@BOLSHEVlK The documentary was directed by Roel van Broekhoven. It is a 35 episode documentary depicting historic events. I do not know which episode was about the revolution in Russia, but this week was about Germany after WW1.
@Arjakuru Strange as it seems, as you´re a soldier you stand in line as you are told to do so, no matter what comes to you. They knew that the latter significance between them and the firing squad was who was holding the gun. They all knew that it was the war itself, and they knew that themselves could have been the executioners in another situation. It is as hard for the firing squad as for the executionists... Its never a soldiers war, its always the politicians.
Just because the soldier is crossing himself doesn't mean it's not a Bolshevik. There were millions of Russians who served in the Red Army, many of them because they had no other choice, would have starved to death or been executed themselves. If you think there were no Eastern Orthodox soldiers in the Red Army you are deluded.
Yes. Another cowardly trick Lenin and the boys used besides kidnapping and murder. Extorting the people to serve while taking food away. And these useful idiots talked about reds having honour. ha ha ha
And if whites were the "first fascists" how come the decendants of most of these white army generals and soldiers refused collaboration with Hitler and even fought among groups like the french resistance. Lenin and Trotsky created the foundation of Stalins and Hitlers brutality.
@alext2000 Bolsheviks were extreme socialists, they liked to think they were comunist but they were no where near it, the Czars did not build Russia! they delibratly kept their people in the dark so they would not be exposed to modern ideas, 'constitutional monarchy' or 'democracy', for the sake of it comunism (term used loosley) was the newest idea the Russians had they were working on the newer the better but no government is perfect! take the bush administration, no war criminals there, no!
@MacPherson97 Deliberately kept them in the dark ? Please don't humor me. If they deliberately tried to keep them in the dark, then why did they spend so much money on education beginning in 1870 ? The reason why the Tsars did not propagandize democracy, was because it had no relevance at the time. It was an archaic form of government with no serious prospects for the future. Up until 1918 an idea of a world made up of democracies would considered eccentric at best.
@alanheath3 I see it, how good the people in russia live today. The age at death go down about 10 years, in Ukraine where the pornobusiness is booming.
There worked for the society, for there socialist fatherland and not for a capitalist or capitalists. My family is born in the GDR, and there had a good live there.
Lern something about Stalin and the Su: ww.red-channel.de/Ordner_Lit/Literatur_Sprache.htm
Love the way their caps fly off their heads! They could shoot all the Bolsheviks they wanted to, for all I care. Russians suffered tremendously under their rule, but the lackadaisical Russians knew no better but to take it. Replace one tyranny under the tsars, with a far worse one. Idiots.
As for Stalin: He was a paranoid schizophrenic, a common result from war weariness. It was Stalin that officially began the attack on religion and the formation of militant atheism. You should Yevgeny Zamyatin's "We." That was Stalinist Russia. As a Russian historian, I find it quite perplexing and upsetting that most people do not understand these historical facts. It is one thing to memorize a military expedition; another to understand it.
Because of the many different types of Russians entering the Red Army, it is impossible to say that they were atheist. Furthermore, during the first years of the USSR, immediately after the Civil War, Lenin allowed Jews to build synagogues and Muslims to build mosques; even Protestants and (some) Catholics were allowed to proselytize. It was the Orthodox Church that was decimated, and the only reason for that was due to the Church having a long history and power role with the autocracy.
Secondly, during the Russian Civil War, the Red Army gained numbers due to, mainly, two reasons: The White Army and Cossacks were often more brutal than the Central Powers and Bolsheviks; as Russia is known historically to be xenophobic, and that she was restless for a massive change away from autocracy, is largely the reason that the Red Army was built so quickly. There were a lot of mutinites, tho; the only reason they changed the Bolos was to fight off foreignors (CPs or Allies)
The argument taking place here, concerning fascism, is wrong by both accounts: First of all, fascism is a system in which a totalitarian dictator oversees corporate activity to ensure that industry is unregulated, or if regulated, done in such a way that only increases economic revenue; these corporations and privatized entities then establish the laws and social norms of that area. Best example: Mussolini's Fascist Italy.
It is a little difficult to make out, however, if you listen very closely, at the beginning, the narrator is saying, "hunted by the whites, and the blood, the color of both..." Both sides killed each other. Does it really matter?
Further, the atrocity of this period, still can not compare to the murders and famine caused by Stalin.
Since the shooters are well dressed, they are probably Reds. Kolchack's army was dressed extremely poor. Plus: Notice the fact that they shoot more than once at the same person: that is shot, come up, reload and fire up close.
At the time was the rule that nobody can be shot twice. The Bolsheviks didn't care for rules and that is why I find them the shooters. Plus the White Army had problems with munition due to not having factories producing needed goods.
Good thing those murderers who steal property and food using weapons and which took hostages to be shot once the White Army achieves victories. Kolchack was a true Russian Patriot while Lenin: a mere German spy. Glory to the White Army! Death to Communsim.
Lenin and Trotsky were shameless bastards who used terror to force former tsarist officers to fight for them. Another thing was that many people were scared that if Kerensky continued the war than Germany migth eventually invade Russia. That is why soldiers and generals prefered Lenin and Trotsky because they wanted peace with Germany thus getting Russia out of WW1 which it should have not participated in the first place.
@ss90ss444 They were so shameless bastards, that most officers served all their live. The General Staff during ww2 consisted mostly of former tsar officers and generals. And Lenin was so cruel, that he pressed the smartest general of tsar to be his close friend.
@KnyazSuvorov Bonch-Bruyevich. It seems you've read a book or two, that's not usual for those like you. Or just watched documentary? That's a shame that among us Russians are these not reading and not thinking idiots.
@tagaphon Wow. What about the famed von Kappel, Kornilov, Markov, Alexeev, or Kolchack. Why is he the smartest? Did he even finish the Academy of General Staff with some kind of rank(1st rank or another)?
Even ingenious Svechin joined the Bolsheviks to fight the Germans and had honestly said he was against the revolution.
And another thing to all the people saying "these are just poor foot soldiers/riflemen"
Useful idiots that help communists get in power can be dealt with no other way. You kill them, or they keep on fighting. Often times, when the liquidations begin, the most vocal supporters of the new red regime are the first to go, along with anyone who might actually oppose the new regime.
If I was a soldier in the white army there, and we were short on ammunition, I would have just fixed my bayonet and stabbed the filthy commies to death, just like the Japanese did to their prisoners. Killing communists is like stomping on ants.
And rogue raven brings up a good point, that the commies had no problems with bayonetting their enemies. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, cunts.
The bolsheviks deserve it after what they did the children of the Romanov's. How could you bayonet a little boy or girl repeatedly? I say line up more commies!
i hate the murderous human race i am a part of.....damn all you killers....and thats most of you ..anyone who supports the wars.....and politics which create them and then justify them.....and some even pull the truiggers and then come home and be glorified.........for being a murderer
If I remember correctly jews were not allowed to serve in the Imperial Army during WW1. Too bad, eh. Germans would have buried weak little fuckers like Trotsky and Sverdlov alive.
These are White criminals, their uniforms have the same presentation as of the White Don Army, and even the head movement of the apparent officer in charge is of an Orthodox Christian. The heroes of the Red Revolution did not die at once, but shot in the chest by these sadistical White criminals lay in anguish and suffering, and at least one raised himself, not for nothing did the Red Revolution change the method.
Only criminals are those who betrayed the Tsar for the jewish bolsheviks. What honour did these red army bastards have? First they fight for the Tsar 3 years in the treanches than stab the man in the back because of jews like Trotsky and Lenin.
Not to mention the cowardly way soviet agents killed great white army generals like Wrangel who was poisoned.
I also have the impression there is a civil war goïng on in the US. Uptill now only verbal but I really fear for a coup d'état by a military & conservative alliance in case Obama would not be able to put the economy back on track.
The aimless war in Afghanistan and the huge debt are not strange to this scenario.
I hope there will not be a rehearsal of Chile 1973 for when democracy ends in the US the whole world, friend and enemy, will be without spiritual identification.
Churchill supported the bolsheviks. Its stupid to believe that the anglos could have not destroyed Soviet-Russia.
Lenins victory in the Northen Russia and the Baltic sea proves nothing. Wilson, Morgenthau and others did not want Soviet-Russia to fall and become anti-semitic White Russia.
Well, er, your remarks are a little incoherent, but here's what Churchill said about the Bolsheviks in Nov. 1918
'Russia is being reduced by the Bolsheviks to an animal form of Barbarism... Civilisation is being extinguished over gigantic areas, while Bolsheviks hop and caper like troops of ferocious baboons amid the ruins of their cities and the corpses of their victims"
That hardly sounds like support for the Bolsheviks to me!
even if he did do the cross sign with his hands, doesn't mean he was a white soldier, there were alot of russian orthodox christians that fought for the bolsheviks thinking they were going to war for freedom. They didn't understand what communism was, they just cared that the Czars were out of power.
@agumon12 You are right, but it was not common to see a religious soldier in the Bolshevik Army. Remeber that Bolsheviks were atheist and anti religion.
@BOLSHEVlK They're leaders were atheist, but the soldiers didn't join because of religion or atheism, it was because they wanted to see a change in economic system.
@BOLSHEVlK Bolsheviks were a tiny minority of the Red Army, although they fought as shock troops in all the toughest engagements, sometimes reactionaries among Red troops even mutinied. There were also a small number of Christian Bolsheviks; read Lenin, "The Attitude of the Workers' Party to Religion." Trotsky said you don't have to accept the dialectic to accept the revolutionary program.
That said, the shooters are clearly Whites, the ones being shot are clearly Reds, because of the uniforms.
@BOLSHEVlK I beg to differ. Religion is such a strong emotion, I do not think that people would suddenly lose their religion just because of a change of government. Stalin himself often spoke of God. It takes guts to become an atheist and few people have that much courage.
Stalin was an Atheist. He at most believed in Divine Providence or some sort of divine pecking order, but he was not a religious man. i don't really think Atheism is a tough choice for the most part. Unless one needs to become obsessively irreligious (i.e won't use terms such as "oh God" or"God damn it") or cuts off relationships with religious friends and family then it's not quite difficult.
@Aurelian603 Stalin was not an atheist - as you say he probably believed in Divine providence. He frequently referred to god (singular).
I am an atheist and I do not believe in divine providence or any other form of superstition. I also do not say Oh my God or anything similar. As a non blasphemer I ought to be very popular with religious people.
@MaoiMeowi2 Ignorant royal asswipe cocksucker bigot: The indisputable fact is that all the religions of the world put together have in 2,000 years not managed to kill as many people as have been killed in the name of atheism in the past few decades. Its time to abandon the mindlessly repeated mantra that religious belief has been the greatest source of human conflict and violence. Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history.
@Christlovesanimals The world has been around longer than 2000 years, and so has religion.
Think about what you're saying: Apparently, more people nowadays have been killed not in the name of a god than have been killed in the name of a god...so you're saying that a person not killing in the name of a god is killing for atheism (if belief, or lack thereof, isn't relevant)? I want to know how you figure that, by the way.
@MaoiMeowi2 silly stupid atheist: I show you to be the damn fool that you are and you need more than 2000 years....
....damn, you're a stupid damn silly little atheist twerp. Any kindergartener can figure out what you can't: that ALL RELIGION from ALL TIME cannot compare with the death and suffering caused by ATHEISM just in the 20th century...
....you're one seriously fucked up fucktard, silly little atheist.
We're talking about religion, not JUST Christianity. Therefore, ALL the years it has existed are relevant, similar to atheism. However, it's impossible to kill in the name of atheism, because if you're not killing because a god told you to, you're killing for a non-religious reason.
I meant give me numbers. Bona fide numbers. Don't repeat what you previously said and then call me a dumb fuck because I want you to elaborate.
@Christlovesanimals No, I am not "ignorance", "denial", and "pomposity". I may be ignorant, but you never enlighten me. I am not, to my knowledge, in denial. You are the pompous one here (do you even know what that means?). To you, I'm unfathomable, but for you, everything new is.
Yes, I'm the stupid one for opposing what you've been brainwashed to believe.
@MaoiMeowi2 brainwashed?...are you fucking ignoramus or what??...is everyone involved in religion "brainwashed?"....what a fucking MAROON you are (that's a moron multiplied.)
With that English, you shouldn't go around calling people ignorant...
Furthermore, religion has cost more lives. The religious upheavels of the 16th and 17th centuries, including the Thirty Years War, cost the lives of more people than both world wars. Then we have the numerous genocides that has been inflicted on the Hindus of India and Pakistan over a period of 400 years. Almost every place entered by Muslims has been visited with genocide.
So intelligence is quoting ONE scholar and being assumptious enough, or rather, willing enough, to proclaim that obscure idea as the universal truth? Hell, I can do that. Here's something for you: "D'Souza is a noted Christian apologist and conservative writer and speaker." I didn't really need to google him to know that (his words were more than enough for me to figure out his angle), but I wanted to show off some intelligence.
@Faxe90Swe "apologist"---you atheist twits LOVE that word don't you???....as if somehow magically you can wave the "apologist" wand and all pertinent points and facts can rightfully be swept under the rug.
I don't see you offering any logic at all, but I guess it's too much to ask for from a religious lunatic. By the way, what were those facts and points, I didn't even know you had any?
ROFL, why do you even bother replying, you just continue affirming every prejudice about religious people. If you're not actually gonna argue, but just resort to name-calling (in lack of arguments, I presume), give it a rest.
@Faxe90Swe for you ROFL means " 'Riting (sic) Only Flunky Lunacy"...Get a life silly atheist twit...oh, sorry, that's "Silly atheist twit who wouldn't know a logical fallacy if he shit it out his ass."
@Faxe90Swe congratulations twit: you spelled polytheistic correctly. I told you having the dictionary next to your cpu would help. Too bad you didn't read the definition of "polytheistic."
Firstly you have never ever said a word about a dictionary (then again, your kind has never been very honest about the truth). Secondly, I am sufficiently learned about religious matters to know that there is valid theological arguments about Christianity being polytheistic, the Holy Trinity and all. Why don't you stop bitching and gather the courage to speak plainly, and stop this evading of matters? You mght as well shut your pei hole if you're just gonna continue ranting
Also, it's a ridiculous issue in the first place. I mean, how do we define what's what? The Holocaust might at first glance appear as an atheist atrocity, then again, antisemitism didn't pop up all the sudden because of Hitler - it had been there, latent or active, for as long as Christians and Jews have coexisted. Hitler just reaped what had been sowned by religious conflict long before his ascendancy. That's one example of many in one giant grey-zone.
@alanheath3 The atmosphere of post-WW1 Russia was one of betrayal and slaughter. Most Russians felt genuinely lied to an exploited for their suffering by the monarchy and the Bolsheviks easily proved to them that it was through the careful toolage of the church that they were manipulated, among other things. Through propaganda and rallies.
@BOLSHEVlK I don't think that is the case. Whereas in my opinion the shooters are whites too (if this is Russia), I cannot believe that hundreds of years of superstition and religious indoctrination would go in a few months.
Furthermore around 85% (or thereabouts) of the Red Army's officers in the Civil War were former Tsarist officers.
There is little doubt that white forces committed brutalities on a far bigger scale than the Bolsheviks, not of course denying that the latter did it too.
@alanheath Whites during the war make crimes against Jews, but as you said then after the war Bolsheviks also made terrible crimes agains Jews, anti communist, peasants, religious, and more people. In all wars a side make more crimes than other, for example during Falklands War, when British navy sank Cruiser Belgrano. During WWII the Holocaust, Vietnam, Frenchs in Argelia...
@BOLSHEVlK In the first place, the sinking of the Belgrano was NOT a war crime. The Belgrano was an enemy warship of the aggressor sailing in a position where it could possibly attack the defending party.
It was the Whites who started pogroms and whereas some Reds may have murdered Jews and others, they could face the punishment including the death sentence for doing so. The Red Army is often judged by the standards of later communist crimes which is not fair.
@alanheath Not a war crime? Belgrano was at a exclusion zone. Most British admit this fact. When I studied at the US Navy School in a exchange, they also admit that it was a war crime. South American Union nations, in 2008 made public a document, were it clarifies that was a war crime, the same desition take most of Central America nations (excluding Belize), Mexico, and former USSR nations.
@BOLSHEVlK The ship was attacking British troops - who the Argentinian aggressors had already attacked. To put this in context, where would you put the exclusion zone for WW2? Was it a crime to sink Nazi submarines in the Atlantic? Was the invasion of the Falklands a war crime? Or is that OK?
Most British do not admit it to be a crime and I know of no military legal opinion that thinks as such. Even the former captain of the Belgrano does not think it a crime.
@alanheath First, the Belgrano was used as a transportation ship, thats why there were a lot of soldiers on it, and there were not many rescue boats. Belgrano didnt made any shot during the war because they were outside war zone. I agree that it was not a crime to sank German submarines, but yes it were, the German crimes against civilians or military ships outside war zone. Same happened with Belgrano, it was not at war zone. British made the same that Germans, they attacked in the same way.
@BOLSHEVlK And in your opinion, what were those soldiers doing? Whereas Belgrano may have been out of the exclusion zone, it was not out of the war zone and had been steaming in a clear attack position - in the same way as those German submarines were not out of the war zone.
Had the Argentinian fascist regime not attacked the Falkland Islands then those sailors (not soldiers) who were on board would still be alive today.
@alanheath Being a military sailor, is being a soldier. Soldier (or military) is the term to refer to an Army, Air Force or Navy officer or subofficier. Argentinean regime was not fascist. During the regime the Military Junta kept excellent relations with Israel and USA. They just were anti communist (at that time communist terrorist groups were acting in Argentina) and opposite to British Imperialism. Just take a map, British have 14 overseas territories, I called that Fascist Imperialism.
@BOLSHEVlK Your political knowledge is not very good. Being on excellent terms with Israel or the USA does not stop some country being fascist - I can think of quite a few that are - although I would dispute the excellent relations with Israel that you claim. As far as communist terror groups are concerned, I can't think of any - it was the regime which was murdering people not the opposition to it. Having overseas territories is also not fascism - but maybe it is in your fairy tale world.
@alanheath Your historical knowledge is not very good, because as you said that being on excellent terms with Israel or the USA does not stop some country being fascist, I said that being in war against the Imperialism is not being fascist. In my opinion fascism is: forcibly and clandestinely removed the entire population of Diego Garcia island, like the British did in 1966. THAT IS FASCISM!
@BOLSHEVlK That is not fascism. Nor is fascism the wholesale mass murder and in some cases genocide committed by European settlers on the native population of America or the continued occupation of their lands - for example.
For a definition of fascism I refer to you one of the many excellent on line dictionaries such as Websters or the OED.
you're not suggesting that the genocide of europeans and occupation of their land wouldnt have taken place if the other peoples of the world had the ability, ARE YOU? lolz. nor are u suggesting that simply coz a native american's great, great, grandparents took a shit on north american land prior to a european, that the land someow "belongs" to them, ARE U? lolz
if an indian savage (redundant) is the very first person to take a rich creamy velvety dump on some topsoil in north america, does the dirt automatically "belong" to him? what if he's the first to piss in the water at an undiscovered beach, does his urine drift through the waves marking his legal territory? i mean... what EXACTLY was ur point? lolz
While many Bolshevistic were atheistic, most common Russians were very religious. Since the church had a stake in matters of property and land, most peasants set aside spiritual fears and joined the Communists.
@agumon12 "...didn't understand what communism was"? Just jsut do not know that "Soviet" means "worker councils". They are ruling instead of tzarists - that was easy to understand for Russians. and (!) actually the workers (not the communist party!) was the driving force for the concrete decision to make the revolution at this time! .
@edgar0001 ... BTW - that is more interesting than you may expect. The same happend at the German revolution 1919 - Rosa Luxemburg and the Spartacists always called for peace and negotiations .. she and all others just were killed by killers paid from the German capitalists "antibolshevist fonds" created 10th of Jan. 1919 in Berlin with nominal 500 millions of Reichsmark. This money also created nationalism and the NAZIs. Along with US NAZI support from FORD Bush & Co. .
They are definitely white movement soldiers, their summer uniforms are somewhat identical to those worn in this footage. But then again the reds also had men with these uniforms but my bets is that the executioners were white not red.
Communism would have been ok if it had stayed in Russia. :)
But Mr.Lenin wanted a world revolution. Not socialism in one country. But in the end Mr.Stalin was also looking for a world revolution. Otherwise he would have no made the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Ribbentrop even offered the man some parts of the British Empire after Britain would be defeated.
I was just watching The History Channel's "Joseph Stalin - Declassified" and during a discussion of executions during the great purges, this very footage was used as an example of Soviet violence (presumably because there is no video footage of executions during the great purges). So that makes me think it's probably "Reds" killing "Whites." And I agree with Spriglief, that was NOT the sign of the cross.
It is irrelevant as both Reds and Whites summarily executed many thousands of POW's during this time. And Destroyer Alexandros is incorrect, records show that the Bolshevik Cheka executed 884 people during the first 6 months of existence. (See S. P. Melgunov on this)
@BOLSHEVlK I can believe my own eyes. Hand goes behind his own right ear, and does not touch the head or the shoulders. Reading the body laungage, it he seems to be signaling, "hurry up." Who ever called this a sign of the cross was lieing or seeing things.
6) All data taken account, I believe we are in presence of a shooting of Red prisoners after a victory of Czech Legion, probably near Omsk or other Siberian place, during the period of advance of Czech Legion and Kolchak forces, may be between 1918 and 1919.
4) Before mobile phone era, the scenes of executions, and by force of reason those of first war movements, presumed some conditions: a) an organized military power, with modern means; b) a war in a stage of an expected victory; c) a ruthless way of making the war.
5) The footage is made on fertile soil, probably on the interior of the country and not near the coast or a harbour. It is not winter.
3.1) the expedite way of execution (they were moving in armoured trains and did not take prisoners with them); 3.2) the proximity between shooters and shot (they were experimented soldiers, with cold blood).
4) Before mobile phone era, the scenes of executions, and by force of reason those of first war movements, presumed some conditions: a) an organized military power, with modern means; b) a war in a stage of an expected victory; c) a ruthless way of making the war.
3) In Russian Civil War, from the White side, fought many Expeditionary Corps from all continents except Africa. The equipment of White Russian Armies was also foreign their general hatred against working classes and their revolt to establishment was a handicap to organize normal supply services on the rear. Despite the bad quality of the footage, the uniforms seem to me Czech. This could explain:
2) The men shot have different uniforms or no uniforms. They could be civilians, but I believe they were soldiers: they were shot with the face against the shooters. When some of the men initially draw their back to the shooters, those turned them face to face again. This is clearly a signal of the presence of defeated soldiers. One man seems to defy the shooters. It could be an officer or a communist. We can assume that they were red soldiers taken prisoners after a white offensive.
1) The initial words of the speaker are in good English. They refer the footage as a scene of the shooting by whites and blood the colour of both, indicating that the man shot are red soldiers, and that the inverse situation happened. This is clearly the case of Russian Civil War (cruel as all civil wars in any time). British documentary are very good. We can assume that the scene is a shooting, by white soldiers, of red prisoners, in Russian Civil War.
Bolshevik, you were very honest sharing with us not only the video, not only your certainties but also your doubts. Some of the commentaries were highly sceptical about your interpretation. May be because we know that are many forgeries on the web, sometimes we tend to another absurd behaviour - the one of classifying everything as fake or conspiracy. Well, let us try to flash some light on the subject.
I've been doing some research and I don't believe the men in the firing squad are Whites or Reds. The uniforms are cut wrong for both sides. No shoulder boards, no arm patches the weapons have pistol grips and look like Mauser 98s. They look more like Freikops. It could be Latvia, Germany, Ukraine or anyplace they fought.
@DrKorn5 Freikorps? I dont think that. The Freikorps were a paramilitary group they never executed people. I am sure that this film is from the Russian Civil War.
@BOLSHEVlK Freikorps certainly did execute people. And technically they did fight in the Russian civil war. Also they were not a paramilitary group at all. Particuarly in the Baltic states they were German troops that stopped listening to their government and followed only their officers. But like I said examine the weapons and uniforms they are not correct for any Russian troops or the Czechs like one person said.
@ss90ss444 you obviously have no clue of history and especially of the Russian civil war. I'm curious which millions of workers because the whites did NOT control the cities that those workers were in. Never held St.Petersburg, Moscow, Tula or any of the central ones. Kiev was taken briefly and in Siberia the percent of the population that were workers was so small that it was practically non existant.
Whites put people in camps and than starved them to death. How ever. Mr.Stalin started to murder all the heroes who fought against the white army. I will never understand why white army was so brutal to a bunch of unarmed weak workers.
The executioners are not Reds - their uniforms are just too nice. Bolshevis were famous for shabby looks. But it doesn't necessarily mean that the executed were the Reds. It was the war of all against all. The executed could have been bandits or anarchists or some other group.
you've never seen another human being drop like a fly being squatted to the floor. That human being had family, friends, a LIFE. Life, he only possession in this world which we all are entitled to when coming out of the womb of your mother. You are a sad person, laughter to you is not an emotion, but a reflex of your insentive narcasistice mind. Farewell
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Oh, come on, people die. Stop making a big deal out of it. It's just hysterical watching their little hats fly up. Watch he video again with an open mind.
The way their cute, little caps just pop up upon impact is just priceless! It reminds me of a scene in one of Jerry Lewis' movies where he was wearing a cap that popped up like that when he saw a pretty girl.
"Cute". Why do you think their hats flew off? Have a think about it and try to work out why the hats went flying and see if you still thinks it's "cute". Then think about how much you would not like to stand where they were standing. "Cute"! What a loser.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Don''t be such a sissy.
It's neat seeing their little hats just fly up like a jack-in-the-boy. And you know the shooters could have demanded they remove their hats, but they liked seeing them pop up too.
It's just funny and cute. If one had refused, I would shoot him in his knees as an example to the others. Nobody gets shot without their hat. And we'd have a contest to see which one of us can make the guys hat fly the highest.
I'd try gut shots vs upper chest; which do you think would work?
If you take a look at these poor soldiers who are shot, you can see the impact of the bullets are quite devastating. I do believe the Brits used a very high caliber bullet to insure one shot was enough for execution. This video, in my mind, is just too real. To watch someone die, is shocking, to say the least.
@noff27 I agree with you noff27, but British also support with munitions to the White Army during Russian Civil War. But it could be possible that they are British. Do you remember the name of the film? It was "Execution"?
@noff27 The cartridge used in the Russian Moisin-Nagant rifle is more powerful than the .303 British round and just as powerful as the American 30-06.
There is a Dutch documentary in 35 parts that deals with Europe through the 20th century. This film footage was shown and it was said the soldiers were British.
The strange thing about the guy supposedly making the sign of the cross is that his hand ends on the right side of his head. In Russia, the sign of the cross is made from right to left, so the hand should be on the other side of his body.
@StealthGoblin1,It`s true, the guy who crosses himself finishes at the right ear because of something (a mosquito for example) but I think they are not foreigners because he begins from the right shoulder, as Russians do.
Absolutely meaningless pictures. Too blurry to recognize any uniforms or insignia. They could be shot anytime, anywhere in the world. There is no way to know who is being executed and for what. There were plenty of atrocities committed in all the wars and war criminals executed under war conditions. You can extrapolate and believe anything you want from those.
You failed to exterminate the Jews thanks to the Red Army, and you can't change it. How about getting that pole out of your ass and doing something with your life other than shouting sieg heil with a shaved head?
the russian people are the most sadist people in the whole universe because of that they accept .any genocide or massacre
ahmad30615 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ahmad30615 LEAVE THE PROPAGANDA islamo-FASCIST.
AND LISTEN
THE KEMALIC TURKS ARE BIGGEST MASSACRERS EVER. THE KEMALISM CREATED THE NAZISM
unfukkkmee 1 week ago
I've seen this documentary in my country. It was called: "In Europe".
Interesting thing in this clip is the laughing soldier awaiting execution in lower part of the screen at 0:09.
He waits for the firing squad but keeps laughing at the camera?
The picture quality was better on tv though.
bullseye911 1 month ago
@bullseye911 Thanks for you comment. Can you send me the full name or maker of that documentary? Thanks a lot!
BOLSHEVlK 1 month ago
@BOLSHEVlK The documentary was directed by Roel van Broekhoven. It is a 35 episode documentary depicting historic events. I do not know which episode was about the revolution in Russia, but this week was about Germany after WW1.
bullseye911 1 month ago
I've always wondered. Why would you stand neatly in line, if you know that you are about to be shot.
Arjakuru 1 month ago
@Arjakuru Strange as it seems, as you´re a soldier you stand in line as you are told to do so, no matter what comes to you. They knew that the latter significance between them and the firing squad was who was holding the gun. They all knew that it was the war itself, and they knew that themselves could have been the executioners in another situation. It is as hard for the firing squad as for the executionists... Its never a soldiers war, its always the politicians.
anneloev 4 weeks ago
it's just so horrible.
SchafeyWafey 2 months ago
Scariest part of this war is that brothers could fight on the different side. Even some killed their own family.
BENNYSIEGEL90 2 months ago
If the executors are white, then why don't they have epaulets?
KnyazSuvorov 3 months ago
that they kept standing there...and not resist until the final moment...
IDONTGETTHEPOINT 3 months ago
Just because the soldier is crossing himself doesn't mean it's not a Bolshevik. There were millions of Russians who served in the Red Army, many of them because they had no other choice, would have starved to death or been executed themselves. If you think there were no Eastern Orthodox soldiers in the Red Army you are deluded.
darkwolfdv 7 months ago 7
@darkwolfdv
Yes. Another cowardly trick Lenin and the boys used besides kidnapping and murder. Extorting the people to serve while taking food away. And these useful idiots talked about reds having honour. ha ha ha
And if whites were the "first fascists" how come the decendants of most of these white army generals and soldiers refused collaboration with Hitler and even fought among groups like the french resistance. Lenin and Trotsky created the foundation of Stalins and Hitlers brutality.
BENNYSIEGEL90 6 months ago
@darkwolfdv Of course there were a few, but what kind of orthodox joins an army that blows up his own churches?
Vengrence 3 months ago
@alext2000 Bolsheviks were extreme socialists, they liked to think they were comunist but they were no where near it, the Czars did not build Russia! they delibratly kept their people in the dark so they would not be exposed to modern ideas, 'constitutional monarchy' or 'democracy', for the sake of it comunism (term used loosley) was the newest idea the Russians had they were working on the newer the better but no government is perfect! take the bush administration, no war criminals there, no!
MacPherson97 7 months ago
@MacPherson97 Deliberately kept them in the dark ? Please don't humor me. If they deliberately tried to keep them in the dark, then why did they spend so much money on education beginning in 1870 ? The reason why the Tsars did not propagandize democracy, was because it had no relevance at the time. It was an archaic form of government with no serious prospects for the future. Up until 1918 an idea of a world made up of democracies would considered eccentric at best.
ImperialRussianGuard 7 months ago
@alanheath3 I see it, how good the people in russia live today. The age at death go down about 10 years, in Ukraine where the pornobusiness is booming.
There worked for the society, for there socialist fatherland and not for a capitalist or capitalists. My family is born in the GDR, and there had a good live there.
Lern something about Stalin and the Su: ww.red-channel.de/Ordner_Lit/Literatur_Sprache.htm
UndeadFrostDragon 10 months ago
Interesting video...but i sugest to put the name of the documentary in the description.
bobblopes1 10 months ago
@bobblopes1 I dont know from wich documentary is it!
BOLSHEVlK 8 months ago
Love the way their caps fly off their heads! They could shoot all the Bolsheviks they wanted to, for all I care. Russians suffered tremendously under their rule, but the lackadaisical Russians knew no better but to take it. Replace one tyranny under the tsars, with a far worse one. Idiots.
rickv404 10 months ago
As for Stalin: He was a paranoid schizophrenic, a common result from war weariness. It was Stalin that officially began the attack on religion and the formation of militant atheism. You should Yevgeny Zamyatin's "We." That was Stalinist Russia. As a Russian historian, I find it quite perplexing and upsetting that most people do not understand these historical facts. It is one thing to memorize a military expedition; another to understand it.
supersuperannuated 11 months ago
Because of the many different types of Russians entering the Red Army, it is impossible to say that they were atheist. Furthermore, during the first years of the USSR, immediately after the Civil War, Lenin allowed Jews to build synagogues and Muslims to build mosques; even Protestants and (some) Catholics were allowed to proselytize. It was the Orthodox Church that was decimated, and the only reason for that was due to the Church having a long history and power role with the autocracy.
supersuperannuated 11 months ago
Secondly, during the Russian Civil War, the Red Army gained numbers due to, mainly, two reasons: The White Army and Cossacks were often more brutal than the Central Powers and Bolsheviks; as Russia is known historically to be xenophobic, and that she was restless for a massive change away from autocracy, is largely the reason that the Red Army was built so quickly. There were a lot of mutinites, tho; the only reason they changed the Bolos was to fight off foreignors (CPs or Allies)
supersuperannuated 11 months ago
The argument taking place here, concerning fascism, is wrong by both accounts: First of all, fascism is a system in which a totalitarian dictator oversees corporate activity to ensure that industry is unregulated, or if regulated, done in such a way that only increases economic revenue; these corporations and privatized entities then establish the laws and social norms of that area. Best example: Mussolini's Fascist Italy.
supersuperannuated 11 months ago
At 0:30 you can make out an officer's left shoulderboard. Red Army had neither officers nor shoulderboards.
ElQuintoRegimiento 11 months ago
As i see main argument is crossing of soldier. I am Orthodox Christian and i have never seen somebody cross like that.
ortodoxox 1 year ago
It is a little difficult to make out, however, if you listen very closely, at the beginning, the narrator is saying, "hunted by the whites, and the blood, the color of both..." Both sides killed each other. Does it really matter?
Further, the atrocity of this period, still can not compare to the murders and famine caused by Stalin.
1toscany 1 year ago
Since the shooters are well dressed, they are probably Reds. Kolchack's army was dressed extremely poor. Plus: Notice the fact that they shoot more than once at the same person: that is shot, come up, reload and fire up close.
At the time was the rule that nobody can be shot twice. The Bolsheviks didn't care for rules and that is why I find them the shooters. Plus the White Army had problems with munition due to not having factories producing needed goods.
KnyazSuvorov 1 year ago
@KnyazSuvorov The Shooters have Mausers,probly not reds,thou the victums?maybe
bv141a 11 months ago
Good thing those murderers who steal property and food using weapons and which took hostages to be shot once the White Army achieves victories. Kolchack was a true Russian Patriot while Lenin: a mere German spy. Glory to the White Army! Death to Communsim.
KnyazSuvorov 1 year ago
Lenin and Trotsky were shameless bastards who used terror to force former tsarist officers to fight for them. Another thing was that many people were scared that if Kerensky continued the war than Germany migth eventually invade Russia. That is why soldiers and generals prefered Lenin and Trotsky because they wanted peace with Germany thus getting Russia out of WW1 which it should have not participated in the first place.
ss90ss444 1 year ago
@ss90ss444 They were so shameless bastards, that most officers served all their live. The General Staff during ww2 consisted mostly of former tsar officers and generals. And Lenin was so cruel, that he pressed the smartest general of tsar to be his close friend.
tagaphon 1 year ago
@tagaphon And who was this smartest general of the Czar?
Think of where went Batzetis, Svechin, Snesarev, and others of the Czar which were killed by the Bolsheviks.
KnyazSuvorov 1 year ago
@KnyazSuvorov Bonch-Bruyevich. It seems you've read a book or two, that's not usual for those like you. Or just watched documentary? That's a shame that among us Russians are these not reading and not thinking idiots.
tagaphon 1 year ago
@tagaphon Wow. What about the famed von Kappel, Kornilov, Markov, Alexeev, or Kolchack. Why is he the smartest? Did he even finish the Academy of General Staff with some kind of rank(1st rank or another)?
Even ingenious Svechin joined the Bolsheviks to fight the Germans and had honestly said he was against the revolution.
KnyazSuvorov 1 year ago
@tagaphon And who was this smartest general of the Czar?
Think of where went Batzetis, Svechin, Snesarev, and others of the Czar which were killed by the Bolsheviks.
KnyazSuvorov 1 year ago
@BOLSHEVlK I watched it again and did not see anyone make the sign of the cross.
Spriglief 1 year ago
And another thing to all the people saying "these are just poor foot soldiers/riflemen"
Useful idiots that help communists get in power can be dealt with no other way. You kill them, or they keep on fighting. Often times, when the liquidations begin, the most vocal supporters of the new red regime are the first to go, along with anyone who might actually oppose the new regime.
Sleepy1988 1 year ago
If I was a soldier in the white army there, and we were short on ammunition, I would have just fixed my bayonet and stabbed the filthy commies to death, just like the Japanese did to their prisoners. Killing communists is like stomping on ants.
And rogue raven brings up a good point, that the commies had no problems with bayonetting their enemies. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, cunts.
Sleepy1988 1 year ago
Only civilized person in this civil war was baron Wrangel. Rest were just jewish and slavic barbarian scum killing each other.
ss90ss444 1 year ago
The bolsheviks deserve it after what they did the children of the Romanov's. How could you bayonet a little boy or girl repeatedly? I say line up more commies!
RogueRaven17 1 year ago
i hate the murderous human race i am a part of.....damn all you killers....and thats most of you ..anyone who supports the wars.....and politics which create them and then justify them.....and some even pull the truiggers and then come home and be glorified.........for being a murderer
232323C 1 year ago
If I remember correctly jews were not allowed to serve in the Imperial Army during WW1. Too bad, eh. Germans would have buried weak little fuckers like Trotsky and Sverdlov alive.
ss90ss444 1 year ago
These are White criminals, their uniforms have the same presentation as of the White Don Army, and even the head movement of the apparent officer in charge is of an Orthodox Christian. The heroes of the Red Revolution did not die at once, but shot in the chest by these sadistical White criminals lay in anguish and suffering, and at least one raised himself, not for nothing did the Red Revolution change the method.
inezaltar 1 year ago
The more dead Reds the better
Thx1138d 1 year ago
@inezaltar
Only criminals are those who betrayed the Tsar for the jewish bolsheviks. What honour did these red army bastards have? First they fight for the Tsar 3 years in the treanches than stab the man in the back because of jews like Trotsky and Lenin.
Not to mention the cowardly way soviet agents killed great white army generals like Wrangel who was poisoned.
ss90ss444 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
cette vidéo est un RARE COURT-METRAGE sur la guerre civile russe (1917-1921),
on sait que les tireurs sont "les croyants", on les appelle également "les blancs",
car si vous visionnez la vidéo, on remarque qu'à 0:35,
un tireur exécute un signe de croix - religion chrétienne - avant d'exécuter "les communistes", on les appelle également "les rouges"
revolutionary25 1 year ago
j'aime cette vidéo car elle fournit des informations FIABLES sur le passé
I like this video because it supplies some RELIABLE informations on the past
revolutionary25 1 year ago
@Rico8458 We don't care what passt in usa do your girl war fucking capitaliste
gabi7521 1 year ago
@Rico8458
vraiment?? il y a une guerre civile aux Etats-Unis actuellement?? les médias BOURGEOIS français ne nous informent pas à propos de ça
really?? there is a civil war in america currently?? the french WEALTHY medias don't inform us about that
revolutionary25 1 year ago
@revolutionary25
I also have the impression there is a civil war goïng on in the US. Uptill now only verbal but I really fear for a coup d'état by a military & conservative alliance in case Obama would not be able to put the economy back on track.
The aimless war in Afghanistan and the huge debt are not strange to this scenario.
I hope there will not be a rehearsal of Chile 1973 for when democracy ends in the US the whole world, friend and enemy, will be without spiritual identification.
envanje 1 year ago
@envanje
les banques mondiales ont comploté "les coups d'état financiers" dans le monde occidental - CRISES FINANCIERES (2007) et (2009)
the world banks ploted "the financial state moves" in the western world - FINANCIAL CRISIS (2007) and (2009)
revolutionary25 1 year ago
There is an interesting book entitled "Churchill's Private War" which recounts Churchill's involvement in the Russian Civil War.
JimTLonW6 1 year ago
@JimTLonW6
Churchill supported the bolsheviks. Its stupid to believe that the anglos could have not destroyed Soviet-Russia.
Lenins victory in the Northen Russia and the Baltic sea proves nothing. Wilson, Morgenthau and others did not want Soviet-Russia to fall and become anti-semitic White Russia.
ss90ss444 1 year ago
@ss90ss444
Well, er, your remarks are a little incoherent, but here's what Churchill said about the Bolsheviks in Nov. 1918
'Russia is being reduced by the Bolsheviks to an animal form of Barbarism... Civilisation is being extinguished over gigantic areas, while Bolsheviks hop and caper like troops of ferocious baboons amid the ruins of their cities and the corpses of their victims"
That hardly sounds like support for the Bolsheviks to me!
JimTLonW6 1 year ago
@ss90ss444
I couldn't find the book, but it's by me now, and it's 'Churchill's Crusade', by Clifford Kinvig
JimTLonW6 1 year ago
@Sleepy1988, well said. Marxist need to be exterminated from the earth.
ShaytanBozorg 1 year ago
@karlkarlkarl1234
Have you ever read history books about Russian civil war??
PlibergFUn74 1 year ago
even if he did do the cross sign with his hands, doesn't mean he was a white soldier, there were alot of russian orthodox christians that fought for the bolsheviks thinking they were going to war for freedom. They didn't understand what communism was, they just cared that the Czars were out of power.
agumon12 1 year ago
@agumon12 You are right, but it was not common to see a religious soldier in the Bolshevik Army. Remeber that Bolsheviks were atheist and anti religion.
BOLSHEVlK 1 year ago 6
@BOLSHEVlK
Formaly the Soviets encouraged atheism without any doubt though in practice the Orthodox Church was their main ally to keep people under control.
In the West however religion was not obstructed but faded away into atheism.
The Soviets had the name but the West was it.
envanje 1 year ago
@BOLSHEVlK They're leaders were atheist, but the soldiers didn't join because of religion or atheism, it was because they wanted to see a change in economic system.
idricool 1 year ago
@BOLSHEVlK Bolsheviks were a tiny minority of the Red Army, although they fought as shock troops in all the toughest engagements, sometimes reactionaries among Red troops even mutinied. There were also a small number of Christian Bolsheviks; read Lenin, "The Attitude of the Workers' Party to Religion." Trotsky said you don't have to accept the dialectic to accept the revolutionary program.
That said, the shooters are clearly Whites, the ones being shot are clearly Reds, because of the uniforms.
ElQuintoRegimiento 1 year ago
@BOLSHEVlK I beg to differ. Religion is such a strong emotion, I do not think that people would suddenly lose their religion just because of a change of government. Stalin himself often spoke of God. It takes guts to become an atheist and few people have that much courage.
alanheath3 1 year ago
@alanheath3
Stalin was an Atheist. He at most believed in Divine Providence or some sort of divine pecking order, but he was not a religious man. i don't really think Atheism is a tough choice for the most part. Unless one needs to become obsessively irreligious (i.e won't use terms such as "oh God" or"God damn it") or cuts off relationships with religious friends and family then it's not quite difficult.
Aurelian603 10 months ago
@Aurelian603 Stalin was not an atheist - as you say he probably believed in Divine providence. He frequently referred to god (singular).
I am an atheist and I do not believe in divine providence or any other form of superstition. I also do not say Oh my God or anything similar. As a non blasphemer I ought to be very popular with religious people.
alanheath3 10 months ago
@alanheath3 what a dumbass comment. atheists are some of the most panty-waste people on earth
Christlovesanimals 10 months ago
Atheism: the greatest mass killer of all time.
Christlovesanimals 10 months ago
@Christlovesanimals If you forget about the Dark Ages, the Inquisition, witch burnings, and modern Islam, to name a few, I suppose you're right.
Dumb fuck.
MaoiMeowi2 10 months ago
@MaoiMeowi2 Ignorant royal asswipe cocksucker bigot: The indisputable fact is that all the religions of the world put together have in 2,000 years not managed to kill as many people as have been killed in the name of atheism in the past few decades. Its time to abandon the mindlessly repeated mantra that religious belief has been the greatest source of human conflict and violence. Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history.
Typical atheist:can't even count.
Christlovesanimals 10 months ago
@Christlovesanimals The world has been around longer than 2000 years, and so has religion.
Think about what you're saying: Apparently, more people nowadays have been killed not in the name of a god than have been killed in the name of a god...so you're saying that a person not killing in the name of a god is killing for atheism (if belief, or lack thereof, isn't relevant)? I want to know how you figure that, by the way.
MaoiMeowi2 10 months ago
@MaoiMeowi2 silly stupid atheist: I show you to be the damn fool that you are and you need more than 2000 years....
....damn, you're a stupid damn silly little atheist twerp. Any kindergartener can figure out what you can't: that ALL RELIGION from ALL TIME cannot compare with the death and suffering caused by ATHEISM just in the 20th century...
....you're one seriously fucked up fucktard, silly little atheist.
Christlovesanimals 10 months ago
@Christlovesanimals How eloquent.
We're talking about religion, not JUST Christianity. Therefore, ALL the years it has existed are relevant, similar to atheism. However, it's impossible to kill in the name of atheism, because if you're not killing because a god told you to, you're killing for a non-religious reason.
I meant give me numbers. Bona fide numbers. Don't repeat what you previously said and then call me a dumb fuck because I want you to elaborate.
MaoiMeowi2 10 months ago
@MaoiMeowi2 You're ignorance, denial and pomposity if unfathomable, huh?....Typical atheist drivel.
Stupid fuck.
Don't you have a comic book to go read? Silly little fuck.
Christlovesanimals 10 months ago
@Christlovesanimals No, I am not "ignorance", "denial", and "pomposity". I may be ignorant, but you never enlighten me. I am not, to my knowledge, in denial. You are the pompous one here (do you even know what that means?). To you, I'm unfathomable, but for you, everything new is.
Yes, I'm the stupid one for opposing what you've been brainwashed to believe.
MaoiMeowi2 10 months ago
@MaoiMeowi2 brainwashed?...are you fucking ignoramus or what??...is everyone involved in religion "brainwashed?"....what a fucking MAROON you are (that's a moron multiplied.)
Pompous ignorant asshole.
Christlovesanimals 3 months ago
@Christlovesanimals
With that English, you shouldn't go around calling people ignorant...
Furthermore, religion has cost more lives. The religious upheavels of the 16th and 17th centuries, including the Thirty Years War, cost the lives of more people than both world wars. Then we have the numerous genocides that has been inflicted on the Hindus of India and Pakistan over a period of 400 years. Almost every place entered by Muslims has been visited with genocide.
Faxe90Swe 4 months ago
@Faxe90Swe You pompous ignorant blind biased twit
are you intelligent enough to google?...I honestly doubt it--
either that or you're not interested in the least in getting at
historical truth. Google: Atheism, not religion is the real
force behind the mass murders of history" by Dinesh D'Souza / November 21, 2006
Fucktard.
Christlovesanimals 3 months ago
@Christlovesanimals
So intelligence is quoting ONE scholar and being assumptious enough, or rather, willing enough, to proclaim that obscure idea as the universal truth? Hell, I can do that. Here's something for you: "D'Souza is a noted Christian apologist and conservative writer and speaker." I didn't really need to google him to know that (his words were more than enough for me to figure out his angle), but I wanted to show off some intelligence.
Faxe90Swe 3 months ago
@Faxe90Swe "apologist"---you atheist twits LOVE that word don't you???....as if somehow magically you can wave the "apologist" wand and all pertinent points and facts can rightfully be swept under the rug.
Wrong twit.
Just another typical atheist logical fallacy.
Twit.
Christlovesanimals 3 months ago
@Christlovesanimals
I don't see you offering any logic at all, but I guess it's too much to ask for from a religious lunatic. By the way, what were those facts and points, I didn't even know you had any?
Faxe90Swe 3 months ago
@Faxe90Swe Trying to hit ALL the lameass atheist logical fallacies I see...
Christlovesanimals 3 months ago
@Christlovesanimals
Can you name a few of those fallacies?
Faxe90Swe 3 months ago
@Faxe90Swe Sorry, not biting on your boneheaded efforts at keeping this bullshit going by your pretending you know anything about Logic.
Nice try...not.
Run along silly atheist.
Christlovesanimals 3 months ago
@Christlovesanimals
Lol, that was a novel way of getting out of a tight spot.
Faxe90Swe 3 months ago
@Faxe90Swe tight spot? with your lameass?...ha!....you wish you intellectually lazy twit.
Christlovesanimals 3 months ago
@Christlovesanimals
ROFL, why do you even bother replying, you just continue affirming every prejudice about religious people. If you're not actually gonna argue, but just resort to name-calling (in lack of arguments, I presume), give it a rest.
Faxe90Swe 3 months ago
@Faxe90Swe for you ROFL means " 'Riting (sic) Only Flunky Lunacy"...Get a life silly atheist twit...oh, sorry, that's "Silly atheist twit who wouldn't know a logical fallacy if he shit it out his ass."
Christlovesanimals 3 months ago
@Christlovesanimals
I don't know because no one is informing me. Aren't your kind all for spreading the word? Spread some words for me!
Faxe90Swe 3 months ago
@Faxe90Swe poor silly atheist---you're not even bright enough to realize you've been owned. must suck for you twit.
Christlovesanimals 3 months ago
@Christlovesanimals
The only thing sucking here is the polytheistic lunatic enclosed in his bubble.
Faxe90Swe 3 months ago
@Faxe90Swe congratulations twit: you spelled polytheistic correctly. I told you having the dictionary next to your cpu would help. Too bad you didn't read the definition of "polytheistic."
twit.
do you have a life or do you live on the cpu?
Christlovesanimals 3 months ago
@Christlovesanimals
Firstly you have never ever said a word about a dictionary (then again, your kind has never been very honest about the truth). Secondly, I am sufficiently learned about religious matters to know that there is valid theological arguments about Christianity being polytheistic, the Holy Trinity and all. Why don't you stop bitching and gather the courage to speak plainly, and stop this evading of matters? You mght as well shut your pei hole if you're just gonna continue ranting
Faxe90Swe 3 months ago
@Faxe90Swe lameass twit
Christlovesanimals 3 months ago
@Christlovesanimals
Pie, that is, in case you're too bigoted to recognize a typo.
Faxe90Swe 3 months ago
@Faxe90Swe only a lameass could make such a lameass comment
Christlovesanimals 3 months ago
@Christlovesanimals
Also, it's a ridiculous issue in the first place. I mean, how do we define what's what? The Holocaust might at first glance appear as an atheist atrocity, then again, antisemitism didn't pop up all the sudden because of Hitler - it had been there, latent or active, for as long as Christians and Jews have coexisted. Hitler just reaped what had been sowned by religious conflict long before his ascendancy. That's one example of many in one giant grey-zone.
Faxe90Swe 3 months ago
@alanheath3 The atmosphere of post-WW1 Russia was one of betrayal and slaughter. Most Russians felt genuinely lied to an exploited for their suffering by the monarchy and the Bolsheviks easily proved to them that it was through the careful toolage of the church that they were manipulated, among other things. Through propaganda and rallies.
30DOTCOM 9 months ago
@BOLSHEVlK I don't think that is the case. Whereas in my opinion the shooters are whites too (if this is Russia), I cannot believe that hundreds of years of superstition and religious indoctrination would go in a few months.
Furthermore around 85% (or thereabouts) of the Red Army's officers in the Civil War were former Tsarist officers.
There is little doubt that white forces committed brutalities on a far bigger scale than the Bolsheviks, not of course denying that the latter did it too.
alanheath 11 months ago
@alanheath Whites during the war make crimes against Jews, but as you said then after the war Bolsheviks also made terrible crimes agains Jews, anti communist, peasants, religious, and more people. In all wars a side make more crimes than other, for example during Falklands War, when British navy sank Cruiser Belgrano. During WWII the Holocaust, Vietnam, Frenchs in Argelia...
BOLSHEVlK 11 months ago
@BOLSHEVlK In the first place, the sinking of the Belgrano was NOT a war crime. The Belgrano was an enemy warship of the aggressor sailing in a position where it could possibly attack the defending party.
It was the Whites who started pogroms and whereas some Reds may have murdered Jews and others, they could face the punishment including the death sentence for doing so. The Red Army is often judged by the standards of later communist crimes which is not fair.
alanheath 11 months ago
@alanheath Not a war crime? Belgrano was at a exclusion zone. Most British admit this fact. When I studied at the US Navy School in a exchange, they also admit that it was a war crime. South American Union nations, in 2008 made public a document, were it clarifies that was a war crime, the same desition take most of Central America nations (excluding Belize), Mexico, and former USSR nations.
BOLSHEVlK 11 months ago
@BOLSHEVlK The ship was attacking British troops - who the Argentinian aggressors had already attacked. To put this in context, where would you put the exclusion zone for WW2? Was it a crime to sink Nazi submarines in the Atlantic? Was the invasion of the Falklands a war crime? Or is that OK?
Most British do not admit it to be a crime and I know of no military legal opinion that thinks as such. Even the former captain of the Belgrano does not think it a crime.
alanheath 11 months ago
@alanheath First, the Belgrano was used as a transportation ship, thats why there were a lot of soldiers on it, and there were not many rescue boats. Belgrano didnt made any shot during the war because they were outside war zone. I agree that it was not a crime to sank German submarines, but yes it were, the German crimes against civilians or military ships outside war zone. Same happened with Belgrano, it was not at war zone. British made the same that Germans, they attacked in the same way.
BOLSHEVlK 11 months ago
@BOLSHEVlK And in your opinion, what were those soldiers doing? Whereas Belgrano may have been out of the exclusion zone, it was not out of the war zone and had been steaming in a clear attack position - in the same way as those German submarines were not out of the war zone.
Had the Argentinian fascist regime not attacked the Falkland Islands then those sailors (not soldiers) who were on board would still be alive today.
alanheath 11 months ago
@alanheath Being a military sailor, is being a soldier. Soldier (or military) is the term to refer to an Army, Air Force or Navy officer or subofficier. Argentinean regime was not fascist. During the regime the Military Junta kept excellent relations with Israel and USA. They just were anti communist (at that time communist terrorist groups were acting in Argentina) and opposite to British Imperialism. Just take a map, British have 14 overseas territories, I called that Fascist Imperialism.
BOLSHEVlK 11 months ago
@BOLSHEVlK Your political knowledge is not very good. Being on excellent terms with Israel or the USA does not stop some country being fascist - I can think of quite a few that are - although I would dispute the excellent relations with Israel that you claim. As far as communist terror groups are concerned, I can't think of any - it was the regime which was murdering people not the opposition to it. Having overseas territories is also not fascism - but maybe it is in your fairy tale world.
alanheath 11 months ago
@alanheath Your historical knowledge is not very good, because as you said that being on excellent terms with Israel or the USA does not stop some country being fascist, I said that being in war against the Imperialism is not being fascist. In my opinion fascism is: forcibly and clandestinely removed the entire population of Diego Garcia island, like the British did in 1966. THAT IS FASCISM!
BOLSHEVlK 11 months ago
@BOLSHEVlK That is not fascism. Nor is fascism the wholesale mass murder and in some cases genocide committed by European settlers on the native population of America or the continued occupation of their lands - for example.
For a definition of fascism I refer to you one of the many excellent on line dictionaries such as Websters or the OED.
alanheath 11 months ago 2
@alanheath
you're not suggesting that the genocide of europeans and occupation of their land wouldnt have taken place if the other peoples of the world had the ability, ARE YOU? lolz. nor are u suggesting that simply coz a native american's great, great, grandparents took a shit on north american land prior to a european, that the land someow "belongs" to them, ARE U? lolz
rddaos 1 month ago
@rddaos I think you need to learn some English language grammar. I cannot understand you.
alanheath 1 month ago
@alanheath
if an indian savage (redundant) is the very first person to take a rich creamy velvety dump on some topsoil in north america, does the dirt automatically "belong" to him? what if he's the first to piss in the water at an undiscovered beach, does his urine drift through the waves marking his legal territory? i mean... what EXACTLY was ur point? lolz
rddaos 1 month ago
@BOLSHEVlK
While many Bolshevistic were atheistic, most common Russians were very religious. Since the church had a stake in matters of property and land, most peasants set aside spiritual fears and joined the Communists.
Aurelian603 10 months ago
@BOLSHEVlK Most were Jewish just like Trotsky...
DjHyperblaze 6 months ago
@DjHyperblaze You are wrong, Trotsky was atheist.
BOLSHEVlK 6 months ago
@agumon12 "...didn't understand what communism was"? Just jsut do not know that "Soviet" means "worker councils". They are ruling instead of tzarists - that was easy to understand for Russians. and (!) actually the workers (not the communist party!) was the driving force for the concrete decision to make the revolution at this time! .
edgar0001 1 year ago
@edgar0001 ... BTW - that is more interesting than you may expect. The same happend at the German revolution 1919 - Rosa Luxemburg and the Spartacists always called for peace and negotiations .. she and all others just were killed by killers paid from the German capitalists "antibolshevist fonds" created 10th of Jan. 1919 in Berlin with nominal 500 millions of Reichsmark. This money also created nationalism and the NAZIs. Along with US NAZI support from FORD Bush & Co. .
edgar0001 1 year ago
They are definitely white movement soldiers, their summer uniforms are somewhat identical to those worn in this footage. But then again the reds also had men with these uniforms but my bets is that the executioners were white not red.
PhilipineMan 1 year ago
@karlkarlkarl1234 around 18 nations invaded russia to help the whites defeat the reds. nevertheless they were beaten.
orpheuscult75 1 year ago
Communism would have been ok if it had stayed in Russia. :)
But Mr.Lenin wanted a world revolution. Not socialism in one country. But in the end Mr.Stalin was also looking for a world revolution. Otherwise he would have no made the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Ribbentrop even offered the man some parts of the British Empire after Britain would be defeated.
ss90ss444 1 year ago
26 seconds ago
I was just watching The History Channel's "Joseph Stalin - Declassified" and during a discussion of executions during the great purges, this very footage was used as an example of Soviet violence (presumably because there is no video footage of executions during the great purges). So that makes me think it's probably "Reds" killing "Whites." And I agree with Spriglief, that was NOT the sign of the cross.
Bunklezz 1 year ago
It is irrelevant as both Reds and Whites summarily executed many thousands of POW's during this time. And Destroyer Alexandros is incorrect, records show that the Bolshevik Cheka executed 884 people during the first 6 months of existence. (See S. P. Melgunov on this)
Bunklezz 1 year ago
@Bunklezz
Reds always killed more.
Maybe because there was a civil war going on since Cheka was founded in 1917.
Not to mention many people did not like the fact that Lenin made peace with Germany after 3 million russians had just died in WW1.
Brest-Litovsk was Russias Versailles.
ss90ss444 1 year ago
@karlkarlkarl1234 yes they where you dumbass
jaza505 1 year ago
@BOLSHEVlK I can believe my own eyes. Hand goes behind his own right ear, and does not touch the head or the shoulders. Reading the body laungage, it he seems to be signaling, "hurry up." Who ever called this a sign of the cross was lieing or seeing things.
Spriglief 1 year ago
He waved his hands, he did not make the sign of the cross.
Spriglief 1 year ago
@Spriglief The soldier makes the sign of the cross in Orthodox style (right to left), then adjusts his hat.
ElQuintoRegimiento 1 year ago
@karlkarlkarl12
foreign armies participated there too.
mihanich 1 year ago
6) All data taken account, I believe we are in presence of a shooting of Red prisoners after a victory of Czech Legion, probably near Omsk or other Siberian place, during the period of advance of Czech Legion and Kolchak forces, may be between 1918 and 1919.
ymsena99 1 year ago
4) Before mobile phone era, the scenes of executions, and by force of reason those of first war movements, presumed some conditions: a) an organized military power, with modern means; b) a war in a stage of an expected victory; c) a ruthless way of making the war.
5) The footage is made on fertile soil, probably on the interior of the country and not near the coast or a harbour. It is not winter.
ymsena99 1 year ago
3.1) the expedite way of execution (they were moving in armoured trains and did not take prisoners with them); 3.2) the proximity between shooters and shot (they were experimented soldiers, with cold blood).
4) Before mobile phone era, the scenes of executions, and by force of reason those of first war movements, presumed some conditions: a) an organized military power, with modern means; b) a war in a stage of an expected victory; c) a ruthless way of making the war.
ymsena99 1 year ago
3) In Russian Civil War, from the White side, fought many Expeditionary Corps from all continents except Africa. The equipment of White Russian Armies was also foreign their general hatred against working classes and their revolt to establishment was a handicap to organize normal supply services on the rear. Despite the bad quality of the footage, the uniforms seem to me Czech. This could explain:
ymsena99 1 year ago
2) The men shot have different uniforms or no uniforms. They could be civilians, but I believe they were soldiers: they were shot with the face against the shooters. When some of the men initially draw their back to the shooters, those turned them face to face again. This is clearly a signal of the presence of defeated soldiers. One man seems to defy the shooters. It could be an officer or a communist. We can assume that they were red soldiers taken prisoners after a white offensive.
ymsena99 1 year ago
1) The initial words of the speaker are in good English. They refer the footage as a scene of the shooting by whites and blood the colour of both, indicating that the man shot are red soldiers, and that the inverse situation happened. This is clearly the case of Russian Civil War (cruel as all civil wars in any time). British documentary are very good. We can assume that the scene is a shooting, by white soldiers, of red prisoners, in Russian Civil War.
ymsena99 1 year ago
Bolshevik, you were very honest sharing with us not only the video, not only your certainties but also your doubts. Some of the commentaries were highly sceptical about your interpretation. May be because we know that are many forgeries on the web, sometimes we tend to another absurd behaviour - the one of classifying everything as fake or conspiracy. Well, let us try to flash some light on the subject.
ymsena99 1 year ago
they aren't British. British troops wore puttees, like leggings. These guys are wearing boots. Just Russians murdering Russians I'm afraid...
bloomsburymike 1 year ago
i have seen this before in a documentary, and and they said the where shooting criminals
svinok666 1 year ago
@ Which documentary?
BOLSHEVlK 1 year ago
@BOLSHEVlK if i can remember right it was about some history of russian mafia/criminals
svinok666 1 year ago
I've been doing some research and I don't believe the men in the firing squad are Whites or Reds. The uniforms are cut wrong for both sides. No shoulder boards, no arm patches the weapons have pistol grips and look like Mauser 98s. They look more like Freikops. It could be Latvia, Germany, Ukraine or anyplace they fought.
DrKorn5 1 year ago
@DrKorn5 Freikorps? I dont think that. The Freikorps were a paramilitary group they never executed people. I am sure that this film is from the Russian Civil War.
BOLSHEVlK 1 year ago
@BOLSHEVlK Freikorps certainly did execute people. And technically they did fight in the Russian civil war. Also they were not a paramilitary group at all. Particuarly in the Baltic states they were German troops that stopped listening to their government and followed only their officers. But like I said examine the weapons and uniforms they are not correct for any Russian troops or the Czechs like one person said.
DrKorn5 1 year ago
@DrKorn5 So they are British, American or French soldiers executing Bolsheviks.
BOLSHEVlK 1 year ago
@ss90ss444 you obviously have no clue of history and especially of the Russian civil war. I'm curious which millions of workers because the whites did NOT control the cities that those workers were in. Never held St.Petersburg, Moscow, Tula or any of the central ones. Kiev was taken briefly and in Siberia the percent of the population that were workers was so small that it was practically non existant.
DrKorn5 1 year ago
Oh you really want to know why the hats flew up? Maybe its cos they got shot in the head. Not remotely pleasing.
go123453 1 year ago
who cares if the executioners here are white or red, we all know the whites also executed people
andresrojas22 1 year ago
@andresrojas22
They did not just execute
Whites put people in camps and than starved them to death. How ever. Mr.Stalin started to murder all the heroes who fought against the white army. I will never understand why white army was so brutal to a bunch of unarmed weak workers.
ss90ss444 1 year ago
The executioners are not Reds - their uniforms are just too nice. Bolshevis were famous for shabby looks. But it doesn't necessarily mean that the executed were the Reds. It was the war of all against all. The executed could have been bandits or anarchists or some other group.
CrazyLeiFeng 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
How did the executioners keep from bursting into laughter when the victims little hats popped up after they were shot? That's just too cute!
boicrazyjen 1 year ago
you've never seen another human being drop like a fly being squatted to the floor. That human being had family, friends, a LIFE. Life, he only possession in this world which we all are entitled to when coming out of the womb of your mother. You are a sad person, laughter to you is not an emotion, but a reflex of your insentive narcasistice mind. Farewell
octobermadison 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Oh, come on, people die. Stop making a big deal out of it. It's just hysterical watching their little hats fly up. Watch he video again with an open mind.
The way their cute, little caps just pop up upon impact is just priceless! It reminds me of a scene in one of Jerry Lewis' movies where he was wearing a cap that popped up like that when he saw a pretty girl.
Everybody laughed. Admit it; it's funny.
boicrazyjen 1 year ago
"Cute". Why do you think their hats flew off? Have a think about it and try to work out why the hats went flying and see if you still thinks it's "cute". Then think about how much you would not like to stand where they were standing. "Cute"! What a loser.
MarsFKA 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Don''t be such a sissy.
It's neat seeing their little hats just fly up like a jack-in-the-boy. And you know the shooters could have demanded they remove their hats, but they liked seeing them pop up too.
It's just funny and cute. If one had refused, I would shoot him in his knees as an example to the others. Nobody gets shot without their hat. And we'd have a contest to see which one of us can make the guys hat fly the highest.
I'd try gut shots vs upper chest; which do you think would work?
boicrazyjen 1 year ago
@boicrazyjen Haha..that's hilarious!! I know what you mean though.
davidgrahamscott 1 year ago
They sure went down quickly. Dead before they hit the ground!
TheWhitehall 1 year ago
If you take a look at these poor soldiers who are shot, you can see the impact of the bullets are quite devastating. I do believe the Brits used a very high caliber bullet to insure one shot was enough for execution. This video, in my mind, is just too real. To watch someone die, is shocking, to say the least.
noff27 1 year ago 11
@noff27 I agree with you noff27, but British also support with munitions to the White Army during Russian Civil War. But it could be possible that they are British. Do you remember the name of the film? It was "Execution"?
BOLSHEVlK 1 year ago
@noff27 The cartridge used in the Russian Moisin-Nagant rifle is more powerful than the .303 British round and just as powerful as the American 30-06.
kpadmirer 1 year ago
I don't think it matters if the brits used a higher calibre bullet, its still murder in the end of the day :(
182fooz 1 year ago
I know this for a fact, the execution squad are British.
noff27 2 years ago
@noff27 How do you know that, please explain. Thank you very much.
BOLSHEVlK 1 year ago
There is a Dutch documentary in 35 parts that deals with Europe through the 20th century. This film footage was shown and it was said the soldiers were British.
noff27 1 year ago
The strange thing about the guy supposedly making the sign of the cross is that his hand ends on the right side of his head. In Russia, the sign of the cross is made from right to left, so the hand should be on the other side of his body.
StealthGoblin1 2 years ago
@StealthGoblin1,It`s true, the guy who crosses himself finishes at the right ear because of something (a mosquito for example) but I think they are not foreigners because he begins from the right shoulder, as Russians do.
Baaaarrrt 1 year ago
Could be the greens...
Notsogratefuldead 2 years ago
Absolutely meaningless pictures. Too blurry to recognize any uniforms or insignia. They could be shot anytime, anywhere in the world. There is no way to know who is being executed and for what. There were plenty of atrocities committed in all the wars and war criminals executed under war conditions. You can extrapolate and believe anything you want from those.
ssmusic214 2 years ago 2
Hard to say who is shooting whom. But the footage certainly looks like from WWI or the Russian Civil War.
56LC 2 years ago
No you are wrong! The whites wore epaulets the red did not. The main difference. A do not see any epaulets here.
Gorkovka79 2 years ago
Blocking my comments? I must have hit pretty close to the mark eh? Suck it Commy!
rross27 2 years ago
You failed to exterminate the Jews thanks to the Red Army, and you can't change it. How about getting that pole out of your ass and doing something with your life other than shouting sieg heil with a shaved head?
hectorbolshevik 2 years ago
actually the russians executed jews too,and they werent the ones that stopped the holocaust