The Soviet Union collapsed because of corruption and oligarchy. Russia has yet to learn from her mistakes. Warfare should be only when needed and not a tool of colonialism. The USA is now the next Soviet Union and will collapse, in time, due to corruption and oligarchy. Russia, need only fear oligarch criminality and a lack of democracy, in Russia, while the US Government destroys the USA, for the benefit of bankers and trust fund babies. A poor USA will be no threat to Russia or China.
This intentional killing of innocent civilians was done by U.S forces in Vietnam, and Russian forces in Chechnya. This was not the behavior of Soviet forces who saw Afghans as their brothers. A victory for American foreign policy to prevent national health care and women's rights.
@hectorbolshevik There's a few hundred thousand Europeans probably more ranging from Berlin to Moscow who are now 6 feet under that would disagree with you. The Russian leader ship didn't give two shits about their troops but hey you cant argue with wave tactics. Also Intentional killing of civilians was a practice done more Vietcong and the North and don't try citing Mai Lai because compared to their 300 there's about 6000 more in Hue city who will agree its a Communist tactic.
@YourCommonSense93: Who? The ones who voluntarily put on SS uniforms to the the Nazis' dirty work? Sob! Amazing that even through incompetent leadership the Red Army still saved the world from Hitler isn't it?
@hectorbolshevik Saved the world my ass You only saved your own land. And then proceeded to shut the rest of the world off from the lands you did take from the Germans.After they broke your "Non Aggression Pact" AKA the lets fuck the world together plan. The U.S fought two Fronts pretty much killed the German Infrastructure with allied bombings along with the U.K and stopped Hitler from making the supplies necessary to fuck Russia with a little less than half (4 million) the losses.
@YourCommonSense93: Nice story, but pure fiction. 90% of the Nazi war machine was destroyed by the Red Army on the Eastern Front along with their allies. The U.S only joined the war in Europe when it was evident that the Soviets were going to be victorious. The U.S/British bombings did next to nothing to stop the Nazi slaughter in the East. Supplies were sabbotaged and destroyed by Partisans in Eastern Europe. Study, lad.
@hectorbolshevik While I don't like doing WWII arguments on the internet, I'm going to have to call you out here. The entry of the US into the war was based on the attack at Pearl Harbor, not the situation in Europe. When we joined the war (Hitler declared on us on December 11, 1941), the Germans were still pushing deep into the Soviet Union with a surge that didn't end until 1943 at Stalingrad. Also, Germany had two major allies (Italy and Japan), and guess who took them out. Hint: America
@Meirstein: Read more carefully. What I said was that the U.S only joined the war in Europe when it was evident that the Soviets would win. Mussolini was toppled and hung by Italian Partisans, not U.S forces; though they did push the Nazis out of the country.
@hectorbolshevik It depends on what you mean by "join the war." We started fighting Hitler in Northern Africa in 1942, while he was still moving into Russia. However, the Lend-Lease act had us supplying everything from uniforms to food to trucks to guns to both the British and the Soviets in 1940. So either way, we fought against Hitler far before the turning points at Stalingrad and Kursk.
@YourCommonSense93: The Viet Cong and the North had the majority of the people on their side. No matter how hard the U.S tried they could not break them. U.S killed a total of 5 million in that war. You don't like Mai Lai? Ok, how about U.S soldiers raping Vietnamese women and children and tossing them from helicopters to their deaths? Spraying agent orange over the land that still causes birth defects? Take your pick.
@hectorbolshevik Around 6000 Civilians were found tortured and buried alive. All part of a NVA/VC Reorganization program for Hue. And are you referring to the Incidents where they took Enemy Combatants and pushed them out during interrogations? And where do you get your number of 5m from when estimates of civilian losses caused by both sides was around 1.5m. Also of course the Vietnamese supported the VC wouldn't you support those who could go into your village and kill you with no punishment?
@YourCommonSense93: Around 6,000 landlords and other U.S puppets were killed in Hue. The Vietnamese people generally supported the Viet Cong and NVA. The whole reason the U.S called off the election on whether to unify the country or not. I'm refering to when U.S forces abducted women and children, raped them in helicopters, and fung them to their deaths. 3 million Vietnamese civilians died as a result of the U.S aggression, another 2 in Laos and Cambodia.
@YourCommonSense93: Of course I would support the force fighting those bastards that saw me as nothing more than a "gook". And you'd think with your assessment, that the Americans, Australians, South Koreans, Thai, Philipinos, New Zealanders, plus the sourthern Army would have easiliy won the support of the people. With the odds at 8 to 1, and the U.S failing to secure a single region, that sums up who had the loyalty of Vietnam. It wasn't the murders of rapists of the U.S led force.
Afghanistan is cursed. You can take the whole country, but no-one is able to keep it. And when enemy leaves, within couple of years their empire will go bankrupt.
I know the Russians were ruthless, but you gotta love the gatlin gun on the Mi-24. Everybody.......just pretend that it's a bunch of liberal, traitor, fuckwads like Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, and George Soros that are getting gunned down by the Mi-24s in this move.........Oh! and you too Blackadder92894 you dicklipped dirtbag!
@Lex5576 I approve this message! I would pay to see Pelosi get shredded by a Gatling. It would be great to see that wrinkly, smug and relf-righteous look on the face of that duplicitous and traitorous whore get turned into a steaming pile of fertilizer.
@tearsinrain86 having family members who have starved to death by the soviets int the Holodomor Ukrainian(terror famine) and others who have been sent to gulags in siberia. I take personal offence to your statement
@Sleepy1988 go fuck yourself you selfish anti communist piece of shit U.S.S.R. Rules american in my opinion i love it but its going down to shit right now BECAUSE OF FUCKING STUPID REPUBLICANS OR WAIT LET ME RE FRASE THAT "REPIGLICANS" SO GO FUCK YOURSELF
@Sleepy1988 Alot, and joining one was compulsory. And by the way, the average working day in the USSR was 7 hours long with a maximum of 8 hours and 15 minutes.
@tearsinrain86 ARMING SOUTHEAST ASIAN PEASANTS AND STOKING A CIVIL WAR WHICH RESULTED IN THE DEATHS OF OVER 4 MILLION VIETNAMESE AND CAMBODIANS- ANOTHER VICTORY FOR THE WORKERS' WORLD REVOLUTION!
Let the Soviets have their Afghanistan we don't want it and look i rather live in a communist state(because i am communist) than some country ruled by some ugly bearded bastards that think they going to get something out of crashing into two towers and treat women like if they not even human thats horrible i'm not a feminist but women deserve a lot respect at least russians don't treat woman like they not even human they treat them with some respect
The destruction those helicopters could wreack is crazy - todays choppers are probably a half way house between the 5th element and them! ouch. Still, until there is uber armour, size is nothing!
this movie only described Soviet soldiers as murderous monstrousitys. they went in to help a government and fight terrorists in reality. damn american movies...
Americans are now butchering civilians in Pakistan using predator drones, got to love little body parts of of children and women after they are hit with hellfire missiles, it is compassionate American love and humanity
This movie spreads such dumb propaganda that is almost unable to bear it! As this ridiculous flick does not only claim that the Soviet Union did fell because of their war in Bactria but also that it was in the late 80s a major global menace; not to mention that the Soviets lost more troopers, planes and vehicles in every single battle during World War II against Germany than they had deployed to Bactria; the Soviet Union did fail due to their misgovernment and inefficiently and nothing else.
Remember, the Soviet Union was a brutal dictatorship. If life in it was so wonderful, it never would have had to use such force to keep everyone inside of it, such as by oppressing any and all uprisings that occurred, and by building the Berlin Wall, and oppressing freedom of speech and human rights. It had to use force to hold all of the satellite countries together.
@WheelsRCool: I never said that life in the USSR was wonderful. Yes, the USSR was ruled by bureaucratic dictatorship. What I said was, the USSR had gains which are greatly missed today, which many in the U.S could only dream of. If you're refering to such CIA funded Nazi collaborators like the Forest Brothers or the UPA; then yes brutal force was necessary. As for human rights, those who don't practice it have no right to acuse the USSR of human rights violations.
@hectorbolshevik The USSR had no gains whatsoever, which is why everyone was hellbent on leaving it, including its own satellite nations. In fact, the standard of living within the USSR was so low that when the USSR broke up, it shocked even the people who had known all along that socialism doesn't work. The Soviets utilzed brutal force against anyone who wanted to leave the country or who criticized the government. And no the U.S. does not violate human rights.
@WheelsRCool BTW, if you hate imperialism, then you should hate the USSR as it was one of the most imperialistic nations in history. And if you hate fascism, then you should hate Soviet-socialism as Soviet-style socialism and fascism are pretty much the same thing.
@WheelsRCool: The USSR was not imperialist by any means. Imperialism comes from colonialism, war, and occupation for profit. Fascism is a product of capitalism which will come about when capitalists need to protect their interests under social unrest. The social elements of fascism are every conservative patriot's wet dream.
@hectorbolshevik The USSR was the epitomy of imperialist. It was Russia the master nation surrounded by a bunch of satellite nations which it held to itself by military force. It would have taken over all of Europe if not for the U.S. And no fascism is not conservative by any means. Fascism involves dictatorship and government control over the economy. It is just a different variant of Soviet-style socialism. Nazism was about the workers and ending the bourgeousie just like in the USSR.
@apocalypticmadman The name says it all if you are still confused: National Socialist Workers party. The Nazis hated market capitalism for a variety of reasons, ranging from seeing it as a Jewish-controlled evil to seeing it as something that had taken the German human away from nature. Under Nazism, the economy was placed under the control of the State.
@WheelsRCool in politics, the names not necesarily shows the true goals. I think you aren't such a moron to don't know that fact. The capitalist class mantained it's privileges, even if the state controlled the German economy. On a purely economic criteria, I will put Hitler's program in the center of the spectrum. Neither in left, nor right.
@WheelsRCool in politics, the names not necesarily shows the true goals. I think you aren't such a moron to don't know that fact. The capitalist class mantained it's privileges, even if the state controlled the German economy. On a purely economic criteria, I will put Hitler's program in the center of the spectrum. Neither in left or right.
@WheelsRCool The names not allways shows the true goals. I think you aren't such a moron to don't know that widely seen fact. The capitalist class mantained it's some privileges, even if the Nazi state controlled the economy. On a purely economic criteria, I will put Hitler in the center of the spectrum.
@WheelsRCool the name of that party never showed te complete goals, it was a tactic to attract support from the working people in the struggle against soviet style communism. The capitalist class mantained some privileges, even if the German state controlled the economy. In a purely political criteria, I will put Hitler's aspirations on the centre of the spectrum
@apocalypticmadman Only Aryan businesspeople retained their property, and that was only as long as they went along with the Nazi agenda. And even then, things like wages and dividends were controlled. If they refused to abide with the Nazi agenda, their businesses were nationalized. Jews and all other "degenerates" had their property confiscated.
@apocalypticmadman To a Marxist, Nazism couldn't be socialist because it allows for private property ownership, which is heresy to a Marxist. But other forms of socialism, such as Fabian socialism, also allowed private property ownership. What makes an economy socialist is if the government controls it or the market. The Nazi economy was government-controlled. After WWII, Germany adopted a market economy b/c the people wanted nothing to do with socialism, as to them socialism was a Nazi thing.
@WheelsRCool: I know that facts, but I think that we should define "socialism" in the marxist way, because a goverment controlled market can be intended only to avoid the destruction of the capitalist class under marxian socialism. Personally, I think that Fabians only wanted to reform the previous system as to avoid a revolution, even Lenin laughted at what Fabians considered "socialism''
@apocalypticmadman Perhaps it could, but remember capitalism itself can be a form of serfdom just like socialism. The difference is that with capitalism, if you mate it with a free-market, people can start at the bottom and become prosperous. Capitalism without a free-market is just as bad as pure socialism. And yes, Fabian socialism calls for the gradual implementation of socialism as opposed to violent revolution. Lenin laughing at Fabian socialism doesn't mean it was not socialism however.
@WheelsRCool A free market capitalism also have many negative aspects, because there are unavoidable market failures and capitalist overproduction. Remember when Dr. M. Luther King sayed: "Communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social, and the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capitalism but in a higher synthesis. It is found in a higher synthesis that combines the truths of both."
@apocalypticmadman Market capitalism is by no means perfect, no system is. It is just a matter of which system functions the least badly. Market capitalism is not the solution to everything either. For the production and distribution of goods and services, market capitalism is mostly the best for that, but government has roles as well.
@MrReco12 Socialism can include elements of capitalism, what it does not include is a market. Nazism did not allow markets to coordinate the economy. Remember, capitalism doesn't need a market to exist. Private companies functioning under Nazism had to go along with the Nazi agenda, or else face nationalization.
@WheelsRCool: The USSR was NOT imperialist. Imperialism is colonialism of underdeveloped countries to rule for profit. The USSR never did this. The people in those countries welcomed the Soviet liberation. Fascism/Nazism has nothing to do with workers or socialism, idiot. The Nazis got power handed to them by the German capitalists who feared another 1919. They saved the wealth of the counts, bankers, aristocrats, and barons. Go study for once in your life, you simpleton.
@hectorbolshevik The USSR was most certainly imperialist. It was Russia, the master nation, holding onto a bunch of colonial nations by military force, alogn with a slew of overseas colonies. And no, the people never welcomed the Soviet "liberation." Liberation means people are free. The Berlin Wall is a prime example of how untrue that was. And yes, fascism and Nazism very much about the workers, hence the term, "National Socialist Workers Party."
@hectorbolshevik Yes, INITIALLY, the German capitalists supported the Nazi party. Nazi policy was all corporations had to fall in line with the Nazi party agenda or face outright nationalization. Price controls, wage controls, dividend controls, production quotas, etc...were implemented (i.e. gov't control of the economy). In this sense, the Soviet Union really used a form of "superfascism."
@MrReco12 Yup, but remember Britain was at war, I mean the same things occurred in the American economy during WWI and WWII as well, and after WWII, Labor party took over and nationalized many industries, adhering to Fabian socialism.
"Fascism, at any rate the German version, is a form of capitalism that borrows from Socialism just such features as will make it efficient for war purposes."
As you would know, the Nazis only converted to a TOTAL WAR economy in 1944 whilst Britain had a TW economy right from the beginning!
@MrReco12 Yes, one could consider fascism a form of capitalism with socialist elements, or a form of socialism with capitalist elements, but it is not market capitalism, as the economy is controlled by the government. It is a lighter form of what the Soviets were practicing (or, as F.A Hayek termed it, the Soviet socialism was like a form of "superfascism"). Private property of any kind is heresy to a Marxist, so to them, fascism, Fabian socialism, etc...were all "capitalism."
Hayek supported Augusto Pinochet, so i say he was the fascist. Using Hayeks laughable myths , we can say that capitalism has never existed in wartime.
@MrReco12 There is some confusion over the whole Pinochet thing. Some think Milton Friedman supported him as well, but he was actually critical of Pinochet's regime, so I would imagine Hayek was as well. Chile today, thanks to free-market reforms, is the most prosperous nation in Latin America.
Hayek was never critical of Pinochet, the dictator's "reforms" doubled poverty in his country. Beleive it or not, Chilie was already the most prosperous nation with a strong democratic tradition. This was ruined by Pinochet and his murderers!
South Korean Dictator Park Chun Lee was more of a socialist than Hitler.
@MrReco12 The reforms made Chile very prosperous. Chile however was undergoing triple-digit inflation when Friedman and the Chicago boys came in, so they recommended raising interest rates (cutting the money supply) to fix the inflation. This has the nasty side effect of tanking an economy, and thus plunged Chile into a depression with high unemployment for seven years.
@WheelsRCool: The Nazis implemented strict christian family law in Germany, killed abortion doctors, tied women to their husbands, discouraged women from working, racism, homophobia, and your favorite: smashing the Germany's unions. Which earned Hitler the admiration of Churchill, the U.S, and every imperialist. Little wonder they all supported Franco's fascists in Spain.
@hectorbolshevik The Nazis took abortion policy, which was tied in with eugenics, to an extreme, killing all "unfit" peoples. And no, the Nazis were no Christian. That is why in order to bring Nazism to America, a warped version of Christianity had to be created, called Christian Identity. Yes, the government smashed unions too. So did the Soviet Union. And Churchhill never admired Hitler.
@WheelsRCool: I've already named you the gains, but again to "American christian values", those are not gains. And now with people losing jobs in those countries, remember those "bad times" when they were had secured jobs. Soviet living standards were not high by any means, but when Russia became a capitalist paradise, I guess in your terms evictions, homelessness, poverty, hunger, would be higher standards of living because they happen in the USA.
@hectorbolshevik Where in Christianity does it say those are not gains? And what makes you think all of America is Christian? You are also making a classic socialist fallacy, which is to blame the conditions of a failed socialist state on capitalism. RUSSIA IS NOT A MARKET CAPITALIST SYSTEM. It is fascist. It is what happens when socialism fails and then market capitalism and liberal democracy are not established. Russia went from socialism to anarchy, and thus the mafia took control.
@WheelsRCool: Look at christianity's history. Christianity is the backbone of U.S domestic policy: death penalty, criminalization of prostitution, homophobia, sexophobia, etc. No, you are trying to excuse capitalism for the misery it brought Eastern Europe. Russia established a successful capitalist economy, with countless partnerships throughout the world, with a profiting minority and their people suffered. In short, Russia is a "free and democratic" country.
@hectorbolshevik There is no vibrant market economy in Russia. Again, you are mistaking the case of a failed socialist state with market capitalism. Russia has what would more accurately be described as a form of a fascist system right now. During the Cold War, you had market capitalism in West. Germany versus Soviet socialism in E. Germany. So many people fled E. Germany that they had to build a wall to stop them, and line it with attack dogs and armed guards.
Why would the U.S intervene...Could have ended terrorism as we know it...instead the U.S fueled islamic extreamist fire and know look where they are...its a real shame such a great country like the CCCP had to ''go'' even though PLENTY of russians i know here in MockBa want it back. ..and btw this is complete bullshit in this movie.. '' bayoneting children'' what a fucking lie , and the U.S didnt pile up vietnamese and koreans and burn them for ''suspected plot of aggression'' yeah ok ..oook..
Russia is still after its old Soviet days today, oppressing any free speech it doesn't like right now, and seeking to bully its former Soviet-bloc satellites.
@WheelsRCool: Russia's current behavior has more in common with the Russian Empire than with the USSR. Its old Soviet days would mean the end of Putin and Medvedev, and their system.
@Glosuraban America never did anything like this. You never saw American soldiers raping Afghan women, bayoneting pregnant women, and basically shooting and missiling the daylights out of Afghanistan.
@CommissarRed American soldiers did not rape and bayonet Vietnamese women, and throughout most of the Vietnam War, Northern Vietnam and Cambodia were off limits to bombing. Furthermore, the U.S. in Vietnam wasn't about trying to conquer the place like the Soviets in Afghanistan, it was about stopping communism from taking conrol of the whole country
@WheelsRCool "American soldiers did not rape and bayonet Vietnamese women" yes they did, hell there was even a film about one incident with Michael J fox. the Vietnamese Guerilla's also taught female fighters to insert razor blades into their genitals to deter similar "advances". Then theres the much publicised My Lai massacre were US troops gunned down an entire village only to find they had no weapons or involvement in the war,
@CommissarRed Female guerillas inserted razor blades into their genitals to get at American soldiers whom they prostituted themselves to, not because American soldiers were raping them. As for the My Lai massacre, that was a one-time event and the soldiers involved were disciplined accordingly. It wasn't something they were allowed to do with no repercussions, like the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
Again remember, the U.S. wasn't in Vietnam for empire, it was there to stop the North.
@WheelsRCool "As for the My Lai massacre, that was a one-time event and the soldiers involved were disciplined accordingly." No it was the most well publicised case.
"like the Soviet Union in Afghanistan." You keep saying the USSR was completely monstrous and saying every example of US crimes don't count but you've yet to actually name a single instance of Soviet atrocities.
@CommissarRed The very existence of the Soviet Union itself was an atrocity. It was Russia the master nation holding all of its satellite nations to itself by force, with horrible oppression of its own people. There were the Soviet gulags as well. As for atrocities, there's the atrocities the Soviets committed in Afghanistan, the slaughter of the Hungarians, the Berlin Wall (how dare people decide to leave the glorious paradise that was the USSR), etc...yes, the USSR was monstrous.
@WheelsRCool Ignoring the severe historical inaccuracies,This has absolutely nothing to do with the question, the Soviet Union was bad so what? how does that mean they should get blanket criticism when another place that supposed to be nicer does the same thing it gets high praise? if anything shouldn't that be worse? that a nation that has high ideals and claims moral superiority stoops to level of those it claims to be better?
@CommissarRed "Bad" Is a bit of an understatement for the Soviet Union. Never said the U.S. deserves high praise if the U.S. does the same thing, except it didn't.
@WheelsRCool "Bad" Is a bit of an understatement for the Soviet Union" And its also still irrelevant, "Never said the U.S. deserves high praise if the U.S. does the same thing, except it didn't. " Accept it did and I've given you several examples of that, but you've yet to provide any examples of the Soviets doing anything that you've accused them of in Afghanistan.
@WheelsRCool: So what came after "opening the prison and the prisoners left"? When you live a prison you're free, right? And yet you say Russia is not free. I think you have not a clue in what you're talking about.
@hectorbolshevik When you live in a prison, you're not free, you're a prisoner. That's what makes it a prison. If people are free to do as they please, including come and go, it no longer is a prison. And no, Russia is not free, hence the journalists who criticize the government that keep getting shot.
@WheelsRCool: Yeah, like the millions of Iraqis and Afghans suffering under U.S led occupation. As for the USSR, free people aren't supposed to miss prisons, are they? I don't know about you, but I'd never look on a prison with nostalgia. Russia is not free? So why did you people hail the current government seizing power in 1991? Why did the U.S applaud the rape of Chechnya (now part of the bloody "war on terror"). Russia kills journalists, the U.S kills abortion doctors. Go figure.
@hectorbolshevik No one is suffering under U.S.-led occupation, people are being killed because the terrorists refuse to stop fighting. The U.S. is ready to stop fighting tomorrow if they would. The Iraqi peoples were freed from what was a brutal dictator, one of the most brutal in the Middle East. As for Russia, Russia is not a free nation. It is an example of a failed socialist state, what happens when socialism fails but a vibrant liberal democracy and market capitalism are not able to form.
@WheelsRCool: Yeah, you can just see how thrilled Afghans are at the U.S bombing their country for almost a decade, and the Iraqis. The U.S will not stop fighting until they fully have both countries under their control so they can rape and plunder both countries. All the U.S did was replace both its former stooges, with regimes just as brutal. Russia is a clear example of a successful capitalist regime: rich get richer, poor get poorer. You called Russia "free" in 1991.
@hectorbolshevik The U.S. has no interest in "controlling" either country. If the U.S. wanted to control Iraq, it would have implemented a puppet gov't and taken control over the oil. Instead it established a liberal democracy and let Iraq auction off its own oil contracts, which went to countries like Russia, not the U.S. Afghanistan the U.S. is seeking to break the terrorists, that is all. Russia is an example of the failure to apply both democracy and capitalism properly.
@WheelsRCool: A puppet government in Iraq was implemented after the "mission accomplished" speech in 2003. Only parties that bowed to U.S imperialism were allowed to be part of the government. You call Iraq even still with the fighting a "liberal democracy", yet you don't consider Russia one. The U.S will not break their frankenstein monsters in Afghanistan, the U.S is losing. They're just there to build that pipeline for their own profit. Afghans know this.
@hectorbolshevik The "puppet government" was only temporary to allow Iraq to transition to a democracy, which it did. And there was no "Mission Accomplished" speech, it was a speech on an aircraft carrier with a "Mission Accomplished" banner lcoated overhead which gave the (false) impression that that was the subject of the speech. The U.S. has no interest in profit in Afghanistan, no more so than it did in Iraq (Iraq auctioned off its own oil contracts).
@hectorbolshevik Regarding killing people, yes, the Russian government kills journalists who criticize it. It is tied up with the Russian mafia. The U.S. government does not kill abortion doctors, some maniacal idiot did.
@WheelsRCool: You can't be that stupid. You think "maniacal idiots" like Michael Bray aren't shacked up with the Republicans? How do you think these groups get their support? South Dakota right now wants to pass a resolution that will permit the killings of abortion doctors? More maniacal idiots, huh?
@hectorbolshevik BTW, in a market economy, the rich get richer by creating more wealth via providing products and services that improve people's lives, not by making anyone poorer. That is why the poorest Americans are "rich" by global standards. And no SD is not trying to pass a law to permit the killing of anyone.
@WheelsRCool: You must really be out of touch with reality, lad. Jobs in the U.S are still getting cut. But with your backwards state of mind, I can see how you would see that as an improvement. I guess in global standards homeless people don't even have cardboard boxes. Only Americans have them, right? How rich! Look up the law South Dakota was trying to pass on abortion, little one.
@WheelsRCool "Bad" Is a bit of an understatement for the Soviet Union" And its also still irrelevant, "Never said the U.S. deserves high praise if the U.S. does the same thing, except it didn't. " Accept it did and I've given you several examples of that, but you've yet to provide any examples of the Soviets doing anything that you've accused them of in Afghanistan.
@WheelsRCool "Bad" Is a bit of an understatement for the Soviet Union" And its also still irrelevant, "Never said the U.S. deserves high praise if the U.S. does the same thing, except it didn't. " Accept it did and I've given you several examples of that, but you've yet to provide any examples of the Soviets doing anything that you've accused them of in Afghanistan.
@WheelsRCool "Bad" Is a bit of an understatement for the Soviet Union" And its also still irrelevant, "Never said the U.S. deserves high praise if the U.S. does the same thing, except it didn't. " Accept it did and I've given you several examples of that, but you've yet to provide any examples of the Soviets doing anything that you've accused them of in Afghanistan.
@WheelsRCool "Bad" Is a bit of an understatement for the Soviet Union." Its also still quite irrelevant. "Never said the U.S. deserves high praise if the U.S. does the same thing, except it didn't." Oh but it did, I've given you several examples of such actions, yet you have yet to back any of your claims about the USSR in Afghanistan other then a few false statements.
@WheelsRCool: Workers electing their managers. Not to mention pulling Russia out of that hated war. The Whites with the backing of 17 powerful armies couldn't win. How horrible! Stalin trampled on these gains. Sure Lenin was oppressive if you were a Black Hundred white goon answering to U.S and British officers. Gorbachov sold out because he and the Soviet bureaucracy had no more use for it. Gorbachov led the country into the hell you called "freedom", and your prison rhetoric suggests.
@WheelsRCool: Compare life in the USSR with the "free democratic Russia" of today. The USSR was formed by a popular revolution that violated everything the USA stood for, that was the only atrocity. Unlike the USA they provided their people with jobs, shelter, health care, education, a month paid vacation, and other things the U.S finds horrific. But yes, it was oppressive after Stalin took over, which unfortunately never died and stayed to give the USSR to the capitalists.
@WheelsRCool: People like you called Russia "free and democratic" when Yeltsin proclaimed his victory. Now it's not? It's just not thriving. The USSR was formed BY the working people of the prison house of the peoples. during Lenin's days women had a right to vote, racial discrimination criminalized, the church removed from power, homosexuality decriminalized, working places unionized. What a dictatorship! Sure, to the "civilized christian world".
@hectorbolshevik I never called Russia free and democratic. The USSR was formed by a dictatorship hellbent on power and slaughter. Women had no right to vote, racial discimination occurred plenty, yes religious freedom was oppressed, unions were not permitted unless they toed the Party line. The Solidarity Movement in Poland was a union that the Soviet Polish governmetn tried to smash.
@WheelsRCool: When Yeltsin stood on the barracks people like you hailed him and later his presidency as "free and democratic". The USSR was voluntarily formed by Bolsheviks in the former prison house of peoples. Women had no vote? Racial discrimination? Explain Alexandra Kollontai, or non-Russians who held power after the revolution at a time in the "free world", the thought of women or minorities in power was an abomination. Don't talk of what you don't know.
@hectorbolshevik For the most part, women had no pwoer within the Soviet Union and still don't in Russia these days. And yes, racial discimination occurred, this scene by the anti-Semitism within the USSR. You also forget the oppression of the peoples, so much so that they had to build the Berlin Wall to turn the USSr into a giant prison.
@WheelsRCool: Yes, they did when Lenin "violated western christian values" and got women out of the kitchen and into the labor force, including commanding their own work places and units of the Red Army. Sight me one incident in the USSR where where thugs ran around indiscriminately waving "democratic" flags of Russia and beating non-Russians. The Berlin Wall was in Germany not the USSR, you simple-minded fool.
GUYS GUYS FIGHT MORE ABOUT AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY ON YOUTUBE COMMENT SECTIONS PL0X, YOU'RE DOING YOUR COUNTRY A GREAT SERVICE.
18honeybadger 6 days ago
CANNOT UNSEE, the second strafing run by the Hind is simply the first one flipped vertically.
Schmidtah 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Soviet Union collapsed because of corruption and oligarchy. Russia has yet to learn from her mistakes. Warfare should be only when needed and not a tool of colonialism. The USA is now the next Soviet Union and will collapse, in time, due to corruption and oligarchy. Russia, need only fear oligarch criminality and a lack of democracy, in Russia, while the US Government destroys the USA, for the benefit of bankers and trust fund babies. A poor USA will be no threat to Russia or China.
mjmorrow76 1 month ago
Comment removed
mjmorrow76 1 month ago
Comment removed
mjmorrow76 1 month ago
Comment removed
mjmorrow76 1 month ago
Comment removed
mjmorrow76 1 month ago
Comment removed
mjmorrow76 1 month ago
This intentional killing of innocent civilians was done by U.S forces in Vietnam, and Russian forces in Chechnya. This was not the behavior of Soviet forces who saw Afghans as their brothers. A victory for American foreign policy to prevent national health care and women's rights.
hectorbolshevik 2 months ago
@hectorbolshevik There's a few hundred thousand Europeans probably more ranging from Berlin to Moscow who are now 6 feet under that would disagree with you. The Russian leader ship didn't give two shits about their troops but hey you cant argue with wave tactics. Also Intentional killing of civilians was a practice done more Vietcong and the North and don't try citing Mai Lai because compared to their 300 there's about 6000 more in Hue city who will agree its a Communist tactic.
YourCommonSense93 2 months ago
@YourCommonSense93: Who? The ones who voluntarily put on SS uniforms to the the Nazis' dirty work? Sob! Amazing that even through incompetent leadership the Red Army still saved the world from Hitler isn't it?
hectorbolshevik 2 months ago
@hectorbolshevik Saved the world my ass You only saved your own land. And then proceeded to shut the rest of the world off from the lands you did take from the Germans.After they broke your "Non Aggression Pact" AKA the lets fuck the world together plan. The U.S fought two Fronts pretty much killed the German Infrastructure with allied bombings along with the U.K and stopped Hitler from making the supplies necessary to fuck Russia with a little less than half (4 million) the losses.
YourCommonSense93 2 months ago
@YourCommonSense93: Nice story, but pure fiction. 90% of the Nazi war machine was destroyed by the Red Army on the Eastern Front along with their allies. The U.S only joined the war in Europe when it was evident that the Soviets were going to be victorious. The U.S/British bombings did next to nothing to stop the Nazi slaughter in the East. Supplies were sabbotaged and destroyed by Partisans in Eastern Europe. Study, lad.
hectorbolshevik 1 month ago
@hectorbolshevik While I don't like doing WWII arguments on the internet, I'm going to have to call you out here. The entry of the US into the war was based on the attack at Pearl Harbor, not the situation in Europe. When we joined the war (Hitler declared on us on December 11, 1941), the Germans were still pushing deep into the Soviet Union with a surge that didn't end until 1943 at Stalingrad. Also, Germany had two major allies (Italy and Japan), and guess who took them out. Hint: America
Meirstein 1 month ago
@Meirstein: Read more carefully. What I said was that the U.S only joined the war in Europe when it was evident that the Soviets would win. Mussolini was toppled and hung by Italian Partisans, not U.S forces; though they did push the Nazis out of the country.
hectorbolshevik 1 month ago
@hectorbolshevik It depends on what you mean by "join the war." We started fighting Hitler in Northern Africa in 1942, while he was still moving into Russia. However, the Lend-Lease act had us supplying everything from uniforms to food to trucks to guns to both the British and the Soviets in 1940. So either way, we fought against Hitler far before the turning points at Stalingrad and Kursk.
Meirstein 1 month ago
@YourCommonSense93: The Viet Cong and the North had the majority of the people on their side. No matter how hard the U.S tried they could not break them. U.S killed a total of 5 million in that war. You don't like Mai Lai? Ok, how about U.S soldiers raping Vietnamese women and children and tossing them from helicopters to their deaths? Spraying agent orange over the land that still causes birth defects? Take your pick.
hectorbolshevik 2 months ago
@hectorbolshevik Around 6000 Civilians were found tortured and buried alive. All part of a NVA/VC Reorganization program for Hue. And are you referring to the Incidents where they took Enemy Combatants and pushed them out during interrogations? And where do you get your number of 5m from when estimates of civilian losses caused by both sides was around 1.5m. Also of course the Vietnamese supported the VC wouldn't you support those who could go into your village and kill you with no punishment?
YourCommonSense93 2 months ago
@YourCommonSense93: Around 6,000 landlords and other U.S puppets were killed in Hue. The Vietnamese people generally supported the Viet Cong and NVA. The whole reason the U.S called off the election on whether to unify the country or not. I'm refering to when U.S forces abducted women and children, raped them in helicopters, and fung them to their deaths. 3 million Vietnamese civilians died as a result of the U.S aggression, another 2 in Laos and Cambodia.
hectorbolshevik 1 month ago
@hectorbolshevik Threatening Civilians was a major tactic of the Vietcong because it was the only one they could afford.
YourCommonSense93 2 months ago
@YourCommonSense93: Of course I would support the force fighting those bastards that saw me as nothing more than a "gook". And you'd think with your assessment, that the Americans, Australians, South Koreans, Thai, Philipinos, New Zealanders, plus the sourthern Army would have easiliy won the support of the people. With the odds at 8 to 1, and the U.S failing to secure a single region, that sums up who had the loyalty of Vietnam. It wasn't the murders of rapists of the U.S led force.
hectorbolshevik 1 month ago
@hectorbolshevik Lol!!! You, sir, are the definition of a misguided soul. Why not crack open a history book before sprouting off nonsense. Moron.
marvelmax03191 1 month ago
@marvelmax03191: You are the definition of an ignoramus. I tend to read quite a bit of history as opposed to Anne Coulter books.
hectorbolshevik 1 month ago
@hectorbolshevik No, judging from your comments, I'm going to call it and say that you haven't.
marvelmax03191 1 month ago
@marvelmax03191: I've been reading history books since you were still in diapers, kid. Have you? Ok, then.
hectorbolshevik 1 month ago
@hectorbolshevik I'm sure you have been. By the way, the hammer and sickle are a little out of date buddy.
marvelmax03191 1 month ago
Afghanistan is cursed. You can take the whole country, but no-one is able to keep it. And when enemy leaves, within couple of years their empire will go bankrupt.
TheHasanMurat 2 months ago
why can't we be friends like before!
Jurassicparkrules96 3 months ago
I like the part where they killed the afghans.
Premier112 4 months ago
This has got to be one of the best scenes in the movie.
hrdknox2000 5 months ago
I know the Russians were ruthless, but you gotta love the gatlin gun on the Mi-24. Everybody.......just pretend that it's a bunch of liberal, traitor, fuckwads like Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, and George Soros that are getting gunned down by the Mi-24s in this move.........Oh! and you too Blackadder92894 you dicklipped dirtbag!
Lex5576 6 months ago
@Lex5576 I approve this message! I would pay to see Pelosi get shredded by a Gatling. It would be great to see that wrinkly, smug and relf-righteous look on the face of that duplicitous and traitorous whore get turned into a steaming pile of fertilizer.
ENJager 2 months ago
Fuck the Mi-24 is Cool!
serbin16m 6 months ago
gotta admit it, these bastards defeated the Nazis while they were in turmoil. GO U.S.S.R.
PvtNoclass925 7 months ago 2
why send US troops to kill the Pakistanis when the Russians can do it for us?
PvtNoclass925 7 months ago
I just love military power
PvtNoclass925 7 months ago
ARMING RELIGIOUS FANATICS TO PREVENT NATIONAL HEALTHCARE AND WORKERS RIGHTS
ANOTHER VICTORY FOR AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY!
tearsinrain86 7 months ago 17
@tearsinrain86 having family members who have starved to death by the soviets int the Holodomor Ukrainian(terror famine) and others who have been sent to gulags in siberia. I take personal offence to your statement
mrbloodmuffins 7 months ago
@mrbloodmuffins that's cool
my ENTIRE FAMILY above two grandparents were shot or sent to the gulag
so, fuck your personal offense, faggot
tearsinrain86 7 months ago
@mrbloodmuffins
put your violin back in its box!
MrReco12 6 months ago
@tearsinrain86 Fuck you and fuck communism.
Sleepy1988 6 months ago
@Sleepy1988 go fuck yourself you selfish anti communist piece of shit U.S.S.R. Rules american in my opinion i love it but its going down to shit right now BECAUSE OF FUCKING STUPID REPUBLICANS OR WAIT LET ME RE FRASE THAT "REPIGLICANS" SO GO FUCK YOURSELF
Blackadder92894 6 months ago
@Blackadder92894 Why don't you pick up a gun and kick off "la revolucion" if you think that communism is so great?
Sleepy1988 6 months ago
@tearsinrain86 BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO YOU SUCK ASSHOLE GOT ROT IN HELL YOU REPUBLICAN PIECE OF SHIT
Blackadder92894 6 months ago
@Blackadder92894 uh, did you read what i wrote?
tearsinrain86 6 months ago
@tearsinrain86 what do you mean
Blackadder92894 6 months ago
@tearsinrain86 "Worker's rights"
Remind me again, how many unions were there in the Soviet Union?
Sleepy1988 4 months ago 2
@Sleepy1988 Alot, and joining one was compulsory. And by the way, the average working day in the USSR was 7 hours long with a maximum of 8 hours and 15 minutes.
molnia88 4 months ago
@molnia88 no offence, the soviet short work days sound good, but id rather take overtime. nice helicopter though
speed150mph 4 months ago
@tearsinrain86 ARMING SOUTHEAST ASIAN PEASANTS AND STOKING A CIVIL WAR WHICH RESULTED IN THE DEATHS OF OVER 4 MILLION VIETNAMESE AND CAMBODIANS- ANOTHER VICTORY FOR THE WORKERS' WORLD REVOLUTION!
rollotwomassey 3 months ago 6
GO U.S.S.R.
Blackadder92894 7 months ago
Let the Soviets have their Afghanistan we don't want it and look i rather live in a communist state(because i am communist) than some country ruled by some ugly bearded bastards that think they going to get something out of crashing into two towers and treat women like if they not even human thats horrible i'm not a feminist but women deserve a lot respect at least russians don't treat woman like they not even human they treat them with some respect
Blackadder92894 7 months ago
it left three ragheads alive at the end should av nailed them ! 3 mudjahadeen in the 80's would have multiplied into about 400 by 2001 !
ollie2sik 8 months ago 2
Pinochet Was The worst Dictators Ever Especially compareed To Allende Why a Hot headed pariniod facist was allowed to replace him idk!
Lukemafidaba 8 months ago
Can someone tell what the soundtrack for this clip is?
bahhv2 9 months ago
@bahhv2 , it's "Farewell of Slavianka" from the Red Army Choir.
invincible2954 8 months ago 12
NO MORE FUCKING POLITICS. NOBODY GIVES A SHIT. IT'S UNRELATED.
lb8068 10 months ago
@lb8068 All praise the GREAT communist stalinist war machine. Death to the capitalist war mongering pigs. Long live Lenin!
SkaMaRtiSt1991 9 months ago
just saying lol i know this!
Evilsnowman2213 10 months ago
that parade was from 1987...
Evilsnowman2213 10 months ago
I applaud soviet actions against Islamic terrorists.
watch?v=XOjpNT_AzqI
Notice the women in school?
Look what happens under Reagan freedom fighters. Young girls forced to be slaves to old pieces of filth!
watch?v=CYK_4suwtCw
MrReco12 11 months ago
Its a shame that the USSR wasn't successful in defeating the pedophiles and murderers of the Taliban.
MrReco12 11 months ago
@MrReco12 They were all Mujahideen, the Taliban didn't form until after the Soviets left.
Sleepy1988 11 months ago
The destruction those helicopters could wreack is crazy - todays choppers are probably a half way house between the 5th element and them! ouch. Still, until there is uber armour, size is nothing!
JamesBong3d 11 months ago
Sometimes I wish the Soviet Union still existed, it made the world look so much simpler...
Purpose91 11 months ago
this movie only described Soviet soldiers as murderous monstrousitys. they went in to help a government and fight terrorists in reality. damn american movies...
Evilsnowman2213 11 months ago
haha, it's so gratuitous. Hind helicopters launched rockets just to blow up some goats and mud huts
Goatoftheforest 1 year ago
Americans are now butchering civilians in Pakistan using predator drones, got to love little body parts of of children and women after they are hit with hellfire missiles, it is compassionate American love and humanity
theyugunter 1 year ago
I'm a proud American. I, too, believe in Commie-asskicking. But when it comes to this soviet song...
I love it.
Its just sooo catchy.
NewbeFeaster 1 year ago
Charlie Wilson's War and Rambo III: Must be so embarrassing to US administrations.
The US replaces the Soviets as the bad guys.
Jackthesmilingblack 1 year ago
This movie spreads such dumb propaganda that is almost unable to bear it! As this ridiculous flick does not only claim that the Soviet Union did fell because of their war in Bactria but also that it was in the late 80s a major global menace; not to mention that the Soviets lost more troopers, planes and vehicles in every single battle during World War II against Germany than they had deployed to Bactria; the Soviet Union did fail due to their misgovernment and inefficiently and nothing else.
FireEyedMaidOfWar 1 year ago
Remember, the Soviet Union was a brutal dictatorship. If life in it was so wonderful, it never would have had to use such force to keep everyone inside of it, such as by oppressing any and all uprisings that occurred, and by building the Berlin Wall, and oppressing freedom of speech and human rights. It had to use force to hold all of the satellite countries together.
WheelsRCool 1 year ago
@WheelsRCool: I never said that life in the USSR was wonderful. Yes, the USSR was ruled by bureaucratic dictatorship. What I said was, the USSR had gains which are greatly missed today, which many in the U.S could only dream of. If you're refering to such CIA funded Nazi collaborators like the Forest Brothers or the UPA; then yes brutal force was necessary. As for human rights, those who don't practice it have no right to acuse the USSR of human rights violations.
hectorbolshevik 1 year ago 2
@hectorbolshevik The USSR had no gains whatsoever, which is why everyone was hellbent on leaving it, including its own satellite nations. In fact, the standard of living within the USSR was so low that when the USSR broke up, it shocked even the people who had known all along that socialism doesn't work. The Soviets utilzed brutal force against anyone who wanted to leave the country or who criticized the government. And no the U.S. does not violate human rights.
WheelsRCool 1 year ago
@WheelsRCool BTW, if you hate imperialism, then you should hate the USSR as it was one of the most imperialistic nations in history. And if you hate fascism, then you should hate Soviet-socialism as Soviet-style socialism and fascism are pretty much the same thing.
WheelsRCool 1 year ago
@WheelsRCool: The USSR was not imperialist by any means. Imperialism comes from colonialism, war, and occupation for profit. Fascism is a product of capitalism which will come about when capitalists need to protect their interests under social unrest. The social elements of fascism are every conservative patriot's wet dream.
hectorbolshevik 1 year ago
@hectorbolshevik The USSR was the epitomy of imperialist. It was Russia the master nation surrounded by a bunch of satellite nations which it held to itself by military force. It would have taken over all of Europe if not for the U.S. And no fascism is not conservative by any means. Fascism involves dictatorship and government control over the economy. It is just a different variant of Soviet-style socialism. Nazism was about the workers and ending the bourgeousie just like in the USSR.
WheelsRCool 1 year ago
@WheelsRCool: "Nazism was about the workers and ending the bourgeousie just like in the USSR.'' Source???????????????????????
apocalypticmadman 11 months ago
@apocalypticmadman Read "Mein Kampf.
WheelsRCool 11 months ago
@WheelsRCool: I have already read it. Your statement don't make any sense, sorry.
apocalypticmadman 11 months ago
@apocalypticmadman The name says it all if you are still confused: National Socialist Workers party. The Nazis hated market capitalism for a variety of reasons, ranging from seeing it as a Jewish-controlled evil to seeing it as something that had taken the German human away from nature. Under Nazism, the economy was placed under the control of the State.
WheelsRCool 11 months ago
Comment removed
apocalypticmadman 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WheelsRCool in politics, the names not necesarily shows the true goals. I think you aren't such a moron to don't know that fact. The capitalist class mantained it's privileges, even if the state controlled the German economy. On a purely economic criteria, I will put Hitler's program in the center of the spectrum. Neither in left, nor right.
apocalypticmadman 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WheelsRCool in politics, the names not necesarily shows the true goals. I think you aren't such a moron to don't know that fact. The capitalist class mantained it's privileges, even if the state controlled the German economy. On a purely economic criteria, I will put Hitler's program in the center of the spectrum. Neither in left or right.
apocalypticmadman 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WheelsRCool The names not allways shows the true goals. I think you aren't such a moron to don't know that widely seen fact. The capitalist class mantained it's some privileges, even if the Nazi state controlled the economy. On a purely economic criteria, I will put Hitler in the center of the spectrum.
apocalypticmadman 11 months ago
@WheelsRCool the name of that party never showed te complete goals, it was a tactic to attract support from the working people in the struggle against soviet style communism. The capitalist class mantained some privileges, even if the German state controlled the economy. In a purely political criteria, I will put Hitler's aspirations on the centre of the spectrum
apocalypticmadman 11 months ago
@apocalypticmadman Only Aryan businesspeople retained their property, and that was only as long as they went along with the Nazi agenda. And even then, things like wages and dividends were controlled. If they refused to abide with the Nazi agenda, their businesses were nationalized. Jews and all other "degenerates" had their property confiscated.
WheelsRCool 11 months ago
@apocalypticmadman To a Marxist, Nazism couldn't be socialist because it allows for private property ownership, which is heresy to a Marxist. But other forms of socialism, such as Fabian socialism, also allowed private property ownership. What makes an economy socialist is if the government controls it or the market. The Nazi economy was government-controlled. After WWII, Germany adopted a market economy b/c the people wanted nothing to do with socialism, as to them socialism was a Nazi thing.
WheelsRCool 11 months ago
@WheelsRCool I meant what makes an economy socialist is if the government controls it opposed to the market, not "or the market."
WheelsRCool 11 months ago
@WheelsRCool: I know that facts, but I think that we should define "socialism" in the marxist way, because a goverment controlled market can be intended only to avoid the destruction of the capitalist class under marxian socialism. Personally, I think that Fabians only wanted to reform the previous system as to avoid a revolution, even Lenin laughted at what Fabians considered "socialism''
apocalypticmadman 11 months ago
@apocalypticmadman Perhaps it could, but remember capitalism itself can be a form of serfdom just like socialism. The difference is that with capitalism, if you mate it with a free-market, people can start at the bottom and become prosperous. Capitalism without a free-market is just as bad as pure socialism. And yes, Fabian socialism calls for the gradual implementation of socialism as opposed to violent revolution. Lenin laughing at Fabian socialism doesn't mean it was not socialism however.
WheelsRCool 11 months ago
Comment removed
apocalypticmadman 11 months ago
@WheelsRCool Sorry if my English it´s not completely correct
apocalypticmadman 11 months ago
@WheelsRCool A free market capitalism also have many negative aspects, because there are unavoidable market failures and capitalist overproduction. Remember when Dr. M. Luther King sayed: "Communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social, and the kingdom of brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of communism nor the antithesis of capitalism but in a higher synthesis. It is found in a higher synthesis that combines the truths of both."
apocalypticmadman 11 months ago
@apocalypticmadman Market capitalism is by no means perfect, no system is. It is just a matter of which system functions the least badly. Market capitalism is not the solution to everything either. For the production and distribution of goods and services, market capitalism is mostly the best for that, but government has roles as well.
WheelsRCool 11 months ago
@WheelsRCool
You should see what wealth capitalists such as Alfred Krupp and Fredrick flick think of your ignorant aseration that Nazis were socialist.
MrReco12 11 months ago
@MrReco12 Socialism can include elements of capitalism, what it does not include is a market. Nazism did not allow markets to coordinate the economy. Remember, capitalism doesn't need a market to exist. Private companies functioning under Nazism had to go along with the Nazi agenda, or else face nationalization.
WheelsRCool 11 months ago
@WheelsRCool: The USSR was NOT imperialist. Imperialism is colonialism of underdeveloped countries to rule for profit. The USSR never did this. The people in those countries welcomed the Soviet liberation. Fascism/Nazism has nothing to do with workers or socialism, idiot. The Nazis got power handed to them by the German capitalists who feared another 1919. They saved the wealth of the counts, bankers, aristocrats, and barons. Go study for once in your life, you simpleton.
hectorbolshevik 11 months ago
@hectorbolshevik The USSR was most certainly imperialist. It was Russia, the master nation, holding onto a bunch of colonial nations by military force, alogn with a slew of overseas colonies. And no, the people never welcomed the Soviet "liberation." Liberation means people are free. The Berlin Wall is a prime example of how untrue that was. And yes, fascism and Nazism very much about the workers, hence the term, "National Socialist Workers Party."
WheelsRCool 11 months ago
@hectorbolshevik Yes, INITIALLY, the German capitalists supported the Nazi party. Nazi policy was all corporations had to fall in line with the Nazi party agenda or face outright nationalization. Price controls, wage controls, dividend controls, production quotas, etc...were implemented (i.e. gov't control of the economy). In this sense, the Soviet Union really used a form of "superfascism."
WheelsRCool 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WheelsRCool
"Price controls, wage controls, dividend controls, production quotas, etc...were implemented "
This also happened in Churchills Britain.
MrReco12 11 months ago
@MrReco12 Yup, but remember Britain was at war, I mean the same things occurred in the American economy during WWI and WWII as well, and after WWII, Labor party took over and nationalized many industries, adhering to Fabian socialism.
WheelsRCool 11 months ago
@WheelsRCool
Nazi Germany was in a war too.
George Orwell descirbed it best:
"Fascism, at any rate the German version, is a form of capitalism that borrows from Socialism just such features as will make it efficient for war purposes."
As you would know, the Nazis only converted to a TOTAL WAR economy in 1944 whilst Britain had a TW economy right from the beginning!
MrReco12 11 months ago
@MrReco12 Yes, one could consider fascism a form of capitalism with socialist elements, or a form of socialism with capitalist elements, but it is not market capitalism, as the economy is controlled by the government. It is a lighter form of what the Soviets were practicing (or, as F.A Hayek termed it, the Soviet socialism was like a form of "superfascism"). Private property of any kind is heresy to a Marxist, so to them, fascism, Fabian socialism, etc...were all "capitalism."
WheelsRCool 10 months ago
@WheelsRCool
Hayek supported Augusto Pinochet, so i say he was the fascist. Using Hayeks laughable myths , we can say that capitalism has never existed in wartime.
MrReco12 10 months ago
@MrReco12 There is some confusion over the whole Pinochet thing. Some think Milton Friedman supported him as well, but he was actually critical of Pinochet's regime, so I would imagine Hayek was as well. Chile today, thanks to free-market reforms, is the most prosperous nation in Latin America.
WheelsRCool 10 months ago
@WheelsRCool
Hayek was never critical of Pinochet, the dictator's "reforms" doubled poverty in his country. Beleive it or not, Chilie was already the most prosperous nation with a strong democratic tradition. This was ruined by Pinochet and his murderers!
South Korean Dictator Park Chun Lee was more of a socialist than Hitler.
MrReco12 10 months ago
@MrReco12 The reforms made Chile very prosperous. Chile however was undergoing triple-digit inflation when Friedman and the Chicago boys came in, so they recommended raising interest rates (cutting the money supply) to fix the inflation. This has the nasty side effect of tanking an economy, and thus plunged Chile into a depression with high unemployment for seven years.
WheelsRCool 10 months ago
@WheelsRCool
But is also made 45% of the population fall below the poverty line.
MrReco12 10 months ago
@MrReco12 Temporarily sure, but it was necessary to fix the inflation.
WheelsRCool 10 months ago
@WheelsRCool
Temporarily?
Seven years is more than terms of government in my country.
PInochet was a murderous bastard.
MrReco12 10 months ago
@MrReco12 To fix inflation, you have to cut the money supply. But that has a nasty effect of tanking the economy. And I am not defending Pinochet.
WheelsRCool 10 months ago
@WheelsRCool: The Nazis implemented strict christian family law in Germany, killed abortion doctors, tied women to their husbands, discouraged women from working, racism, homophobia, and your favorite: smashing the Germany's unions. Which earned Hitler the admiration of Churchill, the U.S, and every imperialist. Little wonder they all supported Franco's fascists in Spain.
hectorbolshevik 11 months ago
@hectorbolshevik The Nazis took abortion policy, which was tied in with eugenics, to an extreme, killing all "unfit" peoples. And no, the Nazis were no Christian. That is why in order to bring Nazism to America, a warped version of Christianity had to be created, called Christian Identity. Yes, the government smashed unions too. So did the Soviet Union. And Churchhill never admired Hitler.
WheelsRCool 11 months ago
@WheelsRCool: I've already named you the gains, but again to "American christian values", those are not gains. And now with people losing jobs in those countries, remember those "bad times" when they were had secured jobs. Soviet living standards were not high by any means, but when Russia became a capitalist paradise, I guess in your terms evictions, homelessness, poverty, hunger, would be higher standards of living because they happen in the USA.
hectorbolshevik 1 year ago
@hectorbolshevik Where in Christianity does it say those are not gains? And what makes you think all of America is Christian? You are also making a classic socialist fallacy, which is to blame the conditions of a failed socialist state on capitalism. RUSSIA IS NOT A MARKET CAPITALIST SYSTEM. It is fascist. It is what happens when socialism fails and then market capitalism and liberal democracy are not established. Russia went from socialism to anarchy, and thus the mafia took control.
WheelsRCool 1 year ago
@WheelsRCool: Look at christianity's history. Christianity is the backbone of U.S domestic policy: death penalty, criminalization of prostitution, homophobia, sexophobia, etc. No, you are trying to excuse capitalism for the misery it brought Eastern Europe. Russia established a successful capitalist economy, with countless partnerships throughout the world, with a profiting minority and their people suffered. In short, Russia is a "free and democratic" country.
hectorbolshevik 11 months ago
@hectorbolshevik There is no vibrant market economy in Russia. Again, you are mistaking the case of a failed socialist state with market capitalism. Russia has what would more accurately be described as a form of a fascist system right now. During the Cold War, you had market capitalism in West. Germany versus Soviet socialism in E. Germany. So many people fled E. Germany that they had to build a wall to stop them, and line it with attack dogs and armed guards.
WheelsRCool 11 months ago
Why would the U.S intervene...Could have ended terrorism as we know it...instead the U.S fueled islamic extreamist fire and know look where they are...its a real shame such a great country like the CCCP had to ''go'' even though PLENTY of russians i know here in MockBa want it back. ..and btw this is complete bullshit in this movie.. '' bayoneting children'' what a fucking lie , and the U.S didnt pile up vietnamese and koreans and burn them for ''suspected plot of aggression'' yeah ok ..oook..
Evilsnowman2213 1 year ago
Russia is still after its old Soviet days today, oppressing any free speech it doesn't like right now, and seeking to bully its former Soviet-bloc satellites.
WheelsRCool 1 year ago
@WheelsRCool: Russia's current behavior has more in common with the Russian Empire than with the USSR. Its old Soviet days would mean the end of Putin and Medvedev, and their system.
hectorbolshevik 1 year ago
Farewell of Slavianka!!!
CKabayan 1 year ago
I'm glad Mike Nichols added the 'farewell of slavianka' song. It fitted so well with the scene.
11strelokfan1000 1 year ago
Mujahadeen hunting season.
TheCrushpanzer 1 year ago 7
And later the Americans did the same thing.
Glosuraban 1 year ago 9
Comment removed
WheelsRCool 1 year ago
@Glosuraban America never did anything like this. You never saw American soldiers raping Afghan women, bayoneting pregnant women, and basically shooting and missiling the daylights out of Afghanistan.
WheelsRCool 1 year ago
@WheelsRCool No but you did see them doing that to the Vietnamese.
CommissarRed 1 year ago 2
@CommissarRed American soldiers did not rape and bayonet Vietnamese women, and throughout most of the Vietnam War, Northern Vietnam and Cambodia were off limits to bombing. Furthermore, the U.S. in Vietnam wasn't about trying to conquer the place like the Soviets in Afghanistan, it was about stopping communism from taking conrol of the whole country
WheelsRCool 1 year ago
@WheelsRCool "American soldiers did not rape and bayonet Vietnamese women" yes they did, hell there was even a film about one incident with Michael J fox. the Vietnamese Guerilla's also taught female fighters to insert razor blades into their genitals to deter similar "advances". Then theres the much publicised My Lai massacre were US troops gunned down an entire village only to find they had no weapons or involvement in the war,
CommissarRed 1 year ago
@CommissarRed Female guerillas inserted razor blades into their genitals to get at American soldiers whom they prostituted themselves to, not because American soldiers were raping them. As for the My Lai massacre, that was a one-time event and the soldiers involved were disciplined accordingly. It wasn't something they were allowed to do with no repercussions, like the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
Again remember, the U.S. wasn't in Vietnam for empire, it was there to stop the North.
WheelsRCool 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WheelsRCool "As for the My Lai massacre, that was a one-time event and the soldiers involved were disciplined accordingly." No it was the most well publicised case.
"like the Soviet Union in Afghanistan." You keep saying the USSR was completely monstrous and saying every example of US crimes don't count but you've yet to actually name a single instance of Soviet atrocities.
CommissarRed 1 year ago
@CommissarRed The very existence of the Soviet Union itself was an atrocity. It was Russia the master nation holding all of its satellite nations to itself by force, with horrible oppression of its own people. There were the Soviet gulags as well. As for atrocities, there's the atrocities the Soviets committed in Afghanistan, the slaughter of the Hungarians, the Berlin Wall (how dare people decide to leave the glorious paradise that was the USSR), etc...yes, the USSR was monstrous.
WheelsRCool 1 year ago
@WheelsRCool Ignoring the severe historical inaccuracies,This has absolutely nothing to do with the question, the Soviet Union was bad so what? how does that mean they should get blanket criticism when another place that supposed to be nicer does the same thing it gets high praise? if anything shouldn't that be worse? that a nation that has high ideals and claims moral superiority stoops to level of those it claims to be better?
CommissarRed 1 year ago
@CommissarRed "Bad" Is a bit of an understatement for the Soviet Union. Never said the U.S. deserves high praise if the U.S. does the same thing, except it didn't.
WheelsRCool 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WheelsRCool "Bad" Is a bit of an understatement for the Soviet Union" And its also still irrelevant, "Never said the U.S. deserves high praise if the U.S. does the same thing, except it didn't. " Accept it did and I've given you several examples of that, but you've yet to provide any examples of the Soviets doing anything that you've accused them of in Afghanistan.
CommissarRed 1 year ago
@CommissarRed No it didn't. I have already given you examples of things the Soviets did in Afghanistan.
WheelsRCool 1 year ago
@WheelsRCool One also just need look at how the Soviets treated their own peoples.
WheelsRCool 1 year ago
@WheelsRCool: So what came after "opening the prison and the prisoners left"? When you live a prison you're free, right? And yet you say Russia is not free. I think you have not a clue in what you're talking about.
hectorbolshevik 1 year ago
@hectorbolshevik When you live in a prison, you're not free, you're a prisoner. That's what makes it a prison. If people are free to do as they please, including come and go, it no longer is a prison. And no, Russia is not free, hence the journalists who criticize the government that keep getting shot.
WheelsRCool 1 year ago
@WheelsRCool: Yeah, like the millions of Iraqis and Afghans suffering under U.S led occupation. As for the USSR, free people aren't supposed to miss prisons, are they? I don't know about you, but I'd never look on a prison with nostalgia. Russia is not free? So why did you people hail the current government seizing power in 1991? Why did the U.S applaud the rape of Chechnya (now part of the bloody "war on terror"). Russia kills journalists, the U.S kills abortion doctors. Go figure.
hectorbolshevik 1 year ago
@hectorbolshevik No one is suffering under U.S.-led occupation, people are being killed because the terrorists refuse to stop fighting. The U.S. is ready to stop fighting tomorrow if they would. The Iraqi peoples were freed from what was a brutal dictator, one of the most brutal in the Middle East. As for Russia, Russia is not a free nation. It is an example of a failed socialist state, what happens when socialism fails but a vibrant liberal democracy and market capitalism are not able to form.
WheelsRCool 1 year ago
@WheelsRCool: Yeah, you can just see how thrilled Afghans are at the U.S bombing their country for almost a decade, and the Iraqis. The U.S will not stop fighting until they fully have both countries under their control so they can rape and plunder both countries. All the U.S did was replace both its former stooges, with regimes just as brutal. Russia is a clear example of a successful capitalist regime: rich get richer, poor get poorer. You called Russia "free" in 1991.
hectorbolshevik 1 year ago
@hectorbolshevik The U.S. has no interest in "controlling" either country. If the U.S. wanted to control Iraq, it would have implemented a puppet gov't and taken control over the oil. Instead it established a liberal democracy and let Iraq auction off its own oil contracts, which went to countries like Russia, not the U.S. Afghanistan the U.S. is seeking to break the terrorists, that is all. Russia is an example of the failure to apply both democracy and capitalism properly.
WheelsRCool 1 year ago
@WheelsRCool: A puppet government in Iraq was implemented after the "mission accomplished" speech in 2003. Only parties that bowed to U.S imperialism were allowed to be part of the government. You call Iraq even still with the fighting a "liberal democracy", yet you don't consider Russia one. The U.S will not break their frankenstein monsters in Afghanistan, the U.S is losing. They're just there to build that pipeline for their own profit. Afghans know this.
hectorbolshevik 11 months ago
@hectorbolshevik The "puppet government" was only temporary to allow Iraq to transition to a democracy, which it did. And there was no "Mission Accomplished" speech, it was a speech on an aircraft carrier with a "Mission Accomplished" banner lcoated overhead which gave the (false) impression that that was the subject of the speech. The U.S. has no interest in profit in Afghanistan, no more so than it did in Iraq (Iraq auctioned off its own oil contracts).
WheelsRCool 11 months ago
@hectorbolshevik Regarding killing people, yes, the Russian government kills journalists who criticize it. It is tied up with the Russian mafia. The U.S. government does not kill abortion doctors, some maniacal idiot did.
WheelsRCool 1 year ago
@WheelsRCool: You can't be that stupid. You think "maniacal idiots" like Michael Bray aren't shacked up with the Republicans? How do you think these groups get their support? South Dakota right now wants to pass a resolution that will permit the killings of abortion doctors? More maniacal idiots, huh?
hectorbolshevik 1 year ago
@hectorbolshevik BTW, in a market economy, the rich get richer by creating more wealth via providing products and services that improve people's lives, not by making anyone poorer. That is why the poorest Americans are "rich" by global standards. And no SD is not trying to pass a law to permit the killing of anyone.
WheelsRCool 1 year ago
@WheelsRCool: You must really be out of touch with reality, lad. Jobs in the U.S are still getting cut. But with your backwards state of mind, I can see how you would see that as an improvement. I guess in global standards homeless people don't even have cardboard boxes. Only Americans have them, right? How rich! Look up the law South Dakota was trying to pass on abortion, little one.
hectorbolshevik 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WheelsRCool "Bad" Is a bit of an understatement for the Soviet Union" And its also still irrelevant, "Never said the U.S. deserves high praise if the U.S. does the same thing, except it didn't. " Accept it did and I've given you several examples of that, but you've yet to provide any examples of the Soviets doing anything that you've accused them of in Afghanistan.
CommissarRed 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WheelsRCool "Bad" Is a bit of an understatement for the Soviet Union" And its also still irrelevant, "Never said the U.S. deserves high praise if the U.S. does the same thing, except it didn't. " Accept it did and I've given you several examples of that, but you've yet to provide any examples of the Soviets doing anything that you've accused them of in Afghanistan.
CommissarRed 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WheelsRCool "Bad" Is a bit of an understatement for the Soviet Union" And its also still irrelevant, "Never said the U.S. deserves high praise if the U.S. does the same thing, except it didn't. " Accept it did and I've given you several examples of that, but you've yet to provide any examples of the Soviets doing anything that you've accused them of in Afghanistan.
CommissarRed 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WheelsRCool "Bad" Is a bit of an understatement for the Soviet Union." Its also still quite irrelevant. "Never said the U.S. deserves high praise if the U.S. does the same thing, except it didn't." Oh but it did, I've given you several examples of such actions, yet you have yet to back any of your claims about the USSR in Afghanistan other then a few false statements.
CommissarRed 1 year ago
@WheelsRCool: Workers electing their managers. Not to mention pulling Russia out of that hated war. The Whites with the backing of 17 powerful armies couldn't win. How horrible! Stalin trampled on these gains. Sure Lenin was oppressive if you were a Black Hundred white goon answering to U.S and British officers. Gorbachov sold out because he and the Soviet bureaucracy had no more use for it. Gorbachov led the country into the hell you called "freedom", and your prison rhetoric suggests.
hectorbolshevik 1 year ago
@WheelsRCool: Compare life in the USSR with the "free democratic Russia" of today. The USSR was formed by a popular revolution that violated everything the USA stood for, that was the only atrocity. Unlike the USA they provided their people with jobs, shelter, health care, education, a month paid vacation, and other things the U.S finds horrific. But yes, it was oppressive after Stalin took over, which unfortunately never died and stayed to give the USSR to the capitalists.
hectorbolshevik 1 year ago
Comment removed
WheelsRCool 1 year ago
Comment removed
WheelsRCool 1 year ago
@WheelsRCool: People like you called Russia "free and democratic" when Yeltsin proclaimed his victory. Now it's not? It's just not thriving. The USSR was formed BY the working people of the prison house of the peoples. during Lenin's days women had a right to vote, racial discrimination criminalized, the church removed from power, homosexuality decriminalized, working places unionized. What a dictatorship! Sure, to the "civilized christian world".
hectorbolshevik 1 year ago
@hectorbolshevik I never called Russia free and democratic. The USSR was formed by a dictatorship hellbent on power and slaughter. Women had no right to vote, racial discimination occurred plenty, yes religious freedom was oppressed, unions were not permitted unless they toed the Party line. The Solidarity Movement in Poland was a union that the Soviet Polish governmetn tried to smash.
WheelsRCool 1 year ago
@WheelsRCool: When Yeltsin stood on the barracks people like you hailed him and later his presidency as "free and democratic". The USSR was voluntarily formed by Bolsheviks in the former prison house of peoples. Women had no vote? Racial discrimination? Explain Alexandra Kollontai, or non-Russians who held power after the revolution at a time in the "free world", the thought of women or minorities in power was an abomination. Don't talk of what you don't know.
hectorbolshevik 1 year ago
@hectorbolshevik For the most part, women had no pwoer within the Soviet Union and still don't in Russia these days. And yes, racial discimination occurred, this scene by the anti-Semitism within the USSR. You also forget the oppression of the peoples, so much so that they had to build the Berlin Wall to turn the USSr into a giant prison.
WheelsRCool 1 year ago
@WheelsRCool: Yes, they did when Lenin "violated western christian values" and got women out of the kitchen and into the labor force, including commanding their own work places and units of the Red Army. Sight me one incident in the USSR where where thugs ran around indiscriminately waving "democratic" flags of Russia and beating non-Russians. The Berlin Wall was in Germany not the USSR, you simple-minded fool.
hectorbolshevik 1 year ago