General Vlassov, Anti-Stalinist Russian armed forces

Back


Combat footage. Die Deutsche Wochenschau, Feb 1945.

general Vlasov takes command of anti-Stalinist Russian units;

Channel: News & Politics
Uploaded: October 11, 2007 at 1:30 am
Author: WW2GermanNewsreels

Length: 00:00:50
Rating: 4.29
Views: 4653

Tags: ww2 footage army newsreel moscow eastern ostfront wochenschau wehrmacht battle flak combat attack soviet russian

Embed Code: Paste this code in your page


Video Comments:
ermolov80 (September 27, 2008 at 6:34 am)
digitalman84,you r fuckin georgian coward,subhuman,pussy!You like to kiss american ass!
andy7666 (July 20, 2008 at 6:54 am)
These men fought against Communism - they are heros.
Dijietro (September 25, 2008 at 4:52 am)
They fought against communism, but for nazism. Are they heroes. It was not a civil war. It was external invasion. They were just thinking, that nazis will give them power after the victory.
albertkimha (June 26, 2008 at 5:58 am)
What an amazing video! It has an amazing corallary, too: The American revolutionary army had one General Arnold who, like Vlasov, went over to the other side, just as the Americans, after "liberating" Iraq, quickly turned the Iraqis against them with the sight of Abu Graib and the siege of Fallujah--Sunni members of "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" joined up with the Americans to try to smash the Shiite elements of the American propped-up puppet government, and now the QUAGMIRE the Nazis had in USSR is ours!
justiakas (May 18, 2008 at 6:56 am)
...and they all lived happily ever after.
zwerskij (May 12, 2008 at 8:04 pm)
how very smart,buddy.
tvoidedbylpidar (April 23, 2008 at 9:14 pm)
If if's and but's... well, you should know how this goes. Basically, the Nazi racism didn't just appear - such racism was very common in Europe, as it was used to ideologically explain colonialism. The war the Nazi's fought in the East was a colonial war. But yeah, very theoretically, the Nazi's could've won the war. They could've won it even while being nazis - 1941 was a close call. Had the Germans continued to expand their army in 1941 as opposed to just reinforcing - than who knows...
tvoidedbylpidar (April 23, 2008 at 9:08 pm)
Sure, why not, as long as it would start with Versailles and wouldn't miss out on appeasement and Munich agreement. And including the iconic shots (I dunno if there is a video, but photos - for sure) of Chamberlain and Hitler. WW2 was bound to happen way before the Soviet-German 1939 Non-agression treaty. Blaming Stalin for not wishing to fight for the British imperialists is counter-productive. Why should he? Especially, when he had an opportunity to re-annex some lost territory?
MiddletownDreamz (April 28, 2008 at 9:33 pm)
re-annex oh you mean re-conquer lands that were for a time part of the Russian Empire but not the USSR and some lands that were never part of Russia. WWII may have been bound to happen before molotov ribbentrop but the pact was the catalyst that started WW II. In addition to the pact Nazi-soviet collaboration went even further than diplomacy which involved economic links.
tvoidedbylpidar (April 28, 2008 at 9:53 pm)
Re-annex is more accurate, as most territorial changes of USSR before the war were not the result of conquest; USSR was the successor of the Russian Empire. As for those lands that were never part of Russia - you mean the tiny part of Bukovina, right? WW2 may have been bound to happen before the pact? It was definately gonna happen, unless some kind of miracle occured. The Versailles system was unstable. Yeah, there was trade with Nazis, why not? What's so bad about such trade?