วีดีโอ

Yikes! Comments here are astoundingly stupid and ignorant! Lenin was a psychopath! The figures of victims of Leninism, from November 1917 to January 1924 1. More than a million people murdered for political or religious reasons. 2. Between 300,000 and 500,000 Cossacks killed. 3. Hundreds of thousands of workers and peasants killed for striking. 4. 240,000 killed in the suppression of the Tambov rebellion. 5. More than 50,000 white prisoners of war executed. 6. Between 3.9 million and 7.75 million deaths from famines among Russians, Kazakhs and Tatars. Yeh, great leader huh!

fck nationalism! fck imperialism! long live communism!!

This is the USSR WW2 version.

This song is so good that I am willing to endure a famine.

When I was in the 5th form at high school I chose Lenin to do a biographical speech to the class! J.

They need to make a movie set during the Revelation and have it star Mila Kunis, Seth MacFarlane, Ashton Kutcher, Charles Fleischer, Simon Helberg and J.K. Simmons as Lenin.

The need to make a movie about the revelation with Mila Kunis, Ashton Kutcher and J.K. Simmons as Lenin.

Well this will probably start trending again.

I played this song in Almaty, now It's Alma-ata

Za Rodinu za Stalina!

AsSSR RED KURDISTAN SOWJETUNION

Red salute to comrades...

GLORY TO RUSSIAN PEOPLE GLORY TO RUSSIAN ARMY SLAVA... R. U. S. S. I. A URRRRRAAAAAH...Z.O.V LOVE & RESPECT FROM ALGERIA

да здравствует красный октябрь!

SLAVA... R. U. S. S. I. A FROM ALGERIA... URRRRRRRAAAAAH...Z.O.V Bсяческая поддержка и помощь Российской Федерации и сильное сопротивление русского народа. Вас поддерживает земля Алжира и народ Алжира. Российское государство имеет полное право защищать всеми способами свою национальную безопасность и территориальную целостность от агрессии Атлантического Альянса, который хочет приблизиться к географическим границам России. Алжир поддерживает Россию в защите. Не забывайте, товарищи, что украинский народ является продолжением народа России и невиновен в действиях Зеленского и его администрации, пожалуйста, не убивайте украинский народ. При всем уважении к Президенту Путину и всей российской армии. Слава Россия...мы с тобой...

This song was made during a “special operation” that killed 60 million…

Back in these days the russians and ukranians fought a common enemy. Now they *are enemies. and Ukraine is winning lol. Slavi Ukrani

Communism was a supposed utopia but every utopia ends up becoming a distopia, a supposed heaven to hell

Quality thumbnail for a 100 yo vid

На Киев!!

Russian Empire & USSR > German Empire & N@zi Germany Nichollas ii & Joseph Stalin > Kaiser & Adolf

This video was uploaded only 15 years after the illegal dissolution of the USSR.

Браво

Спасибо за песню

Молодцы

LOOK AT HIM HE IS SUCH A CHAD 1:14

Absolutely one of my favorite songs There is Finnish version too called "Vapaa Venäjä" Greetings from Finnland

Farewell of Russian

are you alive ??? do you see venezuela ???? what do you thnk about madoro ?????

Guiding in 2021/2022

Зачем мне это в реках попало...

Неизвестная обывателю форма белых и красных осенью 1919 под Петроградом Unknown to the layman, the form of the whites and reds in the fall of 1919 near Petrograd th-cam.com/video/uZ9F96fRTE8/w-d-xo.html

This song is for the Russian Empire

Say what you want about communists, they sure knew how to write good songs

ইনকিলাব জিন্দাবাদ ❤️

Reminder tovarisches, even the Revolution was late by a month. Twice in fact

This music white army music i am right?

Sometimes I wonder - could the USSR have been an actual socialist heaven if there wasn't a nuclear arms race with the US wasting so many funds? Maybe it could have remained standing today and have been on friendly terms with much of the world and an option for socialist-minded people to migrate to from the "West". I could ask the same for the US - could there have been money for universal healthcare? Well ok, there is money for universal healthcare but the corporations run America and the healthcare system with influence from both parties so their situation remains fucked. Myself? Not a communist. I've been into social democracy for a long time but am warming more and more to democratic socialism these days. But I do often wonder - what if there hadn't been a nuclear arms race? What if there was no Cold War? The USSR might have lived on and reformed and adapted but remained socialist.

3:52 "A childless pair" excuse me, I see a cat.

this is not a march of the revolution, but a march "прощание славянки"

Song is not about the Russian Revolution

LENIN was a leader, revolutionary. Was he GOOD, was he BAD?? Whatever, he was successful revo lutionary. Communism , eventually , did become international power eventually. So eventually, LENIN did create a POWER in the world. Nobody is perfect ,Lenin is not perfect. Eventually, Communism failed. Communism was to fail. Socialism will not fail. Possible, deep inside, LENIN was sincere to his convictions , --- the convictions were due to the social causes of the era / times of those days. He believed in Communism, and Communism did achieve power in the world. Good or Bad ---- or mixture of both, we all human beings are. Rest in Peace, Comrade Lenin---- u were good and bad , both.

💂💂‍♀️💂‍♂️

When you have more tanks than food

Dislikes are capitalists

Comrades oh my fellow comrades. Let there be death to capitalism.

How Lenin and his rule was perceived at the time strongly depended on who you asked. Because in communist circles, despite the sometimes heavy criticism of Bolshevik rule in Russia by people like Rosa Luxemburg, the Bolsheviks and Lenin were seen as fighting a particularly brutal fight against the forces of the Reaction, especially when it came to the civil war. For those who opposed the Bolsheviks, on the other hand, Lenin and Bolshevik rule represented something that went much further than our perception of the DPRK today. It is imperative to understand that for a variety of political forces, Bolshevism was perceived as a threat so severe to the established order unseen since the French Revolution of 1789. To fully grasp this, it is important to look at it in the context of the time. The First World War was a conflict that in many ways - its brutality, its totality - was perceived by many as unprecedented (despite the fact that the Balkan wars had displayed a somewhat similar pattern) but the reason why we today perceive it as a historical watershed and why this was already understood, probably even better, by historical actors at the time, was that World War One truly marked the end of a certain era. The developments towards the end of the war and especially the Bolshevik revolution overturned a political order that had been criticized before by many but was ultimately seen as relatively stable. In countries like Germany, Russia, and the Habsburg Empire, the war came to an end with actual revolution, democratic, nationalist, and - in some places - communist revolution. Lenin and the Bolsheviks represented the more dangerous kind of the end of the old order, in part because of their revolutionary program of actually trying to overturn power structures, in part because Bolshevik rule became synonymous with the kind of violence that transpired in the Russian Civil War. It didn't matter if that violence was the result of Bolshevik policy (and in many a case it was) or if it was perpetrated by one of the various factions in the Civil War fighting against the Bolsheviks. What it came down to, was that Bolshevik rule was dangerous because it would lead invariably into civil war and massive violence. Robert Gerwarth in his book "The Vanquished" about paramilitary violence from 1917 to 1922 writes that WWI didn't truly end, save for some of the Entente countries in 1918. Rather, we need to see the post-war violence in a lot of central European countries as a continuation of the conflict. WWI spawned several conflicts that were fought beyond the actual armistice in November 1918. This includes conflicts surrounding borders, such as with the Germans in the Baltics, the Russian Civil War, or the Austrian conflict with the SHS kingdom as well as conflicts surrounding revolution like the Soviet Bavarian Republic, Bela Kuhn's short live Soviet Republic and the Russian Civil War. Especially in the later, the Bolshevik Revolution and Lenin's rule was for those on the "white" side of things, a negative foil, a sort of worst-case scenario that was to be feared and fought at all cost. Gerwarth, for example, points out that for the paramilitary counter-revolutionary network in central Europe (think the German Freikorps, the Hungarian White Troops), what had been an important experience was that many of them part-took in the joint German-Habsburg occupation of Ukraine in 1918 in the midst of the Russian Civil War. There many of them who already had a negative image of socialist and communists experienced the realities of the civil war, which included atrocities perpetrated by Red and White troops. Regardless, if that violence emanated from the Bolsheviks or their enemies, the experience became an underpinning for their already present aversion to left-wing ideology and served to further their perception of the danger that Bolshevik rule represented. With the experience of the complete break-down of the established order at home, which despite all narratives about the crumbling of Empire was perceived as stable, and the actual occurrence of Bolshevik-inspired revolution, including the violence against the people perceived as the class enemy and the counter-violence, the perception of Bolshevism as the ultimate threat to what they thought of as "civilization" further compounded. This also ultimately lead to the mind-set of inter-war politics that the enemy was absolute and had to be fought with uncompromising action, a mind-set not only apparent in Carl Schmitt's writings e.g. but also a fertile ground for inter-war fascism. Lenin's rule and Bolshevism in the minds of many in the immediate aftermath of the Revolution became synonymous with the ultimate threat to everything they held sacred and dear. Churchill e.g. went from calling the post-war paramilitary conflicts "a conflict of pygmies" to calling to "strangle Bolshevism in its cradle". And while this certainly had to do with the actual actions of the Bolsheviks during the Civil War and also associated revolutionary regimes in the immediate post-war, it also came from - if not even more so - from the ideological danger the Bolsheviks were perceived as, overthrowing what had been thought of as an eternal, natural, and stable order of things. For those who did not agitate for left-wing revolution, Lenin and the Bolsheviks were more than a brutal and repressive dictator. They were perceived as a very real threat to order, culture, and civilization, and one that based on real or imagined experience had the potential to spread and thus represent for some the ultimate thread. Bolsheviks did indeed have supporters in many countries who were indeed out of a variety of reasons ready to emulate their revolution and spread communism. For many of them, the violence of the Russian Civil War was seen as a by-product of the reaction against the new regime or as an almost historical necessity, again invoking in some ways, the French Revolution. For them, it was necessary to sweep away the old ruling class in order to build a new future where their very real oppression and exploitation would vanish and it was also seen as necessary to defend oneself against the violence of the reaction in the Civil War. So, to sum up: For those who opposed them, Lenin and the Bolsheviks represented potentially the greatest danger "civilization" had faced since the French Revolution or possibly ever. For those who supported them, Lenin and the Bolsheviks represented the historical necessity of revolution including the inadvertent violence that came with that (despite the fact that some - like Luxemburg and others - did criticize a variety of manifestations of that violence). As a final word, let me say that the perception of Lenin's and the Bolsheviks' regime as a brutal and oppressive one is not only one coming from the application of what you could call the notions of rights, firmly grounded in a 21st-century liberal democracy. While the regimes people fought against under the banner of Bolshevism and communism were brutal and oppressive - e.g. Tsarist Russia - the violence of the Bolsheviks can in part be attributed to the dynamics of a particularly brutal civil war, but also in part to certain ideological tenants of the Bolshevik interpretation of how revolutions are applied. While it can be said that being up against e.g. the forces of Roman Ungern von Sternberg and people with a streak for violence similar to him, contributed to an escalation of violence in the already particularly violent matrix of a civil war, the violence exacted by the Bolsheviks against their enemies and against people agitating for what they had perceived as the promise of the revolution (Kronstadt) did have a grounding in their belief that in order to establish their rule violence was necessary and justified. A belief and application of this belief for which they have been criticized also from the Left. Sources: Robert Gerwarth: The Vanquished. Alexander Rabinowitch's excellent books on the Bolsheviks, especially, The Bolsheviks in power Moshe Lewin: The Soviet Century.

Greetings and a big hug from Latin America comrades! We continue alive!😎😎🙌✨✨✨

LOL. Thats Farewell of Slavika. Song of White Army, the oposite army to Red Army, revolution Army.

Ζήτω το SOVIET