "democratic peace theory" are but two examples. The Jacobins tried to create a democratic utopia, needless to say they ended up creating one of the most horrific dystopias in history.

  • @ImperialRussianGuard Half a second of cogent thought will show you how stupid that statement is. Show me one utopian philosophy which accepts democracy as a factor.

    There are none. They believe their systems to be perfect and to have no need of elections.

  • @ImperialRussianGuard Anyone who has read any political philiosophy knows about Hobbes and you are misquoting him. He was a monarchist by default: he saw it preferable to what he called "warre".

    He was entitled to his opinion.

    You're still arguing that democrats believe in utopia. It is the very fallibility of humans which makes democracy important and the one overriding factor of democracy is that it is never absolute.

  • @ImperialRussianGuard Again, democracy is NOT a utopian philosophy.

    Fascism, communism, socialism, anarchism, etc. They are all utopian and none of them in its basic form espouses democracy because it is the enemy of utopianism. Their argument is that their system is perfect. Democrats argue that if the government doesn't suit then vote a different one in. If you don't like the new one you can vote them out eventually too. What is utopian about that? Democracy accepts human fallibility.

  • @Camerameister1

    Considering in what shape Germany and Russia were after WW1 it is very hard to create a perfect society when the elitist London and Paris watches your every move and can destroy you with economic sanctions. You consider England and France as civilized democracies, right. So why didn't they treat Germany and Russia fairly after WW1. Winners make the rules, I know but than those same winners should not whine if London gets bombed by Göring and Paris occupied by Uncle Adolf.

  • @BENNYSIEGEL90 Neither London nor Paris were in very good shape themselves at the end of WWI. Don't forget; this was "the war to end all wars" and you could understand the bad blood against Germany. That's why the Versailles Treaty was so harsh. Too harsh, as it happens.

    The attitude to Russia was also understandable. They didn't trust a philosophy like Communism.

    Even though Britain and France nominally won the war, they were in very poor shape at the end of it.

  • @Camerameister1

    Western democracies didn't trust communism yet Hoover fed the beast in 1921. Remember that. As for humanitarism. These people Hoover fed were brutal devils. I doubt any ukrainian ever saw piece of that food aid USA shipped to Petrograd even before 1921.

  • @BENNYSIEGEL90

    - Memorandum on Conditions in Moscow by a British subject, who left Moscow on December 1 -

    The economic and social conditions in Moscow are in a state of chaos. All trade and commerce - except illicit trade which is still carried on by the Jews - is at a complete standstill. The shops even the smallest are either closed or on the point of being closed, and all the places of business also.

  • @Svarog1969 Yes, Figes mentions that account too.

    By then the street fighting was on the rise again.

  • @Svarog1969

    Yes. It was chaos. I think one of the most cowardly tactics communists used was the fact when they brought up the possibility of enslavement. Lenin in 1918 made it clear that if tsarist officers refused to fight for Soviet state than slavery awaited. Lenin how ever did not save Russia. West did by defeating germans in 1918. If Western front had ended in a stalemate than Russia would have become a province of Germany ruled by some german monarch.

  • @BENNYSIEGEL90 Both sides were equally guilty. I think you are referring to Trotsky's Order 228.

    The rest is too far-fetched for me. Walking into Russian would not have been like walking into the low countries. It was just too big and the supply routes were waaaay too long, as other armies found out. Besides, the winter of 1917-18 was horrendous.

  • @Camerameister1

    Yes. We remember that winter very well. Russians were in such panic to get their powerful Gangut-battleships back to Petrograd harbour. We tried so hard to prevent them by even taking away any possible ice breaker they might have used. They tried to prevent those ships from ending up like icebreaker Sampo. This is why I dislike soviet propaganda. Latvian riflemen didn't secure the revolution. Russian sailors did.

  • @BENNYSIEGEL90 The Latvian riflemen and the Kronstadt shared many things: support for the revolution and eventual demise were two of them.

  • @BENNYSIEGEL90 I'm trying to remember the bit you're referring to. I know about the famine of 1921.

    Incidentally, one of the reasons the Whites failed was the utter corruption which riddled the command structure. As someone talking of Western support for the White campaign said, never in history have taxes been so comprehensively squandered.

  • @Camerameister1

    I personally think West did not trust the whites either. There had been only 50 years since USA bought Alaska. Of course Wilson and the boys knew Russia would not be able to reclaim it anytime soon but still they prefered weak Soviet-Russia over a tsarist one. I personally think they tried to help USSR in order to make a balance of power to Europe. West wanted that there would be a strong counterforce to Germany on the East just in case Germany would rise again which it did.

  • @BENNYSIEGEL90 Sort of runs counter to Macchiavelli and his advice to never use a strong friend against a strong enemy because once it is over he'll eat you.

    The West has always been suspicious of Russians of any colour. Near me there is a fortress built at the end of the 19th Century to defend us from what was believed to be an imminent Russian invasion.

  • @BENNYSIEGEL90 Russia's attempt to create a "perfect society" was doomed to fail anyway, not because of outside influences but because of the civil war which immediately followed the revolution.

  • @Camerameister1

    I supose it depended on where you lived in the USSR. Yes civil war affected the entire country but so did industrialization. Henry Ford and his lackey Albert Kahn kept USSR in good shape as did many other american industrialists.

  • @BENNYSIEGEL90 Yes, a very sparsely covered topic, that one. Norman Stone touches on Russian industrialisation between 1900 and 1914 in his book "The Eastern Front, 1914-1917". Well worth reading. The difference, industrially speaking, between those two dates was pretty amazing and it continued on at a colossal pace after the civil war.

  • @Camerameister1 Er.. China a liberal democracy?

  • @Svarog1969 Where did I say that.

    I was quoting the Legatum Prosperity Index. China isn't in the top 20.

    What are you quoting?

  • This documentary is awful, half of it is just spliced up scenes from what looks like Dr Zhivago and old 1950s era documentaries. I call CHEAP!

    Or maybe they just blew their whole budget on Sean Pertwee's narration.

  • @madhammudeux

    No the youtube user edited that trash in

    The original video had none of that BS 1930s editing

  • The Real Anastasia was true.