Propaganda, etc?


I seem to see themes of people saying this is saturated with religious and nationalistic propaganda. However, I do not understand how you can say this. In what country does a military film based on a national hero? (maybe he is, he is no hero of mine), not have nationalistic, patriotic, or even religious overtones?

I do not understand why everything coming out of Russia has a negative light cast upon it. So I guess everyone was disgusted with Saving Private Ryan's use of patriotic, nationalistic overtones, I saw a lot of Soldiers praying throughout that, that is some religious propaganda there. Have you ever seen Mevlin Gibson in the Patriot, I mean there were no nationalistic, patriotic, or religious overtones there, right? I saw the American flag waving scenes (which really moved me by the especially the climatic final battle), the British being portrayed as blood-thirsty morons (similar theme in Saving Private Ryan?), and of course religion had zero role in that film.

And don't forget, Russians are very spiritual, we love our icons, there is nothing wrong with a film depicting religious passion (shame on you, communists).

reply

I am sorry, but this movie is like our Ukrainian films glorifying the traitors of the UPA(Ukrainian Fascist Collaborator Army).

Kolchak agreed to give control of the Russian Far East to the Americans, Japanese, and British as long as he was the "Verhovnyy Pravitel" in Moscow. He even signed an agreement giving control of the Trans-Siberian Railroad to the Americans. For this they supplied him with equipment and weapons, and his headquarters was filled with American and British "Advisors".

In the movie "Admiral" they did not show Kolchak's Headquarters like this:
http://s44.radikal.ru/i106/0906/7e/1cebb8602f0b.jpg

I worry that soon Russian Studios will start making movies like "General" about Vlasov and his ROA "heroes" or about the "heroes" of the RONA SS Brigade.

"Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the Kalashnikov!"

reply

Or maybe they make a movie about those traitors who came marching home in '45 and '46, you know the prisoners of war liberated by their comrades, only to be forced in to a life of shame. Those traitors were betrayed by a despot, and they were ultimately payed for it in sub-par fascist prisons and work camps, and received not much better when they came marching home again.

What else could Kolchak do? Let the Bolsheviks steal power, or make a few empty promises to Americans?

reply

Kolchak agreed to give control of the Russian Far East to the Americans, Japanese, and British as long as he was the "Verhovnyy Pravitel" in Moscow.
-------------------------------------
And?
If Kolchak had won, international society would make Russia become a democratic country. There wouldn't be tens of millions of people's lives lost during the communist terror. Hell, there even wouldn't be such a thing as the World War II since there wouldn't be any Molotov- Ribentrop, Nazi Soviet peace pacts etc... Germans wouldn't be able to train their soldiers and build their tanks in USSR before the war etc.

reply

Yeah you're right had Kolchak won, the Russians wouldn't have fought the Germans in WWII - they would have been fascists themselves.

reply

If Kolchak had won there would be a big chance that the old regime would have been restored.
Well! everything is better then what happened when the soviet's took the power.

__________________________________

how'd you like to love me forever

reply

[deleted]

I agree -- and I agree with the O.P.

How laughable to see this noble film decried as "propaganda," when the majority of Hollywood films are blatant left-wing propaganda. I guess the critics don't like it when the propaganda goes the other way.

So pro-Marxism is not propaganda and anti-Marxism is propaganda? Talk about a hypocritical double standard.

As the previous posters mentioned, if the Admiral had won, many deaths would not have taken place and Russia, and Europe, would be in a far better state than they are today, and a half-century of communist tyranny would never have happened.

reply

"when the majority of Hollywood films are blatant left-wing propaganda"


HAHAHAHAHAHAH, hahahahah oh how cute! A moron confusing liberalism with the left-wing, lol. Where'd ya learn that one? Coca Cola University?

reply

Only.... nothing of what you said actually happened.

Do at least some basic research before opening your mouth.

reply

"If Kolchak had won, international society would make Russia become a democratic country."

Oh yeah, like international society that is making Afghanistan and Iraq a democratic country? Yeah? You idiot?

As Churchill said:
"Were they [the Allies] at war with Soviet Russia? Certainly not; but they shot Soviet Russians at sight. They stood as invaders on Russian soil. They armed the enemies of the Soviet Government. They blockaded its ports, and sunk its battleships. They earnestly desired and schemed its downfall. But war -- shocking! Interference -- shame! It was, they repeated, a matter of indifference to them how Russians settled their own internal affairs. They were impartial -- Bang! (4)"

You understand why illiterate peasants and workers rise up? Do you? Do you know why there are revolutions? Do you understand? People were STARVING, and the Tsar was STARVING them. Peasants, they are neither gullible nor unconservative. They did not sign up to fight for the Red Army just because of propaganda, but because they saw with their own eyes the corruption of the Empire, the massive starvation and suffering of the people. Life for the average Russian, NOT TO MENTION the average non-Russian ruled by the Russian Empire, was HELL.

And fighting a Civil War is HELL. It is similar to the misery the US forces visited on Iraq and Afghanistan. Counterinsurgency against the people means MASSACRE OF CIVILIANS. Think of the way the Americans massacred Vietnamese villagers, threw kids down wells and tossed grenades after em, or slaughtered disgruntled Korean villagers in the Korean War. This is why Kolchak demanded that one of his generals, and I quote, "follow the example of the Japanese who, in the Amur region, had exterminated the local population." Did this movie depict these atrocities, whether they were "necessary" or not? No! They threw in a *beep* love plot for godsakes.

And I'm sorry, but how naive are you to even suggest the International forces, the Empires of the day, would've had the democratic and humanitarian development of the Russians any where NEAR their priorities? Empires run on profit, any capitalist will tell you that. Again, see what the "International Community" is doing to Afghanistan and Iraq, or hell, since we're talkin about Russia, how about those nice lil market reforms that absolutely DEVASTATED Russia in the 90s, financed by all kinds of "Democratic" countries. *beep*

This movie is obviously propaganda, as are most movies, and there's nothing wrong with a movie being propaganda, just there is something wrong with the kind of historic revisionism that paints monsters as lovers and heroes. Well, as they say, the victors write the history, so of course Kolchak got a nice lil whitewashing. But there are 1 Billion people in the world that do not have adequate access to water. Hundreds of Millions are starving. Little brown slaves make your clothes and work in dangerous Third World coalmines 18 hours a day, inequality is rapidly increasing, and what little justice and hope there was for humanity is disintegrating.

But things cannot remain the same, and that's where our hope lies. It just doesnt lie in people like you, the so-called "International Community", or the ideology of movies like this.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

kolchak was a war criminal; and the soviet anthem is much more beautiful than god save the tsar. Oh and the American pledge was written by a socialist. lmao

reply