I come from a long line of Cossacks. My grandfather told me stories of how our forefathers chased the French out of Russia back in 1812. Long live the Russia of today.
я за царя над философией Ленин на самом деле я ненавижу коммунизм мне жаль, что я родился во время царствования царей я бы убил Ленина когда он был еще молод и слаб
I think all should stop fighting each other over which era of Russia is better. Kievan Rus', Grand Duchy of Moscow, The Russian Empire, The Soviet Union, and the Russian Federation. They all had their ups and downs in each, but I think we should respect every era of Russia. We need to stop fighting against each other for being an Imperialist or a Communist. All slavics should unite under a union of equality but yet freedom. Viva!
@CaptSanderson um..... Kievan rus was from like the years 800-1200 and the Grand Duchy of Moscow 1200-1500, so I don't think anyone would support them. but I second the rest of your comment
@redcorona14 Thats rather melodramatic. I think its been taken over by neo-liberal scum. Whether its a small gang of corporations or the CCCP running everything, it doesn't matter at some point. We aren't standing in bread lines and being sent to prison for taking too many sick days yet though. Are you being forced to live in a block apartment? I know the Democrats and Republicans seem like the same party, but you're still capable of voting for a third party, are you not?
@redcorona14 They didn't have open elections though, and the CPSU had a total monopoly on everything. If you tried to organize opposition you'd go to prison and be black listed the rest of your life. Here in the US, people can still say whatever they want and we technically have open elections, but people are too distracted with their iPods and reality tv to actually get up and do anything. Everyone also perceives reality trough cultural and political stereotypes, and that doesn't help either.
@JNathanK2011 It's an illusion. The old Marxist system was 50% propaganda and 50% force. The neo-Marxist system is 90% propaganda and 10% force. Economically speaking we may have a few more liberties than the soviets, but culturally we are even more degraded than they were.
I have no problem with the current political establishment of Russia. In fact, the Federation should be praised for every effort it's made to transition Russia away from the failed Bolshevist philosophy. Putin and Medvedev may not be perfect, but I think they're definitely capable of steering Russia into a prominent and very positive role in the world.
@mpman412 Sorry, Stalin was in charge of Russia, then the Soviet Union from the death of Lenin in 1924 to his own death in 1953. In the early years Stalin hid behind 'committees' and the Bolshevic bureaucracy, but he ran the show almost alone (except for sub-human henchmen like Beria and Molotov) from the late 1920's.
I think it would be great if countries like Austria, Germany, France and Russia were to reinstate their monarchy. I myself is Swede(and no, I don't have anything against russians, given the historical grievances we've had), and I think our monarchy is an extremely important part of our cultural heritage, as would i have thought about the monarchy in Russia, had it still been there today
Why so defensive against sympathy for the Romanovs? Such as Russian monarchy protect his subjects, and tsar as a supreme judge of the judical guarantees a fair sentence for each of them. The democratic community has always looked a person to play role a scapegoat. Like Jesus Christ in the Jewish community.
In all likeliness, people in this page who support communism or claim themselves to be communists or socialists are hypocrites; they're most likely college students in affluent countries from middle-class families who attend their political science classes using their parents' money so they feel they can change the world, when in fact they're unknowingly moved by forces they can't control, such as the free market economy. At most, they just wave signs. They probably work at Starbucks and such.
Lenin and his godless successors murdered millions more for the sake of communism than all the centuries of Serfdom and Tsarist autocracy; farmers were not allowed to eat their own crops, which led to Holodomor. All these sympathizers towards communists never lived in a communist state like North Korea or Cuba. Those who died under the Tsar died of negligence and mismanagement, or else the Russians would gotten rid of the Tsars centuries ago. The Tsar is the heart of the Russian people.
@LieutenantPoncyHair Just because a policy is dictated by the majority doesn't make the majority right. Look at Nazi Germany; people voted Hitler into power, and look where that got them; war, death, and the permanent stain of mass murder.
In an absolute monarchy, in Imperial Russia, you blame -one- person, because -one- person is responsible for the nation. In Soviet Russia, you get punished when you are suspicious and are not a zombie of the communist party. The party is always right.
@Ioannesmartialis ...maybe you should check how Imperial Russia treated anyone who WASN'T a noble or a member of royalty. The regime at the time was horrific, feudal and totally not worth defending.
And maybe you should check how the Communist Party treated anyone who WASN'T a party member or a revolutionary. The regime that replaced the Tsar's was horrific and brutal.
@kickneas I think that you are unaware of history yet. Do a good deal more reading of History and less playing video games in an imaginary world. There is much to learn.
Nobody wanted to see Russia out of World War winner. Humiliated and defeated the Germans financed the revolution in Russia. Although it is known that most of the money came from the United States. Nicholas II was too weak. The first revolution was in 1905 but failed. Russia then knocked the crap out of the Japanese .... almost ... If it were not for the revolution of 1905
@FRAGIORGIO1 Thank you for unspaming my comment. It seems the critics of Nicholas II, are themselves incapable of handling criticism. I also had the highest ranked comment on this video with nearly 40 likes. However for some reason it also got flagged.
thetollungwoman you are such an idiot lenin and trotsky were the ones who made tsarist russia rumble i am russian and i hate lenin because tsarist was rumbled by his hand and i would like to return the real power of russia because russia was never captured not includin mongols but in imperial times russia was always known for power it was the strongest country at those times where is the power now
@xCCCPCLANx Well for goodness sake, a Russian Communist rebel bad boy! Feeling lonely? Your phone never rings? No one writes anymore? Just had to post an obscene comment here? Now THAT really furthers your cause! Feel better now? Poor baby.
Hopefully, the Romanovs will be restored in Russia, but as constitutional monarchs to continue Russian history and contribute to the union of the peoples of the Russian Federal Republic (which will again become an Empire)!
Советский Союз = нет бомжей, никаких наркотиков, никаких Педофилия, нет геев, нет преступности, безработицы нет, не нужно беспокоиться о деньгах! Если цель все в том, чтобы работать на благо ближнему своему товарищу, работа для будущих поколений, работать на вашей великой Родины! Нет Великой Депрессии, нет коррупции, нет сионисты грабить людей, не Банки ставят вас в долговое рабство! Советский Союз
We don't really get a chance to hear about the real Nicholas, owing to decades of leftist tripe and blather being squawked, parrot-like, in our schools and Universities.
i'm all for weighing and balancing. Badly maligned, Nicholas was a saint when compared with those who ruled after him for 70 years.
@evilmick66 Russians have suffered terrible things throughout history: the Mongols, sometimes the climate is severe, the invasion and devastations of Napoleon and Hitler, and the terrible crimes of the Communists. Nevertheless, the Russians have shown great heroism and nobility. Russians suffer...and march forward!
Regardless of the politics so far discussed in the comments, this is a VERY well-made video. The photos create a very haunting feel alongside such music, moreso when remembering how this story ended. (And I don't mean to complain about the discussion; good points on both sides - I just mean to say that a good video is a good video :D)
Trotsky and Lenin had thousands of civilians executed. Trotsky founded the Cheka, the most brutal police system in history prior to the creation of the Gestapo, Lenin's "war communism" caused a famine in which 5 million Russians starved to death. Together they created the system that allowed for Stalinism to arise, Stalin didn't invent the GULag it was Lenin's idea. Trotsky at least had the minimal decency to oppose Stalin. but Lenin was pure evil
Trotsky was an ATHEIST, an apostate who renounced his parents' religion just like that traitor Lenin renounced the Orthodox Church. It was Trotsky who helped create the most anti-semitic government in history prior to the Nazis. Jews are eternal enemies of the Bolshevik scum, and eternal friends of freedom fighters everywhere.
Liberalism, the belief in the sovereignty & autonomy of the individual is at the heart of secular humanism. It runs against a Trinitarian view of Man as created in the image of God and who, thus, moves & has being through relationship (divine & neighbour).
Lockean liberalism was a philosophy written to justify the rebellion of the 17th c. English Civil War that killed a king. It is not based on family, the common good, or loyalty.
It seeks to convert all to a false freedom of desolation.
@MrZadokthePriest Quite true. Mankind is both social and individual. No one is born nor reared alone. An exaggeratedt individualism is destroying civilization in the West, especially speaking for the United States.
@FRAGIORGIO1 you are correct as an american it is not hard to see that when a individual puts himself to far ahead of others and cares not for his fellow man then y you get a horrible country. Americans have no sense of duty anymore it makes me sick that they can claim the United states as their own but not be willing to make any sacrafice for the greater good.
I am Ukrainian. I will only agree to merge with Russia if I will be ruled by Orthodox Czar whom I will serve with passion. Just like my cossack predessesos.
@Slavko961234 Why not an independent Ukraine with its own Tsar?? Kiev was the First great Russ, the mother of all Russians in the wider sense. They used to call Ukraine "Little Russia", but it was the First Russia. Kiev should have its Patriarch and its Tsar and a democratic government of the People of that historic land with the heroic cossacks serving Their country.
@Slavko961234 I would gladly join the Russian Orthodox Church were one available where I could trust my confessors; the Tsars did not trust it to let it crown them in the coronation but instead crowned themselves, for the church isn't a constitution limiting the power of the Tsar. However I understand you. Without a constitution able to limit the power of an absolute autocrat, the only trustworthiness in him is his willingness to submit to God. Militia Tsar Nicholas III (State of Virginia, USA).
Nicholas II was responsible for all of Russia's evils. He had a brilliant minister in Sergei Witte who brought about so many reforms and nearly brought Russia into the modern age. But the Tsar betrayed him. Nicholas ii was a fool who believed he was appointed by God and wanted only himself to be the centre of attention. Sergei Whitte tried to warn against WWI but the fool Nicholas ii did not listen and paid the ultimate price.
@1mrnewman Now, I may be a Communist, but even I have to say that this comment is 99.9% anti-czar propaganda. The fact this user's been banned probably says something about the rhetoric he's likely been spouting...
U got a point - double click - in reference 2 slave labor is an understatement...It really took red production to the 19th degree...but I am not jeoulous, the great purge of Stalin in which millions died and the two world wars that Europeans started but could not contain lends my sensibilities to feel sorry for you guys. You invented Fascism and Communisim all within 50 years and r responsible for the deaths of billions,,,sorrow my friend,,,give me a moment, I am very sad.
Jack u r a moron, industrialization was well on its way under the czar but the reds utilized slave labor to doubleclick its production...and they were ony a super power in the military sense - never in any financial sense - and u can pretty much blame hitlers betrayal for that, it made them more war minded.
I'd take communism over monarchy. Hell at least the communists industrialized Russia and made it into a world super power. Lenin succeeded in being the Tsar Romanov failed to be.
The Russian empire was A power and it was obviously in decline. Lost war a war to Japan, was losing war to Germany and most of its people were illiterate peasants still living in the dark ages. Certainly it wouldn't have been strong enough to survive the Nazis if the tsar remained in power. obviously people in Russia had a much better standard of living in 1970 than in 1917. There was very little difference between the communists and the tsars if you strip away the ideological bullshit.
@jack5051525354 Well at the begining of the 20th century Russias ecnomy was one of the fastest growing economies in the world. So unless by decline you mean great economical progress then decline isn't the right term. Although it officialy lost the Russo-Japanese war the Japanese casualties were nearly twice as high as the Russian. Losing to Germany? Not according to General Luddendorff. Living in the dark ages? This is the country that was developing rocket technology in the early 1900's.
Military wise the war was a stalemate favoring the Germans, but the morale of the army and at home had obviously broken down. The Russian economy was collapsing by the end of the war. Russia was industrializing , but the majority of its people were still rural peasants. The elite produced culture, but most of the people were illiterate peasants living in the dark ages with little education and healthcare. But I guess the common rabble aren't deserving of such things, amirite?
@jack5051525354 Following the successful Brusilov offensive the Russian army was planning another offensive. The Russian generals were feeling very optimistic of its successes. However they were not the only ones sure of it's successes. General Ludendorff was concerned about the possibility of a Russian offensive. However the February Revolution put an end to the possibility of a Russian victory in WWI.
@jack5051525354 Now to answer your claims that most of Russians were illiterate. The tsars presided over an educational system that was characterized by high standards, serious academic character, and strict discipline. The period 1870-1914 was a time of remarkable expansion of basic schooling, with the ultimate goal of establishing public schools throughout the Empire by 1922.In 1872 the Russian government started compulsory primary education and dramatically increased funding for it
Unfortunately for the tsar the Russian people didn't feel like sacrificing themselves for some asshole god king while their families starved due to shortages caused by the war. The 1917 Kerensky Offensive was a failure. The move toward more education was nice, but it doesn't change the fact that only 56% of the people were literate in 1916. In 1949 Russia tested the atomic bomb and it's territories stretched to Berlin. The communists were bad people ,but you can't say they made no progress.
@jack5051525354 We are not talking about the Kerensky offensive. The Russian military was planning a totally different offensive in which Kerensky took absolutely no part in planning. Once Kerensky took over the military situation quickly declined. When the Bolsheviks came into power it got only worse. In fact they failed so miserably that by February 1918 the Germans were advancing towards St. Petersburg. What did the Bolsheviks do ? The army they sent fled without even fighting.
You are missing my point. Yes the army could technically still fight, but they didn't because there families were starving due to shortages on the home front and they felt no allegiance to the inept tsar who had gotten them into the war. In war, morale and a strong economy is just as important as weapons and numbers.
@jack5051525354 According to the memoirs of Russian generals on the Eastern front morale fell greatly following the Tsars abdication. And indeed we can see this lack of morale following the Russian military progress after the abdication of the monarchy. According to the sources I've read it is my understanding that by 1916 the Russian troops were once again inspired to fight after a rough time in late 1914-1915. By then Russian factories were producing a great amount of weapons.
@jack5051525354 The statistics involving education show that that more and more children were becoming literate and that Tsarist Russia was well on it's way of getting rid illiteracy completely. During WWI Russia had one of the most advance air forces in the world and very advanced military technology. In fact many rifles such as the Mosin Nagant was used long after the fall of the Russian empire.
@ImperialRussianGuard Nonsense, at the start of the war many soldiers fought without rifles due to the lack of industry. The supply situation only began to improve in 1916. Granted, Russia had allot of soldiers to arm, but what good is technology if you can't produce enough to arm your military with it?
@jack5051525354 You are confusing WWI with WW2. It was during the beginning of WWII when Soviet soldiers fought without rifles.During WWI most of the troops were armed. At least that what my impression of the situation was after reading several memoirs by generals. By 1916 the Russian army had MORE weapons then it even needed.
@ImperialRussianGuard I am not saying they did not have good technology. I am saying that the technology didn't help them much in the end because despite its economic growth Russia simply did not have the industrial base needed for modern war. I don't know how accurate the no rifle claim is ,but It's pretty much a fact that Russia lacked supplies at the start of the war and the means to transport those supplies.
@jack5051525354 Since the 1890's Russia had been industrializing very rapidly. So it would be incorrect to say that it wasn't industrialized. Underestimating the capability of the Russian armies industrialization caused the Germans serious problems in the beginning of the war. The Germans planned to throw about 90 % of their army at France and hopefully crush it within 6 weeks. The Germans thought the Russians would mobilize by then. They were in for a surprise.
@ImperialRussianGuard The great majority of the Russian people were still peasants at the start of the war. Industrialization in Russia did not hit its prime until Stalin's the five year plans. I am not saying Russia was not industrializing during the tsars. I am saying they were not Industrialized enough to fight in a modern war against Germany. Certainly Germany had a far better industrial base then Russia.
@jack5051525354 When we see at what speed the Russian army was able to move through German lines in the beginning of WWI we can see that they had an able industrial base. Germany had a very good industrial base but one must keep in mind that it was much easier to industrialize Germany than Russia. Alas during the reigns of Alexander III and Nicholas II great progress was made in the field of industrialization.
However the Schlieffen plan failed because of the quick mobilization of Russian troops. The German were forced to send a large amount of men to defend their Eastern border. Due to this the opportunity to Blitzkrieg France out the war did not become a realty. The Russians demonstrated their ability to move troops quickly during the Brusilov assault. Not only did they help relieve pressure off the French at Verdun but they also broke the back of the Austrian-Hungarian army.
@ImperialRussianGuard I am not saying they did not have good technology. I am saying that the technology didn't help them much in the end because despite its economic growth Russia simply did not have the industrial base needed for modern war. I don't know how accurate the no rifle claim is ,but It's pretty much a fact that Russia lacked supplies at the start of the war and the means to transport those supplies.
@ImperialRussianGuard What's your point? Do you really think people just overthrew the tsar for no reason? No, obviously there were severe shortages and the economy was collapsing so there was a popular uprising. Like I said, the supply situation improved by 1916 ,but your assertion that Russia somehow had a modern military overall and the means to sustain that military is laughable.
@jack5051525354 Exactly how is laughable to claim that the Russian Empire had an impressive weapon technology. If the Russian Imperial airplanes were not all that great why did the British and the French and buy planes from the Russians ? Why did the Germans try to replicate shot down Ilya Muromets bombers if they were laughable ? If the Mosin Nagant was such a bad gun why is a gun which had been invented in 1891 still used by many countries today.
In 1908 the government passed legislation on compulsory attendance for primary education. By 1914, three-quarters of all school-age children were receiving basic education in a 150- to 160-day school year. School curricula went beyond reading, writing, and arithmetic to cover history, geography, natural science, and sometimes work in a trade. As one can see education was greatly growing under the Tsars.
@jack5051525354 You are unaware that Russia was Already being industrialized and was becoming a super power. Where do you think all the workers came from? It's true that Nicholas did not have the character to be an autocrat. He should have been a constitutional monarch like his cousin, George V, in the UK. As a matter of fact, he was getting to be that way with Karensky's revolution before the bloody regime of the Communists took over destroying lives and souls for decades.
Nicholas II combined a curious combination of febrile sensitivity for his family and immediate circle with an almost solipsistic disregard for his subjects. A revealing anecdote is a letter he wrote to his mother in 1902 in which he justified the brutal Russification of Finland and then went on to share his personal grief of the death of his favourite pet dog which had caused him to cry all day. The Romanov's didn't lead Russia they haunted it and their example poisoned the well of posterity.
Killing the Imperial Family was a shame to history. No one can erase history. I wish that some civilized country could have rescued the Imperial Family. I am not Russian but in spirit The Tzar shall always live!
@ProgressiveInAmerica You'd prefer Communism than Monarchy ? Why do you go around boasting that you're an intellectual light weight ? Are we some how supposed to be impressed how deluded you are ?
@ProgressiveInAmerica You think Lenin was a better leader than the Tsar? Lenin was a mass murderer who can be blamed for many of Russia's problems today. Nicholas II on the other hand was a Monarch who the Sciences,Arts and Economy flourish in Russia. Nicholas II's reign is known as the "Silver age". Lenin's is known as the "Red terror".
It was Austro Hungarian politics who forced Slavic people to fight against each other. We the proud SLOVAK people deserted that army into the Russian hands where we created Czechoslovak legions.
GLORY TO THE TRIANON TREATY AND GLORIOUS CZECHOSLOVAK LEGIONS THAT PROTECTED THE CZAR TO THE VERY END !
@horka4 Actually, the destruction of the the Austro-Hungarian empire left the Slovaks floating, tied to the Czechs whom they later deserted (twice), there were hundreds of thousands of Hungarians and a couple hundred thousand Ruthenians/Ukrainians in Slovakia. The future of Slovaks could have been worked out in a liberalization of the dual monarchy with a more federal system of the peoples. When the Russians invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968 they kicked out the great Slovak, Alexander Dubcek.
Ich bitte um Entschuldigung, weil ich deutsch-aufgrund mangelnder Sprachkenntnisse-schreiben und Fragen an Sie richten muß, um deren Beantwortung ich recht herzlich bitte:
1. Zitat: "...where we created Czechoslovak legions." Wer ist wir? Waren Sie dabei? Wie viele Legionen waren es?
2. Zitat: "Glory to the ... Czechoslovak legions that protected the Czar to the very end!" Zar und Familie und andere Personen wurden in einem Keller getötet. Wo war(en) da die Czechoslovak legion(s)? Tot?
@mynameisdivel Truth be told, the last two Tzars were totaly couppted by thier education, they were nothing more than puppets, and altoughresponcable for thier attocities, it s wrong to make such a generalisation.
Well even if Humanism has become a Religious ideology. Id rather live under a "faith" that basis is systems and codes on equality regardless of colour, or sexuality, etc... and give heavy care into logic, and science. But in truth I dont see it as a Religion. Because under a Religion you give faith blindly, you cannot allow anything to sway your faith. Where as under Humanism, you come to believe in it through thought, and reasoning. (Except the ignorant who just claim to be...)
@NebojsaAlexandrovsk It is interesting that you mention Blind faith. Many people who support the Democracy do so through blind faith. Since childhood they've been told that there can be no other alternative and anyone who supports any other form of government is nothing less than pure evil. This sort of thinking can only be only called illogical at best. Surely you would agree that a free thinker and sceptic can not take such a position ?
@ImperialRussianGuard Well its an odd switch over to Democracy from Faith... but. In my personal opinion a Socialized Democracy is the best form of Government ive seen in my lifetime. But any blind obedience to anything from Religion to Politics is a bad thing! I feel that one should expose themselves to new ideas as part of their personal growth until they are mature enough to forge their own ideals and viewpoints. What does this have to do with Humanism?
@NebojsaAlexandrovsk I'm assuming you are responding to my comment where I say Democratic Humanism is the dogma of modern society. If that is the case I think you over magnified the my use of the word Humanism. I used it simply because this phenomenon is mostly secular in nature,with the exception of American and Canadian neoconservatives of course. May I ask why you consider social democracy the superior form of government ?
@ImperialRussianGuard To be simplest as I can, in life the best situation is often a compromise. Democracy has many good systems, and socialism does too. (Not to be mistaken for Communism) I personally find a Socialized Democracy to be the Gov I most agree with. Thus it is my opinion... and really to be honest dont feel like arguing over it. Nor debating to be honest mate. Its one of those instances where neither of us will concede to the other I think. ^^,
Российская Империя была одной из самых влиятельных стран со времен его императорского величества, самодержца Петра I, но Революция была неизбежна, этому есть несколько причин:
а)феодальные пережитки мешали развитию страны (таже самая община)
@Homersimaes РИ стояла у ворот Константинополя, до Берлина один шаг - англоsuxы кирпичами срали. Вот тут и понадобились всяк Керенские Бланки Бронштейны Розенфельды и др эммигрантская шалупонь, а также свои Русские предатели которые думали хрен знает чем, когда Февраль устроили (один шаг до ПОБЕДЫ и Царь-Град НАШ). Били ведь Россию тогда не только физически, многие типа друзья, но вот сил добить полуживого Медведя у них не хватило, однако ж изза страха НАШЕЙ ПОБЕДЫ потрепали ЕГО канеш изрядно.
В) по ценам и ЗП у пролетариев инфу поисщи, а потом пиши о тяжёлом положении
Г) ищем инфу по земельным реформам до 1917
Д) прям как с листовок каких нить совр. окраинных нацистов
Е) ну энто да канеш вон как недемократично было Бланку денежку из госказны платить, разрешать содержать для себя няньку, да на охоту ходить на уточек - В ССЫЛКЕ ТО!
Beautiful music.
jahigh1 2 weeks ago
I come from a long line of Cossacks. My grandfather told me stories of how our forefathers chased the French out of Russia back in 1812. Long live the Russia of today.
noff27 2 weeks ago
I wish the tsar won the war and killed the bolshevik scum
chucknorris202 1 month ago 9
@chucknorris202 I agree Chuck Norris :*(
Gunnarr123abc 3 weeks ago
tsar means emperor in serbian :D
ALC96 1 month ago
@ALC96 Yes))
PolanskyA 3 weeks ago
@ALC96 And for Poles for Finland and Baltik, for East Prussia too )
PolanskyA 3 weeks ago
regime?!
alexeykh 2 months ago
я за царя над философией Ленин на самом деле я ненавижу коммунизм мне жаль, что я родился во время царствования царей я бы убил Ленина когда он был еще молод и слаб
TheMarciel09 2 months ago
Боже, царя храни. Пусть Господь царствовать вернусь православной царя
MGustavoGS1 2 months ago
russia needs a tsar
jackasskidzify 2 months ago
I think all should stop fighting each other over which era of Russia is better. Kievan Rus', Grand Duchy of Moscow, The Russian Empire, The Soviet Union, and the Russian Federation. They all had their ups and downs in each, but I think we should respect every era of Russia. We need to stop fighting against each other for being an Imperialist or a Communist. All slavics should unite under a union of equality but yet freedom. Viva!
CaptSanderson 2 months ago
@CaptSanderson um..... Kievan rus was from like the years 800-1200 and the Grand Duchy of Moscow 1200-1500, so I don't think anyone would support them. but I second the rest of your comment
rickmcdonalled 2 months ago
Communsim be damned. Long live the Orthodox Tsar!
Greetings from Taiwan, a stronghold against Red scum.
Liujin20 2 months ago 3
@Liujin20 Do you have room for an American refugee? The Reds have taken over EVERYTHING here.
redcorona14 2 months ago
Comment removed
JNathanK2011 2 months ago
@redcorona14 Thats rather melodramatic. I think its been taken over by neo-liberal scum. Whether its a small gang of corporations or the CCCP running everything, it doesn't matter at some point. We aren't standing in bread lines and being sent to prison for taking too many sick days yet though. Are you being forced to live in a block apartment? I know the Democrats and Republicans seem like the same party, but you're still capable of voting for a third party, are you not?
JNathanK2011 2 months ago
@JNathanK2011 What did Stalin say? It's not who votes that counts, but who counts the votes.
redcorona14 2 months ago
@redcorona14 They didn't have open elections though, and the CPSU had a total monopoly on everything. If you tried to organize opposition you'd go to prison and be black listed the rest of your life. Here in the US, people can still say whatever they want and we technically have open elections, but people are too distracted with their iPods and reality tv to actually get up and do anything. Everyone also perceives reality trough cultural and political stereotypes, and that doesn't help either.
JNathanK2011 2 months ago
@JNathanK2011 It's an illusion. The old Marxist system was 50% propaganda and 50% force. The neo-Marxist system is 90% propaganda and 10% force. Economically speaking we may have a few more liberties than the soviets, but culturally we are even more degraded than they were.
redcorona14 2 months ago
@Liujin20 What about our Federation? :(
mpman412 2 months ago
@mpman412
I have no problem with the current political establishment of Russia. In fact, the Federation should be praised for every effort it's made to transition Russia away from the failed Bolshevist philosophy. Putin and Medvedev may not be perfect, but I think they're definitely capable of steering Russia into a prominent and very positive role in the world.
Liujin20 2 months ago
@Liujin20 Thank you!
Though when you say "Putin and Medvedev"... It's just Putin. Medvedev is his loyal lapdog of sorts :P
mpman412 2 months ago
@mpman412
lol I have heard this. He's just keeping Putin's seat warm for him until he decides to become president again? :P
Liujin20 2 months ago
@Liujin20 Yep. Which is next election. If he gets president, he will be the longest serving president in Russia's history(overtaking Stalin)!
mpman412 2 months ago
@mpman412 Sorry, Stalin was in charge of Russia, then the Soviet Union from the death of Lenin in 1924 to his own death in 1953. In the early years Stalin hid behind 'committees' and the Bolshevic bureaucracy, but he ran the show almost alone (except for sub-human henchmen like Beria and Molotov) from the late 1920's.
ZeekWolfe1 1 month ago
@ZeekWolfe1 Really? I thought Stalin's official leadership lasted shorter than that O_o
mpman412 1 month ago
1812 overtureeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!
Salmon0fKnowledge 3 months ago
I think it would be great if countries like Austria, Germany, France and Russia were to reinstate their monarchy. I myself is Swede(and no, I don't have anything against russians, given the historical grievances we've had), and I think our monarchy is an extremely important part of our cultural heritage, as would i have thought about the monarchy in Russia, had it still been there today
TheArmedGrizzly 3 months ago
@TheArmedGrizzly I guess not, since they threw the monarchy out nearly 100 years ago!
tommyboy560 3 months ago
@TheArmedGrizzly What is your standing on the Danes? :O
mpman412 2 months ago
This melody is impressive!(and I guess ,so is the prayer for the czar.. :-))
The Russians have a splendid singing tradition.
Wonderful voices!
19Freedom41 3 months ago 2
Why so defensive against sympathy for the Romanovs? Such as Russian monarchy protect his subjects, and tsar as a supreme judge of the judical guarantees a fair sentence for each of them. The democratic community has always looked a person to play role a scapegoat. Like Jesus Christ in the Jewish community.
TheAstratoff 3 months ago
Good that he was removed for the sake of the people. Bad that it wasn't just him that was removed, but that's how dynasties work.
sniperquasi 3 months ago
Comment removed
sniperquasi 3 months ago
I'm only here because of March Slave and 1812 Overture :)
mrtacointhebox 3 months ago
так обидно, не смогли царя защитить от красных извергов....
LeHaine1306 4 months ago 11
the ppl a tsar killed in his lifetime, stalin killed in a week
humbertsin1994 4 months ago 2
sounds sad and epic, kind of like russia
qounqer 4 months ago
In all likeliness, people in this page who support communism or claim themselves to be communists or socialists are hypocrites; they're most likely college students in affluent countries from middle-class families who attend their political science classes using their parents' money so they feel they can change the world, when in fact they're unknowingly moved by forces they can't control, such as the free market economy. At most, they just wave signs. They probably work at Starbucks and such.
Ioannesmartialis 4 months ago
Lenin and his godless successors murdered millions more for the sake of communism than all the centuries of Serfdom and Tsarist autocracy; farmers were not allowed to eat their own crops, which led to Holodomor. All these sympathizers towards communists never lived in a communist state like North Korea or Cuba. Those who died under the Tsar died of negligence and mismanagement, or else the Russians would gotten rid of the Tsars centuries ago. The Tsar is the heart of the Russian people.
Ioannesmartialis 4 months ago
The Russian system before the Soviets was bloody MEDIEVAL. Get over it, guys. Communism was far from perfect, but at least it put the majority first.
LieutenantPoncyHair 4 months ago
@LieutenantPoncyHair Just because a policy is dictated by the majority doesn't make the majority right. Look at Nazi Germany; people voted Hitler into power, and look where that got them; war, death, and the permanent stain of mass murder.
In an absolute monarchy, in Imperial Russia, you blame -one- person, because -one- person is responsible for the nation. In Soviet Russia, you get punished when you are suspicious and are not a zombie of the communist party. The party is always right.
Ioannesmartialis 4 months ago
@Ioannesmartialis ...maybe you should check how Imperial Russia treated anyone who WASN'T a noble or a member of royalty. The regime at the time was horrific, feudal and totally not worth defending.
LieutenantPoncyHair 4 months ago
@LieutenantPoncyHair
And maybe you should check how the Communist Party treated anyone who WASN'T a party member or a revolutionary. The regime that replaced the Tsar's was horrific and brutal.
TheTollundWoman 4 months ago 2
@LieutenantPoncyHair
Not really, unless you were a seditious Jew. Monarchies aren't particularly ideological in the way left wing 'isms' are.
addendum044 4 months ago
Stalin killed 40 millions people. Yeah!! your hero !!!
brocklesnar1982 4 months ago
Communism!!!!
yeyetcaro 5 months ago
Well Those tsar killed mllions of people
When the heroic soviets came they kill the evil romanovs
yeyetcaro 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Join the best club on planet earth period!
ginmember (dot) tumblr (dot) com
merculiv 5 months ago
There may have been numerous terrible years in Russia...
But this is a beautiful song.
derFischmoerder 5 months ago
God Save The Queen!
God Save The Tsar!
Cheers from Great Britain.
LordWellington15 5 months ago 6
@kickneas I think that you are unaware of history yet. Do a good deal more reading of History and less playing video games in an imaginary world. There is much to learn.
FRAGIORGIO1 5 months ago
Amen!!! Lord have mercy!!!
xirokambi 6 months ago
What book did the pictures come from? They and the anthem are magnificent.
samorr4 6 months ago
Was this tune used for some other song??? It seems like I've heard this before, just in another language.
WR12MSH 6 months ago
Comment removed
rsaloom 6 months ago
Nobody wanted to see Russia out of World War winner. Humiliated and defeated the Germans financed the revolution in Russia. Although it is known that most of the money came from the United States. Nicholas II was too weak. The first revolution was in 1905 but failed. Russia then knocked the crap out of the Japanese .... almost ... If it were not for the revolution of 1905
PolanskyA 6 months ago
Yeah people think the Czar was good he wasnt he was even more corrupt than stalin after lenins stress and paranoia killed him
GregoryBBG 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GregoryBBG Care to provide evidence to support your claim ?
ImperialRussianGuard 6 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard This has been unfairly "spammed". The comment is not improper. Let it be. It is not "spam".
FRAGIORGIO1 5 months ago
@FRAGIORGIO1 Thank you for unspaming my comment. It seems the critics of Nicholas II, are themselves incapable of handling criticism. I also had the highest ranked comment on this video with nearly 40 likes. However for some reason it also got flagged.
ImperialRussianGuard 5 months ago
thetollungwoman you are such an idiot lenin and trotsky were the ones who made tsarist russia rumble i am russian and i hate lenin because tsarist was rumbled by his hand and i would like to return the real power of russia because russia was never captured not includin mongols but in imperial times russia was always known for power it was the strongest country at those times where is the power now
dantrush99 6 months ago 2
God must not have listend to this music then lol
SophieTewpitz 7 months ago
@SophieTewpitz Was busy listening to the British crown. Sad but true
PolanskyA 6 months ago
FUCK THE CZAR !
xCCCPCLANx 7 months ago
Comment removed
lichtbroeder 7 months ago
@xCCCPCLANx Well for goodness sake, a Russian Communist rebel bad boy! Feeling lonely? Your phone never rings? No one writes anymore? Just had to post an obscene comment here? Now THAT really furthers your cause! Feel better now? Poor baby.
lichtbroeder 7 months ago 12
@lichtbroeder ha im not even russian.
xCCCPCLANx 7 months ago
@lichtbroeder remember in germany we have many russians and many germans who fight with us and love us
Ikazu1991 6 months ago
BRAVO & БРАВО !!!
MegaMikss 7 months ago
Hopefully, the Romanovs will be restored in Russia, but as constitutional monarchs to continue Russian history and contribute to the union of the peoples of the Russian Federal Republic (which will again become an Empire)!
FRAGIORGIO1 7 months ago
@FRAGIORGIO1 I agree!
ultramaniacrules33 6 months ago
God save the tsar! Боже, Царя храни!
moleman1996 7 months ago
@moleman1996
Советский Союз = нет бомжей, никаких наркотиков, никаких Педофилия, нет геев, нет преступности, безработицы нет, не нужно беспокоиться о деньгах! Если цель все в том, чтобы работать на благо ближнему своему товарищу, работа для будущих поколений, работать на вашей великой Родины! Нет Великой Депрессии, нет коррупции, нет сионисты грабить людей, не Банки ставят вас в долговое рабство! Советский Союз
kickneas 5 months ago
@kickneas Soviet Union= torture, rape, poverty, starvation, death camps, barbarism, fear, cruelty.
Communism endured 80 years, whilst monarchies lasted thousands of years.
God save the king!
Советский Союз = пытки, изнасилования, нищета, голод, лагеря смерти, варварства, страха, жестокости.
Коммунизм пережил 80 лет, в то время монархий длилась тысячи лет.
Боже, храни короля!
moleman1996 5 months ago
@moleman1996
Пошел на хуй!
Допустим, что Россия все еще царской нации в WW2, что произойдет?
Они потеряют! Для нацистов!!
kickneas 5 months ago
@moleman1996
Вы черного пропагандист!
ни один из правда!
kickneas 5 months ago
We don't really get a chance to hear about the real Nicholas, owing to decades of leftist tripe and blather being squawked, parrot-like, in our schools and Universities.
i'm all for weighing and balancing. Badly maligned, Nicholas was a saint when compared with those who ruled after him for 70 years.
54mayford 7 months ago
Forgive us, Nicholas ... we did not know what we are doing ...
Bolshevik rednecks engulfed the country ...
TheAnarhist2009 7 months ago
Why does almost every Russian patriotic song seem to have a sad tone to them?
evilmick66 7 months ago
@evilmick66 Russians have suffered terrible things throughout history: the Mongols, sometimes the climate is severe, the invasion and devastations of Napoleon and Hitler, and the terrible crimes of the Communists. Nevertheless, the Russians have shown great heroism and nobility. Russians suffer...and march forward!
FRAGIORGIO1 7 months ago
well it sounds much better in Tchaikovsky's 1812
sondano 8 months ago
天佑沙皇！！！
The412thcadian 8 months ago
Where else have I heard this tune, just with different words???
WR12MSH 8 months ago
GOD SAVE THE TSAR!
MrRaquiem 8 months ago
GOD SAVE THE MONGOL
unfukkkmee 9 months ago
Comment removed
VendPrekmurec 8 months ago
Regardless of the politics so far discussed in the comments, this is a VERY well-made video. The photos create a very haunting feel alongside such music, moreso when remembering how this story ended. (And I don't mean to complain about the discussion; good points on both sides - I just mean to say that a good video is a good video :D)
JagerLange 9 months ago
Long live Lenin and Trotsky
what4563 9 months ago
@what4563
Trotsky and Lenin had thousands of civilians executed. Trotsky founded the Cheka, the most brutal police system in history prior to the creation of the Gestapo, Lenin's "war communism" caused a famine in which 5 million Russians starved to death. Together they created the system that allowed for Stalinism to arise, Stalin didn't invent the GULag it was Lenin's idea. Trotsky at least had the minimal decency to oppose Stalin. but Lenin was pure evil
TheTollundWoman 9 months ago 25
@TheTollundWoman Lenin wasnt really much with the executions, although several died in his war, the executions were more of a Stalinist thing
20062013 6 months ago
@20062013 Well he killed 4 million people ( not including the Russian Civil war). So you really can't say he wasn't really into executions.
ImperialRussianGuard 6 months ago
@TheTollundWoman
Trotsky was the worst, he was the pioneer of the Red Terror. He was a Jew through and through. Jews are eternal enemies of ALL European peoples.
addendum044 4 months ago
@addendum044
Trotsky was an ATHEIST, an apostate who renounced his parents' religion just like that traitor Lenin renounced the Orthodox Church. It was Trotsky who helped create the most anti-semitic government in history prior to the Nazis. Jews are eternal enemies of the Bolshevik scum, and eternal friends of freedom fighters everywhere.
TheTollundWoman 4 months ago 2
Liberalism, the belief in the sovereignty & autonomy of the individual is at the heart of secular humanism. It runs against a Trinitarian view of Man as created in the image of God and who, thus, moves & has being through relationship (divine & neighbour).
Lockean liberalism was a philosophy written to justify the rebellion of the 17th c. English Civil War that killed a king. It is not based on family, the common good, or loyalty.
It seeks to convert all to a false freedom of desolation.
MrZadokthePriest 10 months ago
@MrZadokthePriest Quite true. Mankind is both social and individual. No one is born nor reared alone. An exaggeratedt individualism is destroying civilization in the West, especially speaking for the United States.
FRAGIORGIO1 7 months ago
@FRAGIORGIO1 you are correct as an american it is not hard to see that when a individual puts himself to far ahead of others and cares not for his fellow man then y you get a horrible country. Americans have no sense of duty anymore it makes me sick that they can claim the United states as their own but not be willing to make any sacrafice for the greater good.
thedictatorfan 7 months ago
I am Ukrainian. I will only agree to merge with Russia if I will be ruled by Orthodox Czar whom I will serve with passion. Just like my cossack predessesos.
Slavko961234 10 months ago 14
@Slavko961234 Why not an independent Ukraine with its own Tsar?? Kiev was the First great Russ, the mother of all Russians in the wider sense. They used to call Ukraine "Little Russia", but it was the First Russia. Kiev should have its Patriarch and its Tsar and a democratic government of the People of that historic land with the heroic cossacks serving Their country.
FRAGIORGIO1 5 months ago
@Slavko961234 I would gladly join the Russian Orthodox Church were one available where I could trust my confessors; the Tsars did not trust it to let it crown them in the coronation but instead crowned themselves, for the church isn't a constitution limiting the power of the Tsar. However I understand you. Without a constitution able to limit the power of an absolute autocrat, the only trustworthiness in him is his willingness to submit to God. Militia Tsar Nicholas III (State of Virginia, USA).
emanres100 4 months ago
Nicholas II was responsible for all of Russia's evils. He had a brilliant minister in Sergei Witte who brought about so many reforms and nearly brought Russia into the modern age. But the Tsar betrayed him. Nicholas ii was a fool who believed he was appointed by God and wanted only himself to be the centre of attention. Sergei Whitte tried to warn against WWI but the fool Nicholas ii did not listen and paid the ultimate price.
1mrnewman 10 months ago
@1mrnewman Now, I may be a Communist, but even I have to say that this comment is 99.9% anti-czar propaganda. The fact this user's been banned probably says something about the rhetoric he's likely been spouting...
Katyusha213 10 months ago
Did you know that the Romanov dynasty goes back to Ivan IV's first wife Anastasia Romanova?
Freyja1133 11 months ago
much better than ussr anthem
AlamoPL 11 months ago
please, where can I find the lyrics to this marvellous piece. I first listened to it on Tchaikovsky's Ouverture 1812.
eurekabach 11 months ago
U got a point - double click - in reference 2 slave labor is an understatement...It really took red production to the 19th degree...but I am not jeoulous, the great purge of Stalin in which millions died and the two world wars that Europeans started but could not contain lends my sensibilities to feel sorry for you guys. You invented Fascism and Communisim all within 50 years and r responsible for the deaths of billions,,,sorrow my friend,,,give me a moment, I am very sad.
sinjyn66 11 months ago
Jack u r a moron, industrialization was well on its way under the czar but the reds utilized slave labor to doubleclick its production...and they were ony a super power in the military sense - never in any financial sense - and u can pretty much blame hitlers betrayal for that, it made them more war minded.
sinjyn66 11 months ago
@sinjyn66 Only moron can think that slave labor can doubleclick production. You are only jealous that you are such idiots and learned nothing.
tagaphon 11 months ago
I only recognized this from Tchaikovsky
jimmbo13 11 months ago
I'd take communism over monarchy. Hell at least the communists industrialized Russia and made it into a world super power. Lenin succeeded in being the Tsar Romanov failed to be.
jack5051525354 11 months ago
@jack5051525354 The Russian Empire was a superpower you dumb fuck!
AdalDrottinn 10 months ago
The Russian empire was A power and it was obviously in decline. Lost war a war to Japan, was losing war to Germany and most of its people were illiterate peasants still living in the dark ages. Certainly it wouldn't have been strong enough to survive the Nazis if the tsar remained in power. obviously people in Russia had a much better standard of living in 1970 than in 1917. There was very little difference between the communists and the tsars if you strip away the ideological bullshit.
jack5051525354 10 months ago
@jack5051525354 Well at the begining of the 20th century Russias ecnomy was one of the fastest growing economies in the world. So unless by decline you mean great economical progress then decline isn't the right term. Although it officialy lost the Russo-Japanese war the Japanese casualties were nearly twice as high as the Russian. Losing to Germany? Not according to General Luddendorff. Living in the dark ages? This is the country that was developing rocket technology in the early 1900's.
ImperialRussianGuard 10 months ago
Military wise the war was a stalemate favoring the Germans, but the morale of the army and at home had obviously broken down. The Russian economy was collapsing by the end of the war. Russia was industrializing , but the majority of its people were still rural peasants. The elite produced culture, but most of the people were illiterate peasants living in the dark ages with little education and healthcare. But I guess the common rabble aren't deserving of such things, amirite?
jack5051525354 10 months ago
@jack5051525354 Following the successful Brusilov offensive the Russian army was planning another offensive. The Russian generals were feeling very optimistic of its successes. However they were not the only ones sure of it's successes. General Ludendorff was concerned about the possibility of a Russian offensive. However the February Revolution put an end to the possibility of a Russian victory in WWI.
ImperialRussianGuard 10 months ago
@jack5051525354 Now to answer your claims that most of Russians were illiterate. The tsars presided over an educational system that was characterized by high standards, serious academic character, and strict discipline. The period 1870-1914 was a time of remarkable expansion of basic schooling, with the ultimate goal of establishing public schools throughout the Empire by 1922.In 1872 the Russian government started compulsory primary education and dramatically increased funding for it
ImperialRussianGuard 10 months ago
Unfortunately for the tsar the Russian people didn't feel like sacrificing themselves for some asshole god king while their families starved due to shortages caused by the war. The 1917 Kerensky Offensive was a failure. The move toward more education was nice, but it doesn't change the fact that only 56% of the people were literate in 1916. In 1949 Russia tested the atomic bomb and it's territories stretched to Berlin. The communists were bad people ,but you can't say they made no progress.
jack5051525354 10 months ago
@jack5051525354 We are not talking about the Kerensky offensive. The Russian military was planning a totally different offensive in which Kerensky took absolutely no part in planning. Once Kerensky took over the military situation quickly declined. When the Bolsheviks came into power it got only worse. In fact they failed so miserably that by February 1918 the Germans were advancing towards St. Petersburg. What did the Bolsheviks do ? The army they sent fled without even fighting.
ImperialRussianGuard 10 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard
You are missing my point. Yes the army could technically still fight, but they didn't because there families were starving due to shortages on the home front and they felt no allegiance to the inept tsar who had gotten them into the war. In war, morale and a strong economy is just as important as weapons and numbers.
jack5051525354 10 months ago
@jack5051525354 According to the memoirs of Russian generals on the Eastern front morale fell greatly following the Tsars abdication. And indeed we can see this lack of morale following the Russian military progress after the abdication of the monarchy. According to the sources I've read it is my understanding that by 1916 the Russian troops were once again inspired to fight after a rough time in late 1914-1915. By then Russian factories were producing a great amount of weapons.
ImperialRussianGuard 10 months ago
@jack5051525354 The statistics involving education show that that more and more children were becoming literate and that Tsarist Russia was well on it's way of getting rid illiteracy completely. During WWI Russia had one of the most advance air forces in the world and very advanced military technology. In fact many rifles such as the Mosin Nagant was used long after the fall of the Russian empire.
ImperialRussianGuard 10 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard Nonsense, at the start of the war many soldiers fought without rifles due to the lack of industry. The supply situation only began to improve in 1916. Granted, Russia had allot of soldiers to arm, but what good is technology if you can't produce enough to arm your military with it?
jack5051525354 10 months ago
@jack5051525354 You are confusing WWI with WW2. It was during the beginning of WWII when Soviet soldiers fought without rifles.During WWI most of the troops were armed. At least that what my impression of the situation was after reading several memoirs by generals. By 1916 the Russian army had MORE weapons then it even needed.
ImperialRussianGuard 10 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard I am not saying they did not have good technology. I am saying that the technology didn't help them much in the end because despite its economic growth Russia simply did not have the industrial base needed for modern war. I don't know how accurate the no rifle claim is ,but It's pretty much a fact that Russia lacked supplies at the start of the war and the means to transport those supplies.
jack5051525354 10 months ago
@jack5051525354 Since the 1890's Russia had been industrializing very rapidly. So it would be incorrect to say that it wasn't industrialized. Underestimating the capability of the Russian armies industrialization caused the Germans serious problems in the beginning of the war. The Germans planned to throw about 90 % of their army at France and hopefully crush it within 6 weeks. The Germans thought the Russians would mobilize by then. They were in for a surprise.
ImperialRussianGuard 10 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard The great majority of the Russian people were still peasants at the start of the war. Industrialization in Russia did not hit its prime until Stalin's the five year plans. I am not saying Russia was not industrializing during the tsars. I am saying they were not Industrialized enough to fight in a modern war against Germany. Certainly Germany had a far better industrial base then Russia.
jack5051525354 10 months ago
@jack5051525354 When we see at what speed the Russian army was able to move through German lines in the beginning of WWI we can see that they had an able industrial base. Germany had a very good industrial base but one must keep in mind that it was much easier to industrialize Germany than Russia. Alas during the reigns of Alexander III and Nicholas II great progress was made in the field of industrialization.
ImperialRussianGuard 10 months ago
However the Schlieffen plan failed because of the quick mobilization of Russian troops. The German were forced to send a large amount of men to defend their Eastern border. Due to this the opportunity to Blitzkrieg France out the war did not become a realty. The Russians demonstrated their ability to move troops quickly during the Brusilov assault. Not only did they help relieve pressure off the French at Verdun but they also broke the back of the Austrian-Hungarian army.
ImperialRussianGuard 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ImperialRussianGuard I am not saying they did not have good technology. I am saying that the technology didn't help them much in the end because despite its economic growth Russia simply did not have the industrial base needed for modern war. I don't know how accurate the no rifle claim is ,but It's pretty much a fact that Russia lacked supplies at the start of the war and the means to transport those supplies.
jack5051525354 10 months ago
@ImperialRussianGuard What's your point? Do you really think people just overthrew the tsar for no reason? No, obviously there were severe shortages and the economy was collapsing so there was a popular uprising. Like I said, the supply situation improved by 1916 ,but your assertion that Russia somehow had a modern military overall and the means to sustain that military is laughable.
jack5051525354 10 months ago
@jack5051525354 Exactly how is laughable to claim that the Russian Empire had an impressive weapon technology. If the Russian Imperial airplanes were not all that great why did the British and the French and buy planes from the Russians ? Why did the Germans try to replicate shot down Ilya Muromets bombers if they were laughable ? If the Mosin Nagant was such a bad gun why is a gun which had been invented in 1891 still used by many countries today.
ImperialRussianGuard 10 months ago
In 1908 the government passed legislation on compulsory attendance for primary education. By 1914, three-quarters of all school-age children were receiving basic education in a 150- to 160-day school year. School curricula went beyond reading, writing, and arithmetic to cover history, geography, natural science, and sometimes work in a trade. As one can see education was greatly growing under the Tsars.
ImperialRussianGuard 10 months ago
@jack5051525354 You are unaware that Russia was Already being industrialized and was becoming a super power. Where do you think all the workers came from? It's true that Nicholas did not have the character to be an autocrat. He should have been a constitutional monarch like his cousin, George V, in the UK. As a matter of fact, he was getting to be that way with Karensky's revolution before the bloody regime of the Communists took over destroying lives and souls for decades.
FRAGIORGIO1 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Nicholas II combined a curious combination of febrile sensitivity for his family and immediate circle with an almost solipsistic disregard for his subjects. A revealing anecdote is a letter he wrote to his mother in 1902 in which he justified the brutal Russification of Finland and then went on to share his personal grief of the death of his favourite pet dog which had caused him to cry all day. The Romanov's didn't lead Russia they haunted it and their example poisoned the well of posterity.
johnsammyanfal 11 months ago
1812 overture :)
PleezPlusTanQ 11 months ago
Killing the Imperial Family was a shame to history. No one can erase history. I wish that some civilized country could have rescued the Imperial Family. I am not Russian but in spirit The Tzar shall always live!
bohemoth1 11 months ago
For example Czechs in Austria-Hungary like Russia very much because we did not know them.
TheJan1212 11 months ago
Comment removed
ImperialRussianGuard 1 year ago
@ProgressiveInAmerica You'd prefer Communism than Monarchy ? Why do you go around boasting that you're an intellectual light weight ? Are we some how supposed to be impressed how deluded you are ?
ImperialRussianGuard 1 year ago
@ImperialRussianGuard But either way, if you supported the Tsar during the Russian Revolution, you are most likely a major douche bag. Lenin > Tsar
ProgressiveInAmerica 1 year ago
@ProgressiveInAmerica You think Lenin was a better leader than the Tsar? Lenin was a mass murderer who can be blamed for many of Russia's problems today. Nicholas II on the other hand was a Monarch who the Sciences,Arts and Economy flourish in Russia. Nicholas II's reign is known as the "Silver age". Lenin's is known as the "Red terror".
ImperialRussianGuard 1 year ago
Tschaikovsky? Slawischer Marsch! Hat er da die Hyme verwendet?
OLIVCHEN77 1 year ago
I wish Russia can go back to a monarchy. It lasted for over 300 years, communism for 70, and democracy doesnt seem to be working for Russia.
oortiz915 1 year ago 4
Comment removed
terrychris56 1 year ago
My Great-Great Grandparents we're imperial Russians, they fled after the 1905 Uprising, on account of them being Land-Lords and the workers revolting
oniforo 1 year ago
Monarchy is shit, but better than communism.
SphereBoxCube 1 year ago
Царское пидерастическое время - Слава Советскому Союзу! )
MegaBeast131 1 year ago
A true Russian national anthem! No Bolshevik shit!
EbloNumberOne 1 year ago
fucking comunists
wrightmt011 1 year ago
The melody is pretty good, this is better than the soviet national anthem.
Pre114 1 year ago
Boze cuvaj Rusiju i nasu bracu ruse!!!!!
Pozdrav Srbija!
Doctor50120 1 year ago
It was Austro Hungarian politics who forced Slavic people to fight against each other. We the proud SLOVAK people deserted that army into the Russian hands where we created Czechoslovak legions.
GLORY TO THE TRIANON TREATY AND GLORIOUS CZECHOSLOVAK LEGIONS THAT PROTECTED THE CZAR TO THE VERY END !
horka4 1 year ago 22
@horka4 God bless the czechoslovakian people too!!!! Greeting from Serbia!!!
Doctor50120 1 year ago
@horka4 Actually, the destruction of the the Austro-Hungarian empire left the Slovaks floating, tied to the Czechs whom they later deserted (twice), there were hundreds of thousands of Hungarians and a couple hundred thousand Ruthenians/Ukrainians in Slovakia. The future of Slovaks could have been worked out in a liberalization of the dual monarchy with a more federal system of the peoples. When the Russians invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968 they kicked out the great Slovak, Alexander Dubcek.
FRAGIORGIO1 7 months ago
@horka4
Ich bitte um Entschuldigung, weil ich deutsch-aufgrund mangelnder Sprachkenntnisse-schreiben und Fragen an Sie richten muß, um deren Beantwortung ich recht herzlich bitte:
1. Zitat: "...where we created Czechoslovak legions." Wer ist wir? Waren Sie dabei? Wie viele Legionen waren es?
2. Zitat: "Glory to the ... Czechoslovak legions that protected the Czar to the very end!" Zar und Familie und andere Personen wurden in einem Keller getötet. Wo war(en) da die Czechoslovak legion(s)? Tot?
ElDraco53 6 months ago
Tsar is great when he is dead No monarchy, No explantation, death for masters, freedom for people!
mynameisdivel 1 year ago
@mynameisdivel Truth be told, the last two Tzars were totaly couppted by thier education, they were nothing more than puppets, and altoughresponcable for thier attocities, it s wrong to make such a generalisation.
ColFeren 1 year ago
Long live our Majesty Czar Nicholas II and protect him and the royal family
buds123able1 1 year ago
@buds123able1 Bit latye aren't you, by about 100 years or so?
ColFeren 1 year ago
@buds123able1 Bit late aren't you, by about 100 years or so?
ColFeren 1 year ago
поздновато..опомнились.. +
Danilka2021 1 year ago
very sad they were murdered... if they didn't die russia would have headed by a tsar until now... 1868-1918
international153 1 year ago
Well even if Humanism has become a Religious ideology. Id rather live under a "faith" that basis is systems and codes on equality regardless of colour, or sexuality, etc... and give heavy care into logic, and science. But in truth I dont see it as a Religion. Because under a Religion you give faith blindly, you cannot allow anything to sway your faith. Where as under Humanism, you come to believe in it through thought, and reasoning. (Except the ignorant who just claim to be...)
NebojsaAlexandrovsk 1 year ago
@NebojsaAlexandrovsk It is interesting that you mention Blind faith. Many people who support the Democracy do so through blind faith. Since childhood they've been told that there can be no other alternative and anyone who supports any other form of government is nothing less than pure evil. This sort of thinking can only be only called illogical at best. Surely you would agree that a free thinker and sceptic can not take such a position ?
ImperialRussianGuard 1 year ago 3
@ImperialRussianGuard Well its an odd switch over to Democracy from Faith... but. In my personal opinion a Socialized Democracy is the best form of Government ive seen in my lifetime. But any blind obedience to anything from Religion to Politics is a bad thing! I feel that one should expose themselves to new ideas as part of their personal growth until they are mature enough to forge their own ideals and viewpoints. What does this have to do with Humanism?
NebojsaAlexandrovsk 1 year ago
@NebojsaAlexandrovsk I'm assuming you are responding to my comment where I say Democratic Humanism is the dogma of modern society. If that is the case I think you over magnified the my use of the word Humanism. I used it simply because this phenomenon is mostly secular in nature,with the exception of American and Canadian neoconservatives of course. May I ask why you consider social democracy the superior form of government ?
ImperialRussianGuard 1 year ago
@ImperialRussianGuard To be simplest as I can, in life the best situation is often a compromise. Democracy has many good systems, and socialism does too. (Not to be mistaken for Communism) I personally find a Socialized Democracy to be the Gov I most agree with. Thus it is my opinion... and really to be honest dont feel like arguing over it. Nor debating to be honest mate. Its one of those instances where neither of us will concede to the other I think. ^^,
NebojsaAlexandrovsk 1 year ago
gloire à la sainte Russie
gloire à Nicolas
boulanger91 1 year ago 4
Российская Империя была одной из самых влиятельных стран со времен его императорского величества, самодержца Петра I, но Революция была неизбежна, этому есть несколько причин:
а)феодальные пережитки мешали развитию страны (таже самая община)
б)кризис самодержавия
в)тяжелое положение пролетариев
г)малоземелье крестьян
д)политика русификации в колониях
е)отсутсвие демократических прав и свобод
Боже, храни Царя! Боже, храни Россию!
Homersimaes 1 year ago
@Homersimaes РИ стояла у ворот Константинополя, до Берлина один шаг - англоsuxы кирпичами срали. Вот тут и понадобились всяк Керенские Бланки Бронштейны Розенфельды и др эммигрантская шалупонь, а также свои Русские предатели которые думали хрен знает чем, когда Февраль устроили (один шаг до ПОБЕДЫ и Царь-Град НАШ). Били ведь Россию тогда не только физически, многие типа друзья, но вот сил добить полуживого Медведя у них не хватило, однако ж изза страха НАШЕЙ ПОБЕДЫ потрепали ЕГО канеш изрядно.
DaimonJV 1 year ago
@Homersimaes
А) то есть ускорение индустриализации при Николае II это типа феод пережитки?
Б) Кризис окружения - массовая либерализация интелегенции
В) по ценам и ЗП у пролетариев инфу поисщи, а потом пиши о тяжёлом положении
Г) ищем инфу по земельным реформам до 1917
Д) прям как с листовок каких нить совр. окраинных нацистов
Е) ну энто да канеш вон как недемократично было Бланку денежку из госказны платить, разрешать содержать для себя няньку, да на охоту ходить на уточек - В ССЫЛКЕ ТО!
DaimonJV 1 year ago
Боже, Царя храни!