Video

It's funny that they could have fixed this perfectly just by asking the country's history teachers.

As an Austrian I can confirm that I do not give a shit.

Why xvideos bro 0:06

This explains why Russia remained dangerous to lead, and it shows it was difficult to lead that place and hence Stalin behavior

Bro really said: 🤓☝️

WHAT IS HAPPENIIIIING

austia hungary got that flag after 1967 leteraly 2 years after italian union and changed the name and flag from hasburg empire to austrian empire and it got chnaged edit: but the official of all the land was the austria hungary

I mean if it is a civil flag then it is supposed to be used this way as in the past

I love this channel ngl.

He may have been a criminal and a mass murderer, but he had great hair.

what is this garbage background music LOL

Imagine making a 11 minute video complaining, instead of simply correcting it your self in one lol

lol, this video is sourced on the Flags page for Austria-Hungary

dude, please release this song

Wikipedia also has the pasig city flag wrong, the background is supposed to be dark green, not lime, i saw the real flag in person since i live in the city.

How do you decide what colors to use when you make your diagrams?

the west literally rigged the yeltsin election

Around the world, around the woooo-ooorld

Misleading headline for this video. '...was brought to court' makes it sound as though Stalin was the defendant in the case, rather than the plaintiff.

What's that about 'spiriot' at 0:33? The newspaper was called 'Vpered' ('forward').

Now tis is a little bit of history that doesn't ever get mentioned.

Everyone listening with todays ears get the Beatles wrong The reason the Beatles were so big, popular successful and revolutionary was that they appeared with new innovations and sounds and technological revolutions. you would have to acclimatise to all and only the music that came before each album or event and then listen again to have a chance at grasping what it sounded like at the time First would be the Ed Sullivan show - everyone I speak to (I work in the Beatles industry in Liverpool but I’m only 36) from America who saw that show said it was like nothing they’d seen or heard up to that point Then the mania The humour - and the completely unpolished media interactions Then the songwriting on rubber soul and revolver Then the kaleidoscope of sgt pepper - which will unfortunately never ever have the same effect on people ever again (case in point it continues to slide down the GOAT albums lists each decade after at least two decades glued to the number 1 spot as it was so fresh in the minds of the public) Unfortunately future generations are not going to understand- and will have to take the word of the people - like me who weren’t there but spoke to those at length who were there

Your single source of truth seems to be Brovkin ? All your videos are almost exclusively based on Brovkin's work (which is not brillant, judging by his videos on youtube). Btw your framing of the whole scene is very partial and hardly related to a judicial case. OK we got this is a pro-Martov and anti-Stalinist video. You don't need to pretend any half-baked objectivity.

Stalin was the biggest crime lord. Period.

Ah, I've left Wikipedia a while ago but miss the whiffs of napalm coming off the edit wars about obscure topics.

What? Corruption in communism?

Isn't this already in use? Value of existing money deprecates when Central Banks increase the money supply. If you hoarded 1000 dollars 50 years ago, you hoarded a lot of money at the time but now that money isn't much. No need to collect stamps to tell you that. Seems to be just a cumbersome method. What am I missing? How is that any different?

lmao Finnish "Gulag rape roleplay" Bolshevik tried making a response to this video.

I just want to to know that a guy called the Finish Bolshevik responded to your video about the Soviets.

Your dishonest video was destroyed by FinBol 😂

"Ehn-zine" is killing me. Ehn-son or ehn-sign please.

There is no line in how far one should go to criticize Stalin. Criticism, constructive OR destructive, is the basis for all political communication. Without criticism, progress in ANY direction is impossible, let alone deciding what direction to progress in, LET ALONE actually MAKING any progress. The diversity of opinions naturally tends towards working itself out, no matter how disparate and antithetical- IF everyone can agree to let speech that is not inherently dangerous- (like, if you're at a football game and you start shouting "BOMB THERE'S A BOMB" so everyone panics- people literally can and probably will die in the ensuing chaotic stampede; this is the quintessential example of limits on free speech in the US, often referred to as shouting "FIRE!" in a movie theater- but honestly movie theaters aren't that big, they all have emergency fire exits at the back end, there's the front entrance, and much more advanced fire suppression systems than existed when that case was adjudicated, so I think the bomb example is a better one for the present day, even though it's not a case that's been tried- it's inherently MUCH worse of an example than fire in a Movie theater. Another example is direct threats of violence, such as that Indian lady who told Republican senators "we will come to your house and kill you"- that's ABSOLUTELY unacceptable. She did it in public, to their faces, too. That's literally what the officer-of-the-law is there for. I mean, he's also there to shoot terrorists and stuff, but usually no one just walks up to a Senator and goes "I'M GONNA FUCKING KILL YOU", so she got arrested, she'll stand trial, and will do serious prison time, because it's illegal to do that to ANYONE- it's just WAY easier to prove when she did it at a public forum, in front of a police officer, in front of an audience and the Senators themselves, at a forum that was literally being live streamed, MUCH easier to get a conviction (read: "literally as close to guaranteed as any criminal case can ever be in America") than if she confronted her neighbor in the alley and did the same, because in the latter case, it would be a "he-said-she-said", and there ARE ways of working out who's telling the truth, but it's just a lot more work than if someone is stupid enough to literally tell a senator they're going to kill them in front of a police officer. THESE are the kinds of limits that exist on Freedom of Speech. Fairly narrow, aside from slander, defamation, and libel laws, which, due to abuse by people like Donald Trump, who use frivolous litigation to silenc- sorry, USED to use frivolous litigation to silence anyone that he doesn't like(he can't afford it anymore lol) have ubiquitously become narrower and narrower over time since their passing. That's why it's SUCH a big deal when someone is found guilty, like Trump was, of Defamation- because there are REALLY, REALLY FUCKING HIGH standards of what it takes for that kind of judgement. [Sidebar: Anti-BDS laws are COMPLETELY unconstitutional; that is almost literally the definition of an unconstitutional law limiting freedom of speech, expression, and choice.]) be spoken, and all parties involved can agree to disagree, AND all parties involved both choose not to do violence because of speech, and, when they get angry (because politics almost ALWAYS makes SOMEBODY angry- it's literally so fucking important it'd be weirder if you DIDN'T get angry about it sometimes) restrain themselves from making bad choices, you get to a place where you begin to understand why Churchill said: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for every other kind of government". Because governing is never easy. It's so unimaginably complex at the highest levels that the average person LITERALLY cannot understand what's going on, even if the leader just says it all straight-up, there's ALWAYS missing context, ALWAYS room for backroom manipulations, and most importantly- even when speaking the same dialect of the same language with someone you've known your entire life, with whom you agree on basically everything- there is ALWAYS room for misunderstanding and misinterpretation.

7:05 This is outrageous! It's unfair!

Whatever the cost, the Bolsheviks fulfilled their promise of immediate land redistribution, industrial nationalization, and an end to war. Yet the cost turned out to be too much for everyone...

Nothing a commie fears more then honesty and a free press

Lots of questions incoming: Do you know any good books on the development of the red guards from its antedecets to the fundation of the red army? How they came to be, how were theh organized, etc. . . Also, do you know if the bolcheviks still engaged in mass work by this point? Are there any writen cronichel on thw regular functions and workings of a soviet before 1917? Like a worker explaining what was talk on a meeting, for example.

"Are they booing me?" "Ugh, no comrade Lenin, they're saying BOOO-lsheviks!"

Stalin was a Saint. To say he did anything bad is pure slander!

Lenin was a dictator who corrupted the very clay of the revolution against tsarist oppression into a throne. In simple words, he didn't want progress, he just wanted to be the one holding the whip

9:41 / 9:41

I thought that the cival flag was the national flag when I was a bit smaller but I have understood that it isn't for many years now and I like to see that people actually care.

The consequence of Habsburgs inbreeding has been disastrous for wikipedia community.

Guy needs to be banned, I don't care if he's a admin

Inflation caused by fractional reserve banking already effectively accomplishes this

What was the song at the beginning?

bro hit us with the jason unruhe intro.

This video is reddit

Just imagine if Bukharin was the leader of the Soviet Union

Have you ever considered or done anything on the Makhnovists?

A particularly fun Wikipedia War is Maize vs Corn on the English wiki. There have been 6 different discussions over the past 17 years about if the page should be called Corn. Oldest June 2007. Newest is February 2023.