OK, seriously...

It was labored in the way of an usual Holocaust documentary which use similar 'emotional manipulation', but I agree some points like the Nazi salute were a bit over the top.

Play it again Frank, I don't give a damn.

If you really ask for an opinion and you don't want to simply state your conviction, then I'll address your questions. However, I understand it will be difficult for you to be that open if you are already biased in a way which minimizes the power of arguments. This is why I think what I have to say will most likely strengthen your anger - that of feeling personally hurt by those praising this film. Here is why:

1. The film is all about signaling one obvious fact (recognized by EU officials also): the Soviet rule was not condemned in the way the Nazi one was. On the contrary, many people think of Russians as saviors and of Nazis as criminals, when both regimes were similarly brutal and inhuman. Basically, in the eyes of the world, the Soviet Union was an atrocious experiment, indeed, Ukrainian Famine, the Katyn Massacre, NKVD-SS love affair, indeed, they all happened (as you also started your argument), BUT... the Nazis were the actual criminals. This is the distorted opinion of the world who sees Russians as liberators, when they were just as bad as (and perhaps even worse than) German Nazis. Need more proof? See how Germany reacted afterward and how it behaves now: Nazi symbols are illegal, for decades now they publicly exposed the genocide, they invested millions in research and documentaries, they most of all took responsibility for this unforgettable part of history they are now ashamed of; Germany virtually did its penance in stockcloth and ashes in front of the world and it teaches its children of this ginormous error in history in a way that would prevent its repetition. Germany condemns social nationalism in every form it can and this is how you repent history. Now you tell me: what did modern Russia do to repel its error? How much of the genocide has been researched, revealed, publicly condemned? How do you feel about Russia now? Why are people still dying there because of the hatred of young Russian neo-nazis and national terrorists? (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/world/europe/12moscow.html?_r=1) How can you explain Checenya and how do you feel about putting in the same sentence modern Russia and democracy? What are young Russians learning from history? That they are a great, heroic nation who saved the world from mass-murders?
Either you like it or not, this is the truth! And here's more of the truth: why is Europe avoiding the subject, why doesn't the whole world loudly speak about the Soviet communism with the same force Nazism was dissected? It's simply a question of power: who holds important resources in this world? who has the veto power in the UN? Who is, after all the major exporter of oil, natural gas, metals and weapons? One of the largest and most influential countries in the world? There you see, my friend, why history is not treated the same for everyone. Sure, you can be outraged by what I say, but nonetheless you cannot fight the facts. And please don't misunderstand me: I am not offending you or your people, I don't even discuss about Russian values. I myself am very fond of its literature, art, science; I truly like your language. I am trying to separate ideas from people and I think this is the first step in the anti-racist fight. But what I'm saying at this first point is that the premise of this film is solid enough and to say "it's not worth watching" except for "the historical footage it presents" it's completely unjustified. Even only for the historical footage which is quite rare, it is undoubtedly a must-see!

2. The film does not discuss Marxism. Nor pure ideology. It discusses facts. That's why it doesn't make justice to Marx. But essentially, what the documentary is telling us is that social nationalism and (international) communism have many things in common. It does not discuss the differences, but the intersections and focuses on the terror of fear, ethnic eradication, total control, nationalism (one unity, one nation!) and failure! It sheds a new light on what the soviet-nazi collaboration, reminding us the truth: they were not enemies from the beginning, on the contrary! And for this only it deserves even more attention. People tend to overlook this nowadays. That's why we need a reminder.

3. Of course no one thinks Russian people celebrated the atrocities in WWII. That's the point: they were the ones who suffered, along with other nations. There are two Russias here: the one who rules and the rest (the victims, the people, those who are still in pain). The film condemns the former (along with all those willing to collaborate with the secret police and who joyfully killed their brothers, asking for more quotas) and empathizes with the latter. I can't believe how you don't see this. It appears that you can only get the message that somehow cultivates hate against Russians and would single this country out. Again, the documentary does not intend to send this message. At least this is what I got from it. On short I understand this: that the Soviet genocide (before, during and after the war) is often neglected and avoided; that one can forcefully compare it with the Nazi rule on the premises outlined above; that we need to remember this so that truth is known. For sure, the whole world is part of this history! Especially the rest of the Europe. And of, course, the USA! And the film emphasizes this common responsibility too (when discussing the Great Britain case, for instance). But for the USA and the rest of Europe one needs hundreds of other documentaries. For Americans only one should reserve a life to understand and explain why democracy cannot be imposed by using the terror of weapons and how power and ethics never go together.

4. How did it pass as a documentary? But can you tell me what a documentary should look like? What are its boundaries? Are Michael Moore's "documentaries" comparable? Or Occupation 101 (by the way, you should watch this if you haven't done it yet; it expresses the Palestinian version of the Israel-Palestinian war and it is a great piece of reality!). I think a documentary should portray a fragment of reality as it is, but could also assume a point of view. A film gives you a clue toward something more than what it presents. This one did just that: it makes you reflect at a different level. It reminds you of a piece of history which decided our current lives. You think it cultivates hatred because you feel angry and because it shows soviets only as bad guys. But you ultimately fail to understand that the film does not condemn Russians, but the absurdities who are still propagated throughout world (based on Marx's errors) because they are not treated as such. Because they are not sanctioned as they should be.
You affirm it's ridiculous to say that Russia cannot eradicate xenophobia and it's perfectly true. No one can. But surely it could do better. Condemning it officially, showing its interest to repair the past, researching it, not censoring the media... There are so many things that in time could restore Russians and ex-soviet countries' dignity.
And finally, concerning the deep voice and the emotional propaganda that would impress a Latvian boy... You're wrong again. It would impress anyone. Even without the voice and the music and all the add-ons. Because it is by definition impressionable. Watching dead bodies and written evidence justifying so many deaths is not something you would remain indifferent to. Emotional manipulation? Every holocaust film (with or without voice) is intended to emotionally manipulate. You simply have to empathize. I don't see anything wrong in it, as long as we can still judge the facts at the end and the content is not a mixture of lies and plausible things as other really ridiculous films are. Have you seen Zeitgeist? That's the *beep* What you describe here ("manufacturing/monster truck commercial-like voice Strickland used and used almost mockingly in some parts of the movie") fits Zeitgeist perfectly. That's true propaganda. Here - you just have effects which exaggerate something which is bad enough already.
I agree with you when it comes to some trivial forms of manipulation and I don't entirely defend the way this film was edited. But I endorse its idea and I think everyone who is rational enough should see it. And watch others too, that discuss the American story, and the Japanese story, and the Italian, and the Spanish, and the Romanian story. These are all stories worth hearing! In fact, they are all stories that MUST be told!
peace!

I want to know why Russia doesn't have to pay reparations to the countries they annexed?: Armenian SSR, Azerbaijan SSR, Byelorussian SSR, Estonian SSR, Georgian SSR, Kazakh SSR, Kirghiz SSR, Latvian SSR, Lithuanian SSR, Moldavian SSR, Russian SFSR, Tajik SSR, Turkmen SSR, Ukrainian SSR and Uzbek SSR.

The Nazis had to pay for their war reparations to the allies and the Jews, why not Russia?

It seems like Europe is simply too afraid to even acknowledge any of this. The big Russian bear does as it wants. I certainly won't condemn the general Russian population, they've struggled for hundreds of years from being serfs to being puppets of the communists and now under the auspices of a pseudo-dictatorship. I can also sympathize with the average Russian who sees no progress from his or her tax dollars. The angry faces and depression in Russia has been well documented in peer-reviewed journals and in books.

There's no denying that Stalin's bloody thirst was unquenchable, arguably worse than Hitler. He was a mass murderer, anti-Semite, and threatened the world under the swaying pendulum of the Cold War where others filled his shoes (though not nearly to his extent). It seems like you have to dig very hard to find any information on the Soviet atrocities in Northern and Eastern Europe. I'm taking a Baltic history course right now at university and the atrocities are just sickening. Europe and the rest of world is just sweeping this genocide under the rug.

Yes, the information is out there and accessible, but it seems like such a great tragedy.

And again, I feel sorry for you current Russians who live in a country, widely divided the ultra rich oligarchs and politicians and the lower income earners. Poor Russian soldiers are treated horribly and have always been by their leaders. Fodder for the cannons.

[deleted]

"The footage of the Russian officer supposedly hailing Hitler is over the top (looks like just a wave goodbye), and completely irrelevant."

a wave goodbye?!? hahahahaha. yeah people usually wave at each other from 2 feet away, right after shaking hands...

The point is Russia got a free pass on MURDERING MILLIONS OF PEOPLE. They helped with the invasion of Poland, teamed up with the Nazi's for their selfish gain and committed genocide. Shameful.

just like their Olympic performance this year lol.

Why would it not be passable as a documentary? It portrays historical events like they happened. Saying that it was graphically disturbing doesn't change the fact that these things happened and in real life were probably a lot more horrifying than some black and white pictures. Should it be portrayed with pink unicorns instead? Would that make it a more serious matter?

Ok, I realize I am somewhat late with my reply to this post, but since this criticism of the documentary is actually raising some points I like to comment, I still do it, because what the heck, right?

(1) I agree to some extent that making a direct connection to Marx and Engels seems a little constructed at first. What I totally subscribe to is that this is actually one of the weakly made points within this movie. However, I also believe that there is a connection between the atrocities committed by the Soviets and Marx' and Engels' ideology, albeit it is not as direct as the documentary makes us believe. And it is actually in my reply to your second question that I want to address this.

(2) I think you got the intention of the movie wrong here. You are definitely right in pointing out the 'alliance of convenience', as you have called it. However, the film tries to carve out the similarities between fascism and socialism and tries to substantiate this by showing how apparent enemies (Nazis and Soviets) were so close in their methodology that it actually allowed them to cooperate.
I would add to that that Russia and Germany had a history of mutual (predominantly military) assistance and exchange beginning as soon as after WW I (following the treaties of Rapallo and Berlin). Also, Soviet Russia rightly perceived Nazi Germany as a potential candidate to sooner than later wage war in Europe and had a vested interest in not being the first nation to be attacked by the Nazis (in which case they could not have counted on the support through the Allies).
However, the point here is (and, in fact, this is a central point that the movie only grazes and in my opinion should absolutely stress a lot more) that both systems, fascism and socialism, at their very core are totalitarian systems. Both socialism and fascism mistakenly try to ensure continuing prosperity by centralized planning (a key feature of Marxist economics, and there's that connection) which inevitably leads to totalitarianism. Centralized planning is inherently undemocratic, because it requires that the will of a small minority be imposed upon the people. Where there is centralized planning, the individual becomes a mere means, to be used by the authority in the service of such abstractions as the 'social welfare' or the 'good of the community'. In the end, if the individual is no longer the end but the means to the 'greater good', it has to justify its existence within this context and can be disposed of, should it prove to be of no use to the state (cf. G.B. Shaw's statement in this regard). Such centralized systems also require effective propaganda, so that the people come to believe that the state's goals are theirs. If you look at the Nazi and Soviet posters depicted in the movie, this similarity becomes apparent. There is an abundance of literature of all varieties on this topic, from Friedrich von Hayek's seminal work “Road to Serfdom” to George Orwell's “1984”.
So, to come back to your initial point: Yes, there was strategic reasoning behind the alliance between the Soviets and the Nazis (non-aggression pact etc.), but more importantly, the methods employed by both the Nazis and the Soviets were identical, because their ideological underpinnings and the implementation thereof (concentration camps, etc.) were.

(3) Ok, that's a tough one. Of course, the Red Army dealt a deathly blow to the Nazi army (which is good), while at the same time the Soviets committed war crimes and other atrocities, also against their own people (which is bad). But I think the documentary is also somewhat vague or over-simplistic on this point – it juxtaposes pictures images of contemporary army parades and war crimes while continuing with the same marches in the background. What I get from the film (and also from some of the comments here) is the impression, that the successful fight against the Nazis outshines all the negative aspects the Red Army was a part of (cause after all, we beat the Nazis, eh?). In the same vein, I see this as an equally over-simplistic stance. Please bear in mind that we’re talking about the same army, which attacked Poland and Finland in 1939. The US armed forces contributed to the victory over Nazi Germany at least to a comparable extent (without being directly threatened by a Nazi invasion), and did so without previous unprovoked attacks on other countries (you surely know what I am trying to say here).

(4) I think the fourth item on your list is actually a pretty important one. First off, it is not about dragging any nation through the mud. The topic of this movie is, after all, the Soviet Union and not Francoist Spain. I think the argument of “they're not doing it either” is invalid and I will not let it count. Think about a documentary on Francoist Spain which addressed this very point, and then people on the IMDb forums wrote “but the Soviets never accounted for their crimes either”. I think you can see how this is leading nowhere. I also think Russia would do herself a great deal of good if the Russian people finally would get around to looking into this stretch of their history and try to come to terms with their past. Germany did it – heck, even the Rwandans are doing it – so nobody can tell me the Russians (the people of Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy and whoever else not) can’t do it.
The issue of acknowledging the past goes further than just 'doing the right thing'. I am by no means an expert on contemporary Russian society, but from what I can piece together the way Russia deals (or doesn’t) with its past has a direct impact on how Russia looks today. For all I know, the idea is that socialism wasn't really that bad, except you couldn't buy stuff. Maybe this has something to do with socialism existing in Russia for over 70 years (that's almost 3 generations), but I can easily see how people would be okay with someone like Putin running the country, repressing the opposition, having people locked away or worse, etc. And maybe people got used to an elite skimming of the cream, be it members of the KPSS then or the newly emerged oligarchs now.
You say it would have no effect on Russian Neo-Nazis if the government admitted to the crimes perpetrated by the Soviets, and I think you may be right. But I also think it would have an effect on the general populace, the ones who are no Neo-Nazis, in that they would be able to see not only what really happened under Soviet rule (I guess that people are more or less aware of this, they are not stupid after all), but moreover that the government has an open approach to admitting their past, maybe even their mistakes and allowing people to voice their opinion without fear of being repressed. Those crimes have to be punished and not covered up, because that's what should happen to criminals. Maybe then Neo-Nazis wouldn't be allowed to gain a foothold in society and to voice their opinion the way they seem to be doing it right now. Because after all, fascism and socialism are not that different.

Sorry my post got so long-winded, but I hope I was able to demonstrate why I think this documentary is worth watching, and not about bashing or denigrating the Russian people.